turboplanner

I understand where you are going here, but for example if you're in the circuit and someone is way down there and hard to see someone is either too low or someone else is too high. If there was a choice between ADSB and a major clean up of circuit flying in Australia making sure people were flying in the same circuit would reduce the risk the most because then you know where to look.

Some good points there, probably more realistic than what we've been seeing. If it's important to you then you should write to Airservices and get the correct information. Relying on "Managed to get it signed off" has left many people with a recreational aircraft in the shed forever in the past.

You've mentioned that several times but I've never seen anyone respond to that. On the other hand it helps obese people and looked like it would help people with a health problem. And of course it allowed some cheap old GA airctraft in. The weight people needed was a lot more than the weight saving of carbon fibre with the stiffening to take thumps like nose and mains landings, engine torque and vibration, control surface loadings, attachment reinforcements etc.

Therein lies the problem; Airservices, probably for legal reasons changed the primary method of approach and circuit separation from radio to visual. Perhaps they saw there was a reasonably forseeable risk that there was going to be a collision because a radio would fail or one pilot might be on the wrong frequency, or their radios might go down etc. or the pilot may simply be flying without training and therefore they had a duty of care to guarantee none of those things could happen. Certainly people were regularly screwing up transmissions or not hearing transmissions or on the wrong frequency as you found out, so an impossible situation for Airservices. With visual the legal responsibility rests with the pilot, who has the duty of care to scan, see and decide, and he pays out if he screws up. The two aircraft coming in just behind you were operating to current regulations. I'd be very interested to see the official position on ADSB as a replacement or in conjunction with Visual separation. Although a few people have talked about it and fitted cheap systems, I haven't seen any proposed legislation, any specifications, any standards such as TSO or any release to take your eyes out of the screen. Apart from that, if ADSB was introduced the liability issue would be much the same as radio.

If you check back through the posts you'll find what you need to fly into CTA.

People within RAA want to expand their horizons in the aircraft allowed ast the top end, and going cross country and into strange airfields requires suitable training. I don't think GA is as safe as it used to be with the endorsement steps. Now we see clowns junping into a more sophisticated aircraft and letting it get ahead of them, but an Endorsement system withion RAA to step up from rag and tube would work well and stop the learinging by social media. The aircraft numbers are solid and the statistics will show you where the expansion is. That's the equivalent of Market Share and RAA has let the customers drive the Market share so it's gone upwards away from grass roots. Look at the discussions on this site - mostly on GA rather than RA. You can't force younger people to do what has been done in the past. I tried it with race cars to get younger people in, standard tyres which would last a season rather than three nights, smaller engines, shorter races; and I failed by about their third race night they would show up with the big wide soft tyres for $500.00, put a bigger engine in and be gone, broke halfway through the season. They have a vision of how they want to fly, and you need very agile management if you want to grow grass roots flying, but of course it can be done. On this site there has been a reasonably active group of Thruster/Drifter etc people who seem to be enjoying their flying and enjoying it and probably spending very little money on it. They are the ones here; the ones you are talking about have to be sought after, enticed to functions like Natfly and galvanised into cleaning up the machine in their shed. RAA doesn't seem to do that, and in your case you guys went way up market into GA territory. How's that going?

The chatter as you say was about a decade ago.

From what I read some time ago the EFB+EFB argument was lost then. There's nothing wrong with visual flight rules but from what I see, a lot wrong with the people fling in congested areas and circuits starting with a belief that they should always get first priority and not fit in with traffic. Usually a narrow miss fixes that. I understad why people would like to have a cockpit indication or proximity warning, but once people start relying on it you need the same redundancy and build quality and training and currency as IFR, so you'd want to be doing a lot of hours per year to pay for it.

I wouldn't worry too much about the figures you see on SM, usually unrelated to what's actually going on.

Why would someone from Anatye be worried about the outside politically correct world?

.....lifting his other foot to kick her in the face. Matron Doubtfire expertly ducked and grabbed him by the ....................

