Head in the clouds

I don't think you're attitude is really called for. There is a problem and it has to do with lack of height causing fear and that fear resulting in people mismanaging the turn itself. Plenty of stats to support that. I think we've all noted that you don't want people to turn back at all and want to eliminate that thought from their first response, that's an opinion that you're entitled to, and others are entitled to theirs. The blanket removal of all turn back procedure training that you're proposing is not supported in other flight training curricula presently. I could have even provided your requested stat report too, except the pilot wasn't killed and there wasn't a report, he walked away and burnt the wreck in the days when AUF weren't interested in crashes being reported. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us to what you see the problem as being, apart from the fact that we don't all agree with you? EDIT - OK, you said the following earlier - "The issue is that people REACT differently. Some react well and quickly. Some react poorly, and some TURN BACK", which was rather confusingly worded which is why I didn't get what you're meaning was, I still don't actually. So - some react well and quickly - they put the nose down and choose a landing or crash place ahead - which it is to be, is determined by the quality of the surface ahead? Some react poorly - what do they do? Some TURN BACK - from your other posts I imagine that's not good in your book? It's worse than the ones who react poorly? What height are they turning back from that makes it worse than poor? You see - the 'clever ones' among us are trying to establish when poor becomes not so poor and when it might actually become the right thing to do, making it 'reacting well'.

Ermmm - what? If you are climbing in a Foxbat at 54kts and the engine quits and you do nothing for a full 3 seconds in a genuine EFATO you're as good as dead anyway. I don't know what schools are teaching these days but I very much doubt it's any different from what we used to teach and that is the nose goes down at the first hint of anything to do with the engine malfunctioning - a la Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - you know the glasses that turn black at the first hint of danger. We'd never let a student solo unless their first reaction every time, within about 0.2 seconds, was to get the nose down. So the answer is no, but I did hesitate more than I would expect even a novice pilot to, about 0.5 second to 1 second.

Funnily enough that's just what I did yesterday. I took fellow forumite Duncan (rtfm - who's building his F1 Razorback) for a fly in a Foxbat and during that we did a couple of poorly simulated turn-backs at height and made rotten quality videos of it for everyone's general amusement. I turned through 200 degrees in a single turn the first time and 210 degrees with a 30 degree turn reversal the second time, though if one used the crosswind drift method (CDATO described earlier this thread) you'd need to do less turning than that. I didn't use any flap because it seems most folks retract them at around 300ft and so the assumption is that most wouldn't have any flap on if they were considering turning back. Target speed for climb, best glide and approach in the Foxbat are all 54kts ish. We had 3/4 fuel aboard, 155kg of pilot + pax and no bags, so were around 70-80kg under MTOW. I slowed the aircraft to the climb speed but wasn't actually climbing, to avoid instrument lag in the altimeter providing a falsely optimistic result. Then put it into the climb attitude as I pulled the power to idle, before lowering the nose, to reasonably simulate actually being in a climb at the time of power loss. The results were consistent, we lost 250-300ft each time by the time we were re-aligned on a reciprocal course and at approach speed and attitude. Using Dafydd's pre-established decision point method, which I think is very valid, you would want to have 300ft + 50% = 450ft + obstacle clearance height (none at our airfield but say 50ft) = 500ft. So in those loading conditions, and in a Foxbat you'd want 500ft before considering the turn-back and that's at the crosswind turn point. The distance travelled to make the turn was very small - I used about 45 degree bank angle - so I don't feel that you'd need that much height exactly at the end of the runway but not too far past it. This being because, having played around with a few direction reversals before the filmed ones, the quickest and safest-feeling turn was by allowing the nose to drop in a slight spiral which resulted in increased speed which would be used as speed/height to get back to the runway threshold, particularly keeping in mind that would be a downwind leg with wind-gradient benefit rather than the usual wind gradient penalty when landing into wind.

Looking at the last page of the relevant sections of the Tech Manual it appears you're right about the maintenance aspect - the last page of the following link says if it's used for Private purposes only you can maintain any 95.55 aircraft with an L1 (any pilot is automatically an L1 unless it's been revoked). I haven't found anything to confirm how you can modify an Amateur built though, regardless of whether you built it or not. Do you know of a reference for that? The link above refers to modifications of privately operated 95.55 craft and says they must be done according to Section 3.5 of the Tech Manual. The only slightly relevant section there is Section 3.5.3 which contains a furphy because it refers to 95.55 para 1.8 and 1.9 which don't exist ... but it goes on to say that modifications must be conducted according to Advisory Circular AC 21.41 which is about modifying LSAs (factory built 95.55 1.2 (f) only, presumably) with or without factory approval - if without it then it turns them into Experimental LSAs, ( ELSAs - 95.55 1.2 (g) ) which then cannot be used for training, glider towing etc and must have an 'Experimental' sticker on the outside. So I still don't think we have the definitive answer about 19-xxxx modifications unless I've missed something. Shall I word up a few lines for Darren's opinion on the subject perhaps? Another interesting aspect is that the RAAus Tech Manual only refers to 19-xxxx craft as being Amateur built from factory produced kits, which is not right at all, 19 reg also includes all owner-designed scratch-builts and plans-builts.

jetjr, I can't find the specific reference for you, there have been so many changes to CARs, CAOs and the RAA documentation that I'm still catching up. There now seems to be some confusion also, when reading the applicable part of the Tech Manual here, that refers to 19 reg as experimental LSA, but in fact, as I understand it, anything homebuilt is not an LSA at all, it is an Amateur Built 95.55 1.2(e) category aircraft, just as the 28-XXXX series are not LSAs they are 'former homebuilt VH category craft that happen to fit 95.55 class and similarly former 95.25 aircraft (like Drifters) etc etc. An ELSA is an LSA that has been altered without the factory approval (instead approved by an Approved person etc) As far as answering the question is concerned - the following was the case previously but keep in mind there may have been some changes - The actual builder(s) of a 19-XXXX (or 10-XXXX) should be able to make any modifications and do the maintenance on his/her craft as they see fit and, as I said in a previous post (and as detailed in the link above) if the W/B is affected a new W/B must be performed and entered in the POH and if there are major structural changes and or something that might affect the handling significantly then I think the proving flight time is supposed to be performed again. You can NOT do maintenance on a plane that you didn't build, regardless of the category. Prior to there being a maintenance structure we did do our own maintenance to 95.10 machines (and most of them were factory built too) but since L2s came about they must do the servicing and maintenance on all RAA craft unless you are the actual builder of it. I did hear of an interesting situation some years ago. A fella sold his 19 reg plane to a friend who lived nearby and the new owner was getting the previous owner-builder to maintain it, because he built it. He was advised (though no document references were provided) that it was not legal, only the owner-builder could maintain it, or an L2. Since the builder was no longer the owner, he was not the owner-builder any longer. To avoid conflict they decided to just get another friend who was an L2 to do the maintenance, with the builder helping due to his greater knowledge of the machine, but it would be interesting to have the matter examined more closely. Similarly with training - only the builder(s) can be trained in an amateur built 19-XXXX craft, not subsequent owners. I hope it helps but anyone planning any of this and who is unsure of the position for their particular circumstance should word up a couple of paragraphs and send it to Darren the Tech Manager for clarification. I've spoken with Darren a few times and I can tell you he's a good bloke and the nicest and smartest Tech Manager you could wish for and will be sure to help with untangling the documentation vagaries. Really there's no reason why they shouldn't. Someone buying a 19 reg is in no different a situation than if they bought any other reg, they still don't know about the technical aspects of the plane, so why would they know enough to maintain it? The only reason the builder can maintain it is because he knows more about it than anyone else does.

