Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

facthunter

First Class Member
  • Content Count

    20,768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    513

facthunter last won the day on November 25

facthunter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12,903 Excellent

1 Follower

About facthunter

  • Rank
    facthunter
  • Birthday 04/01/1940

More Information

  • Aircraft
    non pilot
  • Location
    New Gisborne
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Where the vent tube ends up is what matters. It can /does affect mixture, quite a bit. The choke function only works on idle to just above idle. Nev.
  2. The thin stainless ones adapt to the shape very well but avoid over tightening them or you will destroy the part where the thread runs in the strip of metal and they become unsafe. You would have to be a bit dumb and strong to do this, but I've seen it happen. They won't ever unscrew and should always be given a run over after a short time to ensure they don't leak as it all settles in. Nev
  3. That is correct. The Council found they didn't have the authority WHEN the developers went around them.. The Federal Government did a bad job of writing rules that ensured Aviation continued to be served after the airports were sold off.. Eg Bankstown (and everywhere else). You will never see houses and Car dealerships demolished to build airports or golf courses or Parks or swimming pools. Everyone wants cheap flights to BALI but no one wants an airport near them..Nev
  4. Dunno about that. Quite a few Lockheed Electra's lost wings in flight but it took another crew to actually see it happen in flight to give them the evidence they needed. They knew the wings were coming off and had all the planes flying at reduced cruise speeds but the reduced speeds made it more likely to happen as it was an aeroelastc thing with a natural frequency caused by engine alignment and an incorrect C of G. built erroneously into the design . Nev
  5. They are pretty good but I don't like to use them in small sizes. Probably the spring ones used widely in auto application is good there. Nev
  6. It's rife with corruption and most Councils wouldn't think an airfield was an assett. Essendon is a prime example of how people find loopholes to Avoid Planning controls. . Your flying needs are about the last thing they would consider unless you find a way to show it's votes and local jobs lost. That means filling a special Council meeting to the brim and having your facts right.. Nev
  7. Looked to be more defensive than helpful.. I took no notice of it because it contributed little. We don't know what went on during the investigation though as distinct from the documented hearing . Nev
  8. That's OK, Motz. Don't worry about being concerned about too many deaths in planes which seem unnecessary. I share that concern, as you know. I'm also in a position of having lost too many good friends and acquaintances in air incidents. I believe the syllabus is tick boxes too much and somewhat dumbed down to sell it cheaply and make out it's easier than it is to swell the numbers. I don't quite know how this applies to Ross though. He's far from a newly trained novice. He's gone and all we can do is try to glean something from it that is helpful to those still here. Nev
  9. It certainly will and they spread it (extra cost) all over. People won't be able to insure in some places. Flood and Fire prone. In high crime areas you already pay more for contents. Nev
  10. Merv, you can look for the engines issues as was done with the Goulburn incident where the crankshaft was found defective. I'm surprised it was not done but engines will fail and we should cope with it. Do you have any reason to think some extra prior investigation might have helped here? We are trained to handle engine failures. THAT can be learned from this matter and pilots may take note of a couple of related issues . (1) Maintaining control of the Plane is the prime necessity. You always crash more Badly when you lose control. (2) Have a plan before every take off and STICK to it. Brief yourself even if it seems like a silly idea. Forewarned is forearmed. Every Commercial take off caters for engine failures at all stages of ground roll and initial climbout and it's FULLY briefed with appropriate speeds and procedures/actions.. Reaction times must be a minimum consistent with positive and effective control . You do as you've been trained to do.. Partial engine failure. At low levels you don't have MUCH time to troubleshoot. You can't count on the engine providing anything, so don't (count on it). . Refer Both (1) and (2) Nev
  11. I recall reading that report and considering other material and comments at the time.. I also probably posted here.. I have also interacted and met with Ross a couple of times, always amicably, and discussed mutual issues.. He was not a person reluctant to come forward with strong view,s and his relationship with U/L's was real and not based on theory alone.. He flew as well as fixed. On the Coronial report, I have NO difficulty with it and the unusual situation of having U/L pilotage experience, while not overemphasised, was helpful giving more validity to the comments made.. On a ratings scale which I'm not overqualifed to make, I would put it well above what one might be provided with and expect generally in average circumstances.. Coroners aren't Aviation experts and need to have unbiased relevant technical knowledge provided to get to the truth in these matters and with this one , we pretty much got there. . IF you require a definite answer to cause of the engine's failure, you may not ever get one and we can speculate but I'm not into that here, nor did the Coroner in the report. Nev
  12. It's the BIG wheels in most bases that are the issue. Nev
  13. What people want is quick and appropriate info coming out . You can't have quick and "anything good" guaranteed. COST is a factor you can't just wish away and as always someone has to pay. Who's offering? We already whinge about every extra dollar we are asked to pay. Investigation relies on Data and there's no CVR's or Flight data collected on U/L's and Australia is a big place and the cost of getting people and any equipment to some places is more than significant. IF the organisation shoulders it cash wise people will revolt and if it runs it's own, it can't ,as it's under the jurisdiction of the police in our case. If it goes to a coroner that is lengthy and will over ride anything else that comes out. In this matter you have to realise you are limited by resources and what you can reasonably expect in the circumstances and that often you will not get a conclusive answer as to exactly why the accident occurred. I don't see any structural "dark forces" involved in this to any extent but sometimes the events that get attention could have a dramatic aspect rather than an outcome that benefits the users of airspace. IF we have management involved in ownership/sale of planes one could definately need to make sure an arms length situation was observed at all times . That's why NTSB separate from CASA does investigations but they do ALL transport, not just aviation, which was once the case. Nev
  14. In Sandstone eucalypt country the fires only end when torrential rain comes, pretty much..Shame for the destruction which is happening and there's probably 2 months to go of extreme heat. Nev
  15. Thanks Onetrack, but my computer screen sometimes works like an old kitchen blind where the catch doesn't work. I also mean/ intend a lot of comments to be general rather than specific to ONE particular poster and when I want that I will name them and where necessary indicate the post number. A quote, out of the qualifying context (where it exists) isn't fair to the poster. Nev
×
×
  • Create New...