damkia

"I'm not a gynecologist, but I'll take a look at it..."

Pal-V has been the subject of a few posts previously http://www.recreationalflying.com/search/2055196/?q=PAL-V&t=post&o=date The Begalet is an interesting idea - a ground pod that you can attach wings or a chute to.

I said that zero accidents/incidents is the ideal (the target), even for OHS Staff, and that we as OHS staff are interested in lowering the risk profile/eliminating hazards as much as possible. The "randoms" and other "non-zero" risk profiles from things I mentioned we have no control over are the things that make the Zero concept come unstuck.

@ REastwood As someone that now works in OHS/WHS I can say I could not agree more. @ John Brandon Zero accident/incidents are not achievable when you cannot control all hazards. http://www.smartohs.com.au/site/files/ul/data_text30/1363739.pdf The thing about this hierarchy is that only Elimination is capable of reducing the risk from a particular hazard to zero - everything else under elimination in that list has a residual risk profile, ie there will be some extraordinary circumstances sometime that will trip the "one in a million" event, and in fact that is why it is a one in a million. "Beware the ones..." I am saying that we should try to reduce our risk profile by constantly reviewing and reassessing other options, not simply giving up all attempts at risk reduction. There is also the small matter of the frailty of the human mind and body - we are not perfect, nor will we ever be. What do you do about an outwardly fit and healthy 30 yr old that has a heart attack in a loaded 200 tonne dump truck going up a a ramp in an open cut mine? How about a staff member that has his first psychotic event whilst in possession of 8 tonnes of ANFO with detonators, wiring, and charge box in his possession? The environment can also play some pretty extreme tricks too. Remember a couple of months ago about that guy in Florida that went to bed, only to die in his bed from being consumed in a sink hole? There is a baseline random element to risks that is is simply not possible to gauge. “ There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know. ” — United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (One of the more intelligent things he did come out with...) Zero accidents/incidents is a great line for upper management to throw around to give the appearance of being serious and proactive, indeed it is not frowned upon by most OHS people as an ideal. Most if not all OHS staff realise that is is not a practical scenario, and that the reality is you can only manage your risk profile, not eliminate it altogether, leading to the non-zero accident/incident rates that are usually seen for the reasons stated above.

The helicopter awareness training I got was that it was safe to enter/exit with power to the rotors ("touch and go"), but not when the rotor was winding down as the droop on the blades increases quite dramatically. Also keep very good eye contact with the pilot and only approach the chopper from the front right hand side, directly in the pilots line of sight, until he is aware of you and ehat you are doing. Tail rotors and booms can do a bit of damage too. Probably more dangerous as they make the chopper lose its stabilising torque when you lose a tail rotor blade, putting the pilot and anyone else in the vicinity in danger from an out of control gyrating ground level mess of metallic remains.

HF needs to be revisited every licence renewal time in order to reflect the increasing base of knowledge and experience gained in the area by way of incident investigations. HF is not a static base of knowledge.

In relation to this issue, perhaps it would be useful if people simply used a standard heading in the appropriate subforum along these lines INCIDENT: <Location>, <Aircraft>, <Class, eg, LSA/GA/RPT>, <Date>, <Brief summary, eg, EFATO, Structural failure - wing, Loss of separation, Near miss> Could this be included in the "read me" at the top of the accidents and incidents forum? It would be interesting to see what would happen if CASA noted that the information gathered/presented by this site exceeded that provided to members by RAA...

This is what RA-Aus management should be aspiring to...... http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-04-25_NTSB-chair-kudos-to-EAA-on-homebuilt-safety.asp

Modified... You (general, not personally!!!) may not be able to do much about a random undetectable mechanical fault, but there are things you can doto manage the remainder of your risk profile. It starts from the time you get up in the morning thinking about flying.... Most accidents involve human error at some point along the line, even if that is a failure to check everything yourself before flying. Very, very few are actually random failures, with most of those failures being able to be managed if previously prepared for (constant eye on the ground looking for landing areas, nearest alternates, etc...).

More importantly giving water fills the stomach and may lead to drowning (aspiration pneumonia) if the person becomes unconscious and vomits. Secondly the instant reaction to adrenaline from the accident will shutoff blood supply to the gastrointestinal tract to save blood and maintain blood pressure, and therefore absorption of the water will not occur anyway. Finally there are increased risks during the intubation period (placing a breathing tube) from aspiration prior to surgery, and this is why you are usually asked to not eat or drink anything for 4-8 hrs prior to surgery. Appropriate treatment: DRSABCD

Linky no worky...nor does flysoob.com or flysoob.org, flysoob.com.au, or flysoob.org.au

It blocks the holes in the system so no "blue ice" can form and fall from the sky.....

All gone now by the looks of it.......

It has been noted that there was one particular constructor of an aircraft that was not following the instructions given to them by the manufacturer, nor following them as required by the E-LSA regulations. This is that aircraft. This is that constructor. The manufacturer as far as I know was the one that notified the RA-Aus of the construction deficiencies, and also notified the constructor. The constructor continued to ignore all warnings about the construction deficiencies. Condolences to the family and friends. ("deficiency" = non-standard construction or unauthorised alteration)

More European articles, given that is where a lot of the newer S-LSA's are from. Even if written in another language, a translation from Google would at least be partly useful. We get plenty of US stuff related to their airports/FBO's that are not really that relevant to us. Is it possible to do some sort of a "text compare" which looks for a match of (say) 95% and ignores one of the posts to reduce the amount of duplication on the same stories sourced from different entities? (yeah, big ask...)

CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) is to stop sleep apnoea. Sleep apnoea is the cessation of breathing due to obstruction of the airways while you are asleep and completely relaxed. A partial form of the same thing is snoring - taken to the extreme is apnoea. CPAP provides a small baseline continuous pressure to the airways, keeping them open so that breathing can still occur, via a mask which is usually placed over the nose or nose and mouth connected to a machine while you sleep.

Perhaps a max number of character limit is needed for the avatar panel. Another suggestion would be to include "Local Aerodrome" in the panel, perhaps linking the Yxxx code or GPS coordinates to a Googlemap position? Members may live 100km either side of an aerodrome and not know that their friends use it too.

In all fairness these West-East arguments don't achieve much. You only have to look at the quality (for want of a better description) of some US made cars (GM, Ford Chrysler, Jeep) and compare them to some South Korean or Japanese built cars to understand that the exact same thing applies when building to a price. Ditto for a lot of European brands too... Chinese make good electronics, including the iPad that most people will no doubt be comfortable taking on board as an EFB. I would suggest it will be the US built accessories (GPS etc) that will fail rather than the iPad. One thing that is apparent is the more Asian countries come into the "Western" world of trade, the quicker they tend to learn what is expected. China is the latest and is by far the quickest learner yet.

That would be "Einglisch"

This would be an excellent question to put forward to the new Tech Manager.

............to save a few grams in weight and a few dollars?????? Total weight of bits you described in plastic would be ~100g. Total weight in brass would be 300-400g. Cost difference in time and consultation costs trying to work out if your cheap plastic couplings are safe to use would negate the cost of "known quantity/known quality" items like brass couplings. Ever heard the expression "throwing good money after bad"? How about "Do it once, do it right"? I'm guessing the QC on any of the plastics used specifically for aviation such as you described will have had all of the testing done in a rigorous way, unlike garden irrigation fittings..........I would even go as far as to say the garden fittings are likely to have a limited life to ensure you come back for replacements - try that with fuel on you lap at 1500'.......

May be better to try to source those.

MM2 I referred to "you" and "your" as the collective (ie "everyone"), not the singular in my original post. Apologies if that was not clear and has been taken personally as an insult. I was trying to emphasise that everyone has responsibilities in their general behaviour.

It has double redundant EFI which should be far more reliable than an iced up single carb with debris in the bowl and jets...why oh why would anyone want to take such a step backwards like that?

Have they had any vibration integrity testing done? Thermal stability testing? It's one thing to stick them underground in a non-critical fixed environment, another one totally to put them into a hot aircraft subject to a heap of vibration and use them in such a Class 1 critical area as a fuel system. My opinion? There are some things you can skimp on and others you shouldn't skimp on - this is one of the latter.