UK planning to evict N-registered aircraft

Question:

The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document; their aim is as stated above.

What’s the stated logic behind this? George Patterson       Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to       use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.

Response:

The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document; their aim is as stated above. What’s the stated logic behind this?

http://tinyurl.com/ar229 for all the documents at the DFT website. I’ve not had time to read them, so if someone beats me to it for a summary! D.

Response:

The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document; their aim is as stated above. What’s the stated logic behind this? http://tinyurl.com/ar229 for all the documents at the DFT website. I’ve not had time to read them, so if someone beats me to it for a summary! D.

The logic is that they are looking at stopping the practice of permanently basing an aircraft in the UK but keeping the ownership and regisration in some other country. According to the documents, they are looking at the fact that something on the order of 21% of the aircraft in the UK spend all of their time in UK airspace despite being foreign registered. The gist of it is that they want to place a time limit on how long you can keep a foreign registered aircraft in the UK without changing the regisration. It’s only a proposal for now and they are requestion comments until late October. Craig C.

Response:

The DfT is alleging it is to save money on maintenance.

Which isn’t quite right.  The real reason is to save money on alterations. There are also many, many items (e.g. avionics) that are FAA approved only, and for which the European approval route is expensive

Bingo.  But that European approval route is what keeps much of the European GA bureaucracy in business.  Ditto those required courses for the PPL and IR.  Ultimately, people do keep planes on the N-register to save time, hassle, and money – but that time, hassle, and money they don’t want to put up with is the lifeblood of the aviation bureaucracy and the people who make their living in it.  Of course those people want the practice to stop. Michael

Response:

18:12:39 GMT the perfect time to write: The UK Department for Transport has published a consultation document; their aim is as stated above. What’s the stated logic behind this? Faulty. Very, Very Faulty. Wouldn’t it also mean pulling out of ICAO?

No just file an exception – countries do it all the time.

Response:

Great summary. Thanks! One item to dispute.  The FAA does do ramp checks in Europe, just not very many.  One of our competitors got ramped.  The pilot told the FAA inspector he had no authority.  The Inspector gave him a break and told him to call his Chief Pilot.  The pilot was quickly educated, got very apologetic, and cooperative. The FAA can ramp a 135/121 operator anywhere in the world.  Our POI (Principal Operations Inspector) asks that question of all of our new Captains.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – According to the documents, they are looking at the fact that something on the order of 21% of the aircraft in the UK spend all of their time in UK airspace despite being foreign registered. The gist of it is that they want to place a time limit on how long you can keep a foreign registered aircraft in the UK without changing the regisration. It’s only a proposal for now and they are requestion comments until late October. The question one must ask is WHY people do this. The DfT is alleging it is to save money on maintenance. Any N-reg owner in Europe will know that is bull. I am an N-reg owner and just about everything costs more, not less, because very few maintenance outfits are fully FAA certified and they have to "buy" a signature from an IA at the end of the job. A typical IA charges the equivalent of US$500 for the signoff. Anything that needs a DER (e.g. structural) is $1000 for the DER signature – as I know well from a recent exercise with an ELT antenna. The CAA is much more relaxed about screwing antennas into airframes than the FAA. There are two main reasons why people "go N". (1) To get worldwide IFR privileges – basically for European touring / business flying. In the non-jet GA context, this is by far the most common reason. The European route to this is the JAA IR which involves 1-2 years’ study, mandatory ground school, an additional hearing (audiogram) test where *each* ear has to pass the -20db limit, and other stuff that’s hardly relevant to noncommercial GA flying. Most people who earn enough money to get access to an IFR-suitable aircraft (i.e. buy one, or buy into one of the rare "IFR" syndicates) and to fly it with sufficient currency, have a life to live and a job to do and can’t devote such a chunk of their life to the exams. 99% of the people doing the JAA IR are young (often jobless) people, with plenty of time, who want to be airline pilots. (2) Certain types are not EASA approved. The Cirrus SR22 is the best known example. The TBM700C2 turboprop is another one, AFAIK due to its slightly higher stall speed. Various turboprops and jets (which I know nothing of in detail) have serious certification issues if not on N. There are also many, many items (e.g. avionics) that are FAA approved only, and for which the European approval route is expensive, or impossible. I was once quoted US$ 2000 for the paperwork for a backup oil pressure gauge (CAA L2 approved company). While few owners will move their aircraft to N just to fit a piece of FAA approved avionics (because moving to N itself can hardly be done for less than $10k and often costs 2x or 3x that, for a SEP – as I know very well, with the DAR alone charging $2600) there are many planes containing equipment alredy fitted which prevents them going to a different registry. The DfT asked the CAA to come up with evidence that N-reg planes have more accidents, and the CAA reported they cannot find any such data. So the DfT is attacking it from the "lack of maintenance oversight" angle, which in theory is accurate (the FAA does supervise European FAA-approved maintenance firms but doesn’t do ramp checks) but in practice is irrelevant because most N-reg pilots are owners, with a powerful incentive to do the specified maintenance (their life, and the fact that the insurance is void unless the aircraft is airworthy). The CAA is practically unknown to do ramp checks on G-reg planes too – just as well because if they did, many UK flying schools, and JAR145 approved maintenance firms, would be in trouble The worst maintained planes in the UK are G-reg, not N-reg. The GBP 250k economic cost in the DfT proposal is low by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude – working on the cost of moving each plane to G, or offloading it onto the U.S. market. Many of these are turboprops and jets. Plus each pilot taking a year to do the JAA PPL/IR. It’s a complete farce. It may be only a "proposal" now, but the manner in which the UK and European governments usually structure these things is to make the process a fait accompli.

Response:

The proposal isn’t that you can only keep the plane in the UK for 90 days at a time, it’s for a limit of 90 days in the UK in any 12 months period (the 90 days bit is up for discussion). So you would have to have the plane outside of the UK for the other 9 months.

Do the UK FBOs realize that the government is actively trying to kill them off ? I’m guessing the result would be to discourage fat cats from parking their aircraft in the UK for too long.

Response:

///    in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without a full IR. Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

This note is wrong in several respects Brian Whatcott    Altus, OK

Response:

Not entirely true.  You need an IMC rating to fly in IMC but it doesn’t give you the full priveleges of an IR (Class A use, for instance).  It is merely to teach you to fly in marginal weather.  Also you do need to have a Night Rating (and pay the CAA for the privelege) but it requires neither an IMC nor an IR rating. shawn

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places, are such that without an IFR capability one can’t usefully go anywhere. In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it. In Europe it’s different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that’s realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do. Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without a full IR. Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

Response:

Juan, In Argentina the same rule applies,

Actually, IIRC, the rule planned for the UK is more sophisticated: 90 days out of 365 are the maximum allowed time in the UK. — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, Only in VMC and in Class G and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without a full IR. Plenty of countries have VFR allowed at night – the USA is one great example. But yes this can be an issue. However a much bigger issue is that the UK is unique in allowing flight in IMC (i.e. IFR) anywhere, and allowing it without any clearance or even any radio contact in Class G. Outside the UK, to fly IFR, one needs to be on an IFR flight plan (following the proper ATS routes, filed and verified via the Brussels computer, and amended en-route by ATC as they wish) and an IR is mandatory to stay legal. Same in the USA, except their flight plan handling and lots of other details are very different. If the British Govt kicks out N-reg aircraft, in addition to the huge costs (typically, 4-5 figures to move back to G, for a little plane with no certification issues, and impossible for many e.g. the SR22) they will strip a large number of pilots of their IFR privileges for European flight. This is a very poor thing to do for safety.

But a very good thing to do for civil servants/politicians who want control of the populace at any cost.  AIUI this isn’t being pushed as a safety measure and it’s not even the CAA doing the pushing but the DFT. Rgds Andy R

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places, are such that without an IFR capability one can’t usefully go anywhere. In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it. In Europe it’s different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that’s realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do. Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without a full IR. Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK. The French allow night VFR, pretty restrictive though, see http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/ENR/…

There are also other things things that make it not impossible to get about without an IR.  ie you can fly VFR in most French airways provided you’re not in cloud, and you don’t need to be in sight of the surface.  So if you can find a hole to go up through and it’s scattered or better at your destination on occasions you’re actually better off than in the UK with an IMC because you can use the airways. Rgds Andy R

Response:

Clearly it is difficult to achieve an effective timed residence ban such as that proposed (90 days every 365 days) while allowing visiting aircraft, because one obvious work-around is for the pilot to swap aircraft every 90 days. While obviously most private pilots aren’t going to purchase, or rent/lease from outside the UK, a different N-reg plane every 90 days (i.e. 4 a year), a larger fractional ownership operation could be structured so the planes are rotated via other countries. A multinational business operating say 4 jets could keep 3 outside the UK and rotate them every 90 days, thus meeting this requirement. So the proposal would screw the small private pilot, while leaving the larger turboprop/jet groups much less affected.

I had thought of this as well, but it would make for some really complicated group structures ! Why can’t UK owners just park the airplane across the channel in france for some portion of the year ? Surely there has to be a percentage of time resident or similar requirement. So UK owners just lease to a flight club across the channel for a few months of the year.

The proposal isn’t that you can only keep the plane in the UK for 90 days at a time, it’s for a limit of 90 days in the UK in any 12 months period (the 90 days bit is up for discussion). So you would have to have the plane outside of the UK for the other 9 months. As Peter suggested, one way around this (that would work only for larger groups, so still screw the majority of private pilots) is to have a fleet of five (four doesn’t quite do it) planes and move them around the world as required so that none of them exceed the 90 days limit. The issues doesn’t firectly and personally affect me at the moment, but I’ve still put in my objections since it’s guaranteed to affect me indirectly or even directly in the future. One point I made was that it’s a bit rich for our authorities to decide what other countries should be happy with – if the US authorities aren’t happy with it’s ability to oversee aircraft on it’s register that are overseas, then surely it’s up to them to decide what to do about it; if they are happy, then what right have out authorities to tell them otherwise ?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places, are such that without an IFR capability one can’t usefully go anywhere. In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it. In Europe it’s different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that’s realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do. Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without a full IR. Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

The French allow night VFR, pretty restrictive though, see http://www.sia.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/aip/enligne/METROPOLE/AIP/ENR/… Rgds Andy R

Response:

The question one must ask is WHY people do this.

How about also that going "off N status" creates an aircraft that is virtually unsaleable in the USA due to its having a maintenence trail that makes it unfeasable to recertify at reasonable cost for USA sale ? And that the USA market is far better than UK ? How many aircraft have you seen advertised in the UK that are begging to be sold in the USA, or aircraft for UK sale that are bragging about having an N number ?

