Re: [Aus-soaring] Archives

[Optusnet]

Thanks Bernie.

Justin 

Sent from my iPad

> On 21 Apr 2016, at 6:29 PM, Bernie Baer  wrote:
> 
> Try here:
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au/maillist.html
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Archives

[Optusnet]

Thank Mark. 



Justin Sinclair 
17 Queen st
Scarborough 
Qld 4020

Mob 0421061811
Hm 07 3885 8949

Sent from iPhone 



> On 21 Apr 2016, at 09:28, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 21 Apr 2016, at 7:03 AM, Optusnet <jjsincl...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I can see the achieves of the old list but I can seem to get one from the 
>> base64 list.
> 
> The archives were never maintained by us, they were a third-party org that 
> discovered the list by web-crawling, subscribed to it, and archived all the 
> posts.
> 
> They’ll probably rediscover it at some point.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think I have reasonably comprehensive archives simply through 
> not deleting anything, so if you want me to search for something for you, 
> shout out.
> 
>  - mark
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Archives

[Optusnet]

Hi all,

I can see the achieves of the old list but I can seem to get one from the 
base64 list.

Any ideas.

Justin

Sent from my iPad
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Comparing accident rates

[Optusnet]

Sorry Mark it wasn't personal. Your statement came across as someone who seemed 
not to understand the reality of what responsibility of checking can mean. You 
can read all about it here

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/aair/aair200100348/

He was a mate and I was the instructor who did his initial twin rating after he 
had issues at another school, I did the rating in a B58 and gave him the most 
thorough twin endorsement I have ever done. I passed him and wrote "to std" on 
his logbook. It was a few years later that he had his accident and ultimately 
it was a system issue, fatigue and other factors that got him. Unfortunately I 
still think about it every now and then as Western Australia lost four 
excellent policeman and four families still miss their fathers and sons. I 
can't help but wonder if I had missed something or passed him when I shouldn't 
have.  

The other one is here

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2486613/ao2010023.pdf

So let me reiterate my passionate feelings, every time you check someone you 
are standing up and saying you are willing to let that person operate to a set 
of standards in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. It doesn't 
matter what the rules say or what a court says, if there is an incident you 
have to be able to live with yourself. If you are lazy or not on the ball  and 
someone dies you are morally responsible.

As much as the GFA, CASA and others are criticised they are there to stop some 
poor bugger knocking on a door late at night to tell them that their loved ones 
are not coming home. The fact that their remains are nothing more than blood 
and guts wrapped in fibreglass and metal should not be forgotten and someone 
has to clean that up as well.

So Mark it wasn't personal however perhaps you might see how someone who takes 
safety very seriously wants to minimise the risk. I have to share the airspace 
as well as a slow glider pilots in my ancient Nimbus 2, I get very tired of 
sailplane pilots not wanting to man up and get their stuff together. If you had 
of heard the lack of calls in CTAFS during the pre-worlds you would have been 
horrified. As a holder of a PPL you know that every two years you front up to 
an examiner with up to date logbook, current charts and free of alcohol and 
drugs. You do that to ensure that you will get to keep the privileges of your 
licence. The examiner is essentially putting his future mental health and 
possible lively hood on the line and entrusting you to act within the risk 
mitigators as laid out by the regs.  So next time someone signs you out say 
thankful for the trust they are putting in you. 



Sent from my iPad

> On 11 Mar 2016, at 11:00 AM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 11 Mar 2016, at 11:36, Optusnet <jjsincl...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Mark, would you mind letting me know when you are flying next, I just don't 
>> want to be in the same airspace as you and expose myself to the increased 
>> risk. 
> 
> Personal attack, JJ? 
> C'mon, that's just weak.
> 
> 
>> As to your statement 
>> 
>> Incidentally: People die in aircraft all the time, and what you just wrote 
>> never happens. It’s 24 carat rolled-gold bullshit.
>> 
>> It's happened to me twice in 30 years
> 
> I don't want to downplay your experience of how traumatic it'd be to 
> participate in a coronial inquest for someone you knew who died in an 
> aircraft.
> 
> But: you were questioned, not held responsible.
> 
>> Incidentally both pilots had a history of poor check performances.
> 
> So the check/review system didn't work? 
> 
> - mark
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Comparing accident rates

[Optusnet]

Mark, would you mind letting me know when you are flying next, I just don't 
want to be in the same airspace as you and expose myself to the increased risk. 

As to your statement 

Incidentally: People die in aircraft all the time, and what you just wrote 
never happens. It’s 24 carat rolled-gold bullshit.

It's happened to me twice in 30 years and let me tell you being summoned to a 
coronial inquest in front of a full bench where 4 policeman died is nothing 
compared  to the utter devastation of watching a mother dying of terminal 
cancer being told how her Husband had died in an accident in his twin in poor 
weather due to poor choices. Incidentally both pilots had a history of poor 
check performances.

JJ

> On 11 Mar 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
> Incidentally: People die in aircraft all the time, and what you just wrote 
> never happens. It’s 24 carat rolled-gold bullshit.
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Comparing accident rates

[Optusnet]

Oh, may I bow  down to your PPL superiority.