Your end result is about right. Car & Truck Industries CARBON EMISSIONS: PM As for the rest, if you're talking about carbon, it's a heavier than air material which just falls to the ground, albeit in its finer particles the wind can stir it up, it can get into the lungs and it can cause lung cancer. So talking about Carbon, the automotive industry has been reducing the emission of Carbon in the form of those fine, invisible particles, PM10 and PM2.5 since 1975. By 1992 PM reduction had been reduced, but the industry started on the road to try to eliminate PM. Since 1992 PM emissions in new cars has been reduced by 98.4%, while Industrial operations haven't really changed, so he later cars have started sucking up ambient air and burning the PM. PM Summary: Has increased car costs by several thousand dollars. Maintenance costs due to the hours of stripping away electronics and hoses has increased substantially. CO2 EMISSIONS Global warming caused by CO2 emissions started as a means of raising money by the UN around 1968, and today is in full swing with some social media and MSM stories that Australian new cars are some of the "dirtiest" in the world. The truth is that unlike NOx and PM, the engine alone can't reduce CO2 output; that relies on the fuel going through the engine and now, with all our cars imported we can't run the latest overseas cars on our fuel so the overseas suppliers have had to add the complication of older engine designs to their production lines. The Government did nothing about the fuel, so the farce continued. The good news is that our Vehicle industry took the initiative and has successfully negotiated a deal with the fuel companies to bring in world standard (much cleaner) fuel and as soon as that becomes available to the pumps, the vehicle manufacturers will be able to give us the engines that Europe, USA get. Aircraft CARBON EMISSIONS: PM Aircraft engines have continued to emit a full charge of PM10/PM2.5 at the level of the 1970s. The heavier than air particles drop down along the aircraft circuits and routes. There's a health argument that somethig should be done about it, but no one's making much noise. PM Summary: Development would have to start from scratch, probably using car/truck techniques Several thousand dollars extra cost on new aircaft. Aircraft CO2 EMISSIONS As with vehicles, Australia has had no design standard for CO2 emissions from aircraft. You would hope that if the global warmists get their way, that a similar deal could be negotiated with fuel suppliers, so that standard overseas engines could be imported.

........Cappy screamed like a Pilliga Yowie and Doubtfire, who was on her second warning .................

.......tender and not up to its usual self, causing the nurses to titter behind his back. Cappy couldn't turn around and see the hand signals, and made a big mistake when he started swearing at the nurses just as Matron Doubtfire, a cousin of our favourite Wagga cop, came round the corner. She picked him up by the burned limb and .....................

Yes, should have been jagged

.......he has suffered more serious burns than we thought and is in the Brisbane Womens Hospital chatting up the nurses. Of course the Bushcaddy incident attracted the newsmedia, and some started talking about the way he ties his har back and plaits it into a pig tail. This aroused suspicion in some quarters that ..........

There are always plenty of stories, but when it comes to workload, not much action.

I'm not seeing discord. If you go back through the posts here you'll see what had to be done to get it , but no one stepped up to do the work; probably because their needs are fulfilled by the Australian categories.

What do you think we do in the transport industry where we have to build all sorts of body surfaces for all applications including corrosives and explosives but that’s got nothing to do with a successful forced landing and fly off.

What's this nonsense?

No I mostly don't but got confused about how it could have been a corroded wreck never to fly again when the only photos shows pretty much wet tyres and we don't know whether there was water there when it landed, because when I pulled the tide data there's along priod of dry beach.

This is beginning to rival Ripleys Believe it or not. A thread about a "crash" by a GA aircraft in an RA Forum; a forced landing on a beach; a photo of the tide coming in showing water around the wheels; reasons the aircraft is now stuffed etc; how your car can be rusted out too. The Cherokee Six is an ideal Country/Outback Aircraft. Around 2012 I saw one stripped down for a complete corrosion inspection/replacement. The guy had bought the aircraft with high level radio equipment for $15,000 and the corrosion replacement cost him $16,000 at a tiome people were buying Jabs for about $60,000. I'd suggest the owner will work it all out without our help.

Sounds about right. 4g offsets this with more towers. Cross country aircraft have HF for outback operation.

Casuarina Beach, NT Tides: 11:15 am 1.34 metres 5: 28 pm: 6.62 metres = 5.28 metres higher On "very flat" ground a 5.28 metre difference = a considerable distance of retreat at low tide and some time before 11:15 to make a forced landing and some time after 11:15 to get out of there before the groundwater turned the sand to quicksand and the water submerged to whole aircraft. We know the aircraft wasn't submerged. Anyone needing to know if it's going to fall apart from corrosion just needs to find out the landing and take off times and do the maths.

Probably a druggie sending a message to his wife's boyfriend?