dutchroll

You ignore recommended procedures at your own risk, and it's very frowned upon. In the pro aviation world if you do it repeatedly, you'll be invited for "tea and bikkies" with the Chief Pilot in no time - and by all accounts that's an awful lot less pleasant than it sounds. A colleague of mine went for tea and bikkies with the Chief Pilot once for an unrelated indiscretion (failing to show up for his flight due to a huge timing screwup - they had to get a replacement pilot). I saw him go in looking a bit nervous. He came out pale as a ghost and profusely sweating.

It's pretty clearly nothing to do with a tyre failure as initially reported. It's an uncontained engine failure.

Almost certainly "Sh^t that was close. I need a beer.....or three."

And video of the severity of the fire from another angle. Evacuated passengers still walking across the grass.

The American Airlines B767 after the fire had been extinguished. I'd suggest it might be a write-off.

Feet wet/dry is a unique military phrase and those types of unique military phrases still exist of course. "Cruising" became "maintaining" to avoid confusion with cruise-climb terminology (though airlines rarely ever use cruise climbs, but rather step climbs). "Departs" is just bad grammar - speaking in the 3rd person when you're referring to yourself. This is dutchroll's opinion anyway. In AIP anything which is non-ICAO standard phraseology is denoted with a solid black dot next to it. Most of our phraseology is ICAO standard. Adherence to standard phraseology by pilots varies around the world. I've spent my life flying internationally as well as domestically and non-adherence to it, unless in exceptional circumstances, tends to be confusing. I've heard a number of stuff-ups especially in compliance with ATC instructions overseas due to non-standard terminology. I imagine ATC find that quite irritating.

Having said all that, I've never been asked for a short airep in my career. We get a lot of ATC requests for "wind and ride" reports at high altitude, and spot wind checks close to the airport, but that's about it. Sometimes in gusty conditions they'll ask about windshear too, though we're supposed to report that (and turbulence) if it's significant. If it's different to what is on the ATIS we'll normally tell them anyway.

There are 4 components to a short AIREP. The 4th is any significant weather including severe or moderate turbulence, thunderstorms, moderate or severe icing, hail, line squalls, standing waves or winds of 40KT or more within 2,000FT of ground level. You're fired too.

If a transmission is clipped or unintelligible in any way which makes it uncertain as to whether it's relevant to you, people should be querying it. Notwithstanding that, basic radiotelephony teaches that you key the mic first then speak, not key and speak simultaneously. If pilots are regularly skipping the first word of their "traffic broadcast", then either they need a revision lesson on how to use the radio, or it's not working properly and they need to get it fixed!

It's not an AIP requirement to make that call. The references in AIP GEN 3.4-51 and 3.4-52 to "runway vacated" are for controlled airports where ATC instructs you report vacating the runway. If you want to do it at all uncontrolled airports go ahead - there's nothing to say you shouldn't, but it's not a requirement. The exception to this would be where something naturally prevents aircraft lining up from seeing where you are exiting then it becomes an airmanship thing as per the CAAP, and as previously mentioned by Ian on this thread, there might be certain airfields where it's recommended in their procedures. So yeah it may help an aircraft lining up for takeoff in some circumstances if he can't see where you taxied off, but how we got into discussing the possibility that it helps a landing aircraft, I'm not quite sure. Nothing......absolutely nothing......absolves the PIC of the aircraft on approach from ensuring that the runway actually is clear before he lands.

There's nothing prohibiting you doing it if you think it'll help. However I'd hate to see a "runway vacated" or "clear of runway" call become a substitute for situational awareness of other circuit traffic and what they're doing - especially the one in front of you. Incidentally I've had a guy in the circuit several months back call "clear of runway", followed by an aircraft (RAAus) at the holding point taxying out and lining up right in front of me while I was at about 100' on final approach. I couldn't quite believe my eyes, but that's how it happened (my bright orange biplane must blend into the sky pretty well). Simultaneously another aircraft on the ground called out "mate there's a biplane on short final!!" and I did a go-around. I found out later that this guy is a repeat offender, but the bottom line is that it didn't matter that the plane preceding me called "clear". The runway still wasn't.