Thank you for your efforts in making our airspace safe. 

JJ 

Sent from my iPad

> On 11 Mar 2016, at 10:06 AM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Mar 2016, at 9:16 AM, Optusnet <jjsincl...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>> That's all fine and well Mark until it comes to your CFI and ultimately 
>> Chris Thorpe to authorise your operations as a pilot.
> 
> I have a PPL, so I’m trusted globally to take responsibility for my own 
> safety.
> 
>  - mark
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Comparing accident rates

[Optusnet]

That's all fine and well Mark until it comes to your CFI and ultimately Chris 
Thorpe to authorise your operations as a pilot.

Sure every standards position holder could use the statement 

("I don’t care about accident rates in aviation generally. I care about my 
personal accident rate.I can control my personal culture, and certain parts of 
my environment. I can influence, but not control, the culture of those around 
me")  

Naturally no-one would sign off your AFR, form 2 or aircraft certification 
because that would require them making a statistical risk based analysis on you 
and your standards, in no time and we would all be grounded. 

At some point some poor bunny has to put their neck on the block and be 
prepared to look your wife and kids in the eye and say. " I conducted his AFR 
as required by a approved revalidation program, a program that is authorised by 
an authority that has been shown to lower the risk of sailplane flying. I am 
terribly sorry and devastated that he has had a fatal accident however he 
deliberately chose to -insertSOPbreachhere- and that substantially increased 
the risk to his operation. My sign off on his AFR was very clear in the 
expectation to follow the guidance given by those that authorise our operation.

Statistics and accident rates are important, it doesn't matter how they are 
presented or even if they are way off. 
Statistically no one has ever been wounded by an unloaded gun yet statistically 
the number of soundings by people who thought the gun was unloaded is high. 
Therefore all you need to know is to treat every gun as if it's loaded, by 
doing this you statistically reduce your risk by a massive margin


JJ



Sent from my iPad

> On 11 Mar 2016, at 4:44 AM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
>> On 10 Mar 2016, at 9:38 PM,  
>>  wrote:
>> Be aware that the accident reporting system some years ago going into the 
>> GFA system was significantly deficient.  In one state reporting was running 
>> at about  50 -70% of the claims rate.  
>> 
>> If we had not seen a change in the culture,  discussions were going to be 
>> taken with the insurance industry to obtain actual claims data.   
> 
> I don’t care about accident rates in aviation generally. I care about my 
> personal accident rate.
> 
> I can control my personal culture, and certain parts of my environment. I can 
> influence, but not control, the culture of those around me.
> 
> I’ll go through my life trying to be the centre of a little bubble of 
> accident-free aviation, immersed in the frothy statistical noise of whatever 
> Teal and Michael are discussing.
> 
> When evaluating any question with statistics, one of the first questions to 
> ask is whether your sample is reflective of your population. I’m a sample 
> size of 1 in a population of 1. Everything outside that is pretty 
> uninteresting to me.
> 
>  - mark
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Optusnet]

Yep I deserved that, just one little L missing. Must have been the salt lost 
affecting my logic from pushing OJ five times a day for runway changes pre 
launch in January.

Here goes again,

Matt what would be your guess to setup and design a standalone reconfigurable 
FLARM type of system., I was thinking about future ADSB,ACARS,AUTO MET, 
Outlanding advice , soaring spot tracker type of stuff? 

If we had one box that broadcast FLARM type stuff that could utilise cheap 
Comms it might be worth investing in.

And before you all carry on I know of one major (non-oz) airline putting 
soaring loggers in their tail compartments attached to mobile phone technology 
to track APU use.

Righto back to my salt balance 

Justin

Sent from my iPad

> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:42 PM, Mark Fisher <m...@spe.com.au> wrote:
> 
> You are making far too much profit out of miniOZ Richard☺
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> peanuts
>> 
>>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 3:20 PM, Bob Dircks <dircks@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Matt,
>>> 
>>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>>> 
>>> Are you thinking wool, beef or cropping ?
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Optusnet <jjsincl...@optusnet.com.au> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>> 
>>>> Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter <yellowplant...@gmail.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
>>>>> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, 
>>>>> to license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
>>>>> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
>>>>> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM 
>>>>> are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages 
>>>>> fall largely outside the technical realm."
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
>>>>> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
>>>>> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch <jus...@vlc.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>>>>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
>>>>>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard 
>>>>>>> unimplementable without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
>>>>>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for 
>>>>>> just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, 
>>>>>> so I know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have 
>>>>>> individual IP policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket 
>>>>>> across the organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent 
>>>>>> body pool called MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without 
>>>>>> paying license fees for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being 
>>>>>> an isolated incident at ISO. There are other completely open standards 
>>>>>> such as SEDRIS or X3D that require contributors to license any 
>>>>>> contributed patents for zero cost to all implementors. There's, of 
>>>>>> course, others in between.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone 
>>>>>>> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
>>>>>>> implementatio

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Optusnet]

Hi Matt,

Just out of interest what would it cost to develop our own farm system. ?


