flying dog

If you are interested in reading the latest about the QANTAS A380 who's engine exploded.... http://www.recreationalflying.com/downloads/aircraft-maintenance-2/ NOTE: It is 900kb in size Don't ask where I got it.

The other night I recorded and now just watched a doco on the "first" hi-jacking of a plane where it was only domestic. Anyway, what ever: It was a 727. Do 727's still have a rear door? I remember boarding planes from the back, but there were L1011's, Tri-stars and other planes. What was what I dunno. But they said that the 727 had a rear passanger door - ie: One which opens at the back inline with the plane's body. So.....? Do they still have that door?

WRT the first one, Yeah, "Billzilla" - Great bloke.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I should try to build one of these..... http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/teens-solar-death-ray-can-melt-concrete-20110204-1afxk.html

Can't remember, It was on the radio and I just happened to overhear it. As I said, I will try to get the podcast.

I shall try to get the "podcast" and include it here - if possible. That may remove the ambiguity.

The "reporter" was being interviewed on the radio about "looking death in the face"...... A bit of hype anyway. But he was recalling this occurence. Talking them through it. Just the detail given - to me - was a bit tooooo much. Though it was supposed to be about "close calls" and all that, I just can't believe it as he said. I can't belive the army/air force would allow such a flight with those limits. If it had to be done, they would have given them the plane with the needed systems.

The AJ's? The reporter has a big enough mouth that he makes mountains of mole hills quite well enough with no assistance required at all.

Well that is what "worries" me. This is a MILITARY flight. There was an Air Crash Investigation where a similar things happened. Ok, "it happenes", but this dork telling people in the real world about this? Maybe they shouldn't be doing it, but I think this is stepping over the line of what they should be talking about and what they shouldn't.

Stareing death in the face. I'm listening to the radio and one of these "famous" news people are on. :csm: He's talking about when he and his crew were flying in a plane to Torres Straight islands. They were flying into the airport and had to be there before dawn. It was a night flight. He went on saying they were getting close and were starting to land but there was a problem with getting the airport to turn on the lights. Cutting to the chase, he was saying the plane wasn't capable of landing without the lights of the runway and they were pretty well thinking they were going to die. They were getting low on fuel, and all this stuff. "I said to the producer it's not worth waking the camera/audio guy. Let them die in their sleep." Errrr...... So the plane was flying below minimus - right? It didn't have enough equipment to land unless the runway lights were on. Would this be a legal flight? Military or otherwise?

Well, yes they are BIG ozzie, but as I get 747's and all other sorts of planes taking off right over my place, I kind of know the normal height at which they are. When the jumbos are that low they are quite-ish too but WOW those 380's...... You can usually tell the 380's by the wing depth/size. Front to back is more than the 74's. And if you get a real close look I guess you could inspect the wheel doors. The 340's I think have that "extra" middle wheel at the back/main set of wheels in the middle of the plane.

If anyone knows the Sydney layout I live in the inner west. About 10k out of the city. Just recently I have noticed some A380s taking off over my place. Ok, that's nothing new, but the altitude - or lack there of! I can swear that they would be not much over 2,000 feet AMSL. They are LOW! and the only reason I know they are there is because I see them. They are quiet as....... When you hear some jets taking off they have the "balls to the wall" and they are climbing like nobody's business. These A380s are just on a slow climb and the engines are hardly ticking over. Yeah, I guess it is a "de-rated takeoff" (is that the right term?) but wow are is it amazing. You look up and can count the number of people looking out the window back at you. Fantastic!

Facthunter, I've heard similar versions of that story. I don't know if it was the same story re-hashed or it was another exciting story. As it was told to me I don't want to repeat it as I would not be able to repeat it was was told.

Well, I guess it is not good, but who knows.... Maybe he flys fighter jets as his profession. Seems the Americans have some competition for biggest twits though.

Cessnock, Maitland and LUSKINTYRE!

OK, I'll join in. Hyperthetically - ofcourse - You are flying up the coast. Although the weather said SOME clouds, etc it wasn't implying/read that it woudl be THIS bad. The weather is not good. Ok, first choice is land and wait it out. That can't be done as there are no runways handy. No this is not bad planning it is just the situation. Choices then are: Get clearence to transit C airspace or "Scud run" the clouds. Option 2 you Scud run. Get into clouds and all over red rover. Option 1 would be better, but reading the thread this is NOT allowed. With certain exceptions. So, if you are an RAA person and you are in C airspace WITH permission of the controller - and belive me I do NOT want to put them in any trouble - and something happens, declair an emergency. Let the red tape happen, it will anyway. But not declaring an emergency then you crash, it would be worse than if you do. Sure there will be questions why you were there BEFORE declaring the emergency, but that's life. Now, before I dig myself into too much of a hole, I'll stop there. However, I do hope this is of some help.

This is a "cut/paste" job I found else where and thought it may be nice here too. More avionics was supposed to make flying safer.. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/25/3121132.htm?section=justin Typos behind string of take-off mishaps By Barbara Miller Updated 7 hours 22 minutes ago * Audio: Typos blamed for airline safety problems (ABC News) A report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has concluded that a string of take-off incidents and accidents in Australia and overseas were caused by simple data entry errors. The bureau found 31 incidents in the past 20 years that could be put down to typos or miscalculations, including a 2004 cargo flight from Halifax, Canada for which the wrong take-off weight was entered into the flight computer. The plane struggled to take off and then hit an embankment and burst into flames. All seven crew members were killed. "There was a pattern of essentially human error in entering information into aircraft systems and this could affect the performance of aircraft on take-off and in one case lead to a major accident and fatalities," ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said. "It can come from a range of sources. It can be taking the wrong information from a laptop computer, entering the wrong figure in, hearing something that someone has radioed through incorrectly and not checking it, and so on." Mr Dolan says there are systems in place to double-check the information, but the purpose of the ATSB report is to advise all aircraft operators to review their procedures to try and prevent mistakes. "We're saying they should review their systems for entry of these figures into airline systems," he said. "Both the procedures they give to crew and the crosschecks that they have in place to make sure that they're as effective as they could be. "We've drawn attention to a range of things that can be done with aircraft systems over time that also make sure that human error, if it occurs, is detected." The ATSB points out that although it is recommending action be taken, take-off typos should be put in context. The bureau says data entry problems only make up a small proportion of all aircraft incidents.

Although it is a bit of "overkill" here is a suggestion: Do you remember what Billy Carts are? They are/could be foot steering. Alas they are opposite to how a plane is, but there is a way around it. The Billy Cart's steering is a bar at the front which swings back/forth to turn the front wheels. Make the main length a bit longer (say an extra meter long). Leave the original steering board where it is. Install another board at the front. Put the wheels on this. Between the seat and the steering beam, put a pully. On the LEFT side of the steering beam, attach a spring. At the other end of the spring, rope. Run this rope around the pully then to the LEFT side of the front most beam. Repeat for the RIGHT side of the steering beam with another spring, the rope around the pully and to the RIGHT side of the front most beam. Tighten the pivot points to give high friction - this simulates the weight of the plane. This way when you push your left foot foreward the cart will turn left. The springs give you the "slack" feel as discribed the 172 gives. Any takers on building one to try?

http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-27.47701...w&nmd=20100511 Fake. No shadow. Well, if anyone can find it...... I've looked around. Doesn't look right.

Well, blow me down. I have gone back to the document and I can not find that term anywhere. Am I going nuts? (Don't answer that) Sorry folks. Dunno what I read or how I got "unstopable landing" in my head.

I was reading an article not exactly on human factors I got from somewhere, This term was mentioned. What does it mean?

Mr Badger, If you have a Garmin GPS, you may want to look at this site: http://ukgarminairmap.wikispaces.com/page/code/Use+Notes

Thanks for that David.... It is just when I first got my 96C I think I was impressed when I was making a flight plan and I didn't have to enter the "waypoints" of PSP PRT PAA BBG and the like. They are used for the lane through Sydney. So, what I think happened was when I was entering the flight on the gps it was asking me if I wanted to use the USER waypoint of the pre-defined waypoint. Anyway, I notice the AERA doesn't seem to have them. But the points in these GPS's are from "air services" and so are the CHARTS we use flying around Sydney. The points I am mentioning (only as examples) are on the charts, so I am perplexed why they wouldn't be in the GPS. The GPS has intersections and all that stuff too.... a "few" more points wouldn't kill it. Would it? :)

Ok, I had a 96C. As far as I can remember points such as PSP PRT PAA BBG which are points around sydney were/are on the 96C by default. Are they supposed to be on/in the database and would/should they be in/on the AERA's database too?