aro

There was a ground crew, and they did indicate to the pilot that the airspace was clear behind them (the helicopters took off backwards then turned around, is my understanding). The report concludes that the second helicopter was too far away to be visible when they checked.

I'm just trying to figure out what else you want to add. The only thing they didn't have was controlled airspace. To me, it seems like the root cause was the take off and landing flight paths from the different pads crossed. That's an accident waiting to happen. That was figured out way back when the standard circuit pattern was developed.

I think charges against the organization become irrelevant. But RAA pilots and aircraft would be grounded, so that's the worst case scenario. If I only had a RAA license, I would be applying for a RPL ASAP.

If a negligence case goes ahead, it is against the organization. The referral to the DPP could be for an individual, but I think the organization can also be charged. I think in a case like this they actually prefer to charge the organization, because they are then seen to do something when charging an individual might seem overly harsh.

They had radio, they had TCAS, they had ADSB-in that announced traffic in their headsets (although some functions were inhibited as they were too close to the ground). They basically had everything available - the next step is controlled airspace. What more do you suggest? The comment was that they received too many traffic notifications with the equipment that they had. I am very skeptical about the radio not working. They go to a lot of trouble to show that the faults in the antenna were pre-existing, and not a result of the crash. But that means it must have been a problem a long time before the crash. How long can you operate in that environment without someone noticing that your radio isn't transmitting? More likely the radio call was over-transmitted, or just so routine that people couldn't specifically remember it.

The problem with sacking the board is that it doesn't make the legal action go away. So then you have to find volunteers to eat someone else's shit sandwich.

No minimum to solo, but that is strictly supervised by the instructor. From RPC through to ATPL, there are minimum hour requirements - it's not just skill and passing the test.

His skill isn't the issue. The requirements for a license/certificate have 2 components: skill, measured through the test, and experience, measured as a number of hours. I've never seen a suggestion that the required hours should or could be waived for a particularly skilful pilot.

It might, but even then the presumption of innocence is required from the judge and the jury. Anyone else is free to draw their own conclusions. From the Coroner's report: I am compelled to conclude that RAAus engaged in a deliberate strategy to hide these key issues from the Court. Ms Bailey gave evidence which was false in material respects, which also served to hide these key issues. There's no reason to presume that to be untrue.

Presumption of innocence only exists in the context of a criminal trial and applies to judge and jury. Outside of that people are free to hold opinions and express them within the limits of libel/slander etc.

The airspace you're flying through now requires more attention than the airspace you're planning to fly through in 2 minutes. Pilots tend to worry more about ATC but that is a mistake. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate - ATC comes last in that list. But I think really, if The Oaks has more than very occasional traffic it is unsuitable as an approach point. Maybe when it was originally designated it was very quiet, but if traffic patterns change, airspace and procedures need to change.

That is not true. Camden is a towered airfield, so the Camden frequency is for communication with ATC, not between pilots. Camden tower do not want The Oaks users on their frequency. Aircraft in the vicinity of The Oaks are well outside Camden airspace, they should be monitoring The Oaks frequency if they could be in conflict with circuit traffic. Melbourne ATC also does not want Penfield & Riddells Ck traffic transmitting on their frequency, unless they are transiting CTA. In the unlikely event that an A380 was OCTA and passing through the Riddells Ck circuit, yes they should announce it on the Riddells Ck frequency.

There's an instrument approach, if I read it correctly it's about 2250' in the vicinity of The Oaks, depending how far from the field you measure it. I assume aircraft flying the approach should be talking to ATC who can hopefully see traffic at The Oaks if they have a transponder.

Most aircraft operating at Camden have ailerons. Somewhere in that 6.8 miles they could include a turn. 6.8 miles is a loooooong final - stretching the definition a bit.

From the chart, it looks like they could go 8 miles north to Mayfield or 6 miles south to Picton. Get rid of The Oaks as an approach point.

