Deano747

Story quite a while back - may be false but good story anyway. When the Americans first went to space together, the American Astronauts were showing off their space pens (remember those?) that could write in zero gravity. They were bragging that they spent $25 million developing them and smugly asked what the Russians used. They reply given with a little shrug "We use pencil .... only 25 cents...."

Sad for you .........

The pencil can be problematic with securing so it doesn't escape while using. Life can be poor - I have had 2 pencils fail in 3 years ...... H2B's last a lot longer and cheaper. You run the risk of deleting stuff on a page to get more writing in that you later wish you hadn't. One more thing that requires charging and prone to overheat shutdown - particularly in an exposed cockpit as yours. Google how many have reverted back to a pencil & paper for note taking. Good luck with your final decision from one who did .......

Agree. The speed of the rotation is too fast for a tail rotor failure. All rotary wing pilots are trained and practice tail rotor failures (both full left and full right pedal) and while they can make life interesting, are not impossible to control. An aviation accident blogger interviewed a US test pilot with some 7,000 hours on rotary wing and said the mast bump theory as unlikely as there has only been 1 documented accident with mast bump on a 206 in that models history. In that case the tail boom separated at the far end and not near the cabin in these videos. Also in that case, a large portion of the main rotor blade sheared off and in these videos it has been pointed out that the rotor blades appear complete and attached to the mast and what appears to be a portion of the transmission. He, quite rightly, is saying that no-one will know until all the wreckage is recovered and inspected. A transmission failure would give a yawing motion of that severity.

Really unlikely to be mast bumping given that a fair portion of the gearbox came out with the rotor. Very different failure pattern and the 206 not really prone to it. The 204/205 could be induced to mast bump if badly mishandled or severe turbulence. (For reference, I have some experience both as an RAAF airframe fitter and later as a pilot on the 204/205)

Like this a lot - the visual representation is easier than imagination. Great start on what could become a very useful tool. It only seems to work at out Capital cities primary airports in Oz though. OzRunways EFB does what you want in filtering out extraneous data and only gives the required details for your route. It has been bought by Boeing, so the software for this may find its way into your Foreflight.

Question for the admins - how does one block a topic?

Yes - edited my post. All areas does not include onboard .......

An ASIC for aviation related industries has your company name on it - it IS your company ID ........... Tradies ID's are not getting ypo past the door. Do you believe that they would get a chippie to fix a seat or a plumber fix a toilet?

No airline employee is going to let anyone on as a passenger with a very obvious tool belt full of sharp pointy things. Tradie is never getting that stuff in the cabin. Only a LAME working for the airline with an appropriate security pass visible is going to be permitted on board with tools to fix something, but never allowed to remain unsupervised even with the pass, or permitted to stay until doors close. Boarding pass has been bandied about by the media that really know very little about aviation nor security .............though I did hear my old colleague mutter boarding pass on National TV. (suspect he has been hanging around the media too much)

Try dropbox. It works to copy routes between my iPad, iPhone and MacBook laptop. Might work in reverse.......

Mate - give it rest. The absence of an ASIC worked as intended. Sorry ........

The actual fact is that the person was questioned because he was not displaying an ASIC. ASIC seemed to have worked - probably to the horror of some that decry it's effectiveness ............

Sorry - we assumed that this was a rhetorical question. 1) A VFR flight must submit a flight plan when operating in class C or D airspace, so a flight plan was required to depart Darwin. MOS 09.02 Rule has been around since at least 1978 though the reference was different back last century......... 2) A flight plan may be submitted by radio if you do not have online access or a phone. Airservices - forget the reference

I don't have concerns besides the 'experts' looking for their 15 seconds of fame. The crash occurred because the Blackhawk crew failed to follow the 'don't crash into the airplane' instruction. The 'how and why that happened' should be left to real experts and not those seeking likes .......