Response:

Clearly it is difficult to achieve an effective timed residence ban such as that proposed (90 days every 365 days) while allowing visiting aircraft, because one obvious work-around is for the pilot to swap aircraft every 90 days. While obviously most private pilots aren’t going to purchase, or rent/lease from outside the UK, a different N-reg plane every 90 days (i.e. 4 a year), a larger fractional ownership operation could be structured so the planes are rotated via other countries. A multinational business operating say 4 jets could keep 3 outside the UK and rotate them every 90 days, thus meeting this requirement. So the proposal would screw the small private pilot, while leaving the larger turboprop/jet groups much less affected.

Why can’t UK owners just park the airplane across the channel in france for some portion of the year ? Surely there has to be a percentage of time resident or similar requirement. So UK owners just lease to a flight club across the channel for a few months of the year.

Response:

Scott, Why can’t UK owners just park the airplane across the channel in france for some portion of the year ?

Because it makes for a really long drive to the airport. — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

In Argentina the same rule applies, foreign aircraft cannot stay for more than 90 days at a time. So they fly to Uruguay for the day (preferably to Punta del Este) and come back. Problem solved.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Scott, Why can’t UK owners just park the airplane across the channel in france for some portion of the year ? Because it makes for a really long drive to the airport. — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

The structure of European airspace, and its weather in many places, are such that without an IFR capability one can’t usefully go anywhere. In the UK there is the IMC Rating; effectively an IR limited to below Class A. This means an IR is not strictly needed for flying purely around the UK. We do have Class A down to 2500ft, and even surface, in a lot of places, but in general one can fly under/around it. In Europe it’s different. Any IMC requires a full IR, and that (flying usefully into Europe, doing instrument approaches and departures) is why people do the IR. And the FAA IR is the only one that’s realistically attainable for most pilots that have work to do.

Not to mention that in the UK a basic PPL with no ratings can fly IFR, and only needs a Night Qualification to fly at night. I understand that elsewhere, any night flying (as here) is IFR, and IFR is not allowed without a full IR. Hence even night flying requires an IR outside the UK.

Response:

George Patterson a

Specific Gravity of Avgas (Australia)

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t take him too seriously , he’s a grumpy old curmudgeon, been there done that. If you get past that and his off-planet sense of humour he is actually quite informative… And loves terrorising students /viz <its baaaad when we have to make excuses for our ng regulars Bloody marvellous.   Absolutely bloody marvellous! Where is the respect for us elders and betters?? And if you even vaguely toy with the notion of using Her Indoors’ response to that question ("It’s in Nauru dear, it’s in Nauru") you’ll be zotted straight into the killfile to cuddle up to Brash and his ilk.

 Oi! I demand me own kill file thanks! Don wanna share it with anyone, let alone Brashy /viz

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Oh to be born with aviation Knowledge it must be quite a blessing. The difference may not be much, but if I’m going to learn something I may as well learn the right something else where do you draw the line? Thanks for the more constructive replies.

Don’t take him too seriously , he’s a grumpy old curmudgeon, been there done that. If you get past that and his off-planet sense of humour he is actually quite informative… And loves terrorising students /viz <its baaaad when we have to make excuses for our ng regulars

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – departmental bullshit aside?  what a stupid thing to say RT, go back and read where he was coming from , he is interested in sitting CASA exams. he wasnt asking about planning a real flight.  If you havent got anything useful to say , just dont say anything!  Havent you got a job or something? I hope you werent ever a teacher,  you have a typical tradey attitude, only learn what you really need, instead of learning for the pure joy of it. Not everyone needs to ration their brain cells.  have you ever sat a cyber exam in your life?  If you did you might realise it is being marked automatically by a program that is set to accept some level of accuracy which the student may not be aware of.  Any intelligent student  would want to know the appropriate constants to the same level of precision as the examiner. Get a life RT terry

Feel better now Terry – er, sorry, terry? Oh good! PS – to get upper case use the long keys on the second row from the bottom. <sigh   No, no no.   Not YOUR bottom – the bottom of the keyboard! (Another incipient student – with a bit of luck (s)he will do their first solo in a bulldozer in the interests of air safety Usenet is like a flame to the moths of ignorance

Response:

an avgas flame war

Pay that – even if you are a pig-ignorant top-poster

Response:

Ooops. INCOMING!!! <runs over to the bunker I thinks I’ll just stay in here for a while… /viz

What ARE ya?   A man or a mouse?   C’mon – squeak up!!

Response:

Thanks guys for the replies. I didn’t expect quite the debate ) I know in practice it may not make a difference whether you use 0.71 or 0.72, but would have thought it good form to use the right one. I mean, how many people learn pi at 3.14 but think 3.13 would be okay – you’d look a twit in the pub quiz! I’ve since found the Aviation Theory Centre Manual for the performance exam (page 221) on the topic states  AVGAS has an SG of 0.71 but CASA has decided to use the value of 0.72 just for loading System Bravo! With ERSA at 0.72 it seems inconsistency is abound on this issue or my text is probably due for a new release. Cheers

Response:

Thanks guys for the replies. I didn’t expect quite the debate ) I know in practice it may not make a difference whether you use 0.71 or 0.72, but would have thought it good form to use the right one. I mean, how many people learn pi at 3.14 but think 3.13 would be okay – you’d look a twit in the pub quiz! I’ve since found the Aviation Theory Centre Manual for the performance exam (page 221) on the topic states  AVGAS has an SG of 0.71 but CASA has decided to use the value of 0.72 just for loading System Bravo! With ERSA at 0.72 it seems inconsistency is abound on this issue or my text is probably due for a new release.

Good onya – NOW you are starting to think!  :-) It’s noise level bullshit at CPL level – but as SR2Plodder pointed out that is irrelevant in a multiple choice exam set by wanker ‘droids from the department – irrewardless if it’s stupid you need the appropriate departmentally approved answer to pass.

Response:

top posting saves scrolling down ! my reply from my CASA friend Well it’s around that value. SG is measured at a particular temperature, and it will vary slightly with refining etc. I expect that LL and 100/130 have slightly different SG as well. I am not sure which is the most accurate figure, but I guess quoting the higher value 0.72 is more conservative. i.e. for a given volume the estimated weight is slightly higher. I’ve always used 0.72.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Oh to be born with aviation Knowledge it must be quite a blessing. The difference may not be much, but if I’m going to learn something I may as well learn the right something else where do you draw the line? Thanks for the more constructive replies. Don’t take him too seriously , he’s a grumpy old curmudgeon, been there done that. If you get past that and his off-planet sense of humour he is actually quite informative… And loves terrorising students

Please tell me this bloke was never an airline pilot.  Not that I doubt his ability,  I am sure he can probably fly a plane with better precision than most, if anyone could land a plane on a 20 cent bit , he’d have to land one on 10 c.   but if his arrogant , know all , assumptive ( this is probably not a real word but I am sure RT will correct me ) attitude ever got through an airline psych test then I have just developed a severe case of  fear of flying.  CFI of some cowboy outfit perhaps? terry ( stuff the upper case .. I know who I am )

Response:

Don’t take him too seriously , he’s a grumpy old curmudgeon, been there done that. If you get past that and his off-planet sense of humour he is actually quite informative… And loves terrorising students /viz <its baaaad when we have to make excuses for our ng regulars

Bloody marvellous.   Absolutely bloody marvellous! Where is the respect for us elders and betters?? And if you even vaguely toy with the notion of using Her Indoors’ response to that question ("It’s in Nauru dear, it’s in Nauru") you’ll be zotted straight into the killfile to cuddle up to Brash and his ilk.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – departmental bullshit aside?  what a stupid thing to say RT, go back and read where he was coming from , he is interested in sitting CASA exams.  he wasnt asking about planning a real flight.  If you havent got anything useful to say , just dont say anything!  Havent you got a job or something? I hope you werent ever a teacher,  you have a typical tradey attitude, only learn what you really need, instead of learning for the pure joy of it.  Not everyone needs to ration their brain cells.  have you ever sat a cyber exam in your life?  If you did you might realise it is being marked automatically by a program that is set to accept some level of accuracy which the student may not be aware of.  Any intelligent student  would want to know the appropriate constants to the same level of precision as the examiner. Get a life RT terry

Ooops. INCOMING!!! <runs over to the bunker I thinks I’ll just stay in here for a while… /viz

Response:

an avgas flame war

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t take him too seriously , he’s a grumpy old curmudgeon, been there done that. If you get past that and his off-planet sense of humour he is actually quite informative… And loves terrorising students /viz <its baaaad when we have to make excuses for our ng regulars Bloody marvellous.   Absolutely bloody marvellous! Where is the respect for us elders and betters?? And if you even vaguely toy with the notion of using Her Indoors’ response to that question ("It’s in Nauru dear, it’s in Nauru") you’ll be zotted straight into the killfile to cuddle up to Brash and his ilk.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Oh to be born with aviation Knowledge it must be quite a blessing. The difference may not be much, but if I’m going to learn something I may as well learn the right something else where do you draw the line? The whole point was covered in a previous thread and the gist is that the second significant figure is, in this case, NOT significant.   It is meaningless. THINK! A 6 place single light a/c, 300 hp and maybe 60 gal fuel.   At SG of 7 that’s 420 lb (do your own conversions if you can’t handle the Imperial units).   At an SG of 7.2 it’s 432 lb. That’s a difference of 12 lb. You can pick up as much mud as that from a muddy strip/taxiway. And you DO of course weigh every passenger and their luggage.   And did the empty weight include the mass of steel pegs and the FG hammer? Was the aircraft reweighed after painting? You want to count beans, join CASA or be an accountant.   If you want to be a  Commercial (or any other sort of) pilot start *thinking*, because relying on a bazillion meaningless decimal places will give you a completely false sense of security. What do you do if there is a headwind of 7 kt forecast – start worrying if it might be in fact 7.1 or 7.2 kt?   The analogy is perfect. Thanks for the more constructive replies. That’s fine – but you wouldn’t even have asked the question in the first place if you’d had a think about what the numbers actually mean. (And you heavy fliers back orf – he’s not up to the ATPL/intercontinental stuff yet

RT In his defence, I hear what you say but – two circumstances may require accuracy. 1.  For a CASA exam, and the psych people usually put several answers close so only 0.72 wins the day. 2.  More importantly, and I recently saw a specific (excuse the pun) case – and you have alluded indirectly to it – in the event of a ramp check, say on a Chieftain in the case in point, the SG difference can make the diff between being legal and not. Now, you and I know the reality is that is b..s but that’s the rules. The other bit of good advice for Grish is that if you add up the weight of headset, maps, ERSA, and so on, and perhaps a camera, and multiply it across the pax as well, that can be even more of a weight issue in the real world. But, in the world of academia a la CASA, SG rules!  Paperwork not avgas makes aircraft fly, any bureaucrat will tell you so. Brian

