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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

About Manwell

  • Rank
    Well-known member

More Information

  • Aircraft
  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sure, but when he makes it public, and pushes it on others, then it does. I'd agree with you about him not saving QANTAS too. His job is to destroy it, and since it wasn't built in a day, much like Rome, it takes a while to trash.
  2. Have to agree with you there turbo! Especially if they're on the receiving or extorting end of Govt largesse. Just judging by a person's attitude to Govt, it's pretty easy to tell which side they're on, isn't it?
  3. turbo, you can assume whatever you like about me, but all you have to do is ask and I'd tell you the answer. I've had enough experience with the people who make up Governments to know exactly what I'm talking about. For example, I know enough to know that they wouldn't be averse to funding social media shills to promote the Govt line and keep us tax slaves in line.
  4. Thanks turbo, I am happy. Happy that I no longer live in a fantasy world of my own making. Govt only exists by creating the illusion that only they can fix the problems that they actually created in the first place, and once enough of us get that through our thick skulls, we really do have a chance to live free of delusion and the many associated dramas that come along with flawed thinking. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem."
  5. turbo, if you really believe Joyce has helped QANTAS, you simply don't understand anything about human nature long term. It may have been Eddington who was first cast to destroy a great airline, if so, he certainly started the ball rolling by merging Australian into QANTAS to sweeten it up for sale. It was then handed to Joyce to continue what's known in economics as the "creative destruction" of a great company with a perfect safety record, and a solid culture. If Qantas is making money, it's due to it's sound fiscal management, long term relationships and past record, but those only last so long. Joyce is slowly killing it with kindness, and his recent "marriage" is a clue to how he's doing it.
  6. If the man from Govt says I'm here to help you, you know you're about to be screwed. I'll give some examples that is a reason to abandon a fantastic opportunity offered by Govt. Just one should do. It's offered by Govt.
  7. Well, I'll be damned. You mean people don't know how to do that economically yet? I guess it would be a bit disruptive to the oil and Govt illusion. It's not rocket science, ya know. It's submarine science ...
  8. Considering every possible engine design and fuel source, and since we mostly have ICE's already, the best fuel source would have to be water. Most bang for buck by far, and zero emissions. Hydrogen/Oxygen.
  9. I don't get your point Space. What "school education", and how would they learn how to fly if they didn't spend anything on practical lessons?
  10. You're absolutely right Space. Without all the bureaucracy, we would have learned how to fly a damn sight better than we do now. Yes, it is like riding a bicycle, and it really should be that simple.
  11. Here it is Wirraway. This post refers to the title, How to Fly. Your reply describes how to get a license and maybe even a career driving aircraft around the sky, not how to fly. Don't let that discourage you though. Have another shot.
  12. Manwell


    Thanks for the info gents. I can see if you have "great big airbrakes", carrying excess speed wouldn't be a problem. In slippery powered aircraft though, carrying an extra few knots for mum and kids ends up putting pilots in the danger zone of low and slow for longer, which increases the risk of an untidy arrival, rather than reducing it. The listed approach speed already has a safety factor built in, and the more conservative pilots become, the more likely they'll end up coming unstuck. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but think about it like this - if you try to insure yourself against accidents by taking the easy way too much, you'll never develop the skills needed in a real emergency and won't be able to handle it when the inevitable happens. This was illustrated in James Reason's Swiss Cheese model of accident causation, where there were two slices of Swiss Cheese with holes in them, and all that needed to happen was for one of the holes in each piece to line up for an accident to result. It was also contained in the old adage about pilots starting their career with 2 cups - one empty, and the other full. The full cup was filled with luck, and the empty one was for experience. The trick is to fill the cup of experience before the cup of luck runs out, and that doesn't happen if you avoid improving skills. There was another old saying about the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations requiring the use of his superior skills, and that's true too!
  13. Manwell


    Don't you see 150% of stall speed while trying to land as a potential problem too Bruce?
  14. Manwell


    Any problem has a simple solution Nev, and then experts and authorities jump on the bandwagon. If there is a persistent problem in any system, the last place you'd look is where the cause is found. Using a building analogy, if walls or ceiling start cracking, we know it's not the walls or ceiling that are the problem, and the same is true with every other persistent problem. Where we're looking for answers isn't where the answers are, they're usually much deeper in the foundations that have been laid so long ago they're forgotten. In this context, the whole problem stems from a poor appreciation of aircraft manoeuvrability in the transition to stall and below. The first corrective action is to give pilots sufficient exposure to flight at stall speeds that they instinctively "know" when an aircraft is mushing, and how it responds to more back stick, more power, not enough rudder, or too much aileron. This is initially done at altitude until proficiency is gained, then over the runway as low as possible without touching. Eventually the aircraft does touch down even if it's intentionally held off, and this gives pilots a feel for the ground while looking outside. Those problems with coffin corner and absolute ceiling could easily be experienced in the aircraft without risking aircraft as long as the pilots are disciplined. Of course, insurance and bloody do-gooders would spoil that if we allow them to dictate terms, and that would take real guts to resist.
  15. Manwell


    Right, people still stall without knowing their weight, G, or stall speed Nev, but they don't need to know any of those. Elevator position is one part of the puzzle that enables a pilot to "know" when they're about to stall, but it's not the only one. The others include high pressure on the bum, followed by a loss of pressure, wind noise and control feel. THE ONLY WAY for a pilot to become attuned to the various factors is through experiencing them, and it's not that hard, or risky to do so provided it's done methodically.
  • Create New...