Dick Smith has invested $10,000 for more weather cameras in Australia
Thread Starter
nothing at all nearby :-(
We have used that approach elsewhere near Melbourne though, more info coming on that one soon :-)
Insofar as Airport 1 with the 'broadcast worldwide & liability" concern, there is no 'right to privacy' in Australia, save where you would otherwise have such an expectation of privacy, ie inside your own home. In public anything you can see from where you are legally allowed to be can be filmed by anyone, at any time. This is what an awful lot of parents don't understand when you try to get a nice photograph of a beach / a sunset / my kids soccer game or something else with kids in it and some Karen storms up screeching "You can't film my kids, they're underage...." and carrying on like a pork chop.... UUhh, yes, love, I can film or photograph them if they're in public but I was filming my kids, yours are inconsequential, now sod off...
Maybe you could use that angle, and also point out that a lot of us have ADS-B or EC devices now and can be tracked anytime we're flying, by anyone with an internet connection?
And anyway, if the view is as good as the owner reckons, wouldn't that want more people to fly in to see it for themselves, and by publicising it to a 'worldwide' audience, possibly increase the visibility of it and attract more visitors/tourism?
= = =
Airport 2 - I'm not sure there's much you can do there, except to maybe point out that by placing the cameras there it will absolve the AD owner of the responsibility of providing weather data and place that back on the pilot? Consider this scenario: Pilot A wants to fly to Airport2, so he calls for PPR and they provide current observed weather. For whatever reason, it deteriorates while ol' mate is enroute, but based on the original report he's not carrying enough fuel for an alternate, runs out of fuel and crashes. Could a good lawyer try to pin a portion of the blame on the AD Owner for misleading info? Possibly, maybe even probably.
But with the cameras, Pilot A calls for PPR and when granted has sole responsibility for deciding what fuel and weather considerations need to be factored in. If he runs out of fuel and crashes due to deteriorating weather, there's no questions to be asked of the AD Owner and they could probably even use the cameras as a defence by saying "Well, we've installed these cameras to try to give pilots a better appreciation of the weather so they can better fulfil their responsibilities. He had access to the feed, the BoM's iffy forecast and flew anyway. Ain't my problem, sorry."
Maybe you could use that angle, and also point out that a lot of us have ADS-B or EC devices now and can be tracked anytime we're flying, by anyone with an internet connection?
And anyway, if the view is as good as the owner reckons, wouldn't that want more people to fly in to see it for themselves, and by publicising it to a 'worldwide' audience, possibly increase the visibility of it and attract more visitors/tourism?
= = =
Airport 2 - I'm not sure there's much you can do there, except to maybe point out that by placing the cameras there it will absolve the AD owner of the responsibility of providing weather data and place that back on the pilot? Consider this scenario: Pilot A wants to fly to Airport2, so he calls for PPR and they provide current observed weather. For whatever reason, it deteriorates while ol' mate is enroute, but based on the original report he's not carrying enough fuel for an alternate, runs out of fuel and crashes. Could a good lawyer try to pin a portion of the blame on the AD Owner for misleading info? Possibly, maybe even probably.
But with the cameras, Pilot A calls for PPR and when granted has sole responsibility for deciding what fuel and weather considerations need to be factored in. If he runs out of fuel and crashes due to deteriorating weather, there's no questions to be asked of the AD Owner and they could probably even use the cameras as a defence by saying "Well, we've installed these cameras to try to give pilots a better appreciation of the weather so they can better fulfil their responsibilities. He had access to the feed, the BoM's iffy forecast and flew anyway. Ain't my problem, sorry."
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
First official cameras compliments of Dick Smith
Proud moment today as the Ceduna cameras came online.
This is the first set of cameras sponsored by the generous donation of $10,000 from Dick Smith.
Expect to see a lot more cameras appearing over the next few weeks as they are shipped out and installed.
This is the first set of cameras sponsored by the generous donation of $10,000 from Dick Smith.
Expect to see a lot more cameras appearing over the next few weeks as they are shipped out and installed.
The following 2 users liked this post by Squawk7700:
Great stuff, Squawk! Since no-one else has asked yet, I will: What's the web site??
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
I don’t make Firefox a priority sorry. Edge or Chrome are best.
However best viewed in your EFB as you get the Timelapse feature.
However best viewed in your EFB as you get the Timelapse feature.
FWIW working fine with both Firefox & Chrome on Linux, Win10 & Win11. For those having trouble suggest using a private/incognito window with all your extensions disabled as a starting point for troubleshooting.
Good to know I'm not the only one using Linux + Firefox and able to a nice pic of a Mooney at Busselton (reminds me there's sunshine somewhere in the world!).
As you have suggested I almost exclusively browse in private mode and regularly clear out cookies etc. I don't disable extensions however and on the odd occasion I've looked at the site I've never had any issues.
Pleasingly the site is intuitive to use, and doesn't require holding down the control key to zoom with the mouse wheel
FP.
As you have suggested I almost exclusively browse in private mode and regularly clear out cookies etc. I don't disable extensions however and on the odd occasion I've looked at the site I've never had any issues.
Pleasingly the site is intuitive to use, and doesn't require holding down the control key to zoom with the mouse wheel
FP.
Thread Starter
They look ok to me... they are little deceiving as they are quite a wide angle, so whilst "east" includes east, it also includes south-east. When you look on Google maps you'll see that they are correct.
Thread Starter
As you have suggested I almost exclusively browse in private mode and regularly clear out cookies etc. I don't disable extensions however and on the odd occasion I've looked at the site I've never had any issues.
Pleasingly the site is intuitive to use, and doesn't require holding down the control key to zoom with the mouse wheel
FP.
Pleasingly the site is intuitive to use, and doesn't require holding down the control key to zoom with the mouse wheel
FP.
Honestly, Think of how many lives have been saved since these went in.
I heard someone today say:
Not saying that air traffic control is not a good thing, but how is this statement quantifiable?
If air traffic control save lives, why isn't there any air traffic control at e.g. Ballina?
Think of how many lives have been saved by air traffic control.
If air traffic control save lives, why isn't there any air traffic control at e.g. Ballina?
Thread Starter
Depends how you look at it… the “east” one actually includes the bowser that is circled in the picture above which is to the east.
I generally try to not put any mid quadrant bearings in there if possible, as people have commented that they get confused, so prefer north, south, east and west. In some rare cases we will put WSW but it causes confusion because if there are too many letters and too many cameras, the EFB’s can cut off the letters. There’s method in our madness but I see your point.
Thread Starter
Saving lives…. I’ve had numerous situations where people have been VFR over the top under the assumption it was clear at the other end. One chap in particular said that he checked the cameras during a long OTT flight and the destination closed in so he turned around before the point of no return. Admittedly he probably shouldn’t have done that in the first place, but we do what we do sometimes. He credited cameras with potentially saving his life from a VFR into IMC descent for which he was not skilled enough to execute.
There have been many times where I and many others have decided to simply stay at home and not bother even driving to the airport to go flying as it doesn’t look great at the destination. I’m keeping global warming to a minimum and saving people money is one way to look at it!
I have has some interesting conversations on the other end of the spectrum where for example a helicopter operator under contract at $120 per minute will refuse to look at the cameras before departure. They said they would rather attempt an IMC approach to minimums, try again, turn around and return to base. Why? They earn an income from flying, they get hours in their logbooks and the company makes money…