It's really the intent of the "base, touch and go" call to tell you whether someone is staying in the circuit or not.

Regarding "Traffic xxxxxx" or "xxxxx traffic" I like the standard way. Opening the transmission with the location gives me an immediate heads-up that it's directly relevant and cues my attention. If you wanted to say it "non standard" thats up to you but I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to mount a safety case for it (ie that it's any safer than the standard way). You might argue that the first word could be clipped or whatever but then I'd argue you're not using your radio properly!

"How" to do it is a somewhat different problem compared to "when" to do it. Using standard phraseology is pretty straightforward and fairly important for mutual understanding between pilots, and pilots and ATC. As far as when to do it, the CAAP specifically states that pilots can use discretion in the number of broadcasts they make. That makes it pretty subjective! I see a tendency to make too many, including some relatively pointless ones, but there's also the opposite problem - none at all. I've never called "clear of the runway". The only person it's relevant to is the one immediately behind me in the circuit, and they should be specifically looking for me in front, as well as checking the runway is clear. If they really want to know, ask. If they're not sure, go around. Even in places like the USA where you can be cleared to land at a controlled airport with the runway still occupied by a preceding aircraft, it's entirely the landing pilots responsibility that it is clear before he touches down. I'm not particularly keen to regularly assume that responsibility on behalf of anyone behind me.

The ultimate aim of standard R/T phraseology is much the same as standard operating procedures. It's so you can know or predict to a reasonable precision what the other guy is saying or doing. Everyone stays on the same wavelength. This makes for a safer flying environment which wouldn't exist if you always had to second-guess everything. Of course, there are exceptions where you might need to modify it - for example it might not work in an emergency situation and you may just have to revert to plain language to convey the information. But by and large it's so we don't need to waste valuable brainspace trying to figure out "what the hell was he actually trying to say?"

"If it is necessary to evacuate the aircraft, you must leave all carry on baggage behind." Huh? What? Did that preflight announcement say something important? No.....it was just talking about the potential of carry on baggage to impede evacuation, block an exit, get caught and damage or deflate an escape slide so the people behind you tumble down and break their legs, cause you to stumble as you come off the slide bottom and face-plant on the tarmac, etc. Nothing important.

Well, at least the guy filming it got a reasonable distance away. Can't say that for several others, with a major fire after a rejected takeoff in a plane full of fuel.

Airservices fees are waived below a certain threshold anyway. It's called the General Aviation Option and if they determine that your projected FY usage will amount to $500 or less, the fees are all waived (Airservices ones that is, not airport landing fees charged by the airport owners). Other than that: Terminal navigation charges for controlled airports are up to about $15/tonne MTOW. Enroute navigation charges for aircraft < 20 tonnes are 90 cents x chargeable distance/100 x MTOW (in tonnes). RFF charges are a couple of dollars/tonne where applicable.

I manage to get it right usually but still once in a blue moon the brain and mouth disconnect. Part of being human unfortunately. Called joining for the wrong runway in the CTAF a few months back and my "downwind" was actually an "upwind" for the other runway. I knew where I was going geographically, ie, I wasn't actually joining for the wrong runway as far as wind etc goes, but the brain completely mistranslated it resulting in a hasty correction a few seconds later. Fortunately no-one was in the circuit, so only myself and the 300 odd people at last count from around Australia viewing this thread will ever know. (Pro-tip: if you stuff it up, get over it, re-gather your thoughts, and correct it). We were always taught from the early military days to be disciplined in our phraseology, and adhere to standard terms as per the AIP. I remember a number of occasions after the flight skulking off quietly to a corner at the suggestion of the PIC to re-read what I was actually supposed to say, versus the slightly out-of-order version which came out. This was a good habit to get into, as you'll be surprised what you pick up. Even today with R/T calls containing many "variables", like inbound calls, I find myself silently rehearsing in my head before transmitting. I personally find it easiest to break down what I'm supposed to say into manageable chunks of thought: 1) Who am I talking to and what is my callsign? 2) Where am I? 3) What am I proposing to do, or where am I going? Sorry....just realised roundsounds beat me to exactly the same advice!

