spenaroo

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

Who just lines up on a runway with an approaching plane  with Landing lights blazing on a clear night.   Nev

I assumed it was already lined up, hard to see behind you
there was a minute and a half between the clearance to land and the crash.
that's a good 7km out, I don't have anywhere near the experience to know if I could tell what parallel runway they are lined up for at that distance

but I cant find any footage from the surveillance camera that isn't cut to 1/2 a second before the moment of impact.
I saw one that showed a flash of Nav lights before the crash, that was where id expect to see of an aircraft holding before take-off
but its a split frame and had to watch multiple times to confirm it. 

once again,

hope its not a stupid case of "but I had right of way" - unfortunately both captains say they had clearance....

If its a clear visible night then I think both could be held equally culpable for not sighting the other.
but then they equally could be responsible for inattention on the radio calls.
surely the dash-8 would have made an "enter and hold 34R" just as the airbus pilot confirmed  "clearance to land 34R"

I assume there was 4 pilots with transmit buttons

But I fly visual rules from an uncontrolled airport in daylight.
so its just armchair analysis without any experience and knowledge

18 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

Wikipedia has this:

the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) announced that prior to the accident, air traffic controllers cleared the Japan Airlines aircraft to land on the runway 34 left, while the Coast Guard aircraft was instructed to hold short of the runway, and remain on the taxiway

but it doesn't have the source linked

while multiple sources are listed for

 the aircraft collided with a Japan Coast Guard DHC-8-315 Dash 8 while landing at Haneda Airport on runway 34R

wiki is wrong....
found the source (now listed)

Audio from LiveATC.net appears to detail the crew reading back a clearance order for runway 34, saying “cleared to land 34 right.”

and from the financial post

At a press conference Tuesday night, JAL officials said they believed Flight 516 had permission to land, though they weren’t yet drawing conclusions. It wasn’t clear whether the coast guard plane was also given clearance to be on the runway — instructions were garbled on the ATC recording. 

Wikipedia has this:

the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) announced that prior to the accident, air traffic controllers cleared the Japan Airlines aircraft to land on the runway 34 left, while the Coast Guard aircraft was instructed to hold short of the runway, and remain on the taxiway

but it doesn't have the source linked

while multiple sources are listed for

 the aircraft collided with a Japan Coast Guard DHC-8-315 Dash 8 while landing at Haneda Airport on runway 34R

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Well one of them was on the wrong runway at the time or ATC f***ed up.

the runway was 34R, so confusion with 34L is a possibility... 
its a shame with a dual runway that they don't have one dedicated to landings and another dedicated to take-offs.

guess there is a ton of $$$ in time saved lining up for take-off while the landing plane clears.

the airline has already come out and said that they had clearance to land...
coast guard was about to take off. maybe the ATC didn't have the separation timed right.

either way I want to know why neither of the Airbus Pilots saw Red and Green lights on the runway and didn't think to go-around.
that's one of the most basic checks before commitment to the landing (Runway clear, carby heat off)
I think we have all had an aircraft at some point still on the runway when we are on final and made that call.

hope its not a stupid case of "but I had right of way"

https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2024/01/02/moment_of_collision_loop.mp4
can clearly see the aircraft lights just before the impact

not that it makes a difference,

But anyone know what the laws are in the USA about low flying.
see a ton of youtubers flying low though canyons etc...

does this normalize the behavior here?

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Yes you can, nothing to stop you setting up a heading and starting it off.

Doing that also has the benefit of allowing searches for subject matter easy.

Here you all go,

https://www.socialaustralia.com.au/topic/2196-electric-car-thread/

can we just create a whole separate thread for the electric stuff.
feel like its grown way beyond aviation and especially Jabiru's future.
maybe best discussed in the off topic section?

I'm normally all for thread drift... but not 10 pages worth

I still don't get why we don't just store the nuclear waste at Woomera,
its not like its ever going to be open to the public, security and transport routes are already there including rail. And a proper storage facility might be able to help with Maralinga when they decide to try cleaning it again...
 

21 minutes ago, facthunter said:

An electric motor has nothing to absorb energy unless it is in the regenerative function and may also have no reduction gearing, so you could practice what you like with it's switching.   Nev

Hey that's a good point.
does this mean we get reverse thrust by spinning it backwards on landing?
maybe negating the extra weight of the batteries - compared to having burnt off fuel?

question:

how does an electric aircraft do PFL's
I assume unlike a normal engine. the prop can be completely stopped as there is no "idle" setting

Always liked the fact that thunderbirds 4 tail was painted black when they flew F4's
as it would get covered in soot when slotted behind the lead

5 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Mechanics ! .

