M61A1

You shouldn't have holes in the floor where foreign oblects can go. A friend of mine died because of a coin jamming the controls. Nev

I just saw this in a different way......There will always be holes in aircraft floors, so making sure you don't have foreign objects to go in them is wise.....if you drop it, find it. I mentioned the graphic videos earlier, one of them depicted a Harrier (I think), unable to arrest it's rate of descent at a critical phase of flight, because of a tiny screw a tradey accidently dropped in the throttle quadrant.

 

 

You shouldn't have holes in the floor where foreign oblects can go. A friend of mine died because of a coin jamming the controls. Nev

I read that the early F4U Corsairs had no floor, only two channels for your feet to sit in, and that anything dropped disappeared somewhere into 3 feet of darkness.

As Dazza would attest to, in the defence force they really drum the dangers of FOD into you, with lots of graphic videos, daily FOD walks (clearing the flight line of anything that could cause damage), all FOD dropped in the aircraft reported and followed up with all trades FOD checks. That, being a tradesman, supervisor and an independent inspector of each trade- sumpies, framies, gunnies and the queer trades- elec, instrument and rad techs, all looking with a torch and mirror and either finding the object, or certifiying that they can't find it and that they have checked that it's not in any of their respective systems where it could cause harm.

 

 

You had to do the priming exactly according to temp. If you flooded it you needed a long time to start. Biggest worry if the throttle cable snapped or disengaged and you had a high speed throttle setting but the lever was on idle.

 

ratchet said: started to roll toward the hole in floor where joystick joins the control links

 

Lost into plane coins, pens, hair pins, tools all move around during aeorbatics. Do them high and have a chute.

I have known test pilots to do cockpit FOD checks by rolling inverted, give it a shake then pick up off the canopy what falls out.

 

 

An aquaintance of mine had the experience of having someone run into his tail rotor. A joyflight in a bell 206 went bad when, despite a briefing detailing the correct way to approach the aircraft, one of the passengers raced the other for a particular seat and tried to run through the tail rotor. He shut down as soon as he saw them run towards the back, but a 206 doesn't stop immediately. They didn't survive.

 

 

everyone knows Hi viz vests make everything safe. OH&S industry says so...

Some years ago I was supplying asphalt for a job site, that was shut down immediately after a concrete cutter was killed.........strangled when his hi-vis vest became entangled in his machine.

Bad enought to be getting that close to a moving prop.......but wearing a flappy vest as well?

 

 

Latest Insurance study findings.. 20121. Female drivers 18-30. Highest risk group. Aggressive, 60% more likely to text while driving, High levels of speeding. 80% of all first year female drivers will have an accident.

 

2. Male Drivers 30-45. Second highest risk group. Speed and Alochol.

Whoohoo.......I'm almost out of the 2nd group........and I don't drink.

I read some stats some years ago now, but they went on to talk about a demographic that almost 100% had crashed at some time. The group in question.......QLD police motorcyclists.

 

I hope things have changed.

 

 

I think you've got it back to front.If you train someone and he screws up, how would the Government be sued, and which Government.

 

If you train someone and he screws up and blames you, you will be sued, and a defence might be:

 

"I trained the student according to a formal, approved process"

 

"That process included the issue he made a mistake on, in Module 3"

 

"He was present for Module 3 training"

 

"I assessed him on completion of module 3 as meeting the standard for completion"

 

"I am qualified to do this as a holder of a Certificate IV in sword juggling"

 

The alternative is to imagine the plaintiff's lawyer asking you each of those questions

That's pretty much it.......Guy stuffs up-( or perhaps just does something not specificially covered by their process)

"we have a box ticked that says he was trained, so it can't be our problem"

 

Problems arise because the scope of training is inflexible, somewhat like a macca's cash register- it can't cope with anything out of the ordinary.

 

 

You wouldn't get the bit of paper if that was the case M1. Certificate IV is not as simple as depicted above. I looked into it and there was a substantial amount of study to be done. The only reason I didn't go ahead was that my work had moved away from direct sales.One thing I can promise you is that it isn't a Government CYA.

All govt jobs require Cert-whatever, therefore is CYA, meaning that when it goes wrong- "we've got all the boxes ticked, so it must be a problem somewhere else". Also have met many Cert-whatever instructors, some are good, many are very average, they got their bit if paper, but dont have the personal skills. The industry I'm in has changed to CertIV based, I do not believe for one moment that it has turned out better Aircraft tradespeople. I have CertIV in couple of trades, and all companies in my line of work require that, but at the end of the day, it has just been a box ticking exercise.

Perhaps a new thread required........we're way off topic, but worth discussing.

 

 

Don't bother me with that! I know what I'm doing. OK, got it. Let's go flying!

Sh&t!!!!. Why did it do that? Nev

A halfway decent instructor will notice the eyes glazing over, then perhaps go flying, make it do that..........then explain why it does it, while you've got their attention.I think it takes a certain personality type to instruct, whatever type that it is, it's not mine, I'm really crap at reading people. No bit of paper will ever change that.

 

 

I think that's what the Cert 4 course is partly about, not so much about the subject you're teaching but the subject of teaching - how to get the student to want to learn.

I think that is more likely what makes a natural teacher/instructor. The CertIV and other CERT concepts are purely about ticking boxes and providing a paper trail to cover arses, it does not and never will produce quality outcomes. The quality outcomes come from those who really want to do what they're doing, both instructors and students, and moreso the student, because a student that wants to learn will do so even if his instructor is not up to scratch. I think that there are three parasites sucking the life out of industry these days, the training system, quality system and the health and safety system. I don't see that these sytems actually provide any of these things, just a paper trail for our wonderful govt to use as a measuring stick to tell us how good they are and to make sure no-one sues them.

I have done a little low level training, spent most of the time between 5 and 50 feet, and 65kts(thats a bit of spare airspeed in a drifter). No flying over trees, gotta fly between them. I did really enjoy it even if it did take a bit of getting used to. The first couple of times the instructor wanted steep turns at 50 feet, had me a little concerned, but sure did make sure I flew balanced.

 

 

I think the Cirrus all have BRS fitted and the reason is that they could not demonstrate a safe recovery from a spin. they could not be certified as they were and the chute allows for certification. the chute is therefore not there for inflight break up but for saving your life in a spin. One of the firdt to use a chute ended up in a wheelchair, because the plane came down in a dam. The undercarriage didn't absorb part of the descent force as it would do on land.

One of the comments in the link I posted said that the Cirrus was quite safe to spin and had been tested but not certified.......the truth is out there.....somewhere.

Found the article I read, http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/, it would appear that it has little to do with recovery chutes. Perhaps a little of the stereotypical "Volvo driver" mentality- "I'm in the safest car I can be in, nothing can hurt me".

 

I think they(the chutes) are a good last resort, but I also think that some have been used as a first resort. The reality is though, that it is not up to me to decide when they should use it.

 

 

An aquaintance of mine once ended up inverted in the drink, due to a water landing being carried out with the gear extended. I seem to recall that he wrote a short article about lessons learned in the AUF mag (somewhere around '1996/97). I think he said there were two things he learned, one was that you need to wear your PFD, not keep it stowed on the a/c , as after you hit you wont know which way is up, while you come to grips with things. I can't remember the other thing.

 

 

I didn't realise they made pilots so dangerous. During the first world war, they banned pilots from wearing parachutes. Apparently, they made pilots a bit weak and lack the ticker to take the fight to the enemy!

From what I've read, despite being fitted with a recovery chute, Cirrus figure disproportionately in fatalities. I do not think the devices are a bad thing, but I think perhaps when the mentality changes from "last resort" to "first resort", that they are sometimes used when other options may have been safer or more prudent.

Interesting read, the mindset of a lot of the replies is a bit concerning. Particularly the one who said something along the lines of "at some stage you have realise you are just a passenger".

 

 

If your interested in fuel octane description and comparison then this may be of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas

Also... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas Down the page a bit explains the vapour pressure issue.

Guys,You really need to be careful when comparing Aviation octanes to Mogas ... Mogas measured differently to aviation fuels. You also need to be aware that US Mogas is also reported differently to Aust mogas.

 

A very rough but simple conversion +\- a few octane :

 

US mogas to Aus mogas add 5 octane

 

Avgas to Aust Mogas add 10 octane

 

This is not exact but will give you a feel for the magnitude

 

As for using automotive engine lubes or additive packs ... There is so much complex chemistry behind designing an engine lube, you will be playing Russian roulette by departing from the manufactures spec. .. Just don't do it. If a major oil company recommends a product you can be assured its has been careful designed and tested to do the job and meet all the OEM performance specs.

 

Cheers

 

Vev

I have read a few articles on the evils of mogas, most of them speak of the poor quality control, but I think the main advantage of avgas is that it is designed not to cause vapour lock at altitude (something to do with vapour pressure). Since I tend to stay under 5000' amsl, I don't think too much of it. As for the oil, if it works in my aircooled bike, in traffic, with no cooling airflow, I am prepared to run it (I do tend to avoid diesel oils in petrol engines though).I agree with boink about most aviation products, there is much better out there, aviation just hasn't kept up. An example that comes to mind are the 2 greases used on the Bell 206, there are many better lubricants than them in general industry. I have also had a major oil company rep recommend(for a particular application) and sell grease that was totally inappropriate and caused a lot of bearing failures. If I wanted to find out the best oils, I'd talk to one of their chemists.

 

 

Camel, Thanks for your input. I had a J160 few years back. Built from a kit when we lived in Bundaberg and flown from there until sold in 2008. My engine was a 2200 with solid lifters and the earlier heads (thicker fins)and we had to do a top overhaul at 150 hours due low compressions. We ran that engine on Shell W100 from new.Can you advise what type and grade of oil you are now finding is better? I am surprised you have managed to get the compressions back up with out any other work.

Cheers

I wouldn't rule out some of the improvement arising from using the 98 octane mogas. Quality mogas has additives that reduce deposits in the combustion chamber. After seeing the build up (from avgas) in my engine (not a Jab), I have been using 98 mogas, and have no significant deposits as yet.

Your early experience has fixed that in your method of operating and that is good. I say" don't fly over what you can't land on" which is similar but when you fly at low level across country your aim is to survive rather than guarantee a good landing. On unfamiliar territory you do look for the best opportunities and I even climb up in a spiral to get enough height to clear high terrain that is too rough if necessary to have the glide capability. I'm not sure the message gets through to all of todays aviators. Their risk taking genes may be more dominant. I SAY Only gamble when you can afford to lose. Nev

I get the impression, of late, that there are some pilots out there who believe that that fact that someone else built their aircraft and gave them a factory certification, will mean that all the safety implications fall back on the manufacturer or their maintainer, and that there is no responsibility on their part to operate the machine in a manner that will provide a margin of safety(in regard to engine failure). I do think that it is up to the pilot to decide the level of risk they are willing to accept, but they also need to remember they are deciding for their passengers also. For myself, my meager craft is not expensive, but I can't afford to replace it, I can less afford to be injured unnecessarily. So for me it is "don't fly over what I can't land on", as well as having a place already chosen, so as to give myself the best chance of no damage to myself or my aircraft.

Me Too, I hinted a few times that I should accompany the test pilot on a F111 post maintenance test flight but I never got the nod.

I did get a brief (20min) spin in a pig once, but not after maintenance (although a friend of mine got himself on a test flight after a single engine change- involves going really fast to test the whole envelope), mine was when I was posted out of the squadron.

I don't know too many engineers who are in jail!

I have heard of them being jailed in other countries, usually as a result of largely contributing to fatalities. I imagine it would be necessary to prove that LAME was deliberately negligent, and that the negligence in question was a major causal factor in a fatal or serious injury type incident. I have an LAME aquaintance who runs a workshop, he told me his insurance costs are around 48k annually. You'd want to make some serious money to make that worthwhile in my eyes.

Any body could fly the "tiger" way back. It was what everyone did their first solo on.. Now you have to be Captain Marvel or something, to fly it. Judy Paye (sp?) had the best description I have ever seen of what that plane is. I have always regarded it as "only" what it is. A rather crude and unperforming early trainer. While a lot of people regard it with some affection ( as do I), it's far from inspiring. It DID produce some good pilots, but did not relate much to aircraft they flew subsequently. The RAAF certainly saved money with that as a trainer. How more basic could you get? I got to fly it when there were plenty around that nobody wanted and to instruct in it, because no-one wanted to, at a time when it had been removed from the register as a PRIMARY trainer.. Then I learnt fast, and I am glad for the experience. Try teaching someone who has ONLY flown centre line thrust Jets and hardly knows what the rudder is for.....Nev

Different "Tiger", I should have been clearer......"Eurocopter ARH Tiger"

Anyway, I remember that, long long ago at Casey Airfield in Vic, the engineer ALWAYS flew with the pilot / owner after maintenance, thereby placing his A**e as well as his signature on the paper. . . . is that idea no longer in vogue ??

I work as a civvy on military aircraft, at the last company I worked for it was expected that if you have completed maintenance, you would also be flying in the aircraft (Bell 206).

I wish that was the case with my current employer, but the aircraft type can't take passengers, I'd love to go for a fang in a Tiger.

 

 

I think thats an AN2???? In any event clearly you dont need to do oil changes on those beasts, they would seem to throw oil out at a rate that exceeds an overfull JAbby???? Must be a couple of litres of oil all over the underside and leading edges.........

Won't have any corrosion issues though........