I think that people need to understand that ALL aeroplanes can and will bite if you bring all the wrong factors together at the same time. And the Jabiru is no different, I've demonstrated it a couple of times to a friend who was getting a bit sloppy in his turns. In my opinion it's this kind of 'kind handling' statement that Cirrus used to promote the SR22 that was actually responsible for sloppy pilots buying them because they believed they could pretty much do anything with them and the airframe design was 'so advanced' and so 'anti-spin' that you couldn't hurt yourself. I think they now have the highest circuit stall-spin incident record of all in the USA don't they? I don't want to hijack the EFATO thread but I agree that there can never be too much effort put into preventing the final turn stall/spin so, although it's been discussed numerous times before, and at the risk of invoking the OP's wrath ... When you took your local instructor and failed to make the Jabiru bite I'd suggest you didn't replicate the skidded turn onto final. If you get the chance to try again be sure you're ready for what happens if you don't correct it immediately, i.e. it will flip onto it's back in a blink. If you're ready for it you can correct it the moment it begins but it'll give you enough of a fright to be able to recognise the condition in the future. The usual way the skidded turn onto final kills people is that they're lower than they should be so are either slow or nose high, or both, and it's a day when they happen to have a tailwind on the base leg. They turn onto final using the usual sight picture but the tailwind pushes them beyond the runway centreline. Because they're low they resist banking as much as they should to tighten the turn, instead using lots of 'bottom' rudder which seems to help, at least, to point the nose where they'd like to be facing. The extra rudder makes the aircraft tend to bank more but that doesn't feel nice close to the ground so they hold off bank with opposite (top) aileron. Due to the now uncoordinated turn the drag goes way up resulting in the aircraft descending, so they raise the nose even further. The inside wing will stall first due to its aileron being down, making its angle of attack higher than the outside wing's AoA. At the moment the inside wing starts to drop due to the loss of lift as it stalls, the pilot adds more 'top' aileron to pick the wing up but it just deepens the stall and the plane flips inverted and begins to spin. People frequently confuse skids and slips but they are fundamentally different, a skid is pro-spin and a slip is anti-spin. Neither will cause anything nasty unless you stall while doing them. The problem comes about from the influences that fool people into getting into a skid and stalling at the same time - the botched turn onto final brings all the bad aspects of the stalled skid together at the same time. The easiest way to envisage the difference between the skid and the slip is that in the slip you have 'top rudder' and in the skid you have 'bottom rudder'. Slips are usually deliberate so you are aware of the need to keep the nose down, and tending to do so anyway because you are usually using the slip to lose height without gaining speed. The skid is usually inadvertent and comes about from a reluctance to use a high bank angle when a tighter turn is needed. If you want to feel the skidded spin entry without hurting yourself take an instructor and go up high, make a low power, low speed turn with a shallow bank angle and a high nose angle, just as if turning onto final from a too low position and having overshot the runway centreline. If you're turning left, add left rudder to 'tighten' the turn but don't let the bank angle increase, use right aileron to prevent it from increasing. Keep increasing the 'tightness' by adding left rudder and adding more right aileron and keep the left bank angle at about 15-20 degrees. If you keep the nose high it will stall the inside wing in due course and that wing will start to drop - be ready, it can be very quick. If you try to pick the wing up with more aileron you'll spin but if you go with the wing drop i.e. add left aileron, the nose will drop and you'll fly away from it. That's how quick you can save the situation if you do stuff up but then use the correct remedial action, but even then you will lose 200ft or so. To avoid getting into the final turn stall/spin scenario in the first place make sure you're high on base leg rather than too low (this means a high sight-picture, so if it's a long final you need to be higher AGL than if it's a short final - it's all about the sight-picture height rather than the height AGL). If you're high you won't have a high nose angle on the final turn because you're trying to get down (so you won't stall) and even if you're overshooting you're unlikely to resist a higher bank angle to tighten the turn because higher bank angles don't feel bad when the nose is down. If you develop a habit of being too high on base/final you'll never hit the approach fence and then why not go on and become an expert at slipping which is immensely useful for getting into tight spots and especially so in event of forced landings.

Good point, I realised after I'd posted that the OP asked about modifying rather than building. At this stage, to pre-empt future confusion let's also introduce the other homebuilt ultralight category, planes built to comply with the CAO 95.10. Here is a link to the complete CAO 95.10 CAO 95.10 planes are similar in some ways to some CAO 95.55 planes but can only have one seat. However, if you're aiming for a lightweight single seater CAO 95.10 allows you to build a far more interesting craft than 95.55 does. Below is a part of 95.10 which describes what a 95.10 is. When reading these kinds of documents you should note that it is very specific, so if something isn't excluded directly or by external reference then you CAN have it, so note what the exclusions and limits are - Schedule 1 Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — low‑momentum ultralight aeroplanes 1 Application This Order applies to a low-momentum ultralight aeroplane in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied: (a) the aeroplane is registered with the RAA or, if the aeroplane is a weight‑shift controlled aeroplane, with the HGFA; (b) the aeroplane is a single-place aeroplane that has a take-off weight of not more than: (i) if it is equipped to land on water — 335 kilograms; or (ii) if it is equipped with a recovery parachute system — 320 kilograms; or (iii) if it is equipped to land on water and has a parachute recovery system — not more than 355 kilograms; or (iv) in any other case — 300 kilograms; © if the aeroplane first became registered with the RAA or the HGFA on, or after, 1 March 1990: (i) the aeroplane was privately built; and (ii) the aeroplane has a wing loading not greater than 30 kilograms per square metre at maximum all-up weight; and (iii) if the aeroplane is owned by a person who is not the builder or 1 of the builders — a certificate is in force that has been issued by the RAA or the HGFA which certifies that the aeroplane meets the requirements set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be. So - this means the basic 95.10 plane can be 300kg MTOW. Knock off 100kg for you and baggage and 40kg for 50lts of cruise fuel plus reserves and you have 160kg left to build ... what? Well the possibilities are endless. You can have a small jet or a push-pull twin, or a wing-mounted twin, a four engined Lancaster replica etc etc. With retractable gear ... Note there are no speed limits, no restriction on top speed and no minimum (or maximum) stall speed. OK so you have to have 10sqm of wing area to satisfy the other part of the limitations but nothing's stopping you having a variable geometry wing-set - a mini F1-11 perhaps? Or very large Fowler-type flaps that can be extended rearwards to satisfy the wing area limit but stowed at altitude for high-speed flight. Or - deltas need low wing-loading for best performance and are easy to build light because their wing is thick and of short span so what about a single seat Vulcan, with four RC model jet engines if you really want to impress - 200kts should be quite feasible ... Regarding the modifications to a 95.55 or 95.10 homebuilt - if you built it you can maintain it certainly but I don't recall actually having seen anything in print about making modifications to it. Logically I think it would depend on how extensive the modifications are. Purely as an opinion I would say that if the modifications didn't significantly change the weight and balance or flight characteristics then you would be fine because there is only so much information submitted for the initial registration and if it doesn't change what was, or should have been, submitted then no-one is any the wiser. I'm not suggesting anything devious here, just that if you didn't have to list the type of wingtips or the instruments fitted, for example, then changing them doesn't affect the registration aspects, and at the end of the day it's only the registration aspects that we're dealing with. If you do change the weight by adding or removing equipment then you should submit a new W&B and amend the POH, in this case you would simply be doing what a LAME or L2 might be doing to/with a GA or 95.55 aircraft. If, however, you change something within the primary structure or something that might significantly affect the handling then logically you should conduct the 25 or 40 hour proving period again - although, as mentioned, I've not seen anything in print to cover this situation. When the Tech Manager catches up with registration issues and has some time available it might be a good subject to submit to him for a determination. As far as modifying, or even maintaining, a homebuilt 95.55 or 95.10 that you weren't the builder or one of the builders of, at present you can't, you have to treat it like an LSA or similar i.e. you have to have an L2 do any maintenance or repair work on it. Having said that I'm interested by rgmwa's comment above, about being able to work on a plane you own that is similar to one you have previously built - this presently being in the GA experimental category (SAAA regulated). That makes good sense and is probably worth RAA pursuing through the CASA to have a similar facility available for 95.55 and 95.10 categories.

Many of us still don't seem to know the regulations we operate by, or how to find the answers. I reckon this is something the RAA needs to address via the magazine because folks on this forum are better informed than those who don't read it so I wonder what the rest think about it all. The so called 'LSA' class is actually no such thing at all. A whole bunch of former and new aircraft types have now been shoved together under a single CAO (Civil Aviation Order - formerly ANO (Air Navigation Order)), so that many of the planes that used to be 95.25 (450kg planes like Drifters/Thrusters) 101.55, 95.10, 101.28 etc AND the LSAs, ELSAs etc are now all in different subsections of CAO 95.55. Here is a link to the complete CAO 95.55 Section 1.2 details which types of planes fit which particular categories i.e. single seat, two seat, homebuilt, factory built, planes from former ANOs/CAOs etc. The one we're dealing with here is Sect 1.2 subsection (e). (In red below). Note this is the homebuilt section of this category, not the ELSA category, LSA is subsection (g), ELSA is subsection (h). The reason you can't mess around with changing your Drifter or Thruster is in subsection (d). The reason you CAN have a constant speed prop on your homebuilt 95.55 is in 1.1 subsection (b) i.e. one propellor, one engine, it doesn't say the prop has to be fixed pitch, it's just that if a factory fits a fixed pitch to a factory built LSA you can't change it to a constant speed prop. So, if you build it yourself you'll not be flying an LSA, you'll be flying a homebuilt CAO 95.55 category aircraft - there's too much confusion around regarding what is and what isn't an LSA. To fit into CAO 95.55 a plane must comply with all of Section 1.1 and one subsection of Section 1.2 There is no restriction on fitting Constant Speed props, retractable landing gear or whatever you like, pretty much, if you build the plane yourself, and you can alter a kit as much as you want because it is YOU, at the end of the day, who is stating that it is sound, not the kit provider. You cannot change a factory built LSA at all without the factory approving it, regardless of whether it is being used for training or not. Below is a copy of part of CAO 95.25 (Sections 1 and 1.2) - Schedule 1 Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes 1 Application 1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that: (a) is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; and (b) has a single engine and a single propeller; and © has a Vso stall speed of not greater than 45 knots, as determined by design standards or certification requirements; and (d) is registered with the RAA; and (e) is mentioned in paragraph 1.2. 1.2 For subparagraph 1.1 (e), an aeroplane must be 1 of the following: (a) an aeroplane to which Order 101.28 applies that complies with the design standards specified in that Order, with a maximum take-off weight not exceeding: (i) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or (ii) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg; (b) an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.1 of Order 101.55; © an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.2 of Order 101.55 that meets the design standards in that Order; (d) an old section 95.25 aeroplane that has not been modified except with the approval of a person who is an authorised person for subregulation 35 (1) of CAR 1988; (e) an aeroplane, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation, that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding: (i) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or (ii) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg; (f)an aeroplane: (i) of a type for which a type certificate, a certificate of type approval or an equivalent document has been issued by CASA, another national airworthiness authority (NAA) or a competent issuing authority; and (ii) that has been manufactured for sale by the holder of a certificate, or an equivalent document, permitting the manufacture of aeroplanes of that type and issued by CASA or another NAA or a competent issuing authority; and (iii) that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding: (A) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or (B) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg; and (iv) that has a payload that is equal to, or exceeds, the minimum useful load for that aeroplane determined in accordance with paragraph 1.3; (g) a light sport aircraft: (i) manufactured by a qualified manufacturer as defined by regulation 21.172 of CASR 1998; and (ii) for which there is a current special certificate of airworthiness; (h) a light sport aircraft: (i) to which paragraph 21.191 (j) or (k) of CASR 1998 applies; and (ii) for which there is a current experimental certificate of airworthiness.

Bandit, I really enjoy your posts too, so please don't take anything I say personally. I've given a lot of thought to your response and, whilst outwardly taking me to task, doesn't the broad message of your post seem to support what I said ...? OK, so if this is in response to my statement about the labelling of ADHD, my comment suggested that ADHD was always there and was managed by schools and parents in earlier times, resulting in these ADHD 'sufferers' going on to make useful lives for themselves, whereas now with their label as an excuse they are 'entitled' to live off welfare and crime. As a further result I think it's the rest of us, the public in general, that have become the sufferers of their ADHD, but again that's just my opinion. You can call it diagnosis but I don't see how 'diagnosis' in this case is any different from the way I described it as 'giving it a label'. As you've said "many psychologists are better at diagnosis than treatment" so having given ADHD a name, and given that psychologists "aren't able to prescribe", what do they actually do to fix the problem? Precious little, based on the discussions I've had with the psychologists I know personally. And they are big-city ones BTW. And that's just the point - labels are nothing more than labels, they don't fix the problem. There was a time when a couple of combatants would go outside the pub and trade a right cross and a left hook until one got satisfaction. More recently the media was full of reports of seriously injured or killed people as a result of being 'King hit'. It was clear that something had to be done, certain individuals were gaining street cred for their abilities to knock someone down with a single hit. Some bright spark decided the problem was the 'label', we must change the label. Call it the bully punch? No, better still, call it the 'coward punch'. So did that label, designed to bring shame upon the perpetrator, solve the problem? No, of course not, the occurrences are still on the increase, because the punch isn't the problem. At the time of delivering the punch the perpetrator doesn't see himself as a bully or a coward, he's drunk and whatever he does he has to be right, it should be called the 'hero punch', in his opinion. Sooner or later someone will twig to the real cause, it's the alcohol, all night drinking is the problem and no amount of labels given to the actions of drunks will fix it. Now that's a bit rich - I'll have you know I've watched every single episode of Cracker I hope I don't come across as a naysayer, because I certainly am not. I support anything at all that might further the development or safety of aviation. But that doesn't mean I'm a yes man either, I do question everything because, as discussed above, I believe there is too much emphasis placed on 'someone gotta do something' and then 'it's all OK, someone did something'. When we don't closely examine what 'someone did' we often assume all is well/has been fixed when it isn't/hasn't. And I sincerely hope that psychologists and researchers would generally enter into a program with more than a hope that the outcome would be no worse than the present situation, otherwise it would seem a bit futile even starting out ... There's a good example in helicopters that closely resembles this turn-back thing. Flying too slow close to the ground, or hovering too high, or hover-climbing, all place you below a curved line on a chart where it is supposedly impossible to make an auto-rotational landing in event of a power failure. That chart is called the Height/Velocity Chart and unfortunately pilots frequently operated below the curve and often paid the price if they had an engine or power transmission failure while doing so. So - a label was needed. The schools started calling it the 'Dead man's curve'. That ought to scare people into taking notice surely? Interestingly, and co-incidentally, the associated crash occurrences did reduce but it was due to the advent of small turbine power-trains with greatly increased reliability, in fact you see people deliberately operating under the Dead-man's curve more frequently than ever these days. Hopefully, with the appropriate scrutiny of more aviation-based people than just those currently embarked on this particular piece of psychological research into the 'turn-back manoeuvre' (I'll be sticking with the original name until something convinces me otherwise) we might come out with more than just a new name (label) for it. New labels would just be a case of being "better at diagnosis than treatment" and won't do anything to fix the problem. That's already been tried as we know - someone decided to call it the 'Impossible Turn' instead. All that does is encourage some of us (yes, I'd probably be one) to demonstrate that there's nothing impossible about it, it's just a turn-back manoeuvre. Sure, it's very unforgiving if you get it wrong. If you're too low, if you skid the turn, if you fail at downwind ground-related flying, or a number of other possibilities, you will probably crash. Would calling it the 'Improbable Turn' be better, or perhaps the 'Inadvisable Turn'? Would it stop people trying it if we call it the 'Stupid Dumb-Ass Turn'? I doubt it. If we just keep practicing it over and over, with idling engine, at different heights and in different conditions our students will soon learn to recognise when it's the Impossible Turn and when it's the Better Option - it's just a matter of practice, practice and practice, in my opinion.

If you like aviation history you're sure to enjoy this -

Well, back when there weren't any ridiculous rules against it, I used to spend a lot of time with my engine switched off and gliding and even made some height gains on occasion but if folks aren't going to do that, even idling, then perhaps they should go and get an aerobatic rating (and an appropriate plane of course), then there's no question about the turn-back method with least height loss. Years ago a few of us saw it demonstrated from about 500 ft, I wouldn't try it and I don't recommend it, I think it's only for those very well endowed in the gonads department. It went like this - Engine stops, stick forward while rolling inverted, then pull out of the dive and land. Total height loss less than 200ft. .

I can't put a name to it but it looks like something out of the Bristol Aircraft factory, perhaps the forerunner to the "Bombay"? Huge wings, looks like it has flying wire bracing ...

At the risk of being put into that category, I'm afraid I'm another of the skeptics about the value of psychologists in this and many other areas. I know a few of them well, having three with family links, and by their own admission in many cases they do little or nothing more than put labels on conditions for ludicrously high fees. When I was in high school we had the usual percentage of unruly and disruptive students. They got the cane more often than the rest of us and left school with final year exam passes and went on into the workforce. These days we have half a million kids with the ADHD label who have never had their bottom smacked because its illegal and would be immoral anyway because they have a mental 'condition'. It's not their fault, it's not the parents fault either, and the vast majority will never complete school, will never get a job and will instead spend their lives living off welfare and crime. In my opinion that's thanks to the psychologists mainly. My wife had a mental block about parallel parking because she'd once bumped another car while reversing. Unknown to me at the time, she used to park the car a mile or more from the shopping centre to avoid parallel parking spaces. If I'd followed the thinking above she'd still be carrying the shopping a mile back to the car. Instead I spent a couple of afternoons with her practicing parallel parking over and over until she got it perfect. Now she doesn't give it a second thought. A psychologist would have told me to back off and never mention it for fear of causing my wife stress which might result in her having a crash elsewhere. When I was doing my first spin training I had no trouble when spinning to the left but I got disorientated spinning to the right and couldn't determine which way we were going. Thankfully my instructor didn't follow the advice above or we'd have only practiced spinning to the left. Instead we practiced it to the right time and again until I was familiar enough that I could recognise the direction and instantly react correctly every time. During that I developed an 'instant recognition' method that works well for me - don't worry which way the plane is spinning just press the rudder on the side toward the way the earth is spinning, I find that much easier than thinking about the plane ... And - from the above are we to hope that engines will never actually stop on an upwind leg, or having just flown to windward past a great outlanding place? I don't believe that any particular training could be responsible for killing people, it's more likely lack of sufficient practice at it, to get the manoeuvre right. And this is a very good point. I was reading through the Google books collection of Popular Mechanics magazine somewhere around 1912-14 and there was a great description of the selection and training process for people to join the 'Air Force'. The majority of the article was to do with the numerous factors for which people should be rejected as candidates for flying training. Compare this with the average sport flying school which would only very rarely consider telling someone they're not really suited to 3D travel and might be better staying on terra firma. Students are too hard to get, to go around rejecting them. During his time as CFI a friend of mine did in fact reject two students after numerous hours of training. They were keen as mustard and just kept racking up hours but the CFI couldn't get them to a stage where he considered them safe enough to solo. Both of them went to other schools and were quite quickly sent off solo and got their certificates. Both crashed and have ongoing disabilities as a result, so perhaps some people do have the spectator gene and shouldn't fly.

Just in case anyone didn't pick up on this, I think it's the single most poignant comment made so far and contains three absolutely golden messages that all should be aware of - It does absolutely depend on your training and your understanding. Many people have never been trained on the turn-back because some schools adopt the position that it is either impossible to do or that it is irresponsible to teach it because it may encourage people to try and they may not judge it correctly. I'm not going to jump for one or other position on that as far as the schools are concerned but certainly if you've never been trained on it then you should never even consider attempting it, probably from any height, because you're unlikely to have been trained on downwind landings. In my school, and others that I worked in, we did train the students in the turn-back, and did it multiple times with each student resulting in their being able to quickly judge from the sight picture, awareness of the wind direction and strength, and familiarity with that particular aircraft's glide performance, (i.e. not from the altimeter at all) whether they could safely manage the turn-back or should select a forced landing site ahead. With frequent practice with idling engine, and practice in all sorts of different wind conditions and with the different aircraft types that you fly, your performance in the 'real event' will be many times better than if the first time you do it is also the 'real event'. So, like most aspects of staying safe when flying, if you haven't practiced it don't try it for the first time when under pressure. But I believe people who weren't trained in it should practice it as part of their advanced flying development, perhaps start by requesting some practice at height with your instructor when you do your next BFR, make the BFR more useful. The third point that Aldo makes is about the CDATO. The Crosswind Drift After Take-Off is a bit controversial as some observers who might not be aware of the purpose consider that it looks a bit sloppy and unprofessional. After all, we're taught to track the runway centreline after take-off aren't we? CDATO may not be appropriate at every airstrip or where there is a lot of traffic in or approaching the circuit, so that needs to be considered when deciding whether to use CDATO, but in my experience CDATO can be performed in the large majority of take-offs and at some airfields, for safety reasons, I will use it regardless of traffic after having broadcast my intention clearly. Those airports are ones where there is nowhere safe to make a landing ahead in case of EFATO, runways cut out of forested areas, those with towns straight ahead etc. In post no. 7 above facthunter said the turnback involves 180+30+30 degrees of turning and that also involves three lots of rolling into and out of turning. I don't quite agree that it's always like that and may depend on the aircraft type - in my experience it's actually even worse than that if turning back from a practice engine failure at a height that is marginal for the turn-back to be performed. In experimentation I found that you would reach a height where it was 'just safe' to turn back at a distance not very far beyond the end of the runway, i.e. a fairly steep sight picture to the reciprocal heading landing point. This would necessitate a 180+60+60 degree turn to make it to a position where you are lined up for a downwind landing, a total of 300 degrees of turning. Now look at the CDATO method. Nearly every take-off has some degree of crosswind, so the first consideration is to ascertain which side you will choose to drift off the centreline during the initial stages of the climb. After lifting off (having broadcast your intention to drift) you allow the aircraft to drift off the centreline downwind i.e. you don't crab down the runway centreline. If the engine quits very soon after take-off you just fly back to the runway and land on it ahead similar to if you hadn't drifted off it - your drift distance will never be so great that you can't glide back to the runway should you need to. If the engine quits later you scan ahead 30 degrees each side and make a landing site selection. So you haven't compromised anything at all. Next you consider your height, wind strength (you are already aware of the wind direction) and aircraft performance, and perhaps you decide to turn back if you're high enough. The chances are that you have already turned the few degrees to face back towards the runway instinctively as soon as the engine first coughed so you're probably now crabbing at, say 10 degrees, towards the runway when you make the decision to turn back. This means you have only 170 degrees to turn to be back on the reciprocal heading and you have two other factors working in your favour which will be very likely to eliminate the need for the extra 60=60 degrees of turning to get lined up. First you were already positioned downwind of the centreline so that gives you a fair bit of room to make the turn without going past the other side of the centreline, and second, all the time you are turning the crosswind is constantly drifting you in the right direction to avoid your crossing the centreline, so by the time you've turned to the runway reciprocal heading you will be lined up for the landing. So - using the CDATO method you reduce your turning requirement from 300 degrees to only a little more than half that amount - about 170 degrees, and since the greatest height loss, by far, is while turning, the method can make an enormous difference in the height required to complete the manoeuvre.

Hi Bob, yes, you're right but I didn't want to irk the Pony fans ... It's a bit ironic discovering this stuff at this stage because I'd always had a fascination for the Typhoon and never known the close family link. The part of the story that I misunderstood was that I'd thought Uncle John was transferred from Hurricanes to bombers and that would most likely have been Lancasters because of the Sqn I thought he'd gone to. It was my father's brother that recently explained it was fighter-bombers, not bombers ... During some of this research I did read a paper by an armourer who described the firepower of the Typhoon when it was fully loaded. It had options, racks that were supposed to be interchangeable for bombs and missiles as well as the 4x 20mm cannon. Most squadrons tended to use either the bombs or the missiles as it turned out but some worked out a way to attach double racks of missiles making 16 in all which resulted in a 39kt speed loss (from 400kts!) so they often only loaded the inner ones double, thereby carrying 12. Whichever munitions they loaded their total firepower was a little more than a full broadside from a Destroyer apparently. I don't know what size guns a Destroyer of the time mounted but it gives an idea that you wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of it. One of 193's major successes in ground attack at the time was to collapse and seal both ends of a mountain tunnel while a German munitions train was transiting it ... The Typhoons were the Mk 1b and when Hawker developed the successor, Mk 2, it was so far evolved that they gave it a new name, the Tempest. Such is the rate of developments during wartime. Perhaps we need another thread for these kinds of story, this is a bit of a hijack but I'd love to hear of others' family or friends' aviation histories.

