APenNameAndThatA

This reminds me of an article by an economist that appeared in about 1970. He pointed out that it is not really possible for someone to make a pencil. Between getting the wood and the graphite, and making the rubber and the metal for the tip, there would be too much to do. I suppose that if someone learnt enough about chemistry, economics and cultural anthropology, it would be possible to understand a pencil. That contrasts with an iPhone. It is impossible for anyone to understand more than a small fraction of an iPhone. Scratch build? Nah. There is no point unless you design the aircraft yourself. And, guess what? You can't design an aircraft yourself. If you designed a good one, it would be an iteration and slight change on others' designs, and you couldn't design a new engine or avionics or even a new way of operating flaps or a new type of rivet. And, as for scratch building, if you were skilled enough to "assemble" a kit, you would then be able to learn in an afternoon how to operate a computer-controlled laser cutter. I dips my lid to you all, having myself built a tree house. Reminds me of (so-called) primitive cultures like the traditional one of the Australian Aboriginal. Western people probably do have a wider world view, but are not more sophisticated in their skills, just more specialised and dependent on others and technology. The flip-side of the wider world view is the specialised knowledge of a small part of the world, and the intricate religious beliefs and cultural practices.

Wow

The setup of the air brakes was really stupid and meant that no one who knew what they were doing was involved, imho. The air brake was close to the centre of mass, which would have made it very unstable. Also, the brake would have shielded the elevator and subjected it to unpredictable, turbulent air. There is no way of predicting the angle of incidence of wind onto the rudder and elevator. Lastly, the ballistic chute opened too late. If the (now former) pilot had gotten into the aircraft and not managed to regain control, and didn’t manage to pull the chute, he would have been killed.

A clay pan and a salt lake are different things.

The devil is in the details, so they say. The detail here is the space between the stall and the spin. You would not need to be the ace of the base to recover from an incipient spin in 500 ft.

I thought that in order to be certified, an aircraft needed to recover using PARE.

Well, the guy in the Bonanza video needed to know how to recover from a spin. Also, if you mess up a flat turn turning on to final, you might get to the incipient spin phase quickly, in which case, you are better off leaving the power off (spin recovery) rather than adding power (stall recovery). It's weird, I couldn't make a Decathlon spin trying to imitate a flat turn onto final, but apparently a C172 can bite fast. Entering a spin at 500 ft would not be good, but if you begin to recover you are going to hit the ground slower. If you are losing 1000 fpm when you hit, the vertical component of your crash will only be 20 kph.

I'm pretty sure it would be a disaster. The main reason that I bought an aircraft and learnt to fly was to land on clay pans, but I have never done it. I imagine that a 4WD running 14 PSI (a low, sand pressure) would sink, so an aircraft running the same pressures would sink and flip over. Being clay, if you did not sink, you would probably pick up a lot of very sticky mud and the stickiness would stop you gaining enough speed to take off. What I most fear is landing in an apparently-dry clay pan and breaking through the crust. You might be able to check the condition of the surface by flaring, going along with your back wheels on clay pan, taking off again, and thinking about it. Disclaimer: no knowledge of that of which I speak. What is your technique? I would *really* love to know.

How about, you are doing power-off stalls, you stall, you spin, and add power because that is how you recover from a stall, can't recover from the spin, and crash? To me, the obvious connection between power on and a spin (6:23), is not a power-on stall, but a stall followed by power on. Weird how the prop was full coarse, but.

Im pretty sure there is no requirement to put down a deposit - it’s not like it’s a limited edition that will rapidly sell out. I wouldn’t pay a deposit under any circumstances.

Duly noted.

You can call them with the info you do remember. I would not bother with writing down their callsigns. (Disclaimer: I have 168 hrs.)

I think turbines have poorer fuel efficiency even when taking power into account.

I got a Thuraya smartphone. Having different satellites systems AND different phone retailers was confusing.

I admire the engineering, but can’t work out why anyone would want one. In a low-inertia aircraft like an LSA, the decrease in safety from the slower throttle response would cause more danger than the increased reliability would provide, IMHO. Disclaimer: I know nothing about turboprop aircraft. It would make more sense in a C172, but what’s the point in an exotic C172?

Getting an abn takes five minutes, fwiw.

I like OzRunways, so I didn’t want this to ve true. ☹️

1970’s airbrush art now for big jets. I’m confused about the windscreen. Maybe they cover the whole area and cut out the windscreen after so the vinyl stretches evenly.

From their news letter. "Because a change to the 45-knot stall speed had not been subject to formal public consultation in that paper, we determined that it was appropriate for it to initially remain in place and that a review of the limitation be conducted and consulted with industry."

I suppose it does suggest a worrying attitude.

I asked OzRunways support. The tl;dr of their reply is the last bold paragraph The longer version is the following email exchange, which also gives more clues. I asked them the following. Hi. You know how AvPlan and OzRunways only display traffic from people on the same system? AvPlan says they would trade information but that OzRunways does not want to. Is that true? The replied the following Thanks for contacting Support. OzRunways traffic is our own in-house system that only displays other OzRunways users who are flying, have an internet connection, and have their traffic system switched on. It's a great situational awareness tool but it does have its limitations. For this reason, we recommend the use of a portable ADS-B in and out device in VFR aircraft. As expected, the Government is investing heavily in ADS-B for VFR aircraft which suggests they are one the same page as us in that ADS-B is the safest option. https://business.gov.au/grants-and-programs/automatic-dependent-sur... What we typically recommend is to get a SkyEcho portable ADS-B IN & OUT device. This device is included in the rebate program above.(https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/skyecho.jsp) Skyecho 2 hooks up to OzRunways, picks up ADS-B OUT signals from other aircraft and displays them just like the regular OzRunways traffic on your map. All IFR aircraft and a growing number of VFR aircraft are ADS-B OUT equipped so you'll notice a receiver like the SkyEcho will allow you to see a lot more traffic. If your aircraft isn't already ADS-B OUT equipped, the SkyEcho will give you portable ADS-B OUT functionality which means anyone with an ADS-B IN receiver can pick you up too. The great thing about using an ADS-B receiver is that it doesn't rely on having an internet connection, it picks up signals directly from other aircraft. Devices capable of portable ADS-B OUT are called Electronic Conspicuity devices and you can read more about that here: https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/airspace/commu... For a bit of a shorter summary check out our article here: https://ozrunways.tenderapp.com/kb/frequently-asked-questions/skyec... If your aircraft is already ADS-B OUT equipped you could get something like the uAvionix Ping which is an ADS-B IN receiver only, and therefore a bit cheaper. (https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/ping.jsp) Let us know if you need further assistance. Regards, I asked them Are you not allowed to answer my question? It was as follows.... A different person, maybe a more senior one said the following. We believe that ADS-B is the way to go. We run and control our own traffic system and will continue to do so at least until ADS-B is ubiquitous. For a host of reasons – reliability and user data privacy being the big ones – we are not looking to make our traffic data available externally. For all the reasons [redacted by me, not that it's a secret] mentioned above we typically point people in the direction of ADS-B devices, fixed or portable as appropriate. So, I asked them How would sharing your data decrease reliability? "Traffic is one of those things where you want the data to be as up-to-date as possible. Looking at a traffic icon that is 20-30 seconds or more behind its actual location is not particularly useful. Sending and receiving data through more servers etc. introduces more latency and the end result is traffic symbols that have some unknown amount of delay in them. This is just another reason we recommend ADS-B – signals are transmitted & received directly by the hardware in the aircraft meaning it's about as instantaneous as you can get, and it doesn't rely on any internet or cellular connectivity." My own view is that knowing where someone was a mile ago is better than nothing when out and about and even in the circuit, but could still cause confusion in the circuit. My loyalty to OzRunways is unabated.

https://youtu.be/ZNB77IdgLjQ

IMHO, they should keep RPT traffic above 3500 feet if they are not within 10 miles of an airport. Furthermore, if there are VFR corridors printed on VFR maps then there could be IFR corridors printed on VFR maps, too. The corridors could start at 6000, and change pattern at 3000, and people to interpolate to work out where the RPT traffic would be. Of course, greater minds than mine would have thought about this.