The Aviation Guru

Belfort sues former employees, SuperAWOS finds new markets

admin — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

How is your butt buddy, Gary Burnore, doing? Does he visit you at the Belfort bar when you are working the glory hole, fag boi? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And YOUR mouth is probably full of GLORY HOLE patrons at the belfort bar! Do YOU ever wonder who is on the other side of that GLORY HOLE Mikey? Or, knowing YOU, YOU could probably care less, RIGHT! Thought so! I second that emotion! Sounds like much is going on with this particular company! I’m sorry, I can’t seem to get the money out of my wallet … not even just a little! Its probably because its so fully stuffed with your socks, gay boi. Wow, see, we learn more about Belfort time after time! What the "HELL" is going on at this company! The only reason they would sue former employees, is to shut them up! They must have something to hide! It is obvious! Plus, it makes this comapny which looks bad, look much worse! If they handeld their matters properly, they would not need to sue a former employee! What did they do! What were they trying to hide! Usually, courts see through the clutter and definitely scrutinize the intentions of companies like Belfort! Hell, turn on the television at night! All kinds of things going on in the corporate world! Usually, the employees have a legitimate gripe which is never addressed! If it was addressed, their wouldn’t be a problem! these types of employers are just a bunch of fu**ing a**holes! Suing employees!!! A better term would be a bunch of pu**ies!!! Their activities are mean spirited, bullying tactics, spineless, and are obvious! DO NOT SUPPORT THESE COMPANIES IN YOUR PURCHASING DECISIONS! Maybe Belfort Instrument Company can find some more former employees to sue while SuperAWOS finds new markets and customers to sell too. Sounds like a well executed business plan by Belfort owners Bruce R. Robinson, Nicholas C. Kaufman and Mark W. Decker. These three stooges need to get together and write a book about "How NOT to market DigiWx AWOS?" By the way, have any DigiWx AWOS been FAA commissioned? Has even one DigiWx AWOS been Approved by the FAA to transmit official weather information to aviation pilots? I BET NO! Meanwhile, SuperAWOS is pulling customers out of the woodwork. Look at these bona-fide SuperAWOS installations versus Belfort’s list of "demo" DigiWx AWOS field units! https://potomacaviation.com/select.asp At least these weather systems are installed at airports versus sewage plants where you can find at least one DigiWx system! 1 Default AA OLD 2 Defualt-SL40 AA SL40 3 FoleyMunc AL 5R4 4 29Palms CA KTNP 5 AppleValley CA KAPV 6 Fallbrook CA L18 7 Redlands CA KL12 8 YuccaValleyAirport CA L22 9 FortMorgan CO 3V4 10 GlenwoodSprg CO GWS 11 Meadowlake CO 00V 12 RangeLee CO 4V0 13 SALIDA-HARRIET- ALEX CO 0V2 14 Milton FL 2R4 15 Sebastian FL X26 16 Valkeria FL KX59 17 Copley MA CIC 18 FitchburgAirport MA FIT 19 ProductResources MA PROD 20 David-Stack MD STK 21 PotomacAirfield MD KVKX 22 PotomacAirfieldTest MD VKX 23 LaurelMunicipal MT K6S8 24 MaltaAirport MT KM75 25 ScobeyAirport MT K9S2 26 Goldsboro NC GWW 27 AlexandriaField NJ N85 28 BaderAirfield NJ AIY 29 Blairstown NJ 1N7 30 GreenwoodLake NJ 4N1 31 Hammonton NJ N81 32 Old Bridge NJ 3N6 33 Princeton NJ 39N 34 RedLion NJ N73 35 Woodbine NJ 1N4 36 DoubleEagleII NM AEG 37 Boulder NV 61B 38 Buffalo-Lancaster NY D77 39 OrangeCounty NY MGJ 40 Lockhaven PA LHV 41 Cleveland TN HDI 42 ReelFoot TN 0M2 43 Duchesne UT U69 44 Newport VT EFK 45 Arlington WA AWO 46 Auburn WA S50 47 Blaine WA 4W6 48 LAKE-CHELAN WA S10 49 PierceCty-Thun WA 1SO 50 PortTownsend WA 0S9 Don’t you just love, Don’t you love it, don’t you love it. OOOOh yeah, don’t you love it!

Response:

I think Mikey works the Belfort bar glory hole full time now since it appears that Belfort fired him. It has happened before! then, they try to SILENCE there former employees by either trying to sue them or manipulate them with even lower handed tactics! What a company! Anyone looking for a job? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mikey is hiding tonight. He is probably down working the glory hole right now! You know you cannot keep a gay man away from his environment for too long! He’s servicing his clients and making a little stipend on the side from his regular paycheck from Belfort. And YOUR mouth is probably full of GLORY HOLE patrons at the belfort bar! Do YOU ever wonder who is on the other side of that GLORY HOLE Mