dutchroll

This is true. And without a CVR or FDR we never will. However they actually have an eyewitness (in addition to the one I quoted) who saw the plane impact the water. At very low altitude, at a steep angle of bank, with power on. In really crappy weather. Read into that whatever you like.

Seriously? I mean......really?

Same. Done it several times. I remember a pax jolly I was doing not long ago: "Ah bugger, this weather is a bit more average than I thought.........sorry mate, nothing wrong with the plane but I'm pulling the power right back (we entered light rain showers and high rpm will strip paint off the propeller), and heading straight back to the airfield. We'll do this another day." Very easy. No one gets hurt, plane is good, and the passenger gets another much more enjoyable flight later.

Fully loaded. Weather overcast at 600 ft in rain showers all day. Hit the water hard. Eyewitness heard "roar" of engine. No distress call. Seems to have been VFR (no flight plan). All "experienced" weekend pilots. Hmmm. Jesus, people. Sometimes when you've planned to go flying in a small plane you need to look outside and say: "You know what? It's not that important. Why don't we go to the pub and have a countery?" If you don't make that decision, you get another chance. When you're 400 ft above the water or ground and you still have minimal separation from the cloud, and conditions ahead are not getting any better and there are no gaps of any description to be seen and there are rain showers everywhere, it's time to take your second chance to say: "you know what? It's not that important. Let's turn around and go back, and have a countery."

An unfused short on an SLA would possibly be spectacular, at least along the path of the short circuit. But what possible scenario in an aircraft would result in it being unfused or having a long length of unprotected "fat" wire which could short it this way? That would violate even the most basic electrical system installation principles. SLA batteries have a long track record in safe aircraft operation. Li batteries (of all types) don't. Maybe one day they will. But at the moment they don't. I recall a discussion once about a very new type of surgery versus an older but very reliable method of the same surgery. I agreed with the sentiment that it would be preferable to let them experiment on someone else, not myself. When it became more mainstream with a proven track record, sure let's consider it!

Well it's true that it didn't catch fire......

Dunno whether that's a terribly sensible argument. When hail hits your car, it doesn't know it's there. When some idiot hits your car, they either did know it was there, or should have known it was there.

Yeah I've read that media report and I'm sceptical. I hope to be proven wrong, but I'm sceptical (I'm not sceptical for no reason, either).

The latest report linked above states that there was no indication of any structural failure. There's also something about that photo on the FB page linked above which concerns me. I won't go into details on that here. I hope my thoughts on the possible accident cause turn out to be wrong too. You know, even when you're earning income from it, there are sometimes days when it's just not worth getting airborne in a very small plane.

Good lesson KG. There's nothing inherently wrong with flying VFR when there's cloud about. But the VFR pilot then needs to get very conscious of what that weather is doing, where it's going, and what his options are at all times. I encountered the following scenario late last year on my way back from the Temora airshow. The departure weather was blue sky everywhere, but the forecast for the east coast and Hunter area was increasing scattered and broken cloud at around 2000-3000ft, and rain showers in some areas. So what did I do? 1) I filled up the aux tank with fuel, which I hadn't originally planned to do. My planning showed that main tank fuel should be sufficient with reserves, but I had the weight available to fill the aux just before departure, so given the cruddy weather forecast, I did. This gave me nearly 90 minutes extra endurance. 2) I checked the weather forecasts for 4 or 5 different airfields near my planned route and destination. This gave me a good idea of which ones I could turn back to or divert to.......and which ones I probably couldn't. 3) I went high while the weather was good in the first part of the flight. This gave me a good view further down track to see what the cloud cover was doing. 4) When I saw off in the distance that it was going from scattered, to broken, to what appeared to be overcast, I descended early so as not to get trapped on top. I also saw that if I altered my north-easterly route further to the north, I could stay away from the overcast cloud for much longer. Also in that direction I had a good airport available with a reasonable weather forecast (Mudgee). 5) Eventually ending up under the broken cloud I kept a keen eye up ahead to ensure I wasn't heading towards any darker grey areas, any of the scattered showers, nor towards higher terrain. I had to do a few turns here and there to check behind me and make sure the weather wasn't closing in. Every so often I would update the recorded actual weather at destination and my alternates on my iPad (OzRunways). I had to alter my track a number of times to maintain a sensible course away from lower cloud patches while getting closer to the relative safe-haven of the lowlands of the Hunter Valley. Does my plane have an attitude indicator? Yep. Why? Because I can, and it was convenient for a GPS slaved heading reference. Am I instrument rated? Yep. Is my plane IFR capable? Nope. Would I fly it in cloud or less than 5km vis? Only if I made an enormous stuff-up!