Response:

Yeah I have looked in all my books and Grish is right there is a conflict from ERSA to Two books I have say 0.71 DH Cessna book its old and cant find it in Bob Taits Book will keep looking. ERSA says 0.72 I searched the web and CASA no luck so I have emailed a friend who works for CASA Avgas weighs 0.71 kg per litre http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule1b.html

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? Grish Someone later on made the point about the ERSA being the reference if no other SG specified in the exam. Good point as the ERSA is allowable text. Rightly or wrongly, the 1 September 2005 ERSA that came today stipulates 0.72 at GEN-CON-2. Brian

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Bloody marvellous.   Absolutely bloody marvellous. Who gives a big rat’s arse whether it’s 0.71 or 0.72?  The bloody difference is ONE POINT FOUR PER CENT.  Departmental bullshit aside, what commercial pilot, aircraft manufacturer or refueller has equipment that can measure fuel quantity/density to that accuracy (ok, ok ok – precision). <sob Er, <coff, TEMPERATURE anyone? departmental bullshit aside?  what a stupid thing to say RT, go back and

read where he was coming from , he is interested in sitting CASA exams.  he wasnt asking about planning a real flight.  If you havent got anything useful to say , just dont say anything!  Havent you got a job or something? I hope you werent ever a teacher,  you have a typical tradey attitude, only learn what you really need, instead of learning for the pure joy of it.  Not everyone needs to ration their brain cells.  have you ever sat a cyber exam in your life?  If you did you might realise it is being marked automatically by a program that is set to accept some level of accuracy which the student may not be aware of.  Any intelligent student  would want to know the appropriate constants to the same level of precision as the examiner. Get a life RT terry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Oh to be born with aviation Knowledge it must be quite a blessing. The difference may not be much, but if I’m going to learn something I may as well learn the right something else where do you draw the line? The whole point was covered in a previous thread and the gist is that the second significant figure is, in this case, NOT significant.   It is meaningless. THINK! A 6 place single light a/c, 300 hp and maybe 60 gal fuel.   At SG of 7 that’s 420 lb (do your own conversions if you can’t handle the Imperial units).   At an SG of 7.2 it’s 432 lb. That’s a difference of 12 lb. You can pick up as much mud as that from a muddy strip/taxiway. And you DO of course weigh every passenger and their luggage.   And did the empty weight include the mass of steel pegs and the FG hammer? Was the aircraft reweighed after painting? You want to count beans, join CASA or be an accountant.   If you want to be a  Commercial (or any other sort of) pilot start *thinking*, because relying on a bazillion meaningless decimal places will give you a completely false sense of security. What do you do if there is a headwind of 7 kt forecast – start worrying if it might be in fact 7.1 or 7.2 kt?   The analogy is perfect. Thanks for the more constructive replies. That’s fine – but you wouldn’t even have asked the question in the first place if you’d had a think about what the numbers actually mean. (And you heavy fliers back orf – he’s not up to the ATPL/intercontinental stuff yet In his defence, I hear what you say but – two circumstances may require accuracy. 1.  For a CASA exam, and the psych people usually put several answers close so only 0.72 wins the day.

Yes – I’ll pay that if it’s a multi-choice exam – a good one of those can be very difficult indeed. 2.  More importantly, and I recently saw a specific (excuse the pun) case – and you have alluded indirectly to it – in the event of a ramp check, say on a Chieftain in the case in point, the SG difference can make the diff between being legal and not. Now, you and I know the reality is that is b..s but that’s the rules.

More to the point, that’s when you need to be a half-respectable bush lawyer. "Oi!  Where’s your calibrated thermometer to measure the fuel temp? Where are the calibration figures for the bowsers?"  etc  etc  etc   The other bit of good advice for Grish is that if you add up the weight of headset, maps, ERSA, and so on, and perhaps a camera, and multiply it across the pax as well, that can be even more of a weight issue in the real world. But, in the world of academia a la CASA, SG rules!  Paperwork not avgas makes aircraft fly, any bureaucrat will tell you so. Brian

<sigh  Tell me – I’ve had to put up with maintenance surveillance as well. But I want Grish to be a safe, competent, THINKING pilot – not a bean-counting brain-dead fly-by-the-numbers bureaucrat. Purely self-interest, of course – there’s an outside chance (s)he might be in the front of something I’m in the back of <shudder

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

Oh to be born with aviation Knowledge it must be quite a blessing. The difference may not be much, but if I’m going to learn something I may as well learn the right something else where do you draw the line? Thanks for the more constructive replies.

Response:

Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams?

Grish Someone later on made the point about the ERSA being the reference if no other SG specified in the exam. Good point as the ERSA is allowable text. Rightly or wrongly, the 1 September 2005 ERSA that came today stipulates 0.72 at GEN-CON-2. Brian

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Oh to be born with aviation Knowledge it must be quite a blessing. The difference may not be much, but if I’m going to learn something I may as well learn the right something else where do you draw the line?

The whole point was covered in a previous thread and the gist is that the second significant figure is, in this case, NOT significant.   It is meaningless. THINK! A 6 place single light a/c, 300 hp and maybe 60 gal fuel.   At SG of 7 that’s 420 lb (do your own conversions if you can’t handle the Imperial units).   At an SG of 7.2 it’s 432 lb. That’s a difference of 12 lb. You can pick up as much mud as that from a muddy strip/taxiway. And you DO of course weigh every passenger and their luggage.   And did the empty weight include the mass of steel pegs and the FG hammer?   Was the aircraft reweighed after painting? You want to count beans, join CASA or be an accountant.   If you want to be a  Commercial (or any other sort of) pilot start *thinking*, because relying on a bazillion meaningless decimal places will give you a completely false sense of security. What do you do if there is a headwind of 7 kt forecast – start worrying if it might be in fact 7.1 or 7.2 kt?   The analogy is perfect. Thanks for the more constructive replies.

That’s fine – but you wouldn’t even have asked the question in the first place if you’d had a think about what the numbers actually mean. (And you heavy fliers back orf – he’s not up to the ATPL/intercontinental stuff yet

Response:

I was studying that on Sunday. Avgas is 0.71 0.72 applied to low octane 80/87 fuel which is no longer available in Australia. So the books with 0.72 must be outdated content. DH page 485 loading and balance. Mal www.mals.net – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? Thank you.

Response:

Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72.

According to Chevron USA, Avgas is .715 at 15C. it would be about .72 at 10C and .71 at 20C. It is actually fairly temperatue sensitive Beta for Benzene (a good surrogate for Avgas) is 124x 10e-5/C. That is a complicated way of saying the specific gravity will change about 1.24% for each 10C change in temperature. To be honest, it doesn’t make a lot of difference, few measurements in this business are within 1% to start with!

Response:

Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? Thank you.

If it’s not listed on the exam, you’ll find the conversion chart in ERSA. You know the one; squares and circles and stuff with arrows and lines joining everything up?  It’s down the back somewhere. If you can find a conversion factor in an approved document, then use that in an exam, and you get the answer wrong based on using the published factor – you’ve got every reason to contest the result.  So, if it’s in ERSA, use it. HTH, James — It’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect.

Response:

Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? Thank you.

Response:

Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams? Thank you.

Isn’t that given in the exam info sheet?

Response:

Hi I’m reading conflicting reports on the specific gravity of Avgas in Australia. It seems as though its either 0.71 or 0.72. Does anyone know which CASA recognises, in particular reference to CPL exams?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Bloody marvellous.   Absolutely bloody marvellous. Who gives a big rat’s arse whether it’s 0.71 or 0.72?  The bloody difference is ONE POINT FOUR PER CENT.  Departmental bullshit aside, what commercial pilot, aircraft manufacturer or refueller has equipment that can measure fuel quantity/density to that accuracy (ok, ok ok – precision). <sob Er, <coff, TEMPERATURE anyone?

Response:

Ansett Reborn in Townsville QLD

Question:

Latest news about Ansett rebirth in Austrlian Aviation Mag. The airline will commence ops in Townsville with Five Fokker F27’s Be interetsting to see how the future holds. Just womdering who will do all their ground maintenance plus Airframe and engine overhaul.

Response:

Latest news about Ansett rebirth in Austrlian Aviation Mag. The airline will commence ops in Townsville with Five Fokker F27’s Be interetsting to see how the future holds. Just womdering who will do all their ground maintenance plus Airframe and engine overhaul.

My first guess would be Hawker Pacific / Australian Avionics in Cairns, from their new hangar. Brad.

Response:

Latest news about Ansett rebirth in Austrlian Aviation Mag. The airline will commence ops in Townsville with Five Fokker F27’s Be interetsting to see how the future holds. Just womdering who will do all their ground maintenance plus Airframe and engine overhaul. My first guess would be Hawker Pacific / Australian Avionics in Cairns, from their new hangar. Brad.

I suppose that is where they will store the "nerve controlling agents" as well.  

Response:

Latest news about Ansett rebirth in Austrlian Aviation Mag. The airline will commence ops in Townsville with Five Fokker F27’s Be interetsting to see how the future holds. Just womdering who will do all their ground maintenance plus Airframe and engine overhaul. My first guess would be Hawker Pacific / Australian Avionics in Cairns, from their new hangar.

Yeah?   Their blokes have steam tickets?

Response:

Latest news about Ansett rebirth in Austrlian Aviation Mag. The airline will commence ops in Townsville with Five Fokker F27’s Be interetsting to see how the future holds. Just womdering who will do all their ground maintenance plus Airframe and engine overhaul.

They’ve had a website up for a few months now with this information (Fokkers and routes) – nothing’s ever changed on it though. http://www.ansettairways.com/

Response:

Latest news about Ansett rebirth in Austrlian Aviation Mag. The airline will commence ops in Townsville with Five Fokker F27’s Be interetsting to see how the future holds. Just womdering who will do all their ground maintenance plus Airframe and engine overhaul. They’ve had a website up for a few months now with this information (Fokkers and routes) – nothing’s ever changed on it though. http://www.ansettairways.com/

From the website – "The trusted name in Aviation" and "This business will put the name Ansett Airways back into the air … " I just can’t see the sense in trying to resurrect old business names – Ansett (or even Tesna), Compass, Pan Am, etc. I know they’re trying to trade on the goodwill/reputation/emotive attachment or whatever, but surely investors (and customers) would be more attracted to something new and progressive or future looking. Aubrey The trusted name in Aviation

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Latest news about Ansett rebirth in Austrlian Aviation Mag. The airline will commence ops in Townsville with Five Fokker F27’s Be interetsting to see how the future holds. Just womdering who will do all their ground maintenance plus Airframe and engine overhaul. They’ve had a website up for a few months now with this information (Fokkers and routes) – nothing’s ever changed on it though. http://www.ansettairways.com/ From the website – "The trusted name in Aviation" and "This business will put the name Ansett Airways back into the air … " I just can’t see the sense in trying to resurrect old business names – Ansett (or even Tesna), Compass, Pan Am, etc. I know they’re trying to trade on the goodwill/reputation/emotive attachment or whatever, but surely investors (and customers) would be more attracted to something new and progressive or future looking.

