Markdun

Bob, my Bert Sisler Cygnet SF2A comes close with a wing span of 9.1m and wing areas of 11.6m2; stall speed 34KCAS & cruise speed of 92KCAS, empty weight 250kg. Very similar to your D18. Also Jim Maupin tried hard to design a variable geometry wing when he was working on his Carbon Dragon foot launchable sailplane; in the end he concluded that trying to increase wing area (like a roll out sail on the trailing edge) just added too much weight, and he went for a fairly traditional 44’ tapered wing span with full span flaperons that reflexed for cruise. Stall speed was around 15 knots and Vne around 70. Max aero-tow speed was 40kts so towing was only possible with trikes or Bill Moyes/Bob Bailey’ ‘Dragonfly’. Design empty weight was off the Dragon is 75kg…the one I built was a bit more than that, so about 150kg TOW. It flew to the Jim’s specs. The Monett Moni motor glider also demonstrates the difficulties (or large compromises) of design getting low speed, low sink rate with good L/D at high speeds without variable geometry wing. The Moni has a Vso of 33kias, Vy 56, cruise at 90 & Vne of 130. TOW around 220kg. Yet L/D is only 20. The aircraft has a history of stall/spin fatalities ( I think attributed to some extent by pilots without gliding experience, an underpowered 25hp motor and the V tail) and Id expect any improvement in L/D by increasing wing span would not only make it slower but also increase its susceptibility to spins. I’m not sure why you’d want a 250kt RAA Aircraft…. Perhaps a better option instead of a T83 Thruster is a T38.

I’ve tried to ‘fly on trim’ in my Cygnet to see if I could fly it that way if there was a failed elevator (broken cable) event. This is a mech trim to a small servo tab on the elevator controlled by a Bowden cable. It’s possible; but every trim adjustment input results in 3 or 4 slow sigmoidal pitch oscillations. The Cygnet is pitch, roll & yaw stable (if you let the controls go it will level off and fly straight…. maybe a little left yaw). My conclusion is that it would be possible to achieve a landing but you would need a long final leg to become stabilised and 1000m of non-undulating runway. Danny, my experience is in a Bravo and that plane’s trim still has maybe 20% more up at 65kias & 16 degrees of flaps, (which is what I use….full flaps scares me a bit), zero stick force, engine at idle, 2 ppl. I did spin training in a Blanik and that plane’s spin has a very nose down attitude and with increasing speed…. a challenge to do the 5 turns before Vne and then recover. And you would never recover by ‘level the wings’ with aileron (which would condemn you further, perhaps to an inverted spin). Recover by full opposite rudder (to level wings via secondary effect of rudder) & zero elevator, check down elevator only if necessary (which never was the case as youre pretty close to Vne). And for an incipient spin (one side wing drop near stall) recovery you just pick up that wing with the rudder & increase speed a tad (this is something we practiced a lot fiddling around at cloud base in a good thermal). With an engine I have no experience, but in the absence of advice in a flight manual I think the recommendation is to close the throttle.

I don't see runway elevator trim driving a tecnam or any LSA into the ground. Much bigger aircraft yes it has happened. The Tecnam with a full flying elevator and small servo trim does not require huge effort to over-ride the trim that’s for sure. Pure speculation is the possibility that on turning final (and assuming you are at an excessive low speed like 50-55kias as if you were doing a crazy short field landing, with 2 ppl aboard), with your eyes out of the cockpit checking the runway and for other aircraft, then a runaway or inadvertant trim up will still produce an up elevator force on the control stick. If you’ve already stabilised your speed on downwind and base legs I would postulate that it’s possible a pilot would allow (maybe without being even aware of it) the stick to move back to maintain the previous pressure on the stick when the speed was previously stabilised; & in the few seconds to work out what’s going on with a check on the ASI & horizon the aircraft has begun a stall/ dropped a wing in an incipient spin. Pure speculation on my part.

