Walley2
Unfortunately I have studied about 4 years of maths and stats burried in an engineering degree, a masters and a PhD.
I looked at some CASA 'maths and stats' a few months ago, those relating to 'non-radio' movements in CTAFS and MBZ's.
They said thet the rate of non-radio compliance was X.X% (forgive the Xs, I ferget the exact numbers) GREATER for CTAFs than MBZs.
SO, THEREFORE IT OBVIOUSLY FOLLOWS THAT CTAFs are more dangerous than MBZs (I shall leave the derivation of that for the dilligent undergrad).
HOWEVER, what they failed to say was they looked mainly at BIG MOVEMENT CTAFs (to make the numbers easier to crunch) and all MBZs (cos there aint as many).
Now looking at the 'big movement' CTAFs we see PRODIGIOUS RIPOFFS in landing fees.
Thus a lateral thinking stats professional would question the safety basis of their assertion and may even suggest that 'non-radio' could be linked to $$$$$ and not 'lazy irrespaonsible acts' (even if it is the same thing).
I bet my left one that if we put all the 'big charge' MBZs in the same bucket and did the same analysis we'd get X.X +/- 0.Y% for red wide stress.
When suggesting this CASA replied that they weren't an economic regulator and my guessanalysis didn't show a safety issue.
BWAHAHAHAHA
What we need is a fairer way of charging so the Ag guys, 207 drivers and bankrunners don't land on the cheap!!!
AK