     You might have a point here. When Compass Mk2 was being launched, its new owners thought they were buying an Icon. But instead they had problems obtaining finance because of the collapse of Compass Mk.1 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Aubrey The trusted name in Aviation

Response:

Flying is no fun

Question:

Get the crash comic with the Antonov on the cover, what’s left of it. Note well, BOTH crews could and did see the other aircraft. Both had TCAS. Both died. See and avoid is a proven death wish in a heavy, and has been well known since WWII or before. It does not work, and probably never will, and unless some one changes the eyeball or the rules of physics it can’t.

If both had TCAS they were not utilising basic see and avoid – I must dig out that edition of FSA. Brian

Response:

avoid – I must dig out that edition of FSA. Brian

For me, the real problem can be phrased "By the time they see, do they have time to avoid?" Most of the time, the view of the cockpit from the outside is that of two baldspots, as two heads are down programming the FMS, reading the instruments or TCAS or checking lists. With a closing airspeed of, what 2000kph? You barely have time to say WTF! Brad.

Response:

See and avoid is a proven death wish in a heavy, and has been well known since WWII or before. It does not work, and probably never will, and unless some one changes the eyeball or the rules of physics it can’t.

And yet, and yet… every time someone says this here, I ask the same question: why does it work so well in the US? Here in California I fly both IFR and VFR in busy airspaces where see and avoid is SOP, even in places where radar coverage is good (and it’s not good in many parts of the state where heavies and light GA mix it all the time). And every time I ask for documentation of all the planes that must be falling out of the sky here due to the obvious "fact" that "[i]t does not work, and probably never will", I get the same old handful of midairs that were the cause of the current airspace regime in the US, where see-and-avoid, is, well, unavoidable… There’s a lot more to the issue than blanket statements like "See and avoid is a proven death wish" might lead us to believe.    Hamish

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – See and avoid is a proven death wish in a heavy, and has been well known since WWII or before. It does not work, and probably never will, and unless some one changes the eyeball or the rules of physics it can’t. And yet, and yet… every time someone says this here, I ask the same question: why does it work so well in the US? Here in California I fly both IFR and VFR in busy airspaces where see and avoid is SOP, even in places where radar coverage is good (and it’s not good in many parts of the state where heavies and light GA mix it all the time). And every time I ask for documentation of all the planes that must be falling out of the sky here due to the obvious "fact" that "[i]t does not work, and probably never will", I get the same old handful of midairs that were the cause of the current airspace regime in the US, where see-and-avoid, is, well, unavoidable… There’s a lot more to the issue than blanket statements like "See and avoid is a proven death wish" might lead us to believe.    Hamish

Hamish, My experience is the same. I regularly fly into a regional airport with an MBZ and often encounter the regional RPTs and we have no trouble staying out of each other’s way. There is a mindset against see and avoid here in Oz which seems to be immovable, in spite of the fact that in many locations we often operate in a see and avoid environment with "mixed" traffic. Coop

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – See and avoid is a proven death wish in a heavy, and has been well known since WWII or before. It does not work, and probably never will, and unless some one changes the eyeball or the rules of physics it can’t. And yet, and yet… every time someone says this here, I ask the same question: why does it work so well in the US? Here in California I fly both IFR and VFR in busy airspaces where see and avoid is SOP, even in places where radar coverage is good (and it’s not good in many parts of the state where heavies and light GA mix it all the time). And every time I ask for documentation of all the planes that must be falling out of the sky here due to the obvious "fact" that "[i]t does not work, and probably never will", I get the same old handful of midairs that were the cause of the current airspace regime in the US, where see-and-avoid, is, well, unavoidable… There’s a lot more to the issue than blanket statements like "See and avoid is a proven death wish" might lead us to believe. Hamish, My experience is the same. I regularly fly into a regional airport with an MBZ and often encounter the regional RPTs and we have no trouble staying out of each other’s way. There is a mindset against see and avoid here in Oz which seems to be immovable, in spite of the fact that in many locations we often operate in a see and avoid environment with "mixed" traffic.

Yeah, I guess I’m really puzzled by the apocalyptic tone taken by some here when they discuss something — see and avoid — that’s just a basic and utterly unremarkable fact of life for IFR and VFR flying ’round here (California). From the tone of some of the more, erm, interesting proponents of the "see and avoid is a proven death wish" school of thought, we should be seeing planes raining down on us here in see-and-avoid land, especially at those literally dozens of airports without either a tower or radar coverage that have regular airline or freight service here. Yet we don’t…    Hamish

Response:

David Might sound a little anti-GA but it is not – you can always start in RAA aircraft like the Jabiru and get the basics of flying sorted out cheaply then transfer across to GA.  There are mechanisms coming into place to assist this. Brian – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thank you Brian for all your information. I know this thread is like a soapbox but i need to learn as much information as I can regarding this industry. I would like to be a commercial Pilot and hopefully one day work for a charter company / Instructor and maybe make it as a regional pilot. With all the doom and gloom in GA one might think i would have been running for the hills by now but i dream of being a pilot and i am not going to let the bureaucrats at CASA stop that from happening. I really really hope that all this GA mess is sorted out. But from what i have learnt i will not hold my breath. Either way GA will never be the same. Some say that a crisis can bring opportunity so to all of you in the GA industry i hope that you can ride this bumpy ride out and with a bit of luck be presented with bigger and better opportunities down the line. — davidsummers Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ] – A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly –

Response:

I don

Elevator cable (was Matchstick in Pitot Tube)

Question:

I was pretty bloody indignant, too – an elevator cable lasting less than 70 hours!   What the hell? Can’t wait for JB’s comment. You know what he thinks of "fly by wire"

I have no problem whatsoever with ‘fly by wire’. Just depends upon the implementation…… JB

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Eh? What? Where? Believe me, lad, them there elevator, rudder and trim cables gets a good eyeing off every daily inspection. Especially the trim cables, which are multi-stranded (none of that piano wire for me, thanks). Any sign of damage to the cables, and they are replaced before further aviation is committed. Anyways, how would you know? You been sniffing around my aeroplane? Coop Yep it wasn’t a multi strand – the single strand out the back through a tube.  What’s that for then? rm

I can only think of the trim cables on the back of the port elevator. They emerge from tubes (one above and one below the trim tab). But a close look would have revealed multi-stranded cables -not obvious from a distance. (And some Austers still have the piano-wire version). Coop

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – and dont worry about the elevators we will just slide the seats back and forwards. Sorry  mate – you can’t slide the seats back and forwards in a Fletcher. The pilot landed the a/c using power when an elevator cable broke.   Like the DC-10, you know? This was an odd one….  We’d had the Fletcher for a while and during the seeding season one elevator cable started to look tired, so I replaced it during scheduled maintenance. That cable failed in flight less than 70 hours later.   The pilot returned to the strip and "landed"  reasonably well in the circumstances.   As he reduced power the a/c pitched down and landed hard enough on the nosewheel to break the engine mounts downwards. He was most indignant.   On the Fletcher the battery was mounted on the firewall high on the stbd side, with a *mechanical* master switch operated by a little torque tube to a lever on the instrument panel.   As the engine mounts broke downwards the master switch was pulled off its mount. The pilot complained: "I reached over to turn off the master switch just in time to see it disappear through the instrument panel!!" Anyway…. I was pretty bloody indignant, too – an elevator cable lasting less than 70 hours!   What the hell? For those of you wot haven’t had to deal with such things, the cable in question is like a giant fishing trace or a 4wd/boat trailer winch cable. They are lubricated as they are being made because when they are bent around pulleys and stuff each individual wire slides against its neighbours. Thus new cables are greasy to touch.   Once they have been in service for a while the outer layer of grease oxidises or whatever and they become dry to touch. The a/c was being used for seeding at the time – the usual Green Panic/Buffel mix for this area.  Green Panic is a seed a bit smaller than sesame seed and Buffel is a bit like dandelion seeds – very fluffy. It seems that some of these little seeds swirled into the very aft end of the fuse after being dumped from the hopper up front.  They stuck to my new greasy cable and were then transferred to the groove of a large pulley right at the rear of the a/c.    As the seeds built up in the pulley groove they forced the cable up against the ‘keepers’ (pins inserted across and above the pulley to make sure the cable can’t jump off the pulley) which then wore the cable down until it failed. Thanks a lot! So I put in a Major Defect Report and cooked up a method (using rubber boots and a pulley enclosure) to ensure that it couldn’t happen again.   The Department took no action which pissed me off at the time, but in retrospect I guess nobody else was using a Fletcher for Coops got one of them wires sticking out the back unattached recons you don’t need um all. rm

Eh? What? Where? Believe me, lad, them there elevator, rudder and trim cables gets a good eyeing off every daily inspection. Especially the trim cables, which are multi-stranded (none of that piano wire for me, thanks). Any sign of damage to the cables, and they are replaced before further aviation is committed. Anyways, how would you know? You been sniffing around my aeroplane? Coop

Response:

All the first year AME apprentices could answer this one. Under no circumstances are the cables to be cleaned prior to installation. Seems reasonable, since otherwise one would expect them to be delivered in a cleaned state. Sylvia.

make a note to yourself never ever to touch or unpack a brackett air filter.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – most of us would wipe the things first. It’s far from obvious that that’s the right thing to so. What do the manufacturer’s installation instructions say? Sylvia. All the first year AME apprentices could answer this one. Under no circumstances are the cables to be cleaned prior to installation. Ric

not even if there is sand in the grease.? I can see that the certified world must pass for intelligence in some quarters. just follow the procedure and you never need to think, and you still pick up the pay. hmmmm maybe it isnt dirt on my rudder cables. maybe it is Stealth Pilot

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – most of us would wipe the things first. It’s far from obvious that that’s the right thing to so. What do the manufacturer’s installation instructions say? Sylvia. All the first year AME apprentices could answer this one. Under no circumstances are the cables to be cleaned prior to installation. Ric not even if there is sand in the grease.? I can see that the certified world must pass for intelligence in some quarters. just follow the procedure and you never need to think, and you still pick up the pay. hmmmm maybe it isnt dirt on my rudder cables. maybe it is Stealth Pilot

I was assuming that the cables were new and packaged, in which case there should be no sand on them. However Stealth, should you find that your new cables require cleaning you must not use anything metallic i.e. steelos or steel brushes, if a solvent is used then the appropriate lubricant must be used to replace the anti corrosion proofing that would have been removed. I guess I am guilty of not being precise enough for this newsgroup which has catastrophic results. Whoops nearly forgot the smiley :0) Ric

Response:

not even if there is sand in the grease.?

Huh? It would at the very least get binned, if not sent to the aviation authority with a "what on earth?" question. Sylvia.

Response:

Eh? What? Where? Believe me, lad, them there elevator, rudder and trim cables gets a good eyeing off every daily inspection. Especially the trim cables, which are multi-stranded (none of that piano wire for me, thanks). Any sign of damage to the cables, and they are replaced before further aviation is committed. Anyways, how would you know? You been sniffing around my aeroplane? Coop

Yep it wasn’t a multi strand – the single strand out the back through a tube.  What’s that for then? rm

Response:

most of us would wipe the things first.

It’s far from obvious that that’s the right thing to so. What do the manufacturer’s installation instructions say? Sylvia.

Response:

most of us would wipe the things first. It’s far from obvious that that’s the right thing to so. What do the manufacturer’s installation instructions say? Sylvia.

All the first year AME apprentices could answer this one. Under no circumstances are the cables to be cleaned prior to installation. Ric

Response:

All the first year AME apprentices could answer this one. Under no circumstances are the cables to be cleaned prior to installation.

Seems reasonable, since otherwise one would expect them to be delivered in a cleaned state. Sylvia.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thus new cables are greasy to touch.   Once they have been in service for a while the outer layer of grease oxidises or whatever and they become dry to touch. <snip the fuse after being dumped from the hopper up front.  They stuck to my new greasy cable and were then transferred to the groove of a large pulley right at the rear of the a/c.    As the seeds built up in the pulley groove they forced the cable up against the ‘keepers’ (pins inserted across and above the pulley to make sure the cable can’t jump off the pulley) which then wore the cable down until it failed. gawd you’ve just given greaser landings a bad name. most of us would wipe the things first.

a) You shouldn’t b) The amount of grease on the outside is minimal – but enough to make little seeds stick.

Response:

Thus new cables are greasy to touch.   Once they have been in service for a while the outer layer of grease oxidises or whatever and they become dry to touch. <snip the fuse after being dumped from the hopper up front.  They stuck to my new greasy cable and were then transferred to the groove of a large pulley right at the rear of the a/c.    As the seeds built up in the pulley groove they forced the cable up against the ‘keepers’ (pins inserted across and above the pulley to make sure the cable can’t jump off the pulley) which then wore the cable down until it failed.

gawd you’ve just given greaser landings a bad name. most of us would wipe the things first. Stealth Pilot

Response:

I was pretty bloody indignant, too – an elevator cable lasting less than 70 hours!   What the hell?

Can’t wait for JB’s comment. You know what he thinks of "fly by wire"

Response:

Well Roger – that’d likely be VH-EQH, operated by Seedair huh! NO? – probably not! – I couldn’t have been EQH because I’m the liar that said I worked for Kieth Barlow and had flown that aircraft on spraying operations…..  because I had never flown at all, nor had I ever been a pilot!!!!! And, in that case, you wouldn’t be responsible for aircraft that were never "hidden" at Umu Park when the department was attending at Rocky? I wish you well Roger…… veritas. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – and dont worry about the elevators we will just slide the seats back and forwards. Sorry  mate – you can’t slide the seats back and forwards in a Fletcher. The pilot landed the a/c using power when an elevator cable broke.  Like the DC-10, you know? This was an odd one….  We’d had the Fletcher for a while and during the seeding season one elevator cable started to look tired, so I replaced it during scheduled maintenance. That cable failed in flight less than 70 hours later.   The pilot returned to the strip and "landed"  reasonably well in the circumstances.   As he reduced power the a/c pitched down and landed hard enough on the nosewheel to break the engine mounts downwards. He was most indignant.   On the Fletcher the battery was mounted on the firewall high on the stbd side, with a *mechanical* master switch operated by a little torque tube to a lever on the instrument panel.  As the engine mounts broke downwards the master switch was pulled off its mount. The pilot complained: "I reached over to turn off the master switch just in time to see it disappear through the instrument panel!!" Anyway…. I was pretty bloody indignant, too – an elevator cable lasting less than 70 hours!   What the hell? For those of you wot haven’t had to deal with such things, the cable in question is like a giant fishing trace or a 4wd/boat trailer winch cable. They are lubricated as they are being made because when they are bent around pulleys and stuff each individual wire slides against its neighbours. Thus new cables are greasy to touch.   Once they have been in service for a while the outer layer of grease oxidises or whatever and they become dry to touch. The a/c was being used for seeding at the time – the usual Green Panic/Buffel mix for this area.  Green Panic is a seed a bit smaller than sesame seed and Buffel is a bit like dandelion seeds – very fluffy. It seems that some of these little seeds swirled into the very aft end of the fuse after being dumped from the hopper up front.  They stuck to my new greasy cable and were then transferred to the groove of a large pulley right at the rear of the a/c.    As the seeds built up in the pulley groove they forced the cable up against the ‘keepers’ (pins inserted across and above the pulley to make sure the cable can’t jump off the pulley) which then wore the cable down until it failed. Thanks a lot! So I put in a Major Defect Report and cooked up a method (using rubber boots and a pulley enclosure) to ensure that it couldn’t happen again.   The Department took no action which pissed me off at the time, but in retrospect

Response:

So I put in a Major Defect Report and cooked up a method (using rubber boots and a pulley enclosure) to ensure that it couldn’t happen again. The Department took no action which pissed me off at the time, but in Didn’t even issue a warning that this could happen? They’d have looked pretty bad if it happened subsequently, with a fatal outcome. Then again – what would be new about that

Perzackary.

Response:

So I put in a Major Defect Report and cooked up a method (using rubber boots and a pulley enclosure) to ensure that it couldn’t happen again.   The Department took no action which pissed me off at the time, but in retrospect

Didn’t even issue a warning that this could happen? They’d have looked pretty bad if it happened subsequently, with a fatal outcome. Then again – what would be new about that Sylvia.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – and dont worry about the elevators we will just slide the seats back and forwards. Sorry  mate – you can’t slide the seats back and forwards in a Fletcher. The pilot landed the a/c using power when an elevator cable broke.  Like the DC-10, you know? This was an odd one….  We’d had the Fletcher for a while and during the seeding season one elevator cable started to look tired, so I replaced it during scheduled maintenance. That cable failed in flight less than 70 hours later.   The pilot returned to the strip and "landed"  reasonably well in the circumstances. As he reduced power the a/c pitched down and landed hard enough on the nosewheel to break the engine mounts downwards. He was most indignant.   On the Fletcher the battery was mounted on the firewall high on the stbd side, with a *mechanical* master switch operated by a little torque tube to a lever on the instrument panel.  As the engine mounts broke downwards the master switch was pulled off its mount. The pilot complained: "I reached over to turn off the master switch just in time to see it disappear through the instrument panel!!" Anyway…. I was pretty bloody indignant, too – an elevator cable lasting less than 70 hours!   What the hell? For those of you wot haven’t had to deal with such things, the cable in question is like a giant fishing trace or a 4wd/boat trailer winch cable. They are lubricated as they are being made because when they are bent around pulleys and stuff each individual wire slides against its neighbours. Thus new cables are greasy to touch.   Once they have been in service for a while the outer layer of grease oxidises or whatever and they become dry to touch. The a/c was being used for seeding at the time – the usual Green Panic/Buffel mix for this area.  Green Panic is a seed a bit smaller than sesame seed and Buffel is a bit like dandelion seeds – very fluffy. It seems that some of these little seeds swirled into the very aft end of the fuse after being dumped from the hopper up front.  They stuck to my new greasy cable and were then transferred to the groove of a large pulley right at the rear of the a/c.    As the seeds built up in the pulley groove they forced the cable up against the ‘keepers’ (pins inserted across and above the pulley to make sure the cable can’t jump off the pulley) which then wore the cable down until it failed. Thanks a lot! So I put in a Major Defect Report and cooked up a method (using rubber boots and a pulley enclosure) to ensure that it couldn’t happen again. The Department took no action which pissed me off at the time, but in Coops got one of them wires sticking out the back unattached recons you don’t need um all. rm

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – and dont worry about the elevators we will just slide the seats back and forwards. Sorry  mate – you can’t slide the seats back and forwards in a Fletcher. The pilot landed the a/c using power when an elevator cable broke.  Like the DC-10, you know? This was an odd one….  We’d had the Fletcher for a while and during the seeding season one elevator cable started to look tired, so I replaced it during scheduled maintenance. That cable failed in flight less than 70 hours later.   The pilot returned to the strip and "landed"  reasonably well in the circumstances.   As he reduced power the a/c pitched down and landed hard enough on the nosewheel to break the engine mounts downwards. He was most indignant.   On the Fletcher the battery was mounted on the firewall high on the stbd side, with a *mechanical* master switch operated by a little torque tube to a lever on the instrument panel.  As the engine mounts broke downwards the master switch was pulled off its mount. The pilot complained: "I reached over to turn off the master switch just in time to see it disappear through the instrument panel!!" Anyway…. I was pretty bloody indignant, too – an elevator cable lasting less than 70 hours!   What the hell? For those of you wot haven’t had to deal with such things, the cable in question is like a giant fishing trace or a 4wd/boat trailer winch cable. They are lubricated as they are being made because when they are bent around pulleys and stuff each individual wire slides against its neighbours. Thus new cables are greasy to touch.   Once they have been in service for a while the outer layer of grease oxidises or whatever and they become dry to touch. The a/c was being used for seeding at the time – the usual Green Panic/Buffel mix for this area.  Green Panic is a seed a bit smaller than sesame seed and Buffel is a bit like dandelion seeds – very fluffy. It seems that some of these little seeds swirled into the very aft end of the fuse after being dumped from the hopper up front.  They stuck to my new greasy cable and were then transferred to the groove of a large pulley right at the rear of the a/c.    As the seeds built up in the pulley groove they forced the cable up against the ‘keepers’ (pins inserted across and above the pulley to make sure the cable can’t jump off the pulley) which then wore the cable down until it failed. Thanks a lot! So I put in a Major Defect Report and cooked up a method (using rubber boots and a pulley enclosure) to ensure that it couldn’t happen again.   The Department took no action which pissed me off at the time, but in retrospect

Coops got one of them wires sticking out the back unattached recons you don’t need um all. rm

Response:

and dont worry about the elevators we will just slide the seats back and forwards.