Well, interesting you should ask. I thought I knew all the history of it, he was my mother's brother and they were pretty close, so she didn't like to talk about it much and I've only just found out that my understanding of the story was a bit wrong. Just the other day I told a little of the story as I understood it, on the Childhood Memories thread so this is a good chance to correct the details perhaps. By pure co-incidence my father's brother contacted me the other day and said that some Society or other is publishing a book and refurbishing the War Memorial that's dedicated to those who were lost from their area in UK during the wars. My older brother, John, happened across the Serial Number of the plane my Uncle John was killed in (my brother was named in honour of my uncle), and that made it easier to do some research and find out more of the story. Uncle John (John Richard King-Meggat) went into the RAF in late 1941 or early 1942 and was sent immediately to Florida for flight training. He was based at Carlstrom Field, Arcadia, which is part of the Riddle Aeronautical Institute (still exists) and he did his ab-initio training in the AT-6 (aka Harvard). He completed his training in April/May 1942 and was by then engaged to an American lass. I have my Uncle's flight training manual and it's a terrific book, I may get around to scanning it one day and posting some of it. In late 1942 a new Squadron was formed in UK (re-formed actually, after having been disbanded in 1919), 193 Sqn, and he was posted there. They were based at RAF Harrowbeer near Yelverton in Devon. He completed conversion training to Hurricanes and then spent the next 8-9 months on bomber escort duties. In early 1943 a British ex-pat living in Brazil organised for a Brazilian Association called the "Bellows Brazil" to start collecting money to 'adopt/sponsor' etc a fighter aircraft. This sort of thing was happening all over the Empire. They were very successful fundraisers so they ended up adopting the whole Squadron and on 16th October 1943 they had a presentation ceremony where they handed over 9 brand new Hawker Gloster Typhoons. One of them was assigned to my Uncle, Serial JP902, code designation DP-G (DP was 193 Sqn). The Typhoon was a powerful fighter bomber somewhat equivalent in weight and firepower to the P51 Mustang and so was an excellent ground attack aircraft, but which had more than its share of troubles. It variously lost its tailfeathers, overheated the cockpit, poisoned the pilot with carbon monoxide and had double supercharged 2000hp 24 cyl Napier slide-valve engines that liked to be perverse. They also looked quite like the FW 190 so tended to attract friendly fire. Consequently they were the first aircraft to wear the distinctive black and white stripes like the D Day stripes but only under the wings, and the pilots used oxygen from start-up to shut-down. When all was going well they were a force to be reckoned with and provided a lot of ground support for the Normandy Invasion. Sadly my Uncle didn't make it to Normandy, through the winter of 1942/43 they continued with the bomber escort duties because the Typhoon had a long range and so could escort the bombers deep into Germany, unlike the Hurricanes and Spits which had to turn back over France/Belgium. When they weren't escorting they were tank, bridge, train and tunnel-busting. On 2nd Feb '43 they went out on ground strikes in the Cherbourg, France, area and the weather was foul so they stooged around for a while then aborted the mission. If they still had armed bombs loaded they always dropped them in the sea before landing to prevent them detonating in case they had an incident on landing. This time when the flight jettisoned their bombs my Uncle's plane was directly below and he went down in the sea 16km north of Cap de Hague. A few days later some of the squadron members, friends of Uncle John, went to my grandparents home to tell them about it, it must have been a dreadful duty for them. It's a tragic story of course but it's good to have the internet and be able to find out more. I've found a couple of detailed descriptions of the incident, other pilot's logbook entries that describe it, memorials for all those lost from the squadron, the stories about the squadron's successes, losses and events were also printed in the newspapers in Brazil. There is also a RAF Harrowbeer interest group that is involved with the preservation of the remains of the airfield which is fairly intact since it is now a farm and is one of the few which has not had housing estates built all over it, plenty to see on Google Earth for anyone that may be interested. Thank you Ian R and red750! I don't think I'd have guessed enough to track that one down. Looks like they came with the radial engine or the Rolls inline. I hadn't noticed the bulge under the wing. . EDIT - There was a semi-amusing incident the day of the presentation of the new Typhoons. There were a bunch of dignitaries from the RAF and also from the Bellows Brazil organisation and they'd planned a fly-past of the new planes in salute of the occasion but the weather was totally socked in and pouring with rain so someone suggested a taxi-past instead. This they did with due solemnity, in a V formation but one of the wingmen got a bit out of line and gave a burst of power to catch up. The event was being broadcast on the BBC radio and they had a mobile broadcast van at the airfield. Unfortunately the hapless pilot who was trying to get back in line hit the braodcast van wrecking it and the brand new Typhoon, so the squadron continued with eight instead of nine. Since people were kind enough to show an interest here are a couple more pics - Uncle John in one and his Typhoon, ground crew and mechanics.

This might be a good thread to see if someone can help with a family photo - The top one shows my Uncle when he was assigned his first fighter, a Hurricane. The bottom was taken on or close to the same time, same roll of negatives anyway, and we'd always assumed it was also a Hurricane, perhaps an earlier model used for type conversion training, but I only had a close look at it for the first time recently and see that there are many differences particularly in the landing gear - also the wingtips. Any ideas anyone? The photos were taken in late 1942 or early 1943.

Great camerawork mauld, love your vids! Highlights for me were - Seeing the Typhoon in D Day markings In the first scene, the Spit nose down going hell-for-leather, but seemingly just keeping up with the Typhoon nose high and hanging there The manoeuvrability of the Typhoon at high or low speed, looks like it could out dogfight the Spit ... ... and that's a hell of an achievement for a delta configuration, shows that the canard/strake beats reflexing for pitch control I'd not noticed the extent of the l/e cuffs before The mach 2 Typhoon at 90 knots! The Spit would have trouble getting as slow as that.

So much depends on who you ask, 80 ... If you ask an Aussie it will be somewhere in Australia for sure. Longest strip in 1951? If it was in Australia it might have been Mangalore, at just over 2000m. But - Nairobi and Johannesburg are both above 5000ft elevation and used by military, so are relatively long, and La Paz has always had a very long strip since Bolivia's Military Aviation School was established there as early as 1916 and at an elevation above 13,000ft! This Aussie thing of "the longest/biggest/widest/heaviest whatever in the southern hemisphere" has always intrigued me. It's pretty convenient limiting it to the southern hemisphere since, relatively speaking, there isn't much development south of the equator. The prize goes to the tourism operators in the Kimberley. When I first went up there they were all telling the tourists that Lake Argyle was the largest man made lake in the southern hemisphere, and it held 42 times as much water as Sydney harbour. The truth though, is that Lake Argyle is a mere puddle compared to the largest (by volume) in the southern hemisphere - which is also the largest in the world - Lake Kariba, and Lake Cahora Bassa just downstream on the the Zambesi, isn't far behind. Kariba holds around 180 cubic kilometers of water (or gigalitres), Argyle, although a magnificent and very scenic lake, holds less than 10 ... which is about 9 times the volume of Sydney harbour.

Great thread idea pm. It's good to hear what events later provoked people into aviation. I had little hope of avoiding flying I think, there were a lot of early influences. Until I was 5 years old we lived in a remote part of southern Africa about 100 miles from the nearest town and nearby was a quite large mission church. Its roof was painted bright silver and visible for fifty miles from the air so naturally the Air Force used it for navigation and bombing practice. They were training in Spitfires first and later Vampires. They certainly put the fear of God into all of us when we went to church on Sundays. My parents were employed developing schools and clinics over there and every few years we all went to UK on a training sabbatical and holiday for six months at a time. We left on the first trip when I was just turned five and it was a most wonderful adventure. The first leg was a five hour Land Rover journey to 'the big smoke', an overnight stay with colleagues prior to the first flight next morning. Dawn saw us through informal Passport control on the dusty apron and then climbing into the 'huge' DC3 for a hot and bumpy but exhilarating low level (below 10,000ft but the ground was 5,000ft) flight south, i.e. in the wrong direction, to Johannesburg in South Africa. There we transferred to a super-modern (for Africa in those days) De Havilland Viscount with it's stunning four turboprop engines. Soon we were having a delicious lunch - as far as I can remember, just a couple of sandwiches and a hungry kid I expect - and nothing could keep me away from the window and the wondrous views, an exciting landing for more pax and take-off at Lourenco Marques in Mozambique, first ever views of the ocean, high mountains and the immense Lake in Nyasaland (now Malawi), and all too soon we were descending into the evening at Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania (or Tanganyika, as it was called back then). Passenger planes didn't fly at night in Africa in those days so we were transferred to a comfortable Colonial Hotel for dinner, bed and breakfast. In the pre-dawn we were bussed to the Airport for a day of short hops up the East Coast picking and dropping passengers at Nairobi in Kenya, Kampala in Uganda, Addis Ababa in Ethiopia then across the Sudan for a second overnight stop at Khartoum on the confluence of the White and Blue Nile Rivers. I remember being dreadfully disappointed there because I loved Cartoons and thought that's what would be there! Additionally I was feeling a bit lonely and increasingly sad for my Teddy who was missing the adventure because I'd inadvertently left him on the settee at our colleagues house on the first day. The next day was all North African desert and very bumpy though I couldn't for the life of me understand why so many people were complaining, refusing their food and drinks and generally being disgusting with vomiting all the time. I thought it was all great fun! The next stop was Cairo and a short break for a ground trip to the Pyramids and Sphinx which I don't remember unfortunately because I slept through it all, and then on to Tripoli in Libya and I think that was the next overnight stop. The next day saw us landing at Tunis in Tunisia, across the Mediterranean to Rome and then up the length of Italy on a long climb to clear the Alps which was a gloriously clear day so my first views of really big mountains and snow is forever etched in memory. The last overnight stop was in Zurich in Switzerland. The next day was 'all green' on the final leg into Heathrow near London. There was lots of aviation related 'stuff' while in UK as my uncle had been a Hurricane and Lancaster pilot in the war (sadly lost in a Lanc from 'friendly fire' during a bomb dump over the North Sea following an aborted mission), and my Grandfather had just retired as head toolmaker from De Havilland so he was able to take us on a visit through the factory, and of course we had to 'do' all the aviation museums and shows, I was a kid in heaven! The return to Africa was a great disappointment though, we ended up on the first flight of the BOAC Comet service to Johannnesburg. It only had two or three refuelling stops and no overnights in 'luxury' hotels. The only highlight was the rocket assisted take-off in Nairobi because the airport is hot and high and relatively short runway. Those rocket boosters certainly provided a spirited initial climb rate. On future UK trips we decided the mailships would be a more entertaining means of travel than the new jets so we took the two day Pullman carriage rail trip down to Cape Town to meet the Union Castle Liners for the 14 day cruise to Portsmouth. Hence I became a lover of rail and ocean travel also. The long rail journey through the savannah, deserts and Drakensberg mountains has scenery 'to die for' and it's hard to beat a fortnight cruise ... but that meant I was in my mid teens before I got to fly again. That happened when I met an Airforce instructor who owned a Chipmunk and loved aerobatics so I did a lot of polishing aluminium in return for rides. I've always felt incredibly privileged to have had such a marvellous introduction to flying and with that in mind I've taken every opportunity to 'give back' by taking other youngsters flying, their excitement and wide grins are all the reward I could ever ask for. It's such a shame that fear of litigation is making this less common these days.

I flew about 4-5 hours in one of the early production models of the Sirocco in southern France in 1984. It was just after they changed to the Rotax 377, it originally had a JPX engine (like one of the twin engines used on the Lazair at one time) but was underpowered so they changed to the Rotax. I was looking at them with a view to establishing a distributorship. There was a lot of hype about the Sirocco at the time, being quite cute looking, but the performance didn't live up to the manufacturer's claims. At the time they were spruiking a cruise as well as max straight and level speed of 63mph which was their and USA's legal limit. I wasn't able to get it that fast in level flight and realistic cruise was only about 45mph. And the spoiler roll control was less than exciting. The reason for the low speed was the very large amount of drag from the upper and lower wire bracing and probably also because it used a very high lift airfoil section developed by Paul McReady for man-powered flight IIRC. It certainly wasn't in the class of the Sapphire or even the Hummer, nor the Drifter which came along later. I gave up all ideas of distributing them and instead built my own version. Below is what I think is the only surviving photo of it during a move from the garden shed to my first 'real' factory. I had intended making it a strut braced version to try and improve the performance envelope but ended up having a lot of trouble getting it into the 115kg weight restriction that was becoming more closely policed than in previous years, so it too ended up wire braced. It flew acceptably well but, like the Aviasud Sirocco was just a bit too slow to interest many people. The current Sirocco has been re-engineered by autoreply from HBA (some folks here will know who I mean) and makes extensive use of CF to get the weight down even lower than previously and now has a MTOW of 250kg but still has a relatively massive 130+ sq ft/12+ sq m of wing area allowing it to comply with the European, British and US ultralight regulations but which mean that it will realistically be restricted to dawn and dusk flight unless you're happy to keep your speed right down and still have your teeth and eyes rattled out in the least bit of turbulence. Contrary to gliders making a mockery of the weight/strength issue, gliders are deliberately built heavy for performance reasons as well as strain mitigation. As Dafydd mentioned, the only reason for use of CF in gliders is to stiffen the wings even though it makes for a harder ride in turbulence. As I understand it the stiffening is mainly to prevent control lock-up when the wings flex excessively and cause misalignment of the control surface hinging. There's no reason not to build gliders heavy, since the wings are additionally filled with water ballast to assist penetration speed. Similarly, for its diminutive size the Sapphire is not a particularly light aircraft, which is why it ended up needing to be built under 95.25 rather than 95.10, and is also why it flies so comfortably and relatively fast. There's probably no reason to use CF in a Sapphire unless you wanted to reduce its wing area as well as its weight so as to still keep the stall speed within LSA limits.

A good one - and one of the more plagiarised comments. It's largely attributed to Henry Ford, he's supposed to have said it to William Bushnell Stout, the designer of the Ford Trimotor aeroplane, though other sources say it was a Stout original. Following a lot of simplification and addition of lightness the Ford Trimotor became the first successful production all-metal aeroplane. Others claim the saying was first uttered by a designer called Gordon Hooton who worked for Stout before Stout sold his Company to Henry Ford. The saying was adopted by Colin Chapman as the design philosophy for Lotus Cars and was also prominently displayed on the wall of Ed Heinemann's office throughout his long career with Douglas Aircraft Company. Heinemann was the designer of 20 something fighters including the A4 Skyhawk and the F-3. As a project leader Heinemann was highly respected for the wise way in which he treated his team (from the A4 Assoc website) - "Following are some key rules Ed said he tried to adhere to when dealing with people. They give you a measure of the man! Tell people what is expected of them. Tell them in advance about changes that will affect them. Let those working for you know how they are getting along. Give credit where credit is due, especially for extra effort or performance. Do it while it's hot. Don't wait. Make the best use of each person's ability. Strive to keep ahead of schedule. Don't waste time. If you're the boss, give guidance, direction, and most important, decisive answers to questions. Make sure people know where to go to get answers. Beware of office politicians. If you want to pick a man for a difficult job, pick one who has already thought out the problem or is capable of doing so quickly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices. Beware of these. Respect the specialists -- those who are masters of a particular phase of an operation. But be wary of allowing them to make big decisions. Avoid lengthy committee meetings. Avoid paralysis by analysis. Plan ahead." The famous author and wartime reconnaissance pilot Antoine de Saint-Exupery had his own eloquent version on the same theme - "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." .

The Ultrabat was a George Markey project. George was the founding President of the AUF. I'm surprised to hear about all these Ultrabats. I thought there were only ever two and they both ended up going to the USA, but more may have been done with it that I'm not aware of. I'm not sure what the comment about trailering and structural integrity means in regard of the Sapphire. It's quite trailerable as far as I know, I've seen a number of them being trailered, the wings come off and go on in a few minutes. You just have to be careful to support the tailboom when trailering them, not just sit it on the tailwheel. I've repaired a couple of damaged tailbooms on Sapphires, one where the prop departed and cut the tailboom halfway through - very lucky/skilled pilot landed it on the highway with very gentle elevator control inputs, the second was cracked from repeated tailwheel-first landings. I don't think you could build a Sapphire cheap enough and put a decent engine on it, to retail for $30K, probably not even if built in China, there's a fair bit of work and materials in them ... .

I sympathise Rank. And I'm sure Exadios and Mriya are right about the private network but for some reason it's not even quite as simple as that because some planes disappear and others don't. I got a huge fright last year, my wife was returning from Europe and had just departed Abu Dhabi for Melbourne. Her flight seemed to be late departing then popped up on R24 already about 30mins south of AD. I watched her flight and a couple of dozen others for a few minutes and then was about to go back to bed when her flight just disappeared but all the others carried on as normal. In fact there was a stream of flights heading for East Africa, India etc. I kept watching and getting just a little concerned but her flight didn't re-appear. Eventually I assumed transponder failure or 'something' and went to bed but set an alarm for an hour later to check that it had re-appeared. I was a bit bleary when I woke so I turned on the TV in the lounge and went to the computer in the office. My wife's flight still wasn't showing but all those that left around the same time were bright as day. So I did start to get rather more worried and a couple of minutes later came as close to having a heart attack as I ever have. I heard the TV announcing the crash of an airliner and rushed into the lounge to see vision of a jet slamming into the ground, skidding along and partially breaking up. Of course I just assumed the worst and started to think about survival chances and all that, at least it hadn't burnt and the wreckage wasn't mangled, there was a good chance she was OK. What I didn't take into account in the moment of 'panic' was how did someone get footage of this crash way out in the desert? It was July 6th last year when the Asiana 777 crashed while landing at San Francisco. Once I realised that it was a case of mixed emotions of relief for me and deepest sympathy for those who would really be experiencing the shock. For some undiscovered reason my wife's flight didn't come back onto R24 at all until it was over Spencer Gulf near Adelaide ... but it was very interesting switching to the cockpit view to watch the last half hour including the 'circuit', approach and landing into Melbourne.

Ah, I see, I thought you'd meant there was a type of gear called that. Yes, gear that could land on that kind of country is the type of thing, though not nearly essential, you can usually find a small claypan that's clear of most scrub. That kind of country is similar to the blacksoil grass clumps I mentioned. If you can land on those you're doing OK and big diameter wheels rather than tundra tyres are the go for that. When it's dry for extended periods the blacksoil turns to dust and blows away from around the roots of the grass leaving hard football-sized root clumps exposed. Mainly found in sheep country rather than cattle country though, typical of the Diamantina area between Longreach and Cloncurry. The sheep walk between the clumps and hasten the erosion. You'd only try and land on it in really serious circumstances. An old hand aeroplane musterer used to train others to muster sheep on that kind of country by telling the newbie to make sure he kept the flock tight together - "in case the engine stops, then you land on the mob, coz if you land on the clumps they'll rip your ass out ..." It's not just travel, it's also about not bouncing ... I have considered long spring gear with an inertia-reel style of take-up that acts like a shock absorber, taking up as the gear leg rises and only allowing it to rebound very slowly, perhaps using a viscous coupling unit or similar.