Chewbacca would be referring to a hyperdrive. Scotty would be referring to a warp drive.

Around 700 Metros of all variants produced. Around 22 accidents/major incidents as far as I can tell. 3 were lost in midair collisions, so I think we can accept the aircraft wasn't at fault. A bunch have been lost on approaches in poor weather - usually pilot error (Crossair and Manx2 being classic examples). Continental Express 2286 was pilot error (Captain tested positive to cocaine). One had a major lightning strike and consequent electrical failure. A couple of engine failures/fires. Another flew into the middle of a thunderstorm and both engines flamed out. A few others I haven't bothered looking up the causes of. Nothing really glares at me as far as aircraft design problems go. Sure by GA light twin standards it's a fairly high performance aircraft and that generally has consequences in the GA and regional airline world which is run on a shoestring budget. However, implying that flying on a Metroliner is some sort of death-wish is a bit harsh and I think tending towards popular myth rather than reality.

Obviously you've never been to Asia........

Not the first turbofans, but the first production high bypass turbofans - the General Electric TF39. The B747-100 followed shortly after powered by the Pratt & Whitney JT9D. Both these new high bypass designs were actually developed concurrently for the C5A program but General Electric won the USAF contract. P&W then won the Boeing contract.

Important points to remember about weather forecasts: the only ones which are legally valid for your flight are the aeronautical forecasts (TAFs, ARFORs, TTFs, etc) which have validity periods covering your trip, plus the buffer period. an observation (like a METAR or an AUTO) is not a forecast. notwithstanding what's "legal" above, other weather including the observations, and just the general public weather forecast on the BoM website, are all very useful for your situational awareness. aviation forecasts are designed to be as accurate and succinct as possible - this is why they have limited validity periods and don't forecast weather 2 or 3 days from now. the longer aviation forecasts, e.g. the 24-30 hour TAFs, are restricted to major airports. meteorologists are human, and short term weather is by default somewhat chaotic (anyone living in Melbourne will agree!). Their aviation forecasts in my experience are usually pretty good, but occasionally they get it wrong. They're not really designed to be pessimistic or optimistic - just reasonably accurate, and the shorter and closer the time period, the more accurate they tend to be. If the forecaster has doubt he'll put a "PROB" (with percentage) in the TAF. Have a browse through AIP GEN 3.5 (Meteorological Services). If you're curious as to exactly what forecast services are available for a particular airport, it will be in the ERSA. Example: I'm going to Archerfield. In the ERSA entry for Archerfield it has a heading "Meteorological Information Provided" (just above the "Physical Characteristics" describing the runways). It says 1. TAF CAT B, METAR/SPECI, AD WRNG 2. AWIS..........(etc) So in AIP GEN 3.5, paragraph 3.4.3 it tells me what the aerodrome forecast categories are. I can see from the table there that a "Cat B TAF" is issued 6 hourly and is valid for 12 or 18 hours, with commencement times of 00, 06, 12 and 18 UTC. Also this line tells me Archerfield will issue METAR and SPECI observations, and of course aerodrome weather warnings. So now I know what sort of validity Archerfield will have and how often they update these forecasts. Flying to Bourke? Yeah I know, why would you....but let's say you are. ERSA entry for Bourke says 1. TAF CAT D, METAR/SPECI etc etc So the best you'll get for Bourke, according to that table in AIP, is a 6 or 12 hourly TAF valid for "up to" 12 hours, usually commencing at 2000 and 0200 UTC.

Hallo und herzlich willkommen!