APenNameAndThatA

The email from RA-Aus yesterday whinged that RA-Aus put in the 760 kg application eight months ago and it still has not been approved. The big danger with the 160 kg weight increase is that half of CASA will be fine with it, and half will be resentful and believe that RA-Aus should be put under the pump for the privilege of muscling in on CASA’s turf. Saying “it really shouldn’t be this hard” is rude, counter productive and shows that RA-Aus understands none of the psychology of what is happening here. 🤦‍♂️

Fair point.

I agree with you. And if RA-Aus was more sophisticated, that’s the reason RA-Aus would have stated. Just to restate: the logical reason you gave is not RA-Aus’s reason, otherwise they would have said so. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️. If only they had spoken to you first.

Others might have covered this before. RA-Aus said today that they were not investigating the accident "for a myriad of reasons". As was clear from both the first and the second communications I saw from RA-Aus about this, the only reason they are not investigating is that they won't be paid. I'm not saying that that's the wrong stance. I am less happy with the stalking horses they use. Maybe to get things done you need to mislead, maybe you don't. They their attempt to mislead would have failed, because if their true motivation is obvious to me, it will be obvious to others too. If there are any really sophisticated operators at RA-Aus, they don't get them to do their communications. 🙄

Thanks for the feedback.

If anybody thinks that my main criticism of the video was wrong or overblown, I would really like to hear from them. Please.

Well, here's a turn up for the books. I contacted a presenter, they looked at the video, and this is what they told me. Hi Andrew, I have reviewed the video and your comments, as well as discussed the content of the video with other industry professionals. I can see no issues with the content, and my colleagues agree. Best Regards, I don't know what to think. Maybe I'm too obsessional to expect/insist that material in videos should be actually be true, instead of merely just conveying a good vibe? The presenter obviously knows how to fly and aircraft.

By the time you posted this, you were perfectly well aware that RF was using the term correctly.

Cockpit fires are a *really* rare cause of accidents/fatalities. (bursting into flame on impact, really common).

Tempted as I am, since FR Guy actually did the the maths on a kalman filter, I will not attempt to explain to him how they work. 😆 Also, since aircraft turn it probably is a good idea to take acceleration into account. 😆 Maybe proximity detectors use this maths, maybe they don’t, maybe the manufacturers would refuse to tell you. The great thing about this system is that it would work around airports: there are plenty of aircraft very close that do not pose a collision risk, and they would not trigger an alert.

Tempted as I am, since FR Guy actually did the the maths on a kalman filter, I will not attempt to explain to him how they work. 😆 Also, since aircraft turn it probably is a good idea to take acceleration into account. 😆 Maybe proximity detectors use this maths, maybe they don’t, maybe the manufacturers would refuse to tell you. The great thing about this system is that it would work around airports: there are plenty of aircraft very close that do not pose a collision risk, and they would not trigger an alert.

Tempted as I am, since FR Guy actually did the the maths on a kalman filter, I will not attempt to explain to him how they work. 😆 Also, since aircraft turn it probably is a good idea to take acceleration into account. 😆 Maybe proximity detectors use this maths, maybe they don’t, maybe the manufacturers would refuse to tell you. The great thing about this system is that it would work around airports: there are plenty of aircraft very close that do not pose a collision risk.

Tempted as I am, since FR Guy actually did the the maths on a kalman filter, I will not attempt to explain to him how they work. 😆

Flattering that someone asks me what I think. Overall, I hold youtube chats to a different standard than RA-Aus videos that had “countless hours” of editing and are among the “best in the world”. I do worry about myself. Now Im hearing myself say that telling people that if they neutralise the controls and leave the power in you they recover from a spin is dangerous. Im pretty sure PARE is more reliable. Fascinating that stick forward is a pro spin input. But PARE is power to idle, THEN stop the rotation, THEN stick forward, which is not pro spin. His bit about hypothesis testing was subtly wrong to. You need to test hypotheses to see if they bit the facts, but you ALSO need to check hypotheses that contradict the first hypothesis that also fit the facts. One such hypothesis is the he was practicing power off stalls, stalled and tried to recover by adding power before he had lowered the nose. I once had a flying instructor tell me that if you are recovering from a stall you can add power and down elevator at the same time! (You can’t because if you are in a powerful aircraft adding lots of power can drop the left wing and put you in a spin. Also, of course the FAA was right in saying there was insufficient speed. Unless there is insufficient speed, you can’t stall and spin - but I know what he means. This is a good example of why everyone should practice spins! The reason is that a) everyone should practice stalls and b) if you mess up stall recovery you can spin. If the accident pilot had done spin training, he would have cut the power and thereby survived. This applies to 300 hp aircraft even more than RA-Aus aircraft.

Turbo, you make the driver and trucking company sound sensible. Which is quite an achievement. 🙂