Powerin

Thanks Dexter, that's about what I thought. So to the Jaspers crew: we are all 100% in support of you, but I would suggest that you take care when presenting a petition which has been obviously generated from an Internet campaign. It could be counterproductive and decrease your credibility. Shoalhaven ratepayers (ie voters) ar the ones you need to get on-side. Having said that, it's been a long time since I've visited the area and had hoped I could test my yet-to-be-aquired nav skills by flying in to Jaspers one day. I'd be happy to write a personal email to councillors explaining my desire to spend tourist dollars in the area and that Jaspers would be the gateway! Would that help?

I'm interested to know how much weight *online* petitions such as this carry? Do they have the same impact as written ones? We have all "signed" it so that means Jaspers has petitioners from all over Australia....which is hardly a representitive sample of local stakeholders. I guess it could be said that we all want to fly in and boost the local economy with our tourist dollars. The reason I ask is because I would hate to be relying on this petition only to have it rejected in the final hour because it wasn't taken seriously.

There's been trouble at Temora?? (signed it too Motz)

As RAAus members we get the magazine anyway...who cares what it's called. But let's look at the new enthusiast who wants to fly and goes to the newsagent to get a mag to find out more (this was me not so long ago). Next time you go to the newsagent, step back and have a look at which aviation magazines catch your eye. For me, the ONLY reason I bought an RAAus mag a few years back was it had a plane I was interested in on the front cover. The name didn't stand out at all because it had this big "recreational" word in it and it was stuck in the top corner of the cover. Other mags had FLYING and PILOT and AVIATION splashed in big letters on the cover. They were the ones that attracted me and of course they are all GA orientated. I could only look at these mags and dream knowing I could never afford to fly Cessnas and Pipers. After I bought the first RAA mag I tended to keep buying them because I was learning about a whole new side of aviation that I didn't know existed and started to get an idea that I might be able to fly after all. So I reckon the change in name and style is a good move. If we have the mag in the newsagent (and I think we should) let's market it properly and make people want to buy it. It's possibly the first point of entry for potential new members...it was for me. Look at the posts above from those who like the name change...many are from the younger demographic. They are our future. "Sport" is part of the marketing...after all the higher end category is called "Light Sport" (LSA) all around the world. It's a lot more exciting word than "Recreational". IF it sells magazines then let's use it. Ads....everybody hates them. But they help pay for the magazine. Again...look through the eyes of a newbie. When I bought my first RAA mag, and looked at the ads, I was STAGGERED by the range of wonderful stuff you could buy. So much more than in the GA world. I was drooling by the end of the magazine. Never underestimate the power of advertising! For my part I really like CFIcare's suggested title too. If anything describes us to a T, from rag'n'tube flyers to plastic fantastic flyers, "Hooked on Flying" is it! End of rant ;) Edit: I have only seen a pic of the cover...yet to get my mag

We always wondered what would happen if we crossed Darks in the air Hongie....now you know!

I'll let you work it out cfi.....air weighs roughly 1.25 grams/litre and helium around 0.18 grams/litre. So if a balloon contains roughly 4 litres of helium it would reduce the weight of the truck by roughly 4 grams for every balloon...but you have to take into account the weight of the balloon too!

Think of a truck carrying a big container of water. Now float a 1 tonne boat in the water. You would expect the weight of the truck to increase by one tonne because the water is holding up the boat (even though it is floating) and the truck is holding up the water. Sorry for the thread drift....now....back to supposedly losing airspeed when you turn downwind!

Thread Drift Warning! Let's carry the thought experiment a bit further: we have a truck carrying a heap of pidgeons in a sealed shipping container. If the truckie bangs on the side to scare the birds and they all start flying around in the container - will the truck weigh less than it did when the birds were standing on the floor? Now imagine that, instead of flying, all the pidgeons are floating around in the container hanging from helium balloons. Will the truck weigh less?

Aliens of course!

There was an article in Australian Flying magazine that dealt with all this quite well I thought...it's online here.

This would work if the back of the truck was open, with open cages for example. But the truckie would get booked for overloading if the birds were flying inside a closed container.

Just bumping this thread Ian....I have just found the new forum software again does not allow Google Earth kml/kmz attachments. Could you change it to allow these again? Thanks!

No worries kaz...glad to help! I'll have to put in another request to Ian to allow Google Earth kml/kmz file attachments. He changed it for us on the old forum software but it obviously hasn't been changed on the new software yet.

Firstly....do you have Google Earth? If not, download it from here and install it. PapaFox has changed the filenames because I assume the forum will not allow Google Earth "kml" files so their names have been changed to "txt" files. You need to change them back by renaming them. Right click on the files above and choose "save as" and in the filename delete the "txt" and replace with "kml" and then save. Double click these new kml files on your computer to start Google Earth and open them. Each file shows you shaded areas and boundaries overlaid on your Google Earth map. The airspace file shows you various classes of airspace and restricted areas in 3d which gives you a visual representation of CTA steps. The other two files show the boundaries of weather and FIA areas. Clicking on the areas in any of the files gives you more info about that area. When you close Google Earth it will ask you if you want to permanently save these "Temporary Places". Saying yes will make them available in your Google Earth "Places" folder on the left hand side every time you use Google earth. As with all the items in the "Places" folder you can check or uncheck the box next to "Australian Airspace" to make them visible or invisible.

Yeah Pud...we'll get you in the air if it's the last thing we do! I'll bring the tractor.

Stay with it Pud! That beautiful machine needs to be in the air...and I'm sure it will be soon!

Deleted.

So that means airliners at cruise altitude are operating at a very high angle of attack?

What sort did you buy F-dog? How about a review!

The RAA mag was previously published by Zebra Publishing which has an office near RAAus in Canberra. I'm not sure who printed it. Apparently the new publishers are the same team who publish Australian Pilot magazine for AOPA. It is printed by Graphic Impressions. The editor is Brian Bigg, who is a pilot and writes a few of the articles and reviews for the AOPA magazine himself.

Good points David (as usual). And I hope I haven't dissuaded anybody from submitting an article to the mag. It's all too easy to be critical from the comfort of a lounge chair. But I feel that sometimes information in hard copy print tends to carry more weight than, say, on this forum. After all, it's supposedly been read and approved for print by an editor so it must be OK...right? And some may view this article with a less critical eye....especially newer pilots, and think that it is accepted practice (after you pass your XC endorsement) to just use GPS for navigation. If it is approved for print, without comment, in our official magazine then it gives the impression (however wrongly) that RAAus is giving tacit approval to such practices. It's probably a moot point as I'm sure our new editor will be on top of things if the AOPA magazine is anything to go by.

I agree David, and I accepted the article for what it was (I enjoyed reading it) and I definitely don't believe in wrapping new pilots in cotton wool. But my concern is that it was presented as a trip adventure in our magazine which goes to all RAAus members and is available to the general public at any newsagent. It was not presented as something to learn from.

True Doug...but remember the fat is what pays for the meat and enables us to consume it for free. I usually click on a few adverts here and there just to make sure a free online magazine gets some revenue and keeps it free for us to read.

Hi All, Seeing we are not getting a May edition of the RAA mag I have been rereading the April edition and just want to comment on one of the articles and see what you all think. I apologise to the author if he is a member here. As a student who has yet to escape the circuit I must admit to raising my eyebrows a few times on reading the article about the Savannah Adventure. To me there seemed to be a lot of examples of risk taking....such as: To start there was the departure into questionable weather against the advice of a CFI (not that CFIs are infallible :big_grin: ). Then there was the suggestion that he entered controlled airspace a couple times (although I think that was just in the telling of the story). Relying on GPS to navigate to an airstrip and getting it wrong because some published coordinates were wrong. ATC had to set him right. (I thought you had to navigate by reference to maps/ground and GPS is just a backup) Contemplating landing on a taxiway because of crosswind and saying he would do it next time. (is that legal?) Taking off from Bendigo without realising he could not reach his planned destination before nightfall and having to divert. Mentioning he is paranoid about overloading due to previous experiences. (I would have thought you shouldn't be paranoid....you just don't do it!) Fuel not available where planned so flew direct to an airport over tiger country to save fuel rather than the planned coastal route which would use all of reserves (no crime in that.....but still....) Taking off to check out the weather and finding an 800ft cloud base. (I don't know...but I reckon even I could tell that the cloud base was below circuit height and 800ft is well below VFR by my reading of the rules) I am aware that a lot of my concerns might be just in the way the story was told. Am I being too critical? If not, should such an article appear in our magazine? I enjoyed reading about the adventure, but am concerned about the apparent risk taking it contained and the example it sets. What do you think?