Turbo, the NSW legislation is the Civil Liability Act. Some law firms published summaries on the reforms u…the reforms were not liked much by law firms because it restricts rights to sue. All the States & the NT implemented the reforms but like the Road Code, each State has its own legislation and there will be some differences. The ACT under Labor Premier Stanhope sided with the lawyers and did not implement the reforms. The major changes were in relation to medical negligence and dangerous recreational activities. For medical negligence the big change was the displacement of Rogers v Whitaker and return to the ‘Bolam’ principle. The Bolam principle in effect allows a doctor to avoid being found negligent if he can find one other doctor to say he would have done the same. This enables doctors to refuse or misleadingly fail to advise patients of material risks of procedures if the profession thinks patients don’t need to know, even when the patient specially requests for it. In NSW there is also a weird threshold that a patient must suffer a certain percentage of disability as a result of the medical misadventure to qualify for damages. In regards to recreational activities the main change was for recreational activities that are obviously dangerous; things like rock climbing, parachuting, horse riding, motorbike racing, flying small aeroplanes and I suppose lawn bowls (which is the most dangerous sport to participate in as measured by deaths while engaged). But what is ‘obviously dangerous’ is not easy to define, so the legislation provides a ‘belt plus braces’ solution that says a warning sign or a document signed by the plaintiff is determinative if there is any doubt about whether the activity is obviously dangerous. I’m no expert on this, and I’d want to look very carefully at the legislation regarding commercial activities, but for non-commercial RAA flying, the pilot is very unlikely to be liable for injuries/death to a passenger. Third parties outside the aeroplane (personal & property) is totally different. The intention of the reforms was to make it clear that if you participate in dangerous recreational activities you assume the risks (& better profits for insurance companies of-course). And that is why RAA should stop the bullshit that flying is safe…it muddies the waters whether it’s obviously dangerous. It’s not only just wrong, I also think we’d get a boost in membership if we told people it’s dangerous. I’ll finish with a legal case about placards/signs. A valet parking business has s large sign at its entrance that said words to the effect that it was not liable for any loss or damage to vehicles from negligence of its employees. The wording of sign was worked out by the company’s lawyers. A customer sued the company after his car was lost at the carpark. The facts showed that one of the employees gave the keys of the car to a member of a criminal gang involved in car theft. The company lost the case and had to pay damages to the car owner because the loss was not from negligence but an intentional act.

Turbo, I’d suggest you go read some texts on negligence. ‘Duty of care’ is just one element out of four (duty, breach of standard, damage but for breach, proximity) to prove the tort of negligence, and it’s probably the easiest to prove. It’sa side issue as is the insurance payout and pilot’s liability. As Bill and Nev said it’s learning and safety that we should focus on, acknowledging that flying in light planes is inherently dangerous and risky and every flight when we successfully land we should celebrate the fact we have cheated death. The question I see is who reads the RAA incident reports and do they give you insights into how to deal with the inherent risks of flying? I read them, but they give almost zero useful information. Who reads corners reports, and what useful information do they give? I don’t, & from experience Coroner reports only respond to evidence presented to them (they aren’t investigative) and more frequently tailor their reports to give comfort to surviving family (as you would expect as coroners are generally compassionate ppl). I also read ATSB reports,,, but they are very limited. I spend far more time watching Utube reports from channels such as Blancorilio on accident analysis, who occasionally includes Australian accidents. In my view that is a sad state of affairs: we really need better accident analysis and reporting.

What I was saying related to whether the pilot or aircraft owner would be liable to pay financial compensation in respect of injuries, death of a passenger under the tort of negligence in the absence or presence of the RAA insurance. I say they would not. What the insurance contract says regarding payouts would depend on the contract terms between the RAA and insurance company. It may well provide for a payout, and that payout may require proof of negligence. This may be important to some people. For example Bucket’s wife may be happy for Bucket to go fly with Brendan in his RAA listed aircraft, but says, ‘Don’t you go fly with Jimbo in his unregistered aircraft because if you get killed or injured I’d get nothing’. It would be a very different thing if the injury/death was caused by an intentional act, for example, doing unapproved modifications to dual parachutes causing the death of two instructors and one student (as was alleged in NSW). No negligence, as it was deliberate. But in such a case many insurance policies would be voided because the act is also likely to be criminal. In short, the RAA policy does not provide the pilot with any significant protection against being sued by a passenger or their estate for injury or death due to negligence. It does in relation to other third parties. It may provide some additional benefit for passengers, but this is unrelated to any liability of the pilot.

Bill, while I’m not aware of the details of the RAA insurance policy and you may be correct in that, it is worthwhile to point out though that a passenger’s estate has no legal jurisdiction to sue for the tort of negligence, or even a deliberate action for that matter. A person can only sue for civil damages if they have suffered damage, and according to law the death of of a wife or child is not damage unless it causes you nervous shock. More importantly in most jurisdictions in Australia (we are a federation), except the A.C.T., tort law reform about a decade ago means that families of a passenger killed in an RAA aircraft even if they did suffer damage/injury (like nervous shock, loss of income, loss of ‘consortium’) would not be eligible as flying light aircraft is an inherently dangerous recreational activity that is obvious. Further the little yellow cockpit warning signs makes it additionally apparent that the passenger knew of the risks and assumes the consequences of them materialising. So in this respect I agree with you; the RAA insurance is pretty much useless for a passenger, and I think that is way it should be (though for children I’m not so sure). The thing is we should tell passengers truthfully about the risks; I do. But it is not useless to a spectator injured on the ground or property damaged on the ground, or ppl in injured in say a GA aircraft you collide with etc. Bt the way those same tort law reforms also severely restrict patient’s rights to sue doctors for negligence. The objective of the reforms was to reduce insurance premiums and was championed by active lobbying of our governments by big insurance companies who have a voice, unlike us citizens. Of-course no one has gone back and assessed whether insurance companies did reduce their premiums or whether they just increased executives’ salaries and returns to shareholders.

A runaway trim on the Tecnam is a known thing. There should be an AD on it. The microswitches wiring in the control stick has tight bends and the wiring fails and shorts. Failures tend to be intermittent and can’t be replicated on the ground with no engine vibration (ie. LAME’s report no problem, or problem fixed, when it’s not). We have found if you have trim failures in the air, DONT keep fiddling with the trim: fly the aircraft and switch the trim control to the other side which in most cases will still work. I flew a Bravo from Kalgoorlie to Goulburn with the trim set to our cruise because it was a nightmare every time we tried to adjust it. We initially thought it was just bulldust in the ‘audio’ connectors used to drive the trim servo in the tail cone but no. It took the owner a gazillion tear downs of the control stick and wearing magnifying binoculars to find the fault in the wiring.

In my hanger at 35 11.5S 149 38.8E; NSW Southern Tablelands ~7nm south of Tarago. My airstrip is pretty obvious on satellite photos and is marked on Google maps. Mark

And Don, if I recall correctly, in your 900 hours you survived a broken/collapsed wing spar in flight & at least 2 ‘outlandings’ into paddocks following engine failures; one into a crop of lupins over a metre high. The last 2, both the aircraft and you could fly again. I also recall you doing a precautionary landing into a paddock near Braidwood to avoid hail. So you must be doing something right. Mark

The ATSB report is silent on whether the pilot has done the training on the use of the parachute. Recalling the history of US death rates in this type of aircraft were nearly double because pilots didn’t deploy the chute and this was substantially reduced by training. So rather than pilot incapacitation, it may have been a reluctance to deploy the chute and the belief (like most of us) that our training on spin recovery will enable us to recover from a spin ie. centre controls, full opposite rudder, pull throttle, check fwd on elevator.

In cloud from 5000’ to 8000’ and freezing level 5000’. Aircraft climbing but slowing down (AP on vertical climb??); and descent started at 70kts ground speed. Stall speed (clean) 69kts. The optional de-icing modifications to the aircraft were not done. So who suggested icing? https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2023/report/ao-2023-045

KR, the one thing (& maybe the only thing) we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history. Sorry I don’t have a source other than my in house university professor who did an undergraduate degree in history many years ago and who gets very cranky at naive economists (which is nearly all of them) who ignore economic history.

The school my son went to had a fantastic security system; there was pretty much zero chance for any ‘stranger’ hanging around on school ground. It was a kindy to year 12 school, so big spread of ages. The older kids were taught that when they saw someone on the ground they didn’t know or thought shouldn’t be there, they should approach them and say words like, ‘Hi, I’m John Smith and you look like you might be lost. Can I help you? I can show you to school reception, principals e office if you like’. And the kids did this. Whenever I turned up I always had some bright eyed confident 14-17 year old as an escort (usually to the principal’s office where my son was waiting to be picked up).

