jimecho1

I'd have been surprised if trikes topped the list. Yes, I just read the H/Sun thing. Not much in the way of detailed statistics there, either. In any case, a fatal crash is always a terribly sad event. I'm sure a lot of us are thinking this day of the families and the flying community in Yarrawonga and the wider world.

Is that quote about the ATSB trike fatalities (in the Border Mail article) correct?

Hi Crusty, I had a look at the POV and will probably get one, but I'd be interested (as would others) in having a look at what you film with it and how it all turns out. The wing mounting sounds interesting. Much more stable than a helmet, or even the pod. Cheers, Jim

Weather looks nice up there, Scott. The camera might be better off to one side, but, if you have a look at the scenery beyond the dancing-around pod, you can see that it stays fairly stable and makes for better viewing. Apart from when you're necessarily moving the bar when landing, the camera mounted there stays steady. The bloke who did my sample movie worked out that the most stable part of the microlight is the wing and, consequently, the control bar, which is part of it. Not the perfect solution to all trike photography, but not bad for landscape stuff. Glad you got down without eating the camera! Cheers, Jim

Hi Ray Yes, I have a JVC myself. There is, I think, a simple answer to the problem of the file type. Just manually change it. If the file name is whatever.mod, just change it to whatever.mpg Someone told me a few years ago that JVC (don't know about other cameras) actually takes straight mpg / mpeg movies but, for reasons of their own, give the the .mod thing on the end. Try it on a .mod file. You can always change it back! Cheers, Jim

All, I wouldn't really like to recommend any converter. I've had good, consistent results from programs - both bought and downloaded free - in the past, only to find that either the conversion programs or the files themselves go into a sort of "Mark three-and-a-half" metamorphosis and nothing works any more. Is it necessary to convert to FLV before uploading to YouTube? I thought you could put up straight WMV files, which would be converted at the YouTube end. Scott, Ray I can see that it might be a case of photographic horses for courses. The control bar method may be for wide-angled lenses only, as in the example at the beginning of this thread. I can also see where the control bar-mounted camera could cause problems, both in aviating and in the vulnerability of the camera itself. I might do a bit of practical research before I head off to the high plains to photograph brumbies at 500 feet! Jim

The landing still looks good to me. :thumb_up: Were you taking a short cut to the hangar? (Also, when I ran the video the first time, I got the raw stuff, as it had the sound of the motor on it. The second time it had a background of jazz piano. Did I run it between uploads?) The camera on the mast works fine, but positioning it on the control bar seems to make the take smoother, as the wing stays pretty steady (unless I'm driving it on a bad morning). I think the camera needs to be completely disconnected from the trike and things attached to it. For wide-angle landscape shots, anyway. Cheers, Jim

I thought it was a bit smooth, but I put it down to flying skill, not editing expertise. ;) Cheers Jim

Nice landing Ray!

There are poor offshore rig workers? I run a small, small business out of my back shed. No SST for me. I'll be lucky to afford a new Redback. That means I'll be able to get into Bill's strip - as long as I can get in the air early enough to be there before nightfall! Got lights yet, Bill? Jim

Alf, Yes, Geoff's been risking his life on the back seat for a while now. I think he's mentioned both you and Bill. As for Bill's strip, with all those improvements, there may be landing fees soon! Cheers, Jim

Hi Bill, Yes, I've seen some of those. Some of 'em are good, too, but this US pilot is consistently watchable. And I think it's probably as simple as the place he mounts the camera. When I finally get my ticket, there are a few places around the southeast and the coast where I'd like to give the method a go. You're based at Lakes? Nice scenery to fly over. Jim

Trikes are probably the best platform made for photos and movies, and yet, after watching hundreds of on-trike videos, I've often thought that they all look alike. The mounting points for the camera all seem to be in front of, or behind the pilot, or on the wing-tip looking in. The results are often a bit static. I ran across this video at [media=vimeo]5738319[/media] and found that the photographer mounted his camera on the control bar, to the right of where he places his right-hand glove. He has a vertical-horizontal adjustment on the camera, but seems not to use it often, as the bar does most of the work for him. What I'm saying is tha, if you're banking right, the bar will go left and forward. When it does so, the camera mounted on it ends up looking approximately where the trike is going. The camera is also steadier than when mounted on the trike-pod or the trike struts. No motor vibration either. The photographer uses a fairly cheap camera with a wide-angle lens. Cheap or not, I've never seen better results. It may be that others have mounted the camera on the control bar, but I've never heard of it. Anyone have more? Jim

Just a comment on the framing, editing and general presentation of this film; first class. Can you tell me what camera you use? Jim

It does indeed. A ducking for the pilot and and a bit of an oil-slick. The news media will lose interest now and go back to baiting Corey Worthington.

looks like either an amphibian or another type of float-trike.

Maybe they're counted if an ultralight is involved in an accident in conjunction with a GA aircraft?

Hi Brent I've read some of the reports. What I didn't know was that the RA-Aus policy was to publish all inquiry results. The ones I read seemed so few that I reasoned they couldn't be all there. Are the ones already published in the mag, in fact, all on the web site, or will they be, eventually? Thanks for letting me know, by the way.

Hi John, Lamble's a pro journalist and I would expect him to know the difference between an ultralight and a GA aircraft. The sensational reports we read are those coming from any old journalist who happens to be in the vicinity when the editor wants info on a rumoured crash. In fact, I've never read about any crash which hasn't been correctly reported eventually - often along with well-researched background. (I have to index and categorise newspaper items as part of my job). With the internet, we can retrieve information and news reports from the last ten years. If we look at the later reports (the ones made after the sensation has died down but before the incident starts to bore the editors) we usually find accurate information. Sorry to bang on about this, but I believe it's fairly useless to shoot the messenger. Our community is better served if we educate him / her instead. Maybe we need to co-operate to produce a small site for reporters to get their facts - plane types etc - from. Any ideas? I heartily agree with your second para. While overseas bodies / bureaucracies make information freely available on the web, many of their Australian equivalents don't. Instead, they put up lists of what's available and offer to sell it to you. The situation will improve over time and change will probably be led by bodies such as RA-Aus. Hopefully. Of course, there's nothing to stop us from starting our own. If Lamble can do it, others can. Cheers, Jim

Hi Brentc While you're up there, you might ask the powers whether it would be possible to post accident reports and follow-ups on the web - preferably on the RAaus site (passworded, perhaps?) so that we can all take a look without having to go to Canberra. Most of the stuff they have will already be in MS Word format, it's not as if an army of secretaries is needed to transcribe from hand-written notebooks. I think the on-site versions would have to have names of those involved deleted, for reasons of privacy and compassion for families, but the resulting information would be an invaluable tool for all sport pilots. After all, one of the things I've noticed is that the results of inquests, inquiries etc often don't get a run in the press, or, if they do, it's on page 263 over the ads for "discreet personal services". Not that I've looked there, of couse!!!!! Cheers, Jim

Hi John, The quote from the article " In response to inquiries with the Bureau of Transport Economics I was sent hard copies of raw statistics listing the dates of fatal ultralight accidents." seems to indicate that the journalist began with cold, hard facts. He would have followed up those facts by looking up news and official reports using the dates in the BTE figures. While I don't dispute that journalists, under pressure from their editors to produce stories by mid-afternoon, often get names and descriptions wrong (my own favourite being the mention recently in a rural weekly of a "three-access plane") Lamble's example holds a lot of water. It certainly tallies with what I've read. Personally, I would LOVE to see stats on accidents on an official site. I would like to easily run up findings as to why the accident happened. I agree that pilot error is the cause of most accidents, but I'd like to learn from the errors of those pilots. If this was possible, the deaths and injuries might serve some purpose. Regards, Jim

Hi Jim There's an article on Computer Assisted Reporting (CAR) by Dr Stephen Lamble at the following address http://members.optusnet.com.au/~slamble/Why_use_CAR.html In it, there's an article dealing with his hunt for just the statistics you mention. While he hasn't released the full database he constructed, his writings make interesting reading. His experiences also show that it IS possible to construct an ongoing database of accident statistics, provided you have the time, patience and expertise. Cheers, Jim

Of course, if such a device started with the VERY CLOSE tone and quickly faded down to a LONG WAY OFF tone, it'd probably mean your tail assembly has broken off. (Chuckle)