Thirsty

Winsor - "Because ignorance is not OK. GET IT!" Who the hell are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't think? I haven't expressed an opinion on this debate so you have no idea what I think about immigration! What I object to is someone trying to jam their opinion down someone else's throat. I quite like the odd Irish joke but I don't think all irishmen are idiots. The originator of this thread posted something he thought was funny - I thought it was funny too but it doesn't mean I think we should sink all the boats carrying immigrants coming to Oz.

Lighten up a little.

Geez why do you continue to post on this thread if it's so offensive to you? Are you trying to convert us to your way of thinking or your version of the truth?? Leave me alone to enjoy what I want. I for one support free speech even if it may offend some.

I agree Metalman -if you don't like this kind of humour don't read it! I'm a bit sick and tired of being told what I can and can't say.

Not the mechs fault!! The armourers should have safetied the ejection mechanism. I worked on Canberras when I first joined the RAAF in 1980 and any ejection mechanism was always made safe before any work was carried out.

Looked a bit like a dynamic rollover. You can see it oscillating which can happen if the skids were on the ground. Will have to watch it more closely when I get home.

I reckon there are other reasons than the technical side for CASA wanting Military tradesmen to pass the civilian tests to gain their licence. Probably something to do with the military culture and the methodology the military use to train their tradesmen. I'm ex RAAF and started doing exams to obtain my licence but then changed careers and went IT. Being a good LAME/L2 isn't just about technical knowledge, it's also about being able to apply what you know.

Not teaching you to suck eggs, just my take on that issue.

Just done Wylkatchem to Adelaide via Forrest and can't recommend Forrest enough. Avgas was dear but the people running the place a really nice. Stay the night and you'll get fed tea and breakfast plus a room for around $135 per head. Claus is the guys name and he'll be there to meet you when you call inbound.

Oh yeah, it's Virgin's alternate when they fly the bight so the runways are really long tarmac in perfect condition.

Turbocharging isn't necessarily about more power. It is used also to keep making the same power as you gain altitude. I agree though that turboing the jab engine isn't really the best option. Bolt on a Subaru EJ20T if you want lots of turbo power :)

An old timers trick in model building is to build in a tightly rolled up garbage bag (usually in the rear of the fuse) - comes in mighty handy when you have to walk several hundred metres to the crash site and your model is in a million bits!

So who can explain how an SAE research team discovered that deglazing or honing is not a good idea? Maybe the principles are different for aircraft engines? I've always thought honing was a good idea when putting new rings into an old cylinder and I've always believed the cross hatching produced when honing properly would hold an oil film to help with lubricating the rings as they travelled up and down the bore.

BUT

we can't just refute the SAE report I reckon. Maybe we've all been doing it wrong all these years.

A future career in flying helicopters - haha. If you've got about $80K to spend and a couple of years out in the sticks doesn't worry you maybe! I've done a fair bit of flying helicopters and it is heaps of fun but as a career it's really for the very determined or the rich.

Yenn, can't say too much but that technology is alive and well and will be hitting the skies one day (hopefully soon). It's computer controlled between the aircraft in the formation - that's the hard bit to do!

It seems a very common theme with the Porter and skydivers. I've seen this kind of thing many times and it is very obviously intentional. The good old porter is a very forgiving aircraft and it makes great footage watching it spin down besides the divers.

Well kind of, except in this case there should have been at least 3 sets of eyes checking for obstacles! These helicopters have a BIG rotor diameter and it takes more than just the pilot to make sure they're safe. The strike happened on the co-pilots side so it was mostly his responsibility in this case.

I work for CHC Helicopters who own/operate that Puma. There's more to the story than what you read.

1. The crew of this chopper had never been to this aerodrome before.

2. A fixed wing aircraft had started taxiing down this taxiway at the same time they were so the chopper crew were trying to make way.

3. The pole was not marked in any way - you would normally expect to see an obstruction like that marked with yellow/black stripes.

The pilot is not really in trouble - probably the rear cabin crew are more in trouble as they are the pilot's eyes to some degree when on the ground or hovering close to objects on the ground.

The aircraft has been written off - virtually nothing but a couple of avionics boxes were salvageable due to the nature of the strike.

There is video of this somewhere - can't find it at present. Maybe on pprune??

Very sad indeed. The pilot had many years and many hours of experience so to me it seems like it could possibly have been mechanical failure. I guess time will tell. Very upsetting for the families for sure.

Yeah me too. I wrote up one of my own a while back when I was in the RAAF.

I was doing a "C" check on an Iroquois and was up in the hell-hole inspecting all the flight control bellcrank bearings when I found one that was seized solid. I wrote it up as "Bear seized in hell-hole"! In my defence there wasn't much room to write on the form hence the abbreviation (and why is that such a long word!).

I'm sure some of these are real!

Some actual maintenance complaints submitted by US Air Force pilots, and the replies from the

maintenance crews.

Problem: Target Radar hums

Solution: Reprogrammed Target Radar with the lyrics

Problem: “Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.”

Solution: “Almost replaced left inside main tire.”

Problem: “Test flight OK, except autoland very rough.”

Solution: “Autoland not installed on this aircraft.”

Problem: “The autopilot doesn’t.”

Signed off: “IT DOES NOW.”

Problem: “Something loose in cockpit.”

Solution: “Something tightened in cockpit.”

Problem: “Evidence of hydraulic leak on right main landing gear.”

Solution: “Evidence removed.”

Problem: “DME volume unbelievably loud.”

Solution: “Volume set to more believable level.”

Problem: “Dead bugs on windshield.”

Solution: “Live bugs on order.”

Problem: #2 Propeller seeping prop fluid

Solution: #2 Propeller seepage normal - #1 #3 and #4 propellers lack normal seepage

Problem: “Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm descent.”

Solution: “Cannot reproduce problem on ground.”

Problem: “IFF inoperative.”

Solution: “IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.”

Problem: “Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.”

Solution: “That’s what they’re there for.”

Problem: “Number three engine missing.”

Solution: “Engine found on right wing after brief search.”

Problem: Aircraft handles funny

Solution: Aircraft warned to straighten up, “fly right” and be serious

Wonder what their insurance company would say?

HH - once you get your RAA cert you'll need 25 hours PIC time (RAA time that is) as well as the 20 hours min instructor rating dual time to get your instructor rating. You'll also need to complete the min 30 hours ground training course.

I'm going thru the process now and it's heaps of fun!

No idea - I would say yes but that's just a wild guess. If you have one it probably means you haven't flown for a long while which means you'd need to get checked out but it's still a licence right?

The PPL proves 33 hours + the 70 odd I have in RA now (including the min 25 hrs PIC) gives me the 100 hours total I need.

Luckily I have my PPL so I can at least prove the minimum hours so I'm happy!

Thanks Merv, I'll do all that.

Hi Merv,

I have about 70 hours on my PPL and 70 on my RAA cert. My problem is I don't have my PPL logbok so all I can prove is that I have done the min req to get the PPL.

So, I have a total of just over 100 hours total aeronautical experience and of those about 35 PIC in RAA.

My reading is that I have met the min requirements but I was just checking here because instructors where I fly interpret that section differently.