Garfly

True, but they're not all that common.

Ian, have you heard if the Goulburn Council is in favour of - or insisting on - the land being retained as the town's airport by any new owner?

Fair enough, but if you're on mid-downwind, say, and your fear is about converging traffic on base (like the incident recounted by RFGuy a while back) then a more urgent exit might be called for: an early crosswind for an upwind rejoin, or a dive away or a climb?

I guess the first priority is to escape the danger; go away until things calm down or clarify. I suppose that'd be off on the dead side. There is always 'overhead' the circuit but if there's more than one up there, it might be more dangerous than the (limited) order imposed by the 1000' agl of the circuit itself, no?

I wonder if there's an agreed best-way to bug-out of a circuit if you suddenly sense you might collide with a nearby craft you've not got eyes on. Obviously, it depends on what you do know but I suppose neither climbing nor descending nor turning - nor changing speed - is any guarantee that you won't actually cause the crash you're fearing. Maybe breaking away in whatever direction you have best all-round sight of is the best one can do, no? (Until universal ADSB becomes a thing.) But even short of sensing imminent danger, what's the best way to gracefully bow out of a circuit when you become uncomfortable or situationally unaware? What to do and what to say?

AT THE ENQUIRY the law would SEEM the least of my problems. Like Jimmy Stewart in Flight of the Phoenix, I'd be overwhelmed with guilt.

On-airport fuel sources are plentiful, Mogas 95/98 sources not so much. The problem is easier to understand when it involves flyers keen to keep their 912s lead free. (Cue THAT debate. ;- )

Well, even at places like Armidale (YARM) and Taree (YTRE) where servos are just outside the airport fence, you could still have maybe 200 metres, or more, to lug your 40 L of fuel. So , yes, it seems some solution is needed. I've been nutting out a system for long trips which includes one - or two - 20L bladders plus one rigid 10L plastic can (which I think I just have room for). I'll use one of those small 6v transfer pumps (4XAA cells) to decant into the 10L can for pouring down the aircraft's filler throat (up on the turtle deck) via Mr. Funnel. I'll do it that way because I have an aversion to wrangling any 20L fuel container atop a ladder - especially a bladder which may well gush forth at the slightest slip. Anyway, 20L bladders are easier to handle, when full, than I'd imagined (down on the ground, that is); even sort of standing up by themselves. And I've found that if they're set down and lashed to the lift strut they're just as secure as rigid ones during transfer pumping The small battery powered pump routine is slower than just pouring but I find it a calmer, less accident prone method. And you might only have to use it once since a half empty 20 is but a 10 by default ;- ) Anyway, spurred by your scenario, Freizy, I've now gone for one of these Samsonites on Amazon. Wheels are a bit bigger and it looks a bit tougher than the other one.

Definitely not an illuminato but I've pondered the same scenario myself. How about one of these? Weighs in at 1.25Kg. https://www.amazon.com.au/Xcellent-Global-Lightweight-Aluminum-Capacity/dp/B097248Q3N/ref=sr_1_5?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.A9pUAxJNeOZ6Z6XUduAxjN9zEtjdb6xGeor4AGom5sF246AWjPwhu2MPaikh7ebfPePTSH3szYUgqfb86Md1H1oFfeZlemJyLhzK_ZJwsrmxC75k1nCSskY7JLWUc9-tN4KAe0B7JF_rCGULxwUzrOIcCNXnspcdwfVRdmR8HZlpEgNBRiS7lh5zfZxynPVQQtXbEWPUDrIFH47M-88WxjQR9TFVrPrR316Oej4YlrdOHkOXPjLEi2GxE_WkSrcQ69J9MP0urqOFt8z3TsNOIjxy_0JDCuyZ9_Ia3sari7k._5nKLRgVgtFZLEidcFN4S3H5CQB8sjKMlUViRg0TLUA&dib_tag=se&keywords=luggage+trolley&qid=1712838327&sr=8-5

Yeah, I guess Masters of the Air is state of the art. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98Ys1aI9a_Y

Re-reading that review of "Unsubstantial Air" (see above) I came across this bit about WWI American flyers in Europe: " ‘Being a pilot,’ he writes of them, ‘was something like being a college athlete, something like being a fraternity man at a house party that never ended, a bit like being a young tourist in an interesting foreign country with a few of your friends. Flying was fun – it was the only kind of war making that was.’ " That's interesting since the line "Flying used to be fun" is something the ageing pilot inThe Flight of the Phoenix says to his navigator early on in the film. I guess the original novel was set in the fifties so the captain's back story could well have included time as an American WWI flyer in France.

Aviation and Cinema were, after all, sibling children of the early 20th century; they grew up together. And one of the greatest early aviation classics was William Wellman's "Wings" (1927) The producers of Wings were super determined to have the flying sequences be as authentic as possible. Despite the danger and despite the cost. Another great story behind the story. (I believe I've raved on about Wings here before - no need to rave again ;- )

What do you do if you crash a twin engine transport (like a Fairchild C-82 Packet) in the desert and you can't be found? Well, as survivors, you gather your wits, your know-how and on-board tools and build yourself a single from bits of wreckage and take-off to safety. The producers did, in fact, construct just such a one-off Phoenix which was flyable. However, the real-world stunt pilot was not as lucky as our fictional heroes were. Flight of the Phoenix is intelligently directed by Robert Aldrich with a great cast including (real pilot) James Stewart, Dickie Attenborough and Peter Finch. Some of the interesting back-story: The Flight of the Phoenix (1965 film) - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG Fairchild C-82 Packet - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG https://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Mantz-P1.htm The Flight of the Phoenix (1965) - Trivia - IMDb WWW.IMDB.COM The Flight of the Phoenix (1965) - Trivia on IMDb: Cameos, Mistakes, Spoilers and more...

Lead?! Hopefully few 912's do. C02, maybe. (But if you're up there for the view, a high wing is quite efficient ;- )

Me three.

Thrusty, you have too much fun at both ends of the speed spectrum! ;- )

This is the vid about the Zenith 701 guy in Canada who's first to fly behind a ZD in North America. (Engine discussion starts in earnest at 09:23 and goes for about 4 mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviMc7UtueY

A new vid on the topic.

And now it seems the Skyranger has joined Foxbat on the suicide frontline.

Hopey, if you haven't come across it yet, you might find this (UK) Wing Nuts YT channel interesting:

Well, whoever resorts to this kind of research in this context hasn't studied airframe parachute 'landings'. Of course, just a small amount of collision force dissipation over time (crush) makes for much higher human survivability. No one doubts it. But we're talking here of 'arrival' speeds of between 10 and 20 knots. And whereas that could do damage statistics show that only a few airframe arrivals under canopy have led to occupant injury. Cirrus apart, not many ultralight BRS equipped craft would have crash-crush protection, however, the landing gear (for feet first only) seems to do the same shock absorbing job as it does for your everyday drop-it-on heavy landing. Only more so ;- )

Regarding the pull force needed in typical BRS devices, this is from an article by Thierry Couderc in the French "Bulletin of Flight Safety" Sep 2017 "The length of stroke and the force to be applied are nothing like the gesture of squeezing a brake lever or pulling the engine choke. The action to expect is more akin to the effort required to start a small chainsaw engine with a cord. Moreover, the user manuals for the most widely distributed parachutes mention, depending on the model, a pull force which will gradually increase until reaching 6 to 9 kilos at the end of its run of approximately 40 centimeters." bsv-40-septembre-2017.pdf For anyone interested, the full article, below, is actually a discussion on the best placement of the red handle in the cockpit. (This translation is my own gloss on Google's best efforts.) The parachute handle By Thierry COUDERC The relatively high number of ultralights equipped with airframe parachutes which weren’t deployed in accidents where they might have helped, had us wondering why. Could it be explained by the fact of the victims simply having had problems triggering the rocket? People who've had the experience of using ballistic ‘chutes often mention how surprised they were by the force and length of pull needed to ignite the rocket. It appears that quite a few of us have some wrong ideas about how these things work. Of course, it's essential to treat the handle with care to avoid inadvertent launches - with potentially serious consequences. But contrary to what we might think, it's not like a mouse trap, primed to snap as soon as the safety pin's removed. The firing device is actually not that sensitive; not easily triggered by mistake - at least not with the current pyrotechnic devices (*). Their design meets proven principles of safety and reliability. At rest, no element of the mechanism is in tension. It is the pulling of the handle which causes its arming, then, towards the end of the stroke, it's triggered. Thus, pulling on the cable will cause three successive actions (**): 1.Tensioning a spring to arm the percussion mechanism. 2.The removal of the mechanical safety devices which protect the primers against unwanted ignition, particularly in the event of a violent impact. 3. The release of the percussion mechanism. The length of stroke and the force to be applied are nothing like the gesture of squeezing a brake lever or pulling the engine choke. The action to expect is more akin to the effort required to start a small chainsaw engine with a cord. Moreover, the user manuals for the most widely distributed parachutes mention, depending on the model, a pull force which will gradually increase until reaching 6 to 9 kilos at the end of its run of approximately 40 centimeters. These parameters suggest that handles may not always be well placed to allow them to be pulled from the pilot’s seat with the necessary force over the entire length of the cable stroke. If the chosen location does not provide sufficient clearance to allow an easy pull, in an emergency situation, the occupants, possibly facing stress and unusual attitudes, may not manage to complete the pull. We must, then, consider what it would be like, faced with the need to pull the handle, in a given aircraft. In some cases, it may be wise to think about a change of location. For example, a handle arranged facing the pilots at the level of the instrument panel must be able to be pulled back without them needing to undo their harnesses in order to pull through without hitting obstacles such as a handle or lever, and/or without prematurely having their elbows blocked by the rear bulkhead. In any case, pulling the handle horizontally with the arm stretched to bring it back to towards the torso, may not be the most ergonomic option when it comes to exerting a continuous and progressively powerful pull. The most suitable locations could be: • The handle placed high, oriented forward and downward, behind the head, roughly above one shoulder, at ear level or on the ceiling. We reach up with the hand and push forward. This is the configuration used on certified aircraft which are equipped as standard. • The handle facing forward and upwards, placed in the low position on one side at the hip, which you grab with the hand on the other side while crossing your arm in front of you, to pull it here also forward, but upwards. • The handle located on the floor between the legs behind the stick, if there is one, turned slightly towards the rear, which can be pulled upwards. This type of assembly is known to favor speed of implementation, provided that the gesture is possible given the set up of the seat harness. But it assumes the installation of one handle per seat if we want both occupants have access to it. Be careful though, these are just suggestions, listing a few set-ups that have proven themselves. The most appropriate arrangement will clearly depend on the particular configuration.

And you mine. We're square. Although, you didn't answer my question.