Head in the clouds

I really like the way the site is coming on - very nice!

 

I have noticed that the individual posts used to be numbered which was useful for saying, for example, "See post #1234 for photos of XYZ" - could that numbering be re-instated?

 

Also - just a very small point but a nicety - a long while ago the Notifications icon used to open and drop-down if you hovered over it which was better than having to click it.

 

 

.... I'd estimate the 6061-T6 in your photos has a far bigger radius bend than the 75mm radius that Deskpilot is requesting in his diagram. ....

 

Then your estimate would be wrong, I just measured it, the pictures I posted show a 90° bend with a C/L radius of 71mm.

 

BUT - you need to re-read DP's request (it's near the bottom of page 3) - he didn't ask for a 75mm radius, he asked for a 75mm offset with 'best radius possible' bends.

 

All I'm saying is, there's a risk of cracking, if that grade of aluminium is used, and it is difficult to bend it, because it resists deformation.

 

One has to remember that when bending tubing, the outer wall section is stretched, and the inner wall section is compressed. This produces serious distortion and stresses.

 

The material used, has to have satisfactory properties, that are able to handle the distortion and stresses produced.

It'll crack if you try and bend it too tight, but I bent it quite happily to a 71mm radius with no indication of cracking, or more to the point being an aluminium alloy, no failure in compression on the inside of the bend.

 

No, actually 'that grade' (6061T6) isn't difficult to bend, it's easier and far more predictable than lower tensile grades if you know what you're doing, though it does take more force, naturally. Of course it resists deformation, so does a banana, it's all a matter of scale isn't it?

 

Fortunately I did remember about the stretching and compressing and distortion and stresses, and gladly I did choose a material with satisfactory properties, which could handle the distortion and stresses ... but thanks for the reminder anyway, I am getting older so I might have complete brain fade one day I expect ?

 

 

I can't agree at all, that the 6061-T6 aluminium tubing with a 5.99mm wall thickness will bend easily.

6061-T6 grade is not easy to bend - it's heat treated and tempered, and it's highly resistant to bending - as you would expect from material designed to form structural members. To bend it, annealing would be required.

 

The T6 treatment number means the tubing has been solution heat treated and artificially aged, to achieve maximum precipitation hardening. This results in high strength aluminium with stabilised properties and dimensions. ....

 

Ah well, if it can't be done, it can't be done -

 

 

If you get tired of mucking about with sand you could try one of these -

 

 

 

 

For the small amount of extra weight in a joystick, I wouldn't worry about using thin walled tube, I'd rather it was strong anyway.

 

In which case Capral sell 22.23 (7/8") tube with a 5.99mm wall, it's a 6061T6 grade (marine structural) and comes in 6m lengths which would cost you about $40 (Capral Material No. 851607). If you let them know you only need a metre and speak to them nicely they might let you know who they last sold (or regularly sell) that size to, and you might be able to get an offcut from them instead.

 

With that size and wall thickness you wouldn't need a bender to shape it, you could just bend it cold in the crook of a tree or round a mate's bullbar - don't use your own bullbar it might leave marks and scratches on it ? . Seriously though, add a bit of padding and a car towball also makes a handy bender for that sort of job.

 

Half a metre of that size and wall thickness tube only weighs 400gm, so it's not a big weight penalty for quite a lot of improved simplicity and strength.

 

 

With feet coordination from having flown rotary, you will NEVER ground loop a Lightwing. They're a great plane, handle well, strong, roomy enough - go for it, you only live once.

 

 

This is a great video from a no bullshit guy that has 20 years of real flying expirennce.

 

Yup, couldn't agree more, thanks for reposting it!

 

 

I came across an excellent video that may help some with understanding of the dynamics of the Base-to-Final Stall/Spin scenario, and it offers some ideas and methods that may help to avoid ending up there in the first place, or save the day in those critical moments if someone gets a bit untidy and needs to react correctly in an instant.

 

Some may recall my method for identifying which rudder to press because I often find it hard to be sure in the heat of the moment, which way I'm spinning. I press the rudder which is following the rotation of the earth below - if I'm spinning to the right the earth appears to be going from right to left of the windshield, so I press left rudder and v.v.). In this video the author has another good method, press on the wing that is high to bring it back down again ...

 

 

 

 

 

"Affirm" is a word with several meanings, depending on the context in which it is used. However, none of these meanings can be construed as "Yes".

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/affirm

Does that really have anything to do with it? See my post above, ref Wibble. I think it's a bit scary that people just don't 'get it'. No wonder the OP is confused ...

 

It's a Code - y'know? - we're all supposed to understand the same simple few words (or created words) that are intended to be hard to confuse with other words, so that communication can take place in difficult radiotelephony circumstances and noisy surroundings.

 

But then you've got some who say that anything that isn't perfect English isn't acceptable, and others who seem to think any change from the old days is an abomination.

 

No wonder CASA/DCA/DoA has/had little patience with recreational flyers, I think you'll find the present day CPLs just get on with what phraseology is required rather than worrying about whether it's a 'transitive verb' or not  /monthly_2018_11/007_rofl.gif.c0acfa65b346376a3dbfced8cc47aa8b.gif" data-ratio="85.71"> . Then again it's an ICAO thing, but it seems every personal opinion here is considered more relevant than those of an international organisation trying to make people of different native languages understand each other.

 

 

 You should note that OUT and OVER are NOT used in VHF communications which is ALL we use generally these days in RAAus and "Roger"  MUST NOT be used where readback is required. It should be discouraged in any case as just giving your callsign works better  Identifying YOU . Anybody could say roger, and you don't make a call without an ident. You terminate a conversation with just "ABC' and can add "clearing your frequency" if that helps. where you must transfer to another to  enter a circuit etc or give a 10 mile call.. 

 If "Affirm" is an abbreviation it makes sense, and it is claimed to be so,  but AFFIRM is a transitive verb with a quite different  and less appropriate meaning to Affirmative which is an adjective or a noun and  makes more meaningful sense in this context. The claimed risks of the endings being similar are not proven anywhere I can find and you are meant to EMPHASISE the  first part of both AFFIRM ative.. and it's opposite NEG ative  The original publications did everything Phonetically where Quebec for instance was KEE bec.  (from memory) but all the letters of the alphabet were similarly "modified" to be given the maximum transmitted  clarity. You sound like a right "GIT" when you do this in normal conversation, but  it was and is effective. Like I said in  in earlier post, the standard has dropped  off considerably. Most mumble , talk too fast,  key the MIC carelessly . Talk over others and make excessively complex and non standard calls.. Nev

No, AFFIRM is not an abbreviation, the abbreviation is AFM and as shown above, the abbreviation AFM has no relation to the spoken response AFFIRM.

 

It doesn't really matter whether the use of Affirm for Yes is grammatically correct English or not, because as you conceded earlier, if it's in the AIP then that's how it is to be done. If they decide that we should say Wibble for Yes, then so be it, classic English or not ...

 

As far as Roger is concerned, in practical terms it's rarely used as a single word response but if you keep in mind it's purpose is to indicate a fully understood communication, an example of a complete response might be - Roger, ABC is holding clear of runway 12. Hence more information has been supplied than would be by the suggested use of just the call sign. 

 

 

I found a line there which read  Yes, Affirm, Affirmative, That is correct, so maybe there's an error there; ....

That's a different reference, it's a definition of the abbreviation AFM (Section Gen 2.2-32/page 186). It's not a spoken phraseology, it just indicates that that abbreviation can mean any of those plain-language definitions.

 

General and Meteorological Abbreviations

 

AFM      Yes, Affirm,

 

              Affirmative, That is

 

              correct

 

 

 Why do you say IF AT ALL. ?   The change appears to have been around 2006 in AUSTRALIA.. and I worked as a full time airline pilot for 25 years. and always used Affirmative  Never  Yes, Roger,,  Over or Out.  Plenty of Australian pilots operate internationally. Nev

 

I didn't mean any offence, I just wondered whether you might have picked it up while flying overseas. But since Silvercity has mentioned it was in use in 1965 then you probably just retained what you learned at the beginning, as many of us did.

 

When I started commercial in 1980s we used to be Maintaining (which soon became Cruising) and we broadcast to Traffic, which became All Stations and so on (and they later changed back again ...) - it took a long while to remember to use the latest version.

 

Either way, I'm sure Affirmative didn't become Affirm in or around 2006, it must have been at least 20yrs before that because I never heard it, nor used it from the beginning. A while ago I saw a 1980s VFG lying around a club hangar - someone's souvenir I guess - one of those orange plastic binders of the era, next time I'm down there I'll have another look, it may provide some insight.

 

 

 Was  still an active topic of discussion in 2006 (12 years ago) in international aviation circles with high time Air Traffic Controllers still saying "Affirmative" is correct  at THAT time in the USA which may still be that way.. Affirm and affirmative are not entirely the same words. Many think one is a shortened version of the other when it is not. Russia has used affirm for a long time but that's where you are required to use English as the standard in International Flights. Nev.

 

That's probably where you got the Affirmative from, it's not been used in Australia for at least 35yrs, if at all, but it's always been used in USA. This discussion is about Australia of course. 

 

From AIP (FAA) Gen 1.7-15 (2016) -

 

AFFIRM       U.S. has no phraseology using “AFFIRM”. U.S. uses “AFFIRMATIVE” “Yes”. ; or “ACKNOWLEDGE; or Roger, Wilco.”

 

 

     If it's in the AIP it's official . The date of that would be of interest. 

 

I did provide the link so anyone could check, and said "This is the current version issued a few days ago". The date of its release was 8th November 2018. The previous versions have had the same information for Phraseology as long as I can remember. Affirm, for example, goes back to at least the mid 1980s.

 

 

 The username is not fact teller.  You have to do some work yourself and we all have more to learn.. From practical experience as a CPL in the 60's plus airline  we never used the abbreviation. of affirmative. There was extensive information published about  correct phraseology in Australia and the  Phonetic pronunciation of all the alphabet and the numerals. provided by the DCA at the time. This was the international standard, not an Australian adaptation. Variations of procedure like  "read backs " have changed, but little else.. " report  (when)  Visual" is a common request. traffic "sighted (and passed)" is used for clearance purposes, where no radar or such is available for confirmation.   Nev

I dare say there have been some changes since the 1960s. I got my CPL in the 1980s and I never heard of Affirmative, it was always Affirm. Over and Out are still in use (never used together of course) but mainly for HF rather than VHF. Though in cases of poor VHF reception such as was the case on the far north coasts until 10yrs or so ago, they can still be helpful for understanding.

 

Roger is still in everyday use, as is Wilco.

 

Here is a link to the AIP - see pages 293 & 294 (Gen 3.4 - 25 5.) This is the current version issued a few days ago.

 

A few extracts -

 

AFFIRM        Yes.

 

NEGATIVE    No or Permission is not granted or

 

                     That is not correct or Not capable.

 

OUT              This exchange of transmissions is

 

                     ended and I expect no response from

 

                     you {not normally used in VHF or

 

                     satellite communication).

 

OVER            My transmission is ended and I

 

                     expect a response from you {not

 

                      normally used in VHF or satellite

 

                     communication).

 

ROGER         I have received all of your last

 

                    transmission [under NO

 

                    circumstances to be used in reply to

 

                    a question requiring READBACK or

 

                    a direct answer in the affirmative or

 

                    negative).

 

WILCO         I understand your message and will

 

                    comply with it.

 

 

Not exactly our last flight, but our most recent trip.Our stops were:

 

Dingo

 

Winton

 

Adels grove

 

Karumba

 

Gilberton station

 

Bowen

 

Yeppoon

 

And then home

 

There was some spectacular scenery along the way and some really interesting stops. Winton, Adels grove, Karumba and Gilberton station were amazing

 

 

 

Very impressive video work cscotthendry, like a professional movie!

 

 

I know there's a fair few that I've spoken to, who don't reckon the 912 Drifter is a good idea, too much weight and they said the extra power beyond the 582 doesn't provide any real benefit, given the dacron wing.

 

I loved my SCSI WB 45hp Drifter and it certainly would have benefitted from more power but the extra weight of the 912 and consequent more weight of front seat ballast - unless you're a very big fella/gal (in which case maybe get a 701) - exceeds the wing's optimal capability.

 

To answer your specific question, there is/was a bolt/rivet-on kit to convert them with basic tools. I also recall that several people who converted theirs, unconverted them later and went back to the 582, so if you're really determined maybe you could advertise to find someone who wants to sell the parts.

 

 

allaboutflying.net is available ...

 

 

.... I agree an aluminium or copper inlet tube would be more durable and reliable than poly tube, I expect the increased weight shouldn't be a limiting factor. ....

I've used polypropylene tubes with petrol over lengthy periods of time and the petrol doesn't seem to affect it at all. The poly tube I've used is the irrigation tube and rigid risers you get from Bunnings, so I'd say that as long as it's strong enough for your purpose it is probably the lightest choice. Similarly, polyethylene is a suitable plastic for use with petrol, it doesn't often come in tube form, more often in sheet form, such as for cutting boards. Polyethylene is the type of plastic used in rotation molding for plastic jerrycans. Polyurethane flexible tubing is affected by petrol, but not unduly. It swells a little and discolours a little but does return to normal (apart from discolouration caused by the dye in the petrol) after removal from petrol. Regardless that it swells I use it for fuel sight gauges because it is so much tougher than clear PVC which hardens and becomes brittle after a while.

 

..... I was reading more about in- tank fuel pumps used in cars and this ump variety seems an option also. This pump could be mounted on end of a stiff tube (ie aluminium/copper) and then tube inserted into jerry can, passing through cap to steady/align tube to container bottom. This arrangement would be a neat tidy compact device, not unlike the plastic siphon pumps advertised on Ebay. I read enough about submersed fuel pumps to accept its safe practice. .....

Yup, I'm still a fan of the immersible pumps but I can't find one that will fit into the neck of a plastic jerrycan. The smallest in-tank pumps seem to be 38mm diameter and the jerrycan neck is about 32mm. I had considered attaching a rigid tube to the bottom of the pump, to insert into the jerrycan but that won't work either because the immersible pumps are centrifugal pumps not positive displacement vane pumps, so they won't suck the fuel up, they can only push the fuel up from the bottom of the jerrycan.

 

So we need a smaller diameter in-tank pump, or a jerrycan with a larger neck.

 

Nice idea about the tripod!

 

 

I've not come across that before. What engine do you have? I would have thought that an electric primer would more likely be an engine part than a Drifter part, so perhaps check the engine manual/parts list? The Rotaxes I've had, have all just had a butterfly choke for drawing extra fuel in and starting enrichment - does that device provide a spray of fuel into the inlet manifold/crankcase?

 

 

Not sure what you mean by Electric Primer, but I'm guessing you're referring to the electric fuel pump.

 

If so, my Drifter had a Facet solid state fuel pump available on ebay for $116

 

Or you can buy various aftermarket versions down to as little as $16.99, I've used a couple of the cheap ones and they have worked well for me.

 

Why do you need to replace it? Has it stopped working? They are a very simple device that last for thousands of hours usually. They only have two moving parts - an oscillating plunger withing a coil, much like a solenoid, and a non-return valve. If it still makes the usual da-da-da-da noise but doesn't pump fuel it has probably got a problem with the non-return valve, perhaps something stuck in it hence an inline fuel screen (not the fine fuel filter) is best located before the pump to prevent any large matter getting into it and stopping the ball from seating properly. If you look into the inlet end of the pump you can see the ball (often white ceramic or plastic). If you suspect a problem with it you can unscrew the hexagonal barrel and remove the ball and spring and clean it, be sure to make sure it seals again when you screw it back up i.e. use a new fibre washer, O ring, or whatever was there originally.

