aro

The question is not whether threats exist, it is whether the ASIC is a useful tool against them. Rule #1 for security is don't tell your adversary what you know. If you deny an ASIC, you tell them what you know. Maybe some ASICs are denied for trivial reasons, but if someone who is a real threat applies the ASIC must be granted to avoid tipping them off. So the ASIC is useless, arguably worse than useless because people assume that someone with an ASIC is not a threat. I have no doubt that real checks are done behind the scenes but they are not voluntary, you don't know they happen and you don't find out the result.

If you look at a chart you can see it's not true. Lack of access to CTA forces you lower over tiger country. There's plenty of routes where through CTA and higher altitude would be safer. Suggesting the opposite is rubbish. But the problem in Australia is that you're likely to get "Clearance not available" even if you have the qualifications.

Do you really think they flew this flight without an adequate briefing?? 100+ knots, 200 feet, at night near a busy airport? Military flying can be dangerous by necessity and people are killed in accidents occasionally. But it shouldn't be putting civilian traffic at risk. There's no justification for a route at 200' below landing civilian traffic.

This accident really has to be blamed on whoever decided that helicopters flying at 200' below aircraft at 300' on approach to land was OK. The second factor was whoever decided that visual separation at night between aircraft in that situation was OK. With those factors in play it was just a matter of time and luck before this accident happened.

There are a couple of videos on Youtube demonstrating how they work. Seems reasonably convincing. Arguably not as good as dynamic balancing, but it looks like the material should redistribute to reduce rotational vibration whatever the cause - maybe even blade pitch and tracking etc. They will always start out of balance due to gravity, until the vibration distributes the balance material. They will not do anything for power pulses through the gearbox, so won't allow lower idle RPM on a Rotax.

If you're referring to the common double-click acknowledgement, that conflicts with the standard. Communication using speechless radio transmissions: - 1 transmission - affirm, or acknowledge - 2 transmissions - negative - 3 transmissions - say again - 4 transmissions - request for assistance from ATC - 5 transmissions - additional emergency 1 long transmission - abandoning the aircraft Have you ever used any of these? The only example I could find was an ATC describing trying to use them in a comms failure, but the pilot was using 2 clicks for affirmative. Confusion resulted. Maybe we do need to educate on their use. Or maybe they are outdated and should be abandoned.

Have you read it? It's a terrible document. It reads like it was written by someone who hasn't done much/any VFR flying. Press and hold the PTT as long as possible as a signal you're abandoning the aircraft??? Really? Am I ever going to use that information?

Yes, but you're answer only makes sense if you already know that the datum is just an arbitrary point chosen for convenience. Given that the original question was about how the datum is derived, it didn't necessarily help. I was trying to write a more complete answer.

The datum is just a point chosen for convenience as the origin of all the other measurements. The datum doesn't have any aerodynamic significance. The datum could even be e.g. a point in front of the aircraft. The advantage of that is that the arm values for e.g. engine oil or a change of propeller are positive values and it simplifies the calculations.

According to Wikipedia, mogas is "a slang for common gasoline (for cars, motorcycles, lawnmowers ...) used by aviators to distinguish it from avgas". According to BP, "Mogas is otherwise known as motor gasoline, is used by ground vehicles, while Avgas is specifically developed for aircraft use" Neither indicate it is a specific fuel different to what is available in Australia. Unless you can point to an example that shows Mogas actually exists as a specific fuel, I'm inclined to believe BP rather than just your say-so.

Is there a product sold as Mogas anywhere? I've always heard it used in relation to aviation, i.e. it basically means not-avgas. In the USA they have gas/gasoline for cars and avgas for aircraft by I'm not aware of actual "Mogas".

Yes. As I said:

Here's a definition of suction: "the act or process of exerting a force upon a solid, liquid, or gaseous body by reason of reduced air pressure over part of its surface" I think it's fair to say we are exerting a force on a solid body (the wing) by reason of reduced air pressure over it's surface. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suction

What's not involved?

You didn't give your definition of suction. Everything is just higher or lower pressure, but it's often a useful mental model to describe something as suction. If you want to say it's not suction, provide the definition you're using. Here is an example of suction from the Bernoulli effect: Pretty much every explanation of wing lift using the Bernoulli effect gets it wrong, so it's not very useful in that case. It just muddies the water usually.