I think you're still underestimating the magnitude of the industry supporting fossil fuels, e.g. 40% of global shipping traffic is transporting coal, oil and gas. How many wind turbines can you build for the money and materials to build an an oil tanker? Manufacturing and installing solar is very cheap now. I'm told it's now cheaper to install 1 MW of new solar than operate 1 MW of coal powered generators.

It's all within D552 (Flying Training) up to 4500 already so you could probably argue that the upper level should be the same.

Camden has 3 inbound reporting points within 15 miles, why does The Oaks inbound point even exist? Get rid of it and create a danger area 3nm radius around The Oaks to 2500'. Seems like a simple solution.

Where do you reckon coal, oil and gas come from? At least with batteries the minerals are recyclable. Coal and oil you just burn them and have to dig up more.

Snowy Hydro have been doing it for decades, they pump water to the top when there is excess power and use it to generate power when required. These days, big batteries are cheaper, simpler, faster to respond and generally more flexible.

Creating hydrogen by electrolysis is just chemical storage of energy - the same thing a battery does. The only difference is the source of the chemicals. A battery is self contained, but making hydrogen you can take water from the environment, and release the oxygen into the environment. Releasing the energy you can take oxygen from the air, and release the resulting water into the environment. Advantages of hydrogen: 1) You don't need to store all the chemicals for the reaction 2) You can easily divide it up into smaller quantities e.g. dispense by the litre Advantage of batteries 1) They are self contained - you put electricity in, get electricity out. You don't need separate equipment to manage the reaction (electrolysis equipment, engine or fuel cell). Right - you are storing energy, so you need to put the energy in before it can be used. Hydrogen is attractive to fossil fuel companies because so much of it currently comes from gas, so promoting hydrogen is a way to extend the dependency on gas & oil. Batteries seem to be easier and cheaper for almost all uses.

Right. Which is why if you measure the speed of an aeroplane with a radar gun from a balloon, you would get an accurate measurement of its true air speed (assuming the aircraft is travelling directly towards/away from the balloon)

GPS is ground speed, so it is influenced by the wind and is not a measure of airspeed. With a low stall speed and strong wind, you can fly with GPS speed of zero. TAS is the actual speed you are travelling through the air, i.e. the speed someone in a balloon floating with the wind with a radar gun would measure. IAS is indicated airspeed, the speed that is shown on the airspeed indicator. CAS is calibrated airspeed, which is what a perfect airspeed indication system would show. Airspeed indication systems are not perfect. IAS and CAS should be very close at cruise speed, but IAS often has large errors at high angle of attack, i.e. close to the stall. IAS and CAS reduce approximately 2% per thousand feet due to reduced air density. Aerodynamic loads e.g. lift are relative to CAS so we can use indicated airspeeds for stall speed, approach speed etc. Vne could be limited by aerodynamic loads, or it could be limited by flutter. Aerodynamic loads are related IAS(CAS) but flutter is relative to TAS. Typically, small aircraft have a limited service ceiling, so if the ceiling is 14000 and VNE is 130 knots they might test for flutter to 190 TAS and just give the one number 130 IAS. If an aircraft has a higher ceiling e.g. gliders where altitude is not limited by the reducing engine power, VNE can be TAS or can change as altitude increases. The biggest problem is e.g. experimental aircraft where people put a big engine in that allows it to go faster and higher. The spread between IAS and TAS can be bigger than was assumed when the Vne was set originally, so you can reach a higher TAS than it's designed for. Summary: Certified aircraft: Vne is whatever it says in the POH. Could be IAS, could be TAS or IAS changing with altitude. Non-certified: There's no guarantee how Vne was tested. It is conservative to assume TAS, particularly if it has a larger engine than the original design.

Why? It seems like it would just pollute the forum with non-aviation topics, and drive away aviation users. There's already too many non-aviation arguments here already.

The engine was probably the most mature part!