If you had an autopilot, yes engaging it in IMC is a good idea. It will at least give you attitude stabilisation and dramatically reduces workload. Hand flying in cloud is not really any fun, even for an experienced instrument rated pilot. It's a fair amount of concentration and hard work to keep the plane pointed where it's supposed to be, and it's really easy to quickly screw it up if you get distracted. But it always comes back to basics - if you're a VFR pilot, just stay out of it. If it's closing in ahead of you, there's no point in continuing in that direction!

I agree. Dick certainly can't be considered "conservative" nor "leftist" either. He has a mix of progressive social views while being staunchly pro small business. I disagree with some of his views and proposals on aviation, but by all accounts he's a thoroughly decent person.

Anyone who has done the RAAF Institute of Aviation Medicine course on spatial disorientation, including those in the civilian world who've been lucky enough to do it or similar training courses involving things like the frictionless rotating chair, can tell you exactly how much your body lies to you in the absence of visual cues. It lies a lot. It takes a fair deal of conditioning to enable people to trust their instruments over their non-visual senses, and to react to changes in their instruments while ignoring those senses. We know you can read an altimeter and an ASI, and probably even an attitude indicator. But can you put all those together in the right order and against what your body is telling you? Do you have the training and discipline to devote the pre-requisite 80%+ attention to your attitude indicator, and the remaining 20% or less attention to "the rest" of your instruments in the radial scan pattern? If not, stay well clear of cloud!

It's not really correct to talk about big jets in terms of "flight idle" and "ground idle". These are turboprop terms related to blade angle and governing, and are distinctly different from how idle thrust is controlled in big jets. On the ground and in flight, a jet has but one "idle" setting, with two exceptions. When the thrust levers are at "idle" (there is only "idle" position on the throttle quadrant) so too are the engines. There is always residual thrust in this position in the air and on the ground. It is quite considerable, on most modern jets at least. Certainly enough to get you moving on the ground without touching the throttles at all but the heavier weights. In the air it makes your glide distance longer than if you had them shut down. Exception 1: In both Airbus and Boeing aircraft, when certain conditions are satisfied to indicate that the aircraft is on approach, the engines will automatically switch to an "approach idle" mode. This is a higher idle setting, to allow for less spoolup time in the even of a go-round with idle thrust selected. Exception 2: Idle setting increases automatically with the anti-ice/de-ice systems turned on to compensate for bleed air demand. In the case of the Boeing aircraft (including the B777), that setting is the same as the "approach idle" setting. Other than those cases, idle is pretty much idle.

Don't worry......I have a number of relatives in the USA including an Uncle who emigrated there early in life, all of his family, and my sister who has lived there for more than 20 years. We send her "Red Cross" packages of Vegemite and Violet Crumble. I have visited numerous times. Try telling an American when you're talking about football that "kicking a behind" is pretty common, but disappointing.

Oh don't get me started on the American spelling of "aluminum" (which doesn't conform to the standard spelling principles of elements in the Periodic Table). Just gotta be different, don't ya'?

Melbourne runway 34 trying to land an Airbus 330 on a stinking hot day in a 30-45 knot gusting northerly - all headwind but the most bloody frightening experience! It's not pleasant trying to fight a fly-by-wire sidestick controlled large plane with glider-like wings onto the ground (especially an up-sloping runway like 34) in those conditions. There were a number of go-rounds that day from various aircraft as I recall.

-56 deg C is correct for 62,000 ft in an ICAO standard atmosphere. The relationship between TAT, SAT and Mach Number is: TAT = SAT x (1 + 0.2M^2) The formula assumes temp measurements in degrees Kelvin, so the conversion is: -56 C + 273 = 217 deg K TAT = 217 x (1 + 0.2x4) = 217 x 1.8 = 390.6 deg K Converting from degrees Kelvin back to C 390.6 - 273 = 117.6 deg C So given the TAT should be about 117 deg C, you would expect the skin surface temperature to also be about 117 deg C as the aircraft skin is affected by the same compressibility and friction as the temperature probe.

Air friction and compressibility at jet cruise speeds does indeed warm the skin considerably, although this may or may not be conducive to icing depending on the circumstances. The definition of "icing conditions" is pretty universal in the big jet world because it's simply defined by physics. Specifically, most operations manuals state the following (or equivalent words): "Icing conditions exist when visible moisture is present (clouds, fog, rain, etc) and the TAT is at or below 10 deg C, except during climb and cruise where SAT is below -40 deg C" On the ground, simply substitute "outside temperature" for TAT. In other words, if your aircraft skin temperature is less than 10 deg C you are susceptible to ice formation. However actual outside temperatures below -40 deg C are considered too cold to be conducive to ice formation on the aircraft surface. TAT = Total Air Temperature = temperature measured by the temperature probe on the aircraft surface. The faster you go, the higher this is because the air in the probe gets a "ram rise" (proportional to the square of your Mach number). This number is significant to pilots because it is equivalent to the actual temperature of the aircraft skin. SAT = Static Air Temperature = temperature of the air measured by the probe if the probe wasn't moving (essentially should be equal or close to the actual outside air temperature). Ain't no planes on this forum which will have to worry about TAT, nor which will avoid icing conditions by going where the SAT is < -40 deg C!

In some heavy jets that's approaching the maximum crosswind limit. A Boeing 767 (typical landing weight say 120-130 tonnes) has a 25 knot limit on a wet runway and 30 knot steady-state limit on a dry runway. And we don't exceed the published crosswind limits under any circumstances. But yeah most light aircraft would have a bit of fun (!) trying to land in that.

We frequently joke about Sydney's noise sharing policies which result in runway allocations with tailwind, or 25 knots crosswind which would be 100% headwind on the cross runway. Not so much a drama for takeoff but a pain in the backside for landing.

Ok, just gonna put my YSSY-based airline pilot hat on here. Bahahahahahahaha! Into wind? Seriously? Change the runway so that it's into wind? Bahahahahahahaha!

25 years of aviation and I never try to give bearings/radials. I'll happily do it if asked, but when I'm inbound, listening for traffic, trying to figure out where everyone else is, working out rejoin positioning, etc etc, I don't need to waste time working out a bearing. "10 miles south east........." is enough info. Unless you're IFR and IMC, generally no one cares if you're on the 143 radial or the 136 radial.

Mesothelioma is not dose related. Asbestosis is dose related. In other words, depending on which asbestos related disease you're referring to, there may be no "minimum" fibre inhalation level below which you're safe. This is why people are pretty wary of even small amounts (and sure, it's low risk if the fibres are still clearly bound, but not if the binding material is damaged). And some people who worked with asbestos and never had problems are just lucky, like the occasional person who smokes their whole life and lives to 90. It's a roll of the dice. Feeling lucky today? Bears careful consideration.......

Not sure if you've ever seen someone in their final stages of life with mesothelioma (the only known cause of which is asbestos exposure) but I can assure you that it's not a particularly pleasant experience.......