Gentreau

For info, they have no way of knowing where I live, but as I don't live in the shire I used the following phrase. "As a visiting pilot, I would consider it a great loss to your area should the airfield be forced to close, and I therefore commend you to resist the actions of this group." .

Does that mean you prefer to stand aside let them burn the witch ?

Zibi, I have to say your comments amaze me. Are you really a pilot? I don't live on the other side of the country, I live on the other side of the world, yet I am prepared to support Jaspers Brush for exactly the reason quoted by Motz above. "Where will we fly when there are no airfields left" I personally don't want to have to land at a strip which is 10 miles from civilization, just because my engine noise might p*ss off someone. One day I will be in Australia and I will be sure to visit Jaspers Brush, assuming it's still open. If it's not then the local community will not be seeing any of my cash as I would have no other reason to go there. OK, if you're unsure about the particular issues, then stay out of it, rather than disrupt this thread with posts which sound like you have sympathy with the people attacking this airstrip. You must feel some conviction in that direction otherwise why would you go to the effort of posting ? .

Just emailed the council too

I believe Boeing did, but apparently it didn't work out too well.

Yes, welcome

Well that makes sense, if you're sitting on a load of proxies, the legality of which might be challenged if you excercised them, you would of course avoid using them if at all possible..... .

Which might be understandable if the manufacturer was in Sweden, Canada, the UK, or anywhere else with low ambient temperatures. .

Haha, don't show that to anyone near Jaspers Brush. Might give 'em ideas ! .

Comments deleted again. Tells you something about the person behind the page. P.S. just reported the page to FB for harassment :) .

I'm amazed. If certain are clearly not up to the task and members went there with the power to remove them, I wonder why they are all still in post ?

Moz, do you actually know who is behind that page ?

All of two minutes, same for Moz's comment

So the treasurer demonstrates that he doesn't understand his job, the president is suspected of speaking untruths and does not produce the legal advice to support his position and yet not a single motion of no confidence ?? What do you feel the meeting actually achieved ? .

I've just re-stated my deleted comment. Let's see how long it lasts.

Do you think it's finished already ? It's only 7pm !

That would bother me on a brand-new solenoid. Doesn't sound like terribly good quality control by whoever made it. .

And how much "profit" did RA-Aus make in 2011/2012 ?? .

Sad that it is probably only there because a member of this forum made (and paid for??) a FOI request.... .

I'm looking at Ed3 Rev 0 (2012), operators, installation, maintenance and heavy maintenance manuals. Searching the pdf's for "ignition" or "plugs" or "CDCI" I get no hits which refer to that statement. If you can find the source, I'd be very interested. .

I've just searched the 912 Installation, Operators and Maintenence manuals (Ed3, rev0) , and there's no mention of not turning the engine over with plugs removed that I can find. Where exactly have you seen this this warning Maj ? .

That could well depend upon their licence conditions and the economics. Networks don't provide coverage for fun. It's there either because it's economically viable or it's a licence requirement.

You may be able to recieve the network, but is it useable ? At 4500' you could be receiving a base station which is too far away to use, even if you have 4 bars. GSM is a digital system and is limited to 35km in normal circumstances, or 70km if the extended cell feature is activated.

Just to clarify what a mobile phone and the mobile network can and can't do (they are my business). Mobiles in Oz work at 900MHz and the coverage is non continuous especially in the bush. Even when you have coverage, the only normal way that the network operator can locate you, is by identifying the base station that your mobile is talking to. Consider that in rural areas that base station could be up to 70km away (extended cell feature in GSM) and you can see the low accuracy of any 'fix'. If you are fortunate enough to be in a location where you can receive more than one base station, there is special software that the operator can use to try to triangulate you, however that is not running constantly and a trace has to be requested (in some countries by court order) set up and run. That is mostly used in the cases of kidnapping where they are trying to identify the location while talking to the kidnappers. Even when that system is used, the accuracy is highly variable as it relies on estimating distances, not directions, and those distances are the actual radio path from the mobile to the base station. That path may be a reflection off of a building or the side of a valley and not the straight line distance. I have worked on a software solution which attempted to triangulate users in real time and we found it was extraordinarily difficult and not nearly accurate enough to be useful. As for the idea that the SAR plane could find your mobile, that would require that they carry a unit which simulates a GSM network and causes your mobile to try to register with the network. There are multiple reasons why that may or may not work. The only accurate way to locate yourself with a modern mobile is by using the phone's GPS. There are applications, Apples phone finder would be an example, that use the on board GPS to locate the device. The thing about that is that you have to set it up beforehand as you must legally give your explicit permission for the network to trace you. I don't know what particular applications are available as I haven't taken the time to go looking, but the only ones which have a chance of giving your real position are the GPS ones. Hope that helps. .

So we're still using 1940's technology and maintenence routines in 2013 ? I would have thought we've had time to improve somewhat over the last 70 years ! .