Diagnosed a broken " valve spring " as " hole in the head " ..Nrma couldn't get a wheel off a " Commadore sedan ". Next doors Mazda had multiple flashing lights the didn't make sense on the ' obd2 unit ' so mechanic said , " it needs a new motor " .

Actually needed NEW BATTERY TERMINALS. 

spacesailor

technicians....

the wheel one is pretty common.
plenty of people with special lug nuts - who have no idea why they give you a socket and don't leave it in the car

My Ducat runs a 55mm double hex head (12 point) rear wheel nut....
not the easiest socket to find, only 2 local shops have one. (I know to call ahead and ask before booking it in - made a puncture repair last year an issue till I figured out who were the Ducati specialists in the area)

replacement instead of reconditioning has been the go to for years, we live in a disposable society

how many engine and transmission shops do you see now? its a lost art.
I know when I was working with Jet-Ski's there was only a handful of guys left that could bore a cylinder block.
and they weren't using new machines. only reason we were boring is new jugs weren't available

look at what the guys in the USA are doing with Holley carburetors,
bolt on fuel injection kits is now the go-to instead of a rebuild.

as for pricing, 
that's where I used to earn my $$$ as a Parts Interpreter.
a good guy can cross reference and get alternatives "same, same but different" 

18 hours ago, Jabiru7252 said:

The question about getting parts like distributors, rotor buttons, ignition coils, spark plugs and leads etc. was raised. There was the mention by a club member that these parts may become hard to source as engines become more 'modern'. The very thing about Jabiru engines is their simplicity, when we start getting engines with electronic fuel injected whizz bang technology we start to lose the ability to service and repair. We have all seen it in the automotive industry, home appliance industry etc. God help us if AI ever becomes involved. 

as technology changes so does the generation.

take a car to a normal mechanic and see if they can do points and carburetor tuning.
they are much more familiar with pugging a scan gauge into the OBD2 port and reading/clearing fault codes.
they find fuel injection far easier to work with and repair.

I think that aviation has stalled with technology for a long time, and is only now starting to have the generational shift.
and I think its simply down to my generation aren't going to accept points, carburetors and steam gauges.

And the guys who are buying the points and distributors probably aren't going to be continuously buying new aircraft.

38 minutes ago, facthunter said:

No one ever gets to where they can't be any better. Never stop learning.  Nev

yeah, had an instructor sit me down a few flights ago, and really helped my mindset.
was stressed and making mistakes, which lead to more mistakes etc... trying to chase what was the standard in my head.

He reinforced that my own plan was to purely be a recreational once a month flyer....
so my focus should be on that, and as such they are looking for the safest choices,
don't focus on the mistakes, don't worry about trying to save things. if its not comfortable then breathe, reset and go again.
starting to feel tired and stressed - call it a day, there is no point in flying if I don't enjoy it.

And the instructor I was with yesterday reinforced that with a great pre-flight brief.
we are never in a rush in aviation - we do things quickly and efficiently, but never rushed

got up in the air yesterday,
nice little birthday present to myself.

weather was absolutely spectacular

hadn't flown in 6 months, or with this instructor. or the aircraft - normally fly its sister though so wasn't unfamiliar

so did some upper air work and then back to the circuit for some touch and go's.

Instructor was pretty hands off, made a few corrections mostly just talking me through things id forgotten or was rusty on (radio calls).
and once we had done stall's basically said as I'm licensed - it was all my choices how to return and join the circuit etc..

still cant believe they trust me to fly an aircraft. (I haven't actually done any solo time since getting my RPC - the next endorsement is the achievement to fly for)
instructor reckoned I was doing well, have a good feeling of the aircraft. just need practice to help with the procedural and mindsets
 

added stress, less finances, less free time.

I have stopped flying because A.) I cant afford it. B.) I feel too stressed with work/home life

I have a "training flight" booked for my birthday this month -  it will just be to get up and fly around the coast with an instructor making sure I dont kill us both.

I know I'm not keeping up my skills.

and wouldn't be safe flying solo at the moment. haven't been up in 6 months

sorry, but I still find the shoe such an ugly design

yeah, but the pots make no sense to me.

used to keihn/mikuni with the needle and jet.

got a local mechanic whos willing to take the job, but is waiting on a new bead blaster.

idea being that if we are going to do it - may as well clean it all up and make it nice

anyone want to rebuild my SU carbies?

the weight balance just looks like it shouldn't fly with those wings so far back.

always thought it was a cool plane, but little information on it.
 

same with Have Blue
built with leftover tooling from the C5, landing gear from an F5, engines from a T2 and fly by wire system from an F16
too bad both were lost in crashes

this is the Yamaha product I mentioned earlier.

works very well, unlike the sprays - not cheap though

https://www.citywestyamaha.com.au/product/yamaha-yamalube-carburetor-cleaner-dip-bottle-946ml-motorcycle-maintenence-etc/

Yamaha used to do a carby cleaning product that was the sh%T.
just fill an ice cream container and drop the carbies in overnight, loved by bike mechanics everywhere.

these days we used ultrasonic cleaners:

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/295183469452?chn=ps&_ul=AU&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1hVujQU3FQDy6fJ9MzxSIzg46&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=705-139619-5960-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=295183469452&targetid=1598469861838&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9070901&poi=&campaignid=19657035767&mkgroupid=143201283022&rlsatarget=aud-1175687084793:pla-1598469861838&abcId=9305369&merchantid=7364522&gclid=Cj0KCQjwvL-oBhCxARIsAHkOiu2kAeputT-OjtX-PVg7yFY88_2Z4xbdTeOC-QDxktyh-3KHqqd_3aYaAm4VEALw_wcB

might have to run it through a few times. especially if running mogas, it isn't what it used to be.

we noticed the fuel doesnt go off so much as turn to jelly now.

38 minutes ago, onetrack said:

The shape looks a little too much like the Bugatti 100P aircraft that was an aeronautical flop, and which ended in tragedy for the bloke who built the replica.

lets get facts right here.
that was a mechanical failure. was an overly complex powertrain design.
that they knew was flawed, didn't trust - but test flew anyway.
the controls worked until it was below the stall speed, and the pilot didn't drop the nose

“Clutch slippage occurred on the forward engine, causing a loss of power at a critical stage of the flight, making it impossible for the pilot to recover despite the best possible efforts he made.”

 

The fateful flight was filmed by a chase helicopter, adding to the trove of information available to investigators. The Bugatti 100P was powered by two engines connected to a pair of counter-rotating propellers at the nose of the aircraft. The power trains were complex, including drive shafts, gear boxes, and clutches for each engine and propeller, and the team had experimented with different designs. Both the NTSB and the team, dubbed Le Rêve Blue, conducted detailed and meticulous analysis of the data including control positions and instrument readings captured by video cameras in the cockpit.

Just after liftoff, Wilson raised the landing gear and the rpm surged on the engine powering the forward propeller. Investigators estimate that the airplane reached a maximum altitude of 80 to 100 feet. Based on cockpit video of the control inputs, the team believes Wilson was very much aware of the power loss, and the critically low airspeed and altitude. The team concluded, in the report written by van Dalen, that Wilson made a conscious decision to attempt to clear the airport fence despite rapidly decaying airspeed:

“We do not know for a fact why he made that decision, but the most likely explanation is as follows. Had he dropped the nose sufficiently to maintain airspeed above 70 (knots), his descent rate probably would have made it impossible for him to clear the fence. He would have been forced to belly land inside the fence, to cross uneven ground as he traversed the inside road, ploughed through the fence and then traversed the outside road. The uneven ground and the fence itself would have likely broken the fuselage and exposed him to the whirling drive shafts—a dreadful scenario that he referred to on several occasions. In short, it is likely that he consciously reduced airspeed below the stall limit because he judged it as the lesser of two evils. He must have decided that he might be able to belly land safely in the field beyond the fence.”

As airspeed decayed below stall speed, the airplane rolled “uncommanded,” first to the right and then left through inverted, the NTSB report states:

“As the airplane rolled through 90 (degrees) of left bank, the pilot placed both hands on the control stick and commanded a right roll with a positive pitch attitude. The airplane continued to roll left, the nose dropped, and a green field came into view out of the front of the windscreen.”

The wreckage came to rest inverted in a bean field less than 2,000 feet from the runway’s displaced threshold, about 1,000 feet from the nearest paved surface. A post-crash fire destroyed much of the aircraft, though data was recorded from all six cockpit cameras, with complete recordings from five of them.

It is not clear why Wilson did not add more power to the rear engine, which might have resulted in a positive rate of climb, but van Dalen noted that clutch slippage problems that the team had encountered during the development and test program might have undermined Wilson’s confidence that the power train, particularly the chain drive, would have held up under the increased load. It was also a decision made during just a few seconds that elapsed between liftoff and the crash.

“In case Scotty had decided to accept the risk of a chain drive failure and had applied full throttle on the rear engine, my performance estimation shows that a climb rate of 390 ft/min would have resulted,” van Dalen wrote.

source:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/november/30/power-loss-preceded-bugatti-crash

The Celera 500L is in testing
pretty close looking