Turbo, I think you are dreaming; at best it will be just to check with ASIO, probably not directly, whether the person with that ID is on a watch list. And that’s a Mungaweka mile from ‘not likely to be a threat’. But if as you say it’s your opinion they are not likely to be a threat and you believe it, then the ASIC has delivered its objective of making people perceive feel safer.

I find the ID thing intriguing. Clearly knowing someone’s ID can have absolutely zero to do with ‘keeping things safe’. Knowing someone’s ID enables the Gov to issue an infringement notice to them etc, but it doesn’t issue stop the person committing a crime. I would admit however, that knowing someone’s name can result in unfounded discrimination and IDdetention, for example if your mother named you, Hamid. And I can’t see th at even if a police check showed a person had previous convictions that that would disqualify them from being issued with an ASIC, particularly if they have fulfilled the sentence imposed by a court. On the other hand an airport operator would have right to require you to identify yourself as a condition of remaining on the property and so they can invoice you in respect of contractual obligations you’ve agreed to such as landing fees. The same as you have the right to know the ID of the person selling you groceries, or the person who comes into your home. Where it gets really murky is the assertion that the registered operator of the aircraft (or for an aircraft operated under the auspices of RA-Aus, the person listed as operating that aircraft (note RA-Aus aircraft are not Australian registered aircraft as defined by the regulations despite what RA-Aus says)) can be billed by AVDATA for a contract entered into by the PIC when the PIC decided to land at an airfield. This would be a black and white breach of the privity of contract rule. Of-course, there would be no issue when the PIC and the registered operator are the same person. This is why toll-road operators have had their mendicant State government pass laws giving them oppressive rights to pursue ‘registered operators’ of cars rather than drivers…. No such laws apply to AVDATA (perhaps I shouldn’t have said that).

I may be wrong but I think ALAs are an anachronism from last century when a GA pilot committed an offence if he/she operated a GA aircraft from an airfield/paddock that was not an ALA. Before the turn of the century the rule was changed and became that it was up to the pilot to determine whether the field was suitable. That said ALAs remain in databases and insurance companies refer to them…along the lines that their coverage doesn’t apply to operations from fields that aren’t. Where my airstrip is located there are at least 4 others within 5nm; all used and none are ALAs. There are also a couple of ALAs which have not seen an aircraft in 23 years.

A flying trip up to Longreach a few years ago had a few doozies. I then had an ASIC and an anti-terrorist Aircraft lock comprising of a soft thin walled aluminium tube with a ‘crusader’ brand padlock purchased fromClints for $1.49. This went over the throttle and met the standard. I think it was Bourke where the sign on the code locked gate stated ‘Lift flap for code’. I felt like adding the Arabic translation as it gave unfair advantage to English speaking terrorists. At another ‘security controlled aerodrome after refueling I telephoned the fuel agent/aerodrome operator to find out how to exit. I was told the locked powered gate had the chain removed from the sprocket and so one just had to give it a hard push and it would slide open. I asked whether the security fence was effective in keeping malfeasants out and was told, ‘Nah, but it’s bloody great as we no longer have to do a run down the runway in the ute to get the kangaroos and emus a few minutes before any RPT lands, and the guys from town had a few great nights shooting the roos and emus inside the fence when it was just built’. I don’t think many people actually believe the ASIC or airport security in general is effective in reducing the risk or incidence of security related incidents. The whole lot is just theatre, providing a facade or fig leaf …. Not to hide the falsity that flying in RPTs is dangerous,,, because the facts show the opposite, but to convince the public to return to buying tickets because of the perception that there was a high risk following 9/11, that is to maintain the revenue for commercial airlines (& perhaps the psychic benefit of the travelling public feeling safer), and give the appearance that our governments/politicians are doing ‘something’. My whinge is that the ASIC is totally disproportionate to its costs, particularly the burden imposed on us. I also maintain that the ASIC reduces ppl’s vigilance on security….. the guys in the hanger don’t need to worry about security because ASIC and the security guys handle that. Nev, the crime of ‘incite’ like I said is difficult to prove, and secondly has to be more than just some guys yacking. There has to be some actual physical steps taken to encourage the other person to commit the crime; signing an agreement to pay them, giving them the tools to do the deed etc. If that wasn’t the case I reckon nearly 100% of boys aged 14-20 (and ‘boys’ older than 65) would be guilty.

Let’s put this in perspective. I personally know of a serial paedophile, Aaron James Holliday, who while in remand in gaol in the A.C.T., conspired with another inmate to pay $10k to have a 12 year old boy kidnapped, forced to give a video statement that his brother was lying (about the sexual assault) and then to be ‘knocked’. The evidence presented to court was notes written by Holliday, and the testimony of the prisoner Holliday asked to organise the kidnapping and murder. A jury found him guilty of kidnapping but not of conspiracy for contract killing because the prosecution did not provide evidence that in ‘crim talk’ having someone ‘knocked’ meant having them murdered. The High Court overturned the guilty conviction on appeal. Convictions for encouraging other ppl to commit crimes (so called ‘inchoate’ offences), like telling them how to avoid prosecution, are notoriously difficult to prosecute…even proven paedophiles get away with it. So it’s not just ‘get a life’, but also ‘get real’. That said everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I have no ill feelings to those that like the ASIC arrangements.

I can beat that Spacey. I wore my climbing rope, iceaxe, ice hammer, climbing hardware (karabiners, ice screws, crampons), also to NZ because hand baggage wasn’t weighed. No problem with security, though Flight attendant did warn me that she didn’t think the rope would be long enough if I wanted to abseil from the aircraft. My mountaineering partner’s girl friend gave him a large Xmas cake (+3kg) wrapped in foil…. Could have been mostly hashish knowing what those two got up to (but it was just cake)…. Again no one cared less. On arriving in NZ the customs guys kindly cleaned our boots. And recently in Australia I had about a metre of stainless steel ‘safety wire’ that was in the bottom of a daypack confiscated…go figure.

Surprising, as my brother a senior officer in Airservices (now retired) once (& only once) wore his security pass returning to Australia via Kingsford Smith Aerodrome from his many many many international ICAO and other meetings about ADSB, and was given the exact opposite treatment. ‘Never again’ was his decision. The view taken by the aerodrome authorities was that he wore his ASIC while being a passenger because he had something to hide. Area51 I think you must live in a parallel universe because by my reckoning things like an ASIC discourage people being alert…and situationally aware because they assume, like you assume, that people with a displayed ASIC are somehow less of a threat. Just like many pilots don’t triple check the controls on an aircraft after work has been carried out on the controls by LAMEs or L2s. Same as I’ve had an instructor suggest I don’t need to do a walk around on an unfamiliar aircraft I was going to fly for a BFR because they had already done the DI. ‘No thanks, I like to check myself’. Spacesailor, my beau recently had the same experience with recent international travel. She is currently on the list for a hip replacement. She was treated like a Queen in every country EXCEPT Australia. On return at Sydney International she, and the other wheelies, were just dumped at immigration and customs minus wheelchairs. Total disaster. She finally got some assistance from terminal staff whose job was to assist disabled ppl to get herself to where I was waiting to pick her up, except they didn’t know where the disabled parking was and so that took another 3/4 of an hour.

Yes there is a lot of BBB (bullshit baffles brains) that’s for sure. But one of the biggest problems is that politicians have this idea that you can never oppose ‘more security’. However in doing so over the last couple of decades the States and Federal Parliaments have unwittingly put in place the legal infrastructure to destroy our liberal democracy with things like detention without conviction, police powers on ‘prevention’’ (recent convictions of climate activities for refusing to give police access to the phones & computers desire to ground they had committed an offence) secret ‘Star Chamber’ trials, whistleblower convictions, allowing malfeasance in public office and misconduct in public office go without consequence (Robodebt, Hurley/Morrison’s secret ministries), authorising short detention and search without warrant by officers of Home Affairs with the officers in balaclavas and with no requirement to identify themselves etc etc etc etc. The one common thing with all these laws is that they are generally ineffective against terrorists or insurrectionists albeit they appear ‘tough’ in appearance, but more importantly they are then used improperly against whistleblowers like Collaery, animal and climate activists or journalists (like the Ffriendlyjordie) etc. So I agree that we are pissing into the wind if we think the stupid ASIC arrangements. For my sins I once reviewed the Federsl Radcoms Act and the one success I had was abolishing the reqt for pilots and bodies to have a radio operators licence to operate a vhf radio and for each aircraft or boat to have an ‘apparstus licence) to install a vhf radio. At the time compliance with the legislation was less than 2% for aviation and about 40% for marine. When it was abolished we got heaps of complaints from State govts because volunteer marine rescue organisations lost income training radio operators. No complaints from aviation because they just never complied with the law in the first place. I also mention that the States and Federal govt have ‘Law Reform Commissions’ whose job is to make recommendations to parliament about reforming current legislation (as well as parliamentary committees). Most Depts/Ministers proposing new legislation or regulations usually have to offer up legislation to abolish (itsits badged as red tape removal but is bullshit really). There is no convention about the Opposition not blocking supply. The Constitution prohibits the Senate initiating or amending a money bill. If there is a convention, it would be that the Senate cannot block a money bill; but if that was the case why has the Constitution given the Senate the power to do so. Related to this, each member of the HoR or the Senate has one vote. So they would only have power if they have a majority if they can negotiate with enough other Senators to form a consensus of a majority of Senators.

I do not believe there is any recognised convention about the Opposition; it’s certainly not in the Cth Constitution, but then neither does it mention the PM or Cabinet. And as far as I can tell it is not mentioned by Quick & Garren in their book about the Cth Constitution either (they attended the conventions and drafted many of the provisions in the Constitution leading up to the establishment of the federation. In fact a lot of the founding rules of our democracy are not in the Constitution, for example Cabinet and Responsible Govt (other than a provision that prohibits a Minister being sworn in by the GG while not being a member of parliament for a period longer than 3 months). And that’s why Morrison and Hurley should be prosecuted and gaoled for their crime of misconduct in public office for the secret ministries scandal. While it might be true they didn’t breach any of the black letter law of the Constitution, the Constitution is founded on the basis that the executive govt must have the confidence of the HoR. And how the fuck could Hurley assess that if the HoR didn’t know who he was appointing as Ministers? It really was our equivalent of an attempted coup…luckily unsuccessful. Democracy can be, or is often, a really shit form of government The ASIC bullshit is but one minor part. But it is the least worse. I wonder whether Skip has rung up his local federal member and whinged at him/her?

Skip, that is what the parliament is for, & why it is seperate from the PM and Ministers who form the executive arm of government which is normally referred to as just the govt. I think what you are suggesting is like the USA Federal system of government where the parliament (congress & senate) is truly seperate from the ‘executive’ arm (president & secretaries of state) of government. In our system of ‘Responsible government’, the executive (pm & ministers) are responsible for the actions of government according to legislation and the parliament is separately responsible for making and amending laws just like the USA, however our system requires the executive to be members of the parliament. The theory is that in our system the executive (pm & ministers) are ‘responsible’ (meaning accountable) to the people through parliament. This is meant to avoid stand off/conflict between the executive and the parliament like the Not infrequent government shutdowns they get in the USA. Sunset clauses are not unheard of in our system. They are mostly in subordinate legislation like regulations, Ministerial decrees/determination and ‘orders’ where legislation allows these. But what usually happens is they are just rubber stamped to roll-over. Things won’t change until governments don’t have a majority in the parliament…. then our representatives will better apply their minds to legislation instead of just voting as the party whip tells them too…. Like in many European countries.

But it is worse because the ASIC process is privatised. If you try now to abolish it, all the private corporate interests will act to protect their income streams…. you know, the ones with paid lobbyists who have access to ‘our’ representatives in Parliament House and a ‘Voice’, unlike actual citizens of the country. It’s why we still have other completely useless industries like superannuation, retirement advisors, private health insurance, migration agents, and electricity prices skyrocketing despite the input cost of production massively falling. KG, your letter to the minister was a joy to read. A similar minded bloke once wrote to my Minister but included a shovel and a $10 note. Telstra had been haranguing (harassing really) the citizen trying to get him to pay the telephone debt of his recently deceased son. The shovel was to to be given to Telstra so they could dig up the deceased to recover their money and the $10 note was to provide the Telstra employee responsible ‘grief counselling’. I had the letter, shovel and $10 note set up in one of our art exhibition places in the foyer of the Dept until the Secretary had it removed…(the Minister loved it). The shovel should not be in archives and the $10 has been deposited in the Cth consolidated revenue fund but can’t be spent by the gov except for the purpose it was given to them for.