youngster

I've often wondered how many false positives they get in Emerald, Roma, etc with lots of mine workers passing through, some of whom work with explosives all day.

I know nothing about such things, so I'm not criticising. Just wondering! It was kind of cool to sit behind it and feel the prop wash, even from 20m away. My wife thought it was a gust of wind!

I was having a gander at the GA part of Coffs Airport yesterday with my boys (1 and 3 years old, so they love planes!), and had to stop and drool over a PC-12 on the GA apron. The pilot taxied to the short runway (one-zero, 849m), backed up as far as he could, held the brakes on for as long as he could, and then took what seemed to be the whole runway to get airborne. The wind was not strong. Coffs has a 2000m long, 45m wide grooved main runway. Why would you take a chance on the short runway when the long one is available? Any thoughts on why you would make such a decision? It's only an extra 1 min taxi, and there was very little traffic, being a Sunday afternoon.

In my very inexperienced opinion, the Foxbat is a great little plane. Takes off like a scared rabbit, cruises hands-off, very responsive, and the visibility is like a chopper.

What's in a name... There's a brand of soft drink in Malaysia called "Kickapoo" and it seems to sell pretty well, despite the name. I don't think the name matters, as long as the content remains good!

The theory behind the Mosquito was to build a bomber so fast that it would not need a fighter escort or gun turrets. Nothing could keep up with it (from either side, even a Spitfire or ME109).

100NM would allow a trip from Coffs Harbour to Armidale. That is a long trip for a low hours pilot, and I certainly would not feel comfortable doing that without Nav training. 25NM is an arbitrary number, but I think it is about right. Any less would make taking off for a joyflight pointless. Any more would be allowing you to fly cross-country without the necessary training.

I'm not an aircraft engineer, but Qantas seems to be making sense on this one. Why would you use the same maintenance and inspection regime on modern planes as you do on 40 year old planes? They're designed differently. Just like new cars, which require completely different maintenance than a forty year old Holden. Plus, the other Australian airlines are already using the new maintenance regime, so why should Qantas not use it? As far as I see it, it's just Qantas unions trying to cling on to any power they can.

These babies are built for speed! I saw a four-seater advertised in the US with a 450HP Corvette V8! You could squeeze 300 knots out of it!

Coffs does indeed have a very nice airport, but it has a tower, which makes RAAus flying tricky at times.

I've never flown a Jab 160, but I have flown a Foxy, and they are beautiful to fly. They take off very quickly, land slowly, stall gently, fly hands-off, respond crisply, and have that Rotax reliability. The only Jab I have flown, an LSA55 was not particularly pleasant, and the build quality was awful.

I'm not sure a flaming ball of fire and five acres of cardboard boxes is a risk worth taking

Exactly how would that read in a log book? This sort of thing falls into the Buzz Lightyear category - "That's not flying, that's falling with style!"

I've recently come across the US EAA Sport Aviation magazine, which is pack full of useful and interesting stuff. Every magazine going back years is available online at: http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/ To be able to view every edition, on-line, free, and without infringing copyright, is quite nice.

Another great read is "Wild Blue" by Stephen E Ambrose, about George McGovern (Former US Presidential candidate) as a bomber pilot in WWII.