Allan

Nope. They're much closer when the lake is full, you ought to see them from boat level (esp. from the top deck of a houseboat!). I read the report as saying as much, 133 ft above water on that day, and the lake was 72.5 feet below full (288.9m-266.5m), which leaves around 60ft of clearance when the lake is full - which looks about right (I'm not game enough to try and measure it with a stick or anything). The wires were resagged (tightened) over 15 years ago (ie before the PA28 crash - I won't call it an accident) to get that sort of clearance as houseboats had been permitted to increase in height. Sorry for the thread drift.

CASA are definitely 'on the case' - witness list of over 30 to interview, and some of those also have (phone) video additional to that which we've already seen. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-10/casa-to-quiz-ultralight-crash-witnesses/3765882/?site=goulburnmurray&section=news

Later article in the Border Mail does have some quotes from the pilot. http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/i-was-flying-safely-crash-pilot/2410191.aspx?storypage=0 Hmmm. "Altimeter ...reading...500 ft" The lake when full is 192.0 mAHD, and is currently reading 189.19 metresAHD (which is a tad over 610 ft above AHD, which approximates the old 'sea level')

Just saw on the WIN TV news that the incident was witnessed by two off-duty police and one on-duty water policeman and they are providing witness statements. The pilot has two days to provide a written report to RAAus who will then advise CASA. Pilot was breath tested at the scene, but police aren't saying anything (as usual). Pilot had blood samples taken at hospital for alcohol and drug testing. The delay on those is running at abt 1 month.

http://www.wattsbridge.com.au/

Great acronym - BRATS:welcome:

Maj, in post 133, qwerty said

Bushpilot: this thread might answer your question: http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/equipment-reviews/30819-flight-planner-3000-version-6-3c.html

Motorbikes indeed. I bought a bike from him in 1971, when he had the shop in Box Hill. And Gary was still very much an up-and-coming moto-crosser.

Have a look at BAA Buraq Aviation Australia Buraq Aviation Australia. The specs certainly look the same as the Terrier - wingspan, length, height, wheel track, weights, airfoil section, fuel capacity, engine!

Might be mistaking 'lbs' for 'kgs'. This from Flying Scotchman - Aircraft Information - N9584L describing a Skyhawk C172P regd N9584L : Maximum Weight 2400 LBS Standard Empty Weight 1433 LBS Maximum Useful Load 974 LBS Fuel Capacity: Total 43 GAL I'm assuming that the quoted fuel capacity is in US gallons, hence 43g = 163 litres, or approx. 120kg ? The quoted max useful of 974lbs = 442 kg Less 120 for fuel, leaves 322kg. The example posted above says "100kg baggage", ie leaving 222 kg for POB.

And another one which gets mentioned from time to time on another aviation forum (peeepeeesomething:raise_eyebrow:): Never post when pist:yuk: PS. As a non-flyer, I quite enjoy Tony's posts. I actually consider them fairly well written, always topical and thought provoking. But then I suppose, to you aviators it might seem like teaching grannie to suck eggs. PPS I was actually thinking of seeking permission from Tony to use his guidelines in another forum I frequent which gets absolutely feral at times (I hasten to add, it's nothing to do with aviation).

And letting idiots get away with it, will make it go away ? ? ? thumb_down

They're in a separate thread called 'Wind Sock'!