Sent from my iPad

> On 7 Mar 2016, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
> 
> FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run 
> their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to 
> license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO 
> standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
> 
> As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2]
> "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM are 
> weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall 
> largely outside the technical realm."
> 
> I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a 
> PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption.
> 
> [1]http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf
> [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
>>> On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it 
>>> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable 
>>> without paying license fees, and you know it.
>>> 
>>> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing 
>>> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves.
>> 
>> Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for just 
>> over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I know 
>> it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP policy 
>> for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the organisation. 
>> In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called MPEG-LA. You 
>> cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees for the 
>> patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at ISO. 
>> There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that require 
>> contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to all 
>> implementors. There's, of course, others in between.
>> 
>> 
>>> I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone else’s 
>>> MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG 
>>> implementations, by following the text of the standard.
>> 
>> No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if you 
>> write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to 
>> completely avoid the patents.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/
>> Java 3D Graphics Informationhttp://www.j3d.org/
>> LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/
>> G+   WetMorgoth
>> ---
>> "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
>>  Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
>>  a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
>>  distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
>>  frames or one frame for many lights?"  -Subcomandante Marcos
>> ---
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

[Optusnet]

Well that's it, I am now on the floor hugging myself, I have s_at myself, the 
floor is nice and safe for now and my ears are ringing from maniacal induced 
laughter. Briefing briefing briefing ahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahah

Justin 

Sent from my iPad

> On 3 Mar 2016, at 10:00 PM, Gary Stevenson  wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> As usual,  good robust discussion.
>  
> Re the 3 km finish circle for competitions, please CAREFULLY  re-read Matt 
> Gage’s post on this.
>  
> My comment is that this arrangement “just did not happen”, but is in fact  
> the end result of a process of evolution that spans many years of experiment 
> worldwide . As a current competition pilot,  I will further suggest to all 
> forum members, most of whom  are NOT competition pilots,  that this 
> arrangement is the best that the combined minds of the gliding movement has 
> been able to come up with, and most certainly one that I agree with.  
> Straight in and land long is the name of the game. If you have excess height 
> then do a (non conflicting), circuit onto another strip. The recommended 
> procedure will of course be spelt out at the daily briefing.
>  
> If people want to do stupid things, or push the limit (on final glide or 
> elsewhere), that is their choice: Sometimes they will get away with it. If 
> they survive the first  fuck-up and don’t learn, they will ultimately, 
> without the slightest doubt, end up dead.
>  
> Please read again that article by Bruno Gatenbrink that I earlier posted. Do 
> keep in mind that even If you are a World Champion and you badly fuck up, 
> there is only one outcome.
>  
> As to comment on the Waikerie crash: Taboo on discussing such accidents does 
> not enter into it . Simon Hackett in his post, went to some pains to explain 
> why. As the pilot survived the crash, we will in the fullness of time get a 
> definitive report on this accident. So please be patient.
>  
> Regards,
> Gary
>  
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf 
> Of Mike Borgelt
> Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2016 5:48 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding
>  
> 
> Well the Pete Cesco thread turned into a useful discussion on safety. All to 
> the good.
> 
> I understand the desire to move the finish away from the airfield but making 
> at the ground 3Km out was so obviously stupid I still can't believe it. We've 
> only severely broken two gliders and risked pilots' necks before starting to 
> fix that. 
> 
> If you want a remote finish move it vertically. About 1000 to 1500 feet above 
> the middle of the airfield will do fine. Don't make it at that height you get 
> distance points only. That will DEFINITELY encourage not cutting it too fine, 
> just as the ground does. Must be above the minimum for the last 3km(or say 
> 5km). Lots of time to sort out a crowded circuit as the racing stops below 
> finish height.
> 
> For some strange reason discussing accidents seems taboo. FWIW I've heard 
> from 3 sources that the Waikerie accident was a spin in, not a misjudged 
> final glide.
> 
> If what I've heard is anything like true the story needs to get out at least 
> in preliminary form as soon as possible.
> 
> With any luck the flight recorder data is available.
> 
> One other thing - eyewitness accounts, even from the participants, are 
> notoriously unreliable. Wernher von Braun and his mates found that out at 
> Peenemunde in 1942 when several witnesses would give totally conflicting 
> accounts of what happened to the failed rocket launches, hence started 
> filming them.
> 
> There is also a well known phenomenon of people suffering a traumatic event 
> or shock not remembering a damn thing for some seconds to minutes even though 
> they were conscious and functioning because it doesn't go in to long term 
> memory.  You don't even have to be injured for this to happen. (I consulted a 
> flying shrink about that one)
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation 
> since 1978
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
> tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784 :  int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Schmitty

[Optusnet]

Send me an email or text me your mobile number 

Mine is 

0421061811

JJ 

Sent from my iPad

> On 28 Feb 2016, at 1:27 PM, Derek  wrote:
> 
> Anyone got contact details for Greg Schmidt please
>  
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] · Aero Glass

[Optusnet]

https://glass.aero/

I don't know what Scuttermonster or any of the other IT/IS people think of this 
stuff but it's got a lot of folks very interested in other facets of aviation.

I can't wait for them to come out for sailplanes. Once we get the himawari 
thermal uplink 1000km will be the norm.

JJ 



Sent from my iPad
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring