flying dog

So, the question remains: What happened? They landed, bounced, tried a "go round" and stalled, hit the ground and then stayed there. I don't know. Forgetting all the hoo hah about the luggage, why can't we stick to the real question of: WHAT HAPPENED and WHY? As to getting out of a plane, I'd climb over the seat tops. Forget the isles. But anyway: What is the latest of how it happened?

Just on the overhead baggage thing.try Alitalia! #$*£! The plane has harldy taken off, people walking in the isles. Going in to land, WAY after the signs and announcements, say about the middle marker, people walking down the isles, opening the luggage cabinets. While flying at altitude, people asleep on seats near the emergency exits, with their feet entangled in the handle to open the door! On the "go around": Ok, you need to "get out of there, and back in the air", but until you have a positive rate of climb, why would you retract the wheels? However, all things considered: it is amasing that only one person died.

Well, hang on...... Again I am confused. If QUOTE: I suspect there are protocols about not identifying aircraft that were not involved in the actual incident. Their radio calls were significant which is why they are mentioned UNQUOTE Actually that doesn't make sense now either. Either they ARE or they ARE NOT involved. (Added way after typing and put in later on reflection) They are NOT INVOLVED, why were they mentioned in the first place? And again I ask: WHY WERE THEY REFERRED TO AS AIRCRAFT TWO and not THREE when there were already TWO aircraft named and identified? I am getting a headache from this and all the other crap going on just now.

So........ There was (were?) MYI and RZP. As declared in the title. Therefore there are ALREADY two aircraft in the scope. Whether you want to call MYI "aircraft 1" or "aircraft 2" and vice versa for the other is purely academic. However the person who wrote the article then goes on to use the identifier "Aircraft 2" and not stating to which they were referring is really slack reporting.

Well, as I stated in my post: There are the given TWO aircraft in the scenario. Suddenly there is this "Aircraft 2" declared but never identified. If it is an UN-KNOW, then it should be Aircraft 3. Yeah? (And people get paid to write these reports.) Sorry, but as bad as I am with clarity and this language, the report IS badly written and is confusing.

So no comment on "Aircraft 2" the THIRD aircraft and where it fits in to the scheme of things?

Ok, I am only at page 5 (table 1). 16:45:47 ATC contacts MYI to pass IFR traffic to them. Huh? MYI are the RPT - right? Are there TWO RPT planes in this story? If so, why aren't they both shown and not just MYI? and who is "Aircraft 2"? Although nicely mentioned in the PDF, the use of the number 2 is problematic as there are already 2 planes in the story. So is it just a "lazy way" of referring to one of the EXISTING planes in the story, or is it YET ANOTHER plane? In which case wouldn't it be aircraft 3? I may not be good with this language, but reading this is becoming confusing. Also to add to the confusion: King Island is a CTAF. Common Traffic Advisory Frequency. Just below the second part of Table 1 on page 6 is the weather report. King Island Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF) Notice it is the last 3 letters of CTAF. Yeah, ok, there are only so many "TLA" and "FLA"s available, (Three Letter Acronyms and Four Letter Acronyms) but having two which mean so much differently yet so close to each other is problematic. Page 7 is worrying. "They use an iPad with a popular navigation application, and were able to maintain the flight-planned track far more accurately than relying on navigation using a map. There was no traffic awareness facility on this software application." Ok, it is stated there is no traffic awareness facility. But it raises the question to me: Where were their eyes? INSIDE or OUTSIDE the cabin? I have been in a very similar situation (Right seat) and it really worried me when the pilot was flying EYES INSIDE the cabin to stay out of restricted air space, when there was a very easy train track to follow. (No prizes for guessing where we were.) I am not sure of the "requirements" of this part of a trip (King island to where ever they were going.) but I am guessing it is a ONE LEG trip. That is: They take off at point A and fly to point B. All this fandangled stuff is dangerous if incorrectly used! You get the track from A to B, factor in the wind and determine the heading. You take off, and turn to the heading. Climb to altitude but maintain heading. You are looking at the altimeter, VSI and compass. How it is described here is "Looking at the iPad and following the purple line." Which to me is NOT VFR. No, I am not perfect and have had my own "adventures". Guilty. And sure: Hindsight is a luxury. For someone who says they have done it "many times" and to be making those kind of mistakes..... Well..... I'm sorry. To me, a re-think is needed. (Hey, I am typing as I read) Yes, the pilot goes on to say that "in future they would not fly an almost reciprocal track to the inbound IFR aircraft. Instead, they intend to track a coastal route...." Good, they have seen the mistake and corrected. But again: The iPad part isn't REALLY needed other than the PLANNING phase. Plan the track from the Barwon Heads to the mainland. Easy. The first phase would be simple. Take off, climb, head for Barwon Heads THEN fly the compass to the main land. (Sorry for the poor wording of the last part of that. I hope you understand what I mean.) I love all the modern things, like GPS, and "smart" phones. But they have their place. Complacency is DANGEROUS! Relying on them too much is where things go wrong. I am very glad that there were no casualties from this and that both (both - does that include THREE parties?) parties have become wiser from it. I am slightly curious if there was a change of undies required by either party at the end of events.

Ian, Another "problem" which has sort of started to happen. I am logged in. (Obvious) I close the window and go else where. ITMT, someone replies and I get an email. I open the email and click on the "View this thread". It wants me to log in again. BUT! If I close that window, and open a new one, and go to "recflying" (home page) it logs me in right away. So the cookies are working - I guess. What am I missing? Oh, I am using Rasbian - Debian/Linux on a Raspberry Pi and using Firefox as the browser.

A guy walks into the store and tells the person he wants to buy fork handles...... The guy behind the counter asks "What colour?"

Far easier than chatting with an Irish or Scotsman! Och aye!

Ian, When reading a thread at the top of the screen, there are options for thread subscription or opting out. It would/may be nice if it was also at the bottom too. If I am subscripted and have read the last page, there is no "opt out" there. I have to scroll back to the top to get to it. No big, but just a suggestion.

On the news at 18:00 (evening) there is a claim that one of them was at the wrong altitude. (Guess which) It is "being looked into".

Well......... I shall hold judgement on that. If you climb out of an airport, and get to 1000 feet and have an engine failure, pulling the wire isn't really going to make much difference for the people on the GROUND. What am I missing? If you are talking about JUST after take off, then it is a whole different kettle. Most planes don't turn back (don't go there asking) and so go ahead. Vis, people in that area will be used to planes going over. On the given example, the planes USUALLY take off making a lot of noise. This becomes normal. So, if you are in that area, and are hearing a plane taking off and suddenly it stops or splutters, I think you would notice the "deviation from the normal" and look. But what do I know?

Please excuse my ignorance, but I have to ask: which worked from the engine manifold So HOW will this work with a EFATO? Someone has to ask.

Not wanting to be picky, but....... Belas e mortais Isn't that Pretty and deadly? (NOT USING ANY ONLINE TRANSLATOR)

Just a couple of thoughts...... I get the "simplicity" part mentioned earlier. EFATO can be problematic. The last thing you need are more things complicating landing the plane safely. There was the compressed air can powered horn. and there was the suggestion of the Jaycar horn option. But that too has problems. Here is my take on the whole thing. - The compressed air can is nice, but can itself be problematic. If the can gets old, it can go BOOM! I think back to a story I read in a mag' (I think) and a guy was flying with bags of chips in the plane. At altitude, they went BANG! Scared the poo out of the pilot. - The electric option was mentioned but people were saying if the battery is flat, or other problems, it won't work. - The Hand pumped option seems the most simple, but has problems itself. It is ANOTHER thing the pilot needs to do, and so the workload is increased. I don't have any magic answers, but to me there is no simple answer. Under the cabin is the best place (for sound dispersal) for the horn, but then there are DRAG issues. Putting a hole in the floor and mounting the horn inside is good/better, but what about RENTAL PLANES? I am sure the owner would not like you drilling a hole in the floor. Carrying a can/horn is ok too, as it is portable. But again: It requires extra work from the pilot to DEPLOY the alarm. Also, if it is a Jab (or similar) HOW are you going to open the door while still flying?

Great. This is REC FLYING. PLEASE stop posting these links to bookface, which wont work.

Small engine, SMALL HOLE FOR THE AIR, thus: quicker blocking if ice happens. Also, the greater the ice(water)/fuel mixture will be. that means the noise will stop quickly too! Good luck.

rnot much good if not on book face.

Apologies. Try this.

Found another one..... YouTube

Oh. I guess I am confused and am getting the time I walked around the 225 to when I was at Oshkosh a long time ago then. Oh the fun......... and yes they are a bl%%dy big plane!

OK, I'll ask: Wasn't there an Antanov at Richmond for the "Airofrce 70'th birthday" back in...... when ever? Wasn't there an Antanov at Avalon back in '93? I think it was 93. But around then.

Ok, for all you plane nuts...... I was in the Comm Bank the other day and I saw a QATAR air advert. The plane was either taking off or landing. I didn't pay too much attention, but I looked at the wheels to try and get the make/model.... WTF!!?? What are all those wheels? It was half 767 and half 777, but more! So I scanned the picture, and it is an A350..... 350!!?? Ok, airbus have brought out a new model. But if anyone is near one of said banks soon, try to get a peep at the advert. It is on the monitors and cycles around with other ads. Look at the wheels. Weird.

For all ye of little faith, watch this one then: This takes my original post to a whole new level.