Jump to content

onetrack

Members
  • Content Count

    1,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

onetrack last won the day on July 13

onetrack had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,219 Excellent

About onetrack

  • Rank
    Well-known member

More Information

  • Aircraft
    None
  • Location
    Perth, W.A.
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just mind-blowing scenery. 12,000 feet elevation would make me start to feel a bit faint or crook. All I can think of is - how did they get the earthmoving equipment in there, to build the airstrip?
  2. That wasn't a dive, it was a vertical fall with no control systems inputs. It looks like a rock falling out of the sky. That scenario has to be a major in-flight breakup. I don't reckon that aircraft fell from 12,000 feet, or some of the skydivers would have survived by jumping. The reports are, that it crashed not long after takeoff. There are witness reports that some of the skydivers tried to jump, but the aircraft was too low for their parachutes to open. Perhaps the witness reports were wrong, and what they saw was simply bodies being flung from the falling aircraft, as it disintegrated. What is interesting is the aircraft is reported to have "undergone inspection" only 3 weeks ago, and no problems, or potential problems were found. Obviously, that inspection was inadequate. The ATSB is going to get involved in the investigation, because of the fact that it's an Australian-built aircraft - and no doubt the Swedish aviation authorities will be wanting to know a lot more about the Airvan. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/15/skydiving-plane-crash-kills-all-nine-on-board https://www.thelocal.se/20190715/what-we-know-about-the-fatal-plane-crash-in-northern-sweden-so-far https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/aussies-to-help-investigate-deadly-swedish-plane-crash/news-story/eef19defb0dde9955a7ddc9b928c6a98
  3. I can't really put my finger on it, but the Xenforo page layout was better. Maybe a wider margin, and slightly different colours, and a slightly different menu layout - but I think the Xenforo layout, fonts, and colours, were superior.
  4. +1 for the Xenforo look-alike scheme. A good scheme has pastel colours, rather than strong bold colours that are hard on the eyes, particularly where there's a number of strong colours providing very sharp contrast.
  5. Rubber degrades with age and the effect of sunlight, and the small percentage of ozone in the air. Even if kept in dark conditions, rubber components still slowly degrade, by hardening and losing strength. 5 years is a regularly recommended changeover period for critical rubberised components, you might be able to run them for 10 years, if they're kept in dark, covered conditions. I'd say replace them.
  6. WW1 was actually worse for terrible war surplus waste. At the end of WW1, the RAF owned 22,000 aircraft! Quite a number of the Sopwiths in late 1918 still had zero hours on them, and these new aircraft were scrapped without ever leaving the ground. Of the 22,647 aircraft the RAF owned in late 1918, more than 80% went for scrap.
  7. Pushing the boundaries of your piloting skills by attempting a borderline VFR flight into complete darkness is the only glaring reason for John Kennedy Jr's fatal crash. The Kennedys were famous for risky behaviour. The NTSB conducted a thorough enquiry and concluded that the crash was due to the pilots "failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation". That is an investigation carried out by experts, who also look for evidence of possible foul play in crashes. Even JKj's last instructor advised he wasn't yet ready for instrument evaluation, and needed additional training. He stated that JKj had the ability to fly to Martha's vineyard at the time of the flight, only if a visible horizon existed. Any faintly visible horizon JK Junior might have had, vanished during his descent, due to haze and the blending of dark water, dark land, and dark night. He chose to fly without filing a flight plan, he originally planned to take off in good light at 18:00Hrs but did not depart until 20:39Hrs, more than 30 mins after sunset. In addition, the final nail in his coffin was his decision to fly the route over 30 miles of water and then descend over water at night, whilst approaching the coastline. In hazy conditions, at night, with no IFR qualification, JK jr simply flew far beyond his skills level. As with so many fatal crash pilots, they think they're more skilled than they are.
  8. This ATSB report is 15 yrs old now, but even in 2004, the safety of light helicopters, and Robbies in particular, was no worse than any of the other heavier or more commercial versions. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36750/Light_utility_helico.pdf One has to remember that Robbies are bought in big numbers, often flown to their limits in conditions that are regularly extreme, and owned and operated by rural property owners and employees, who quite often have a cavalier approach to aviation. The helicopter played a major part in every area of the Vietnam War and the UH-1 demonstrated a robustness and reliability that was nothing short of incredible. Chickenhawk is still my favourite read.
  9. The history of the Kennedys is one of constant tragedies, but a lot of them were self-generated, because they pushed the boundaries of life to the limit. Even JFK himself almost didn't make it, during WW2. One would suspect the Kennedy Curse was the karmic comeback for Joe Kennedys ruthless, unethical and totally corrupt behaviour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_curse
  10. OME - That's a great piece of historic filmwork, thanks for posting the link. Bit of a shame it wasn't in colour. There's some fairly "leisurely" rates of climb with those old girls! Was that a fuel-saving move, or was that de-rigeur for aircraft of the era? They really ramped up the differences with the number of horses and traps in use! I find it hard to believe there were still numbers of people using horses and traps in 1950. In the 1930's, yes, but not 1950. I'll wager the huge amount of WW2 surplus aircraft made a big difference to aviation in Australia after the War. It certainly did, as regards trucks, jeeps, machinery and equipment. I can recall reading of Stuart tanks going for £10 ($20) each at the Disposal Commissions Sales in 1947. 1950 was the first year since 1941 that fuel rationing still wasn't in place - along with price controls - but tyres were still in short supply.
  11. onetrack

    Fuel

    Compressed air contains a lot of moisture, I think perhaps that might have been the concern, not the fact that air is dangerous in empty fuel tanks. Millions of petrol vehicles drive around daily with half-full to near-empty petrol tanks, and they don't blow up - even though there's electrical wiring in petrol tanks, associated with senders, and in recent times, electric pumps, inside the tank. You only need 3 to 5psi to move fuel from the ground up into tanks above the level of the container or tank. 4WD suppliers sell a jerrycan attachment to lift fuel into 4WD's from jerrycans, using compressed air (search for "Tanami pump"). There's never been any fires from that arrangement that I've ever heard of, or known about. You're more likely to have a fire start due to static from synthetic textiles in clothing. But fires do start from spillage caused by overflowing tanks. That's where the real risk is. You must always ensure that there's no sources of ignition with 20M of any refuelling operation. That means checking ANY potential ignition source. I've personally seen the Mobil fuel depot in Norseman, W.A., burn completely to the ground (in 1975) when a caravanner decided to refuel his petrol-powered car at a bowser in the depot, with his caravan attached. Unfortunately, he forgot that his gas fridge was still running in his caravan, when he refuelled. He overfilled the car's tank, the spill ran under the 'van, the fumes rose or blew into the 'van - and WHOOMPH! - the whole lot went up. They couldn't get the fire out in the car and 'van with the small ready-to-hand extinguishers, and the fire spread to the entire depot. I could see the smoke from 60kms away, and that made me check it out. My local Golden Fleece agent use to use a little single cylinder Petter-diesel-powered portable fuel pump, to pump petrol from the bulk tanks on the tray of his truck to my above-ground (4500 litre) petrol tank. But the oil companies stopped using this technique, because they had a few fires when the overhead tank overflowed, and the petrol splashed back down onto the Petter pumps exhaust system, and ignited. So they changed the system to ensure that all overhead petrol pumping was only to be done by truck PTO-powered pumps.
  12. Kiter - The link below should provide what you need. https://www.crc.id.au/xplane/charts/ERSA-2019-MAY-23/Marree (YMRE) FAC.pdf
  13. KRviator, how do you touch down smoothly and accurately in the dark, in your RAAus aircraft, if you don't have landing lights fitted? I don't recall seeing any LL's fitted to any RAAus aircraft, but I was under the impression that they're a pretty necessary part of landing accurately in the dark? This whole discussion is centred around one blokes stupidity and failure to carry out a diversion or a precautionary landing when he (should have) realised he wasn't going to make Leigh Creek in daylight. He could have even picked a local road to land on, in a pinch, it's not like there's lots of traffic or infrastructure out there, that he'd have to try and avoid. There's simply no need to even try and produce a scenario where you'd try land in the dark, or in cloud or fog, simply because you failed to carry out a diversion or precautionary landing, as a matter of common sense. I never cease to be amazed at how "getthereitis" takes overwhelming precedence in so many pilots minds, when running late, when it appears common sense is totally ignored.
  14. I think perhaps the helicopter haters above, have failed to inform themselves of the reasons behind this Robbie crash - it was a wirestrike. Pilot error, pure and simple, nothing to do with Robbie reliability. Very sizeable numbers of Robbie crashes can be sheeted home to cowboy operation. Typically, the bloke in the N.W. of W.A. who decided he could ignore the factory recommended rotor life and decided on his own bat he could double the recommended rotor life. He paid for that decision with his life. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-031/
  15. Yes, when you read the number of aviation forum reports, where pilots have reported electronic screens simply going black, or producing major display faults, it gives one the realisation that electronic screens are far from 100% trustworthy, and it certainly is a wise move to ensure that you have adequate skills to be able to continue to fly safely, without 100% reliance on a screen display.
×
×
  • Create New...