 

Hope it helps.

 

 

I received very strong VHF signals from Darwin, and could communicate both ways, while I was on the Kimberley north coast 400Nm away. But then I was in the eye of cyclone Rachel at the time. Never experienced it on VHF at any other time but it was normal on HF and other low frequencies - usually the chatter from Indo fishermen using frequencies illegally would drive you so nuts you just turned the HF off.

 

So - unless you were in some very rare atmospheric conditions at the time then it's probably not a skip event. Since your handheld received at the same time it's not a MicroAir problem either, so the likelihood is that someone was actually transmitting what you heard, from nearby, or you were transmitting to yourself, so to speak.

 

You're saying loud 'noise', so I guess it's not voice or detectable words? So - what kind of noise? Feedback squealing?

 

Since you have two radios on at the same time might they be feeding back into each other ...?

 

 

good points Nev. Yes, the Jabiru has an oil system which can't go negative. Nor can the carby.

I didn't want to make a smarty comment but I did think it was more likely that the person in your anecdote probably just 'pushed' a little while going over the top of the loop which needn't give negative G. Even going closer to zero G can be quite a thrill without starving an engine which has carby fuel bowls, or affecting the oil pickup(s).

 

 

What batteries are being fitted that could be subject to thermal runaway? I was under the opinion that if they were using lithium batteries they would be lithium iron which are supposed to be unlikely to have this problem?

The one that we had the experience with in the Bell 212 was a simple one of the era - certainly not a lithium based one or it would have been much less heavy - sorry, I don't recall the chemistry though. The charging control system had failed, providing full charging current (about 70A) even though the battery had been fully charged for a couple of hours.

 

 

It has a lot of Volmer about it but most of his had the pilot seated forward of the wing.

 

There was an early Lake design with similarities but not the same as far as I can see.

 

Most of all it's typical of the Grummans but smaller than any production model I know of, it's like a single engined small version of the Widgeon or Goose.

 

You do come up with some obscure ones Peter.

 

 

I hope the US won't do that again! There could be far more disruption presently that the world relies so much more on GPS nowadays.

'Glitches' like that (as we thought they were) were quite frequent in the '90s. It wasn't unusual for the GPS to suddenly drop out or to spend a while giving you false position information (on one occasion I apparently drove my boat, at night, straight over the top of a large island off the Kimberley coast ...).

 

Since portable GPS was relatively new at that stage, and there were many fewer satellites than now, particularly ones visible in the southern hemisphere reasonably high above the horizon, we tended to assume they were all just drop-outs from losing contact with sufficient satellites for even a 2D fix, let alone a 3D one.

 

Later we learned that the position error ones were probably due to US military operations, and they were quite entitled - they own the satellites, after all. Which is why GPS was never permitted to be the primary means of nav for aviation.

 

The drop-outs were a different matter and were due to loss of signal from either obstruction when satellites were low on the horizon or poor antenna issues in the early portable GPS units and even some of the fixed antennas on the aircraft.

 

We had one wily fella who always had trouble with nav, he was forever getting lost and regardless of the high cost of them then, he was delighted when personal GPS became available because only a few of the smaller aircraft were fitted with them. All of a sudden his nav woes were solved ... until he experienced his first drop-out and got lost again. He then had a 'bright idea' and promptly went out and bought a second GPS unit (twin engines never fail at the same time do they?).

 

You can imagine his upset when both units always dropped out at precisely the same time.

 

I think the reason we started to see much less of the position error thing as time went on, might have been a change in US military technology. It would seem that as they started to use laser-guided weapons more, the occasions of GPS position error reduced. I know US military do still use GPS extensively for ground troop and vehicle movement and positioning, but I think they also have a much cleverer means of changing the coordinates of some satellites but it not affecting everyone, probably just those who they'd like to confuse and disrupt at any given time. Additionally a very slight coordinate change can be quite enough to protect their own troops from anything incoming and GPS guided, while the overall system still being accurate enough for the average citizen to continue using for non-critical nav.