Sorry  mate – you can’t slide the seats back and forwards in a Fletcher. The pilot landed the a/c using power when an elevator cable broke.  Like the DC-10, you know? This was an odd one….  We’d had the Fletcher for a while and during the seeding season one elevator cable started to look tired, so I replaced it during scheduled maintenance. That cable failed in flight less than 70 hours later.   The pilot returned to the strip and "landed"  reasonably well in the circumstances.   As he reduced power the a/c pitched down and landed hard enough on the nosewheel to break the engine mounts downwards. He was most indignant.   On the Fletcher the battery was mounted on the firewall high on the stbd side, with a *mechanical* master switch operated by a little torque tube to a lever on the instrument panel.  As the engine mounts broke downwards the master switch was pulled off its mount. The pilot complained: "I reached over to turn off the master switch just in time to see it disappear through the instrument panel!!" Anyway…. I was pretty bloody indignant, too – an elevator cable lasting less than 70 hours!   What the hell? For those of you wot haven’t had to deal with such things, the cable in question is like a giant fishing trace or a 4wd/boat trailer winch cable. They are lubricated as they are being made because when they are bent around pulleys and stuff each individual wire slides against its neighbours. Thus new cables are greasy to touch.   Once they have been in service for a while the outer layer of grease oxidises or whatever and they become dry to touch. The a/c was being used for seeding at the time – the usual Green Panic/Buffel mix for this area.  Green Panic is a seed a bit smaller than sesame seed and Buffel is a bit like dandelion seeds – very fluffy. It seems that some of these little seeds swirled into the very aft end of the fuse after being dumped from the hopper up front.  They stuck to my new greasy cable and were then transferred to the groove of a large pulley right at the rear of the a/c.    As the seeds built up in the pulley groove they forced the cable up against the ‘keepers’ (pins inserted across and above the pulley to make sure the cable can’t jump off the pulley) which then wore the cable down until it failed. Thanks a lot! So I put in a Major Defect Report and cooked up a method (using rubber boots and a pulley enclosure) to ensure that it couldn’t happen again.   The Department took no action which pissed me off at the time, but in retrospect

Response:

Drifting

Question:

Now, the point of my note. I really believe the RAA, and low-cost aircraft like the Drifter are the only hope for recreational aviation in Oz. GA is priced out of reach for all but the very privileged, and aero clubs are populated by retirement-age buggers like me. Where are the young enthusiasts?

I have to think about how to reply to this line of discussion. if I make comments on ultralights generally, no matter how I phrase it you will think I’m commenting on your drifter. what’s rod’s law of holes?  …stop digging etc… Stealth (have to think about it) Pilot

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now, the point of my note. I really believe the RAA, and low-cost aircraft like the Drifter are the only hope for recreational aviation in Oz. GA is priced out of reach for all but the very privileged, and aero clubs are populated by retirement-age buggers like me. Where are the young enthusiasts? I’m not trying to start a war here but what actually did your aircraft cost and what are the operating costs and maintenance costs? y’ see a lot of the perceptions of cost are based on hearsay and in my experience dont pan out when you actually get to the facts. when I post that my homebuilt costs $25 per hour to operate I’m not kidding. Stealth Pilot

What does that include Stealth besides fuel & oil – maintenance & repairs, storage, insurance, etc… what about depreciation and opportunity cost? Or is that only the marginal running costs because you have to pay the fixed costs whether you fly or not? To truly be able to fly for $25/hr would be great but surely you must have already spent a great deal of money, one way or another, to get to that point. I must admit I find it hard to understand why it costs $150+ per hour to hire a 25 year old "Ford Falcon of the air" e.g. Warrior or whatever. This harks back to the earlier thread about GA engine technology… but now with an economics slant. I’m a "young[ish] enthusiast" who could fly a LOT more often if only it were cheaper. Dom (…first to admit my post is based on hearsay and willing to be enlightened…)

Response:

Now, the point of my note. I really believe the RAA, and low-cost aircraft like the Drifter are the only hope for recreational aviation in Oz. GA is priced out of reach for all but the very privileged, and aero clubs are populated by retirement-age buggers like me. Where are the young enthusiasts?

I’m not trying to start a war here but what actually did your aircraft cost and what are the operating costs and maintenance costs? y’ see a lot of the perceptions of cost are based on hearsay and in my experience dont pan out when you actually get to the facts. when I post that my homebuilt costs $25 per hour to operate I’m not kidding. Stealth Pilot

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now, the point of my note. I really believe the RAA, and low-cost aircraft like the Drifter are the only hope for recreational aviation in Oz. GA is priced out of reach for all but the very privileged, and aero clubs are populated by retirement-age buggers like me. Where are the young enthusiasts? I’m not trying to start a war here but what actually did your aircraft cost and what are the operating costs and maintenance costs? y’ see a lot of the perceptions of cost are based on hearsay and in my experience dont pan out when you actually get to the facts. when I post that my homebuilt costs $25 per hour to operate I’m not kidding. Stealth Pilot

A very fair question Stealth. I paid $45,000 for the Drifter, including a couple of new tyres and an as new Garmin 196 GPS. Total time on airframe, prop and motor (912 UL)is 370 hrs. All components are 22 months old. I accept that this is pretty much top dollar for a Drifter, but I am extremely happy with the value for money, considering the configuration, standard of build and finish, and excellent condition. Consumption is about 11.5 litres per hour so, making provision for hangarage, routine maintenance and eventual engine overhaul etc I’ve calculated operating cost at a conservative $25 per hour. I haven’t included any provision for depreciation, because I think there should be little if any over the medium haul (so long as I take good care of her). So, in a nutshell, about the same initial outlay and operating cost as a   Honda Accord Euro or baby Beemer without the depreciation. And a bloody sight less than the usual middle-age crisis huge gas-guzzling, road hogging 4-wheel drive with plastic stick-ons. I’d appreciate comments from any other Drifter drivers with useful experience. cheers Gregg

Response:

I’ve just realised a lifetime dream. At the ripe young age of (almost) 55 I am the proud solo owner/pilot of my own aircraft – a Fisher Mk 1 (Drifter) powered by a Rotax 912 UL. I guess it should be called a Super Drifter. The solo owner is significant, because years ago I was a member of a syndicate owning two C-172s, but GA costs and friction within the syndicate put an end to that. My Drifter is less than 2 years old, beautifully built and maintained, and in excellent condition. It flies like a dream and, with the 912, has more than enough grunt for impressive performance, and long reliable engine life. The God of aviation smiled on me and granted a full week of perfect mornings last week in Lismore. To ask for decent afternoons in Ballina/Lismore is just asking too much (36+C, 100% humidity, thermals like express lifts and the usual afternoon gusty NEsterlies were there in force). So five glorious mornings under the supervision of master-instructor Wayne Fisher completed my conversion to the Drifter and my endorsements (after three years of RAA certificate gained on Lightwings). The "other half" thoroughly enjoyed a few back seat rides – thank God the camera is digital or I’d be in hock for film stock! Now, the point of my note. I really believe the RAA, and low-cost aircraft like the Drifter are the only hope for recreational aviation in Oz. GA is priced out of reach for all but the very privileged, and aero clubs are populated by retirement-age buggers like me. Where are the young enthusiasts? With my sea-change to Port Macquarie happening later this year (Hi to my very welcoming new friends at Hastings District Flying Club!) I’m looking forward to putting some real effort into encouraging teenagers to get started in flying via ultralights. Hopefully my Drifter can provide some inspiration.

Response:

Qantas to shed 10% of workforce..?

Question:

I just hope one of them is that Damn Hostess that kept bumping me EVERYTIME she walked up the aisle. and that Stuck up bitch at  the check in counter who insisted my camera bag was too heavy and made me carry a camera instead of in the bag. Which both still went on the aircraft with me so what was the point. Every one else can stay

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does anybody know any thing more about the plans of Qantas to shed 10% of workforce?? Also there were reports of them dropping maintenance and IT as well.

Response:

You now what they say.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I just hope one of them is that Damn Hostess that kept bumping me EVERYTIME she walked up the aisle. and that Stuck up bitch at  the check in counter who insisted my camera bag was too heavy and made me carry a camera instead of in the bag. Which both still went on the aircraft with me so what was the point. Every one else can stay Does anybody know any thing more about the plans of Qantas to shed 10% of workforce?? Also there were reports of them dropping maintenance and IT as well.

Response:

Does anybody know any thing more about the plans of Qantas to shed 10% of workforce?? Also there were reports of them dropping maintenance and IT as well.

Response:

Secret Qantas plan ‘to axe 3000 jobs’ March 01, 2005 QANTAS plans to axe up to 3000 jobs in the next two years in an effort to slash costs amid increasing competition. The Australian Financial Review today reported the airline was set to shave about 10 per cent of its workforce after conducting a review of its operations. The airline also would reconsider whether individual businesses such as Qantas Holidays and Qantas Catering should be spun off through sharemarket listings, and whether maintenance and IT divisions should be closed or sold, according to the report. The newspaper said Qantas was battling high oil prices and soaring competition in the international aviation market. The move is likely to anger unions, which the newspaper said had already criticised the company’s move to force flight attendants offshore.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Secret Qantas plan ‘to axe 3000 jobs’ March 01, 2005 QANTAS plans to axe up to 3000 jobs in the next two years in an effort to slash costs amid increasing competition. The Australian Financial Review today reported the airline was set to shave about 10 per cent of its workforce after conducting a review of its operations. The airline also would reconsider whether individual businesses such as Qantas Holidays and Qantas Catering should be spun off through sharemarket listings, and whether maintenance and IT divisions should be closed or sold, according to the report. The newspaper said Qantas was battling high oil prices and soaring competition in the international aviation market. The move is likely to anger unions, which the newspaper said had already criticised the company’s move to force flight attendants offshore.

Interesting slant on those "auxiliary" ops.  Forget all the crap about "core business".  It boils down to this:  If they are making money then where’s the benefit to Qantas in flogging them off, or even hiving them off as a separate entity?  And if they are LOSING dough, if you flog them off the new operator will sure as hell try harder to get a profitable op going – either he’ll up his prices or find some previously undiscovered corner to cut. The other thing that Dixon et al seem to lose sight of at moments like this – patriotic following.  Heaps of aussies (I’m not among them BTW)  will fly QF because it is "the aussie airline".  The less aussie it becomes, the less of this blind patriotism they can expect.  That translates to lost market share. Their position as one of the most profitable ops on the rock is in no small way due to this patriotic following.  "I still call Australia home"?  Yeah, right.

Response:

CAO 95.1 & 95.1.1 – Urban myth?

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    Urban myth or not?    If not, and if anyone has the exact wording of 95.1 and 95.1.1 I’d love to read it…    Norm easily squeasily. long post following. note that I have not quoted all the CAO just enough for you to have the facts. anyone with an old casa CD will have the full details. section 3a is the bit that interests you. Stealth Pilot SECTION 95.10 Issue 5

Thanks for your response. Yes, I knew about 95-10, sections 3 and 4. I was asking about 95.1 and 95.1.1. It wasn’t a typo…. Looking at CASA’s CAO there is no 95.1 listed – it starts at 95.2.. hmmmm…

Response:

Write to the Minister and request a written response, as CASA refuses –

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    Urban myth or not?    If not, and if anyone has the exact wording of 95.1 and 95.1.1 I’d love to read it…    Norm easily squeasily. long post following. note that I have not quoted all the CAO just enough for you to have the facts. anyone with an old casa CD will have the full details. section 3a is the bit that interests you. Stealth Pilot SECTION 95.10 Issue 5 Thanks for your response. Yes, I knew about 95-10, sections 3 and 4. I was asking about 95.1 and 95.1.1. It wasn’t a typo…. Looking at CASA’s CAO there is no 95.1 listed – it starts at 95.2.. hmmmm…

Response:

   Urban myth or not?    If not, and if anyone has the exact wording of 95.1 and 95.1.1 I’d love to read it…    Norm

easily squeasily. long post following. note that I have not quoted all the CAO just enough for you to have the facts. anyone with an old casa CD will have the full details. section 3a is the bit that interests you. Stealth Pilot SECTION 95.10 Issue 5 PRIVATELY BUILT SINGLE PLACE ULTRALIGHT AEROPLANES EXEMPTION FROM PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 1 APPLICATION 1.1 This section applies to a privately built single place aeroplane in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied: (a) the aeroplane is registered with the AUF; (c) the aeroplane has a take-off weight of not more than 300 kilograms; (d) if the aeroplane first became registered with the AUF on or after 1 March 1990: (i) the aeroplane has a wing loading not greater than 30 kilograms per square metre at maximum all-up weight; and (ii) if the aeroplane is owned by a person who is not the builder, or one of the builders, of the aeroplane there is a certificate from the AUF in force in relation to the aeroplane that certifies that the aeroplane meets the requirements set out in the AUF Technical Manual. <gap 2.2 Subject to paragraph 2.3, an aeroplane is privately built for the purposes of this section only if: (a) the aeroplane was built by a person, or was jointly built by not more than 4 persons, with a view to the aeroplane being owned by the person, or by one or more of the persons, who built it; and (b) the person, or each of the persons, who built the aeroplane was, at the time of completion of the aeroplane, an eligible private builder; and (c) the aeroplane: (i) was designed by its builder, or by one or more of its builders; or (ii) was built in accordance with a set of drawings or a data package, or a set of drawings and a data package, approved by the AUF; or (iii) was built from an approved kit; and (d) except in a case to which sub-subparagraph (c)(iii) applies

ansett 767's

Question:

i see VH-RMK has been deregistered on the australian register as exported to the USA anybody know what is happenning with it once it gets there no smart arse answers

Response:

i see VH-RMK has been deregistered on the australian register as exported to the USA anybody know what is happenning with it once it gets there

IIRC they were all sold to US leasing company Aeroturbine. Cheers David

Response:

so does this mean they will be leased or scrapped werent they getting near the end of there life ???

Response:

i see VH-RMK has been deregistered on the australian register as exported to the USA anybody know what is happenning with it once it gets there IIRC they were all sold to US leasing company Aeroturbine. Cheers David

This may help . "We are pleased to announce that an agreement to sell the six remaining Boeing 767-200 aircraft and four remaining CF6-80A engines was signed by various entities within the Ansett Group on 13 September 2004. Sale of Boeing 767 Aircraft and Engines The total package price is approximately AUD$45 million, of which approximately AUD$30 million relates to assets owned by Ansett Aviation Equipment Pty Ltd (

Fatties are causing air crashes

Question:

United States of America = ICAO underestimates fat. http://planenews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3003

Not the first time that the fatties have brought down a plane. Safety board wants airline passengers weighed WASHINGTON (AP) –Air travel would be safer if airlines weighed their passengers from time to time to make sure they know how much weight their planes are carrying, the National Transportation Safety Board says. Following its investigation into a commuter plane crash last year in North Carolina, the NTSB said on Thursday that airlines should at least periodically make passengers step on a scale. The safety board also recommended the Federal Aviation Administration require improvements to training, oversight and procedures for maintenance personnel. The crash of US Airways Express Flight 5481 at Charlotte-Douglas Airport killed 21 people, the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in nearly 2 1/2 years. The Beech 1900, operated by Air Midwest, was virtually uncontrollable because of two fatal mistakes, the safety board concluded. First, the airline’s guidelines for estimating the weight of passengers and baggage were inaccurate. The pilots, therefore, didn’t realize the plane’s rear section was too heavy. Second, mechanics had improperly rigged cables connected to the elevator, the tail flap that controls the up-and-down direction of the aircraft’s nose. The errors meant the elevator’s downward motion was restricted to half its normal range, according to the NTSB. Without a fully maneuverable elevator, the pilots couldn’t force the nose of the plane down to compensate for its heavy tail, investigators said. As a result, the plane pitched sharply upward just seconds after takeoff for Greer, South Carolina, then fell from the sky. Soon afterward, the FAA ordered airlines to weigh some of their passengers to determine the accuracy of current guidelines — for example, adults in winter were calculated to weigh 185 pounds on average. The survey showed what many suspected: Passengers and their bags had gotten heavier. The FAA issued temporary guidelines adding up to 10 pounds to its estimate for passengers and 5 pounds to checked luggage. Weight and balance issues The NTSB said those guidelines don’t go far enough. The board recommended the FAA require airlines operating planes with 10 or more seats to weigh passengers periodically to determine when they might be heavier — for example, in December when they wear heavy coats and carry presents. The FAA is working on that. Since June, a committee has been examining the average weights of passengers and baggage and how they vary according to season or geography. Debby McElroy, Regional Airline Association president, said her group is working with the FAA on the weight and balance issues identified by the NTSB. "We agree that further study is necessary, to ensure that air carrier weight and balance programs provide the highest level of safety," McElroy said. The committee is expected to make recommendations next month. NTSB investigators also found flaws in the way mechanics were trained and supervised, how their work was checked and how Air Midwest controlled the quality of its maintenance. Those problems led to the improperly rigged elevator cables on the Charlotte flight. As part of a series of recommendations on maintenance, the NTSB said the FAA should require that work on key flight control systems, including elevator cables, be checked upon completion. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency already is working on the issues raised by the investigation. Two Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, James Oberstar of Wisconsin and Peter DeFazio of Oregon, asked the Transportation Department’s inspector general to report on whether outsourced maintenance work affects airline safety. Air Midwest contracted maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace (now known as Vertex Aerospace), which hired mechanics from Structural Modification and Repair Technicians Inc.

Response:

Not the first time that the fatties have brought down a plane. Safety board wants airline passengers weighed

Seems quite simple t’me: Aren’t there scales at each ticket counter in a terminal? I know my luggage weighs in at about 19kg. ‘Twould be quite simple for me to step on the scale and the total weight on board under my ticket (person + baggage) would be easy to record and added to the total to be carried by the craft. If it gets too heavy . . . A San Francisco glutton who says: "You serve it, I’ll eat it!" http://geocities.com/dancefest/   http://geocities.com/iconoc/ ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103    IClast at SFbay Net

Response:

Seems quite simple t’me: Aren’t there scales at each ticket counter in a terminal? I know my luggage weighs in at about 19kg. ‘Twould be quite simple for me to step on the scale and the total weight on board under my ticket (person + baggage) would be easy to record and added to the total to be carried by the craft. If it gets too heavy . . .

Simple, yes. Want to piss off an already pissed off traveling public? Weigh ‘em.

Response:

Seems quite simple t’me: Aren’t there scales at each ticket counter in a terminal? I know my luggage weighs in at about 19kg. ‘Twould be quite simple for me to step on the scale and the total weight on board under my ticket (person + baggage) would be easy to record and added to the total to be carried by the craft. If it gets too heavy . . . Simple, yes. Want to piss off an already pissed off traveling public? Weigh ‘em.

Maybe they already weigh everyone.  How difficult would it be to put load cells under the carpet in front of the ticket counter/baggage check and the check in at the gate?  Why get upset about it?  The captain needs to know how much gas to put in the plane.

Response:

Seems quite simple t’me: Aren’t there scales at each ticket counter in a terminal? I know my luggage weighs in at about 19kg. ‘Twould be quite simple for me to step on the scale and the total weight on board under my ticket (person + baggage) would be easy to record and added to the total to be carried by the craft. If it gets too heavy . . . Simple, yes. Want to piss off an already pissed off traveling public? Weigh ‘em.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind being weighed with my luggage except for one thing, and that is the extra time it would add.  However, it does seem fair to me that greater total weights of passenger + luggage should command higher ticket prices.

Response:

Ok, first, planes don’t use "gas", they use jet fuel… I’m just too tired to fix everything else…

Response:

Simple, yes. Want to piss off an already pissed off traveling public? Weigh ‘em. Personally, I wouldn’t mind being weighed with my luggage except for one thing, and that is the extra time it would add.

Neither would I; Ask a 225 pound women to get on a scale.

Response:

Maybe they already weigh everyone.  How difficult would it be to put load cells under the carpet in front of the ticket counter/baggage check and the check in at the gate?  Why get upset about it?  The captain needs to know how much gas to put in the plane.

Is it that important to know how much the passengers weigh to know how much fuel to take on?  That sometimes depends on the price of fuel. For a while back in the 80<? airliners were making trips to Canada to buy fuel because it was cheaper.  I have certainly been known to have stopped at gas stations and bought only enough gas to get me to another station where I knew it was a lot cheaper. If it is worthwhile for me to do it with a 45 liter tank I can imagine the savings for a plane holding thousands of liters. Besides, if they passenger load is light could load on more freight.

Response:

The captain needs to know how much gas to put in the plane.

I would imagine that pax load has little to do with how much fuel. What if they have to circle 25 times? Maybe they don’t "fill er up", maybe they do. Nothing is going to waste, they don’t drop the excess in the ocean.

Response:

The captain needs to know how much gas to put in the plane. I would imagine that pax load has little to do with how much fuel. What if they have to circle 25 times? Maybe they don’t "fill er up", maybe they do. Nothing is going to waste, they don’t drop the excess in the ocean.

Planes are normally fueled up to fly just as far as the predicted flight time plus a safety margin.  Having overweight passengers will eat into this margin, maybe just by a few percent, but they also eat into other safety margins like takeoff and landing speeds by a few percent too. As the article quoted by the O/P stated, the problem contributing to the crash was not the total weight but the weight distribution. The center of gravity of an aircraft has to be carefully controlled during loading     by weight&balance calculations. An out-of-balance aircraft can be dangerously unstable. In my own experience, on one occasion I have seen the flight attendants ask passengers to move forward several rows before we left the ramp. There was no explanation, but it seems like the checkin desk had booked too many passengers into the back rows. And incidently, I DO know of people that have been weighed at checkin. T.

Response:

Planes are normally fueled up to fly just as far as the predicted flight time plus a safety margin.  Having overweight passengers will eat into this margin, maybe just by a few percent, but they also eat into other safety margins like takeoff and landing speeds by a few percent too.

I can see the latter but as to fuel, why not assume that everyone is 300 pounds to begin with or maybe they do. Capt: Pax, sorry we have to land in Utah’s Mojave Desert, ran out of fuel b/c of the fat Americans we were too stupid to either weigh or account for. My bad. I hear it is really pleasant in Palm Springs today. As the article quoted by the O/P stated, the problem contributing to the crash was not the total weight but the weight distribution. The center of gravity of an aircraft has to be carefully controlled during loading     by weight&balance calculations. An out-of-balance aircraft can be dangerously unstable.

I didn’t see that part. I read the link not the article posted. In my own experience, on one occasion I have seen the flight attendants ask passengers to move forward several rows before we left the ramp. There was no explanation, but it seems like the checkin desk had booked too many passengers into the back rows. And incidently, I DO know of people that have been weighed at checkin. T.

Best get used to it perhaps.

Response:

Planes are normally fueled up to fly just as far as the predicted flight time plus a safety margin.  Having overweight passengers will eat into this margin, maybe just by a few percent, but they also eat into other safety margins like takeoff and landing speeds by a few percent too. I can see the latter but as to fuel, why not assume that everyone is 300 pounds to begin with or maybe they do.

Fuel is heavy too (hence fuel consumption is highest at the beginning of a flight when there is more fuel to tote around). Carrying more fuel than required by safety regulations costs money. miguel — Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe they already weigh everyone.  How difficult would it be to put load cells under the carpet in front of the ticket counter/baggage check and the check in at the gate?  Why get upset about it?  The captain needs to know how much gas to put in the plane. Is it that important to know how much the passengers weigh to know how much fuel to take on?  That sometimes depends on the price of fuel. For a while back in the 80<? airliners were making trips to Canada to buy fuel because it was cheaper.  I have certainly been known to have stopped at gas stations and bought only enough gas to get me to another station where I knew it was a lot cheaper. If it is worthwhile for me to do it with a 45 liter tank I can imagine the savings for a plane holding thousands of liters. Besides, if they passenger load is light could load on more freight.

Actually, there’s something called weights and balances.  If the center of mass gets too far out, the plane becomes unstable.  On commuter flights, I’ve seen the pilot move people around on the plane. — dillon "When the French are against it, you know we can’t be far wrong."  - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman

Response:

United States of America = ICAO underestimates fat. http://planenews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3003 Not the first time that the fatties have brought down a plane. Safety board wants airline passengers weighed

It’s a weight distribution problem.  You can say thin people casued the crash just as well. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WASHINGTON (AP) –Air travel would be safer if airlines weighed their passengers from time to time to make sure they know how much weight their planes are carrying, the National Transportation Safety Board says. Following its investigation into a commuter plane crash last year in North Carolina, the NTSB said on Thursday that airlines should at least periodically make passengers step on a scale. The safety board also recommended the Federal Aviation Administration require improvements to training, oversight and procedures for maintenance personnel. The crash of US Airways Express Flight 5481 at Charlotte-Douglas Airport killed 21 people, the deadliest U.S. aviation accident in nearly 2 1/2 years. The Beech 1900, operated by Air Midwest, was virtually uncontrollable because of two fatal mistakes, the safety board concluded. First, the airline’s guidelines for estimating the weight of passengers and baggage were inaccurate. The pilots, therefore, didn’t realize the plane’s rear section was too heavy. Second, mechanics had improperly rigged cables connected to the elevator, the tail flap that controls the up-and-down direction of the aircraft’s nose. The errors meant the elevator’s downward motion was restricted to half its normal range, according to the NTSB. Without a fully maneuverable elevator, the pilots couldn’t force the nose of the plane down to compensate for its heavy tail, investigators said. As a result, the plane pitched sharply upward just seconds after takeoff for Greer, South Carolina, then fell from the sky. Soon afterward, the FAA ordered airlines to weigh some of their passengers to determine the accuracy of current guidelines — for example, adults in winter were calculated to weigh 185 pounds on average. The survey showed what many suspected: Passengers and their bags had gotten heavier. The FAA issued temporary guidelines adding up to 10 pounds to its estimate for passengers and 5 pounds to checked luggage. Weight and balance issues The NTSB said those guidelines don’t go far enough. The board recommended the FAA require airlines operating planes with 10 or more seats to weigh passengers periodically to determine when they might be heavier — for example, in December when they wear heavy coats and carry presents. The FAA is working on that. Since June, a committee has been examining the average weights of passengers and baggage and how they vary according to season or geography. Debby McElroy, Regional Airline Association president, said her group is working with the FAA on the weight and balance issues identified by the NTSB. "We agree that further study is necessary, to ensure that air carrier weight and balance programs provide the highest level of safety," McElroy said. The committee is expected to make recommendations next month. NTSB investigators also found flaws in the way mechanics were trained and supervised, how their work was checked and how Air Midwest controlled the quality of its maintenance. Those problems led to the improperly rigged elevator cables on the Charlotte flight. As part of a series of recommendations on maintenance, the NTSB said the FAA should require that work on key flight control systems, including elevator cables, be checked upon completion. FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency already is working on the issues raised by the investigation. Two Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, James Oberstar of Wisconsin and Peter DeFazio of Oregon, asked the Transportation Department’s inspector general to report on whether outsourced maintenance work affects airline safety. Air Midwest contracted maintenance to Raytheon Aerospace (now known as Vertex Aerospace), which hired mechanics from Structural Modification and Repair Technicians Inc.

Response:

In my own experience, on one occasion I have seen the flight attendants ask passengers to move forward several rows before we left the ramp. There was no explanation, but it seems like the checkin desk had booked too many passengers into the back rows.

We have been on flights where the attendants have asked people to move around also, and they did explain that it was to balance the load. And incidently, I DO know of people that have been weighed at checkin.

We have been asked for our weights for trips on small (9 passenger and the like) planes, but never actually weighed.  They also weighed all of our carry ons and did not guarantee any overweighted bags would get on the same flight with us if they carried a full load of passengers. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – T.

Response:

I can see the latter but as to fuel, why not assume that everyone is 300 pounds to begin with or maybe they do. Fuel is heavy too (hence fuel consumption is highest at the beginning of a flight when there is more fuel to tote around). Carrying more fuel than required by safety regulations costs money.

Yes, it’s a spiral, more fuel, more weight, more fuel. Repeat in reverse.

Response:

It’s a weight distribution problem.  You can say thin people casued the crash just as well.

Or dead people….who didn’t make the flight.

Response:

LOL, well they could modify the scale to call out the weight good and loud so the agent wouldn’t have to read the gauge. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Seems quite simple t’me: Aren’t there scales at each ticket counter in a terminal? I know my luggage weighs in at about 19kg. ‘Twould be quite simple for me to step on the scale and the total weight on board under my ticket (person + baggage) would be easy to record and added to the total to be carried by the craft. If it gets too heavy . . . Simple, yes. Want to piss off an already pissed off traveling public? Weigh ‘em. Personally, I wouldn’t mind being weighed with my luggage except for one thing, and that is the extra time it would add.  However, it does seem fair to me that greater total weights of passenger + luggage should command higher ticket prices.

Response:

It’s a weight distribution problem.  You can say thin people casued the crash just as well. Or dead people….who didn’t make the flight.

   Football teams are assigned seats thruout the plane for weight equalization.

Response:

   Football teams are assigned seats thruout the plane for weight equalization.

I have never seen oversized futballers.

Response:

It’s a weight distribution problem.  You can say thin people casued the crash just as well. Or dead people….who didn’t make the flight.   Football teams are assigned seats thruout the plane for weight equalization.

Actually, most football teams don’t "assign" seats.  The players sit where they wish.  But typically only 2 to every 3 seats (football players generally being rather muscular – whether U.S., Australian, or "the rest of the world" style football.  They also tend to get a bit rowdy on the flights, especially the return flight if they won their game. Years ago, I worked for a major U.S. airline and had the "privilege" of accompanying a NFL football team on one of their trips to an away game.  It was quite an experience Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

  Football teams are assigned seats thruout the plane for weight equalization. I have never seen oversized futballers.

Those multi millionaires never fly coach.

Response:

  Football teams are assigned seats thruout the plane for weight equalization. I have never seen oversized futballers.

If that means American Football, I thought they all were. Or is it just the mattresses they wrap around them.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s a weight distribution problem.  You can say thin people casued the crash just as well. Or dead people….who didn’t make the flight.   Football teams are assigned seats thruout the plane for weight equalization. Actually, most football teams don’t "assign" seats.  The players sit where they wish.  But typically only 2 to every 3 seats (football players generally being rather muscular – whether U.S., Australian, or "the rest of the world" style football.  They also tend to get a bit rowdy on the flights, especially the return flight if they won their game. Years ago, I worked for a major U.S. airline and had the "privilege" of accompanying a NFL football team on one of their trips to an away game. It was quite an experience

Nowadays they are all busy working their laptops checking their stock portfolio. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jeff

Response:

Chrissy may be referring to specific anatomical features. I think those steroids may cause some shrinkage. How’s that for lowering the level. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   Football teams are assigned seats thruout the plane for weight equalization. I have never seen oversized futballers. If that means American Football, I thought they all were. Or is it just the mattresses they wrap around them.

Response: