Garfly

I guess that even if they'd had time to glance at their traffic displays they'd have been expecting to have a bunch of other aircraft buzzing around very close, anyway. (No time for a "but not that close!" thought to be thunk, let alone acted on). We do know that both ADSB-OUT devices were on since we've seen their flight paths displayed and discussed on several of the video reports.

Well, with today's AIRAC 2212 Updates for OzRwys (and AvPlan?) we now have - for better and for worse - PRDs marked on our EFB WACs. I'd say it's worse for the busier regions because all that magenta just adds clutter, obscures detail and gets your course line lost in a magenta jungle. Sure, for the most part, you'd be using VNCs and VTCs anyway, so it doesn't matter that much. But I've found that having at least one aeronautical chart devoted entirely to geographical realities has been a good thing. (Given that other charts, just a click away, have all the airspace info anyway. And, for that matter, the EFB can be set up to display active PRDs as a layer onto any chart. (With the catch that you need to be in internet range to get those real time updates.) But, yes, it's a lot better for remote areas because, as pointed out above, in the absence of the large scale charts, the marked PRD borders are not redundant but necessary. These new WACs in their paper form, will, I gather, be printed kind of on-demand, because they will now be going out of date with as much regularity as all the other airspace documentation. Therefore, to be legal, remote paper-chart users will have to keep a close eye on all PRD updates. (And I presume that pencilling in the changes won't cut it anymore. ;- ) CLICK IMAGES FOR HIGHER REZ.

They're plenty well qualified but not well supported by the establishment in the investigative role. I'd have thought that most, if not all, lessons learned investigating an RAAus accident would be applicable to GA. Furthermore, the Ballina airprox incident, alone, shows that all flying machines are inter-locking parts of the one sky-safety system. It's foolish to regard the RAAus sector as Sunday drivers who can be dismissed and set aside. From the RAAus website: Who are RAAus Accident Consultants (ACs)? Accident Consultants (ACs) are typically RAAus employees who are requested to assist at accident sites. ACs who are employees of RAAus are required to complete the ATSB Accident Investigation Training, or an equivalent course, to formalise their qualifications. RAAus is also supported by other subject matter experts and the ATSB. https://members.raa.asn.au/safety/fatal-accident-investigation-process/?

Well, like always, the pro-theory mob reckon the skeptics are crazy and vice-versa. ;- )

Hmmm, interesting theory but the only source that EurAsian Times seems to offer for the 'new information [that] has emerged' is this: @Boeing @Joe Biden @PENTAGON 펜타곤 (Official YouTube Channel) Worth clicking through to view the YouTube Comments for some debate on the theory: DEADLY CRASH Of B-17 Bomber EurAsian Times 312 subscribers 87,704 views Nov 27, 2022 New information has emerged about the horrific mid-air collision between a Boeing B-17 bomber and a Bell P-63 Kingcobra, during an air display on November 12 at Texas’ Dallas Executive Airport. @Boeing @Joe Biden @PENTAGON 펜타곤 (Official YouTube Channel) 86 Comments Kellen Razzano 1 day ago If that artifact is actually an object, it appears out of nowhere in close proximity to the aircraft, leading to believe it's more likely a part ejected from the aircraft or engine block. Mechanical failure? xjet 20 hours ago I'm not saying it was aliens.... but... Seriously, one can not distinguish between a bird, a drone or anything that is represented by only a couple of pixels in a few frames of a noisy video. Some would love to speculate that it was a drone (sigh) but the odds are far more likely that it was either something totally unrelated to the incident or perhaps a bird. Remember, bird strikes cause over US$400m a year in damage to aircraft and losses to their operators but in the past 15 years there have been just a tiny handful of evidenced drone/plane collisions, none of which resulted in death or significant injury. Odds are... based on an analysis of 15 years worth of data... it was a bird. But don't let science get in the way of those who want to villify drones because they are ignorant. ETC.

Actually it is the same Dan Gryder and while there may be good reasons to take that position, that article might not be one of them. The man himself explains why:

Those charges were eventually dropped, though, for lack of solid enough evidence. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-08/josh-hoch-supreme-court-charges-dropped-plane-sabotage/13226466

Ah, yeah, a nice little outing to Culin. Some great picnic spots there at Culin - for the STOL mob who can get in, that is.

He did have a licence to fly passengers so he may not have been all that dangerous as a pilot per se. He was convicted basically of fraud and of running a charter business without an Air Operators Certificate. https://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/7987752/qld-pilot-guilty-of-illegally-flying-mps/ "Hoch had a private pilot licence but was not certified with an AOC when he engaged in charter and cost-sharing services with the KAP politicians." He had, though, been charged with far more serious offences in the past: https://www.avweb.com/news/australian-pilot-accused-of-sabotaging-rivals-planes/

Sure, we know what it's called and nobody's standing up for Medvedev here, so far. The Reuters article we're on about, though, digs out some geo-political detail behind the headlines. I'd guess Medvedev's 'Anglo Saxon' comment refers to those who control the banks that hold those frozen Russky dollars. U.N. General Assembly calls for Russia to make reparations in Ukraine https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/un-general-assembly-calls-russia-make-reparations-ukraine-2022-11-14/

True, but that General Assembly resolution may be taken as justification enough for having those frozen Russian assets redirected (by the countries holding them) towards Ukraine's reconstruction. This quote from that article might not be too far off the mark: 'Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, said on the Telegram messaging app that the "Anglo-Saxons are clearly trying to scrape together a legal basis for the illegal seizure of Russian assets.'

Hopefully a bit of inspiration from the heyday of country air races and early TV melodrama:

True, though I was meaning cartoons of this kind ... ;- )

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/un-general-assembly-calls-russia-make-reparations-ukraine-2022-11-14/

Actually, just about everybody nowadays. A single tap on your EFB/tablet, shows your NM/degrees FROM a list of every airfield within cooee. As well as any other type of aeronautical waypoint (editable for taste).

Same town, same farm, same plane and pilot, 6 months ago! ;- )

Having had a few days to gather facts and make a video, Juan Browne now offers this preliminary report:

Yeah, in some ways, the circuit is the most useful place for it. Obviously, your eyes will be 95% outside and on a swivel, but if it's well set up and used, a traffic screen needn't be more distracting than your ASI, say, or your downwind checks. Sure, less than half the VFR fleet is currently on-board but that's changing fast. Anyway, by the time you're near the airport, you might have sussed out which of your chatty circuit mates are true icons and which not. At least all commercial machines in the mix should light up. Might save the travelling public, at least. I've breathed quite a few sighs of relief near airports, catching possible conflicts on the fish-finder. For sure, my best efforts at converting circuit-chat to geo-locations are never as good as the wee pics on the iPad (and never as negligible a distraction).

For what it's worth, that 2016 FAA Advisory Circular has recently been replaced by AC 90-48E. If you wade through the whole belaboured document, you're likely to find its main message quite contradictory. It insists both that a pilot's visual scan remains the main game and that a pilot's visual scan is totally inadequate to the job of avoiding midairs. For example: 7.1 ... The NTSB released Safety Alert SA-058 on midair collision prevention technology, which states, in part, “The ‘see-and-avoid’ concept has long been the foundation of midair collision prevention. However, the inherent limitations of this concept, including human limitations, environmental conditions, aircraft blind spots, and operational distractions, leave even the most diligent pilot vulnerable to the threat of a midair collision with an unseen aircraft.” Then it goes on to push the need for ADSB ... before returning to its original theme. (I get the feeling that this is because regulators, in general, abhor the idea letting - or even appearing to let - pilots off the hook - any hook, especially in advance.) In any case, even CASA's equivalent circular, AC 91-14 v.1, takes a bit of a swipe at some of the FAA's visual scanning recommendations: 7.1.2 The current version of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) AC 90-48 details a scanning technique that involves eye movements in sectors of 10 degrees of one-second duration per sector. However, scanning a 180-degree horizontal and 30-degree vertical sector would take a minimum of 54 seconds. US military research found that it takes a pilot 12.5 seconds to avoid a collision after target detection. Therefore, it can be deduced that considerable time gaps exist where traffic may not be detected during a normal scan period. Such a structured and disciplined scan technique may also be difficult to achieve. LOL FAA AC 90-48E.pdf advisory-circular-91-14-pilots-responsibility-collision-avoidance.pdf

Yeah, I'd have thought that in a fast jet formation your eyes need to be on your lead. Maybe the mistake was having two acts on stage at the same time. I'd have thought that the fighter guy had a right to expect clear air below during the show.

This young chap does a pretty good job of gathering what's knowable at this point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf3fZx8yntw

In his RV, maybe, but in his Thruster? nah, he'd barely have moved (other than to 6 o'clock ;- )

Which is probably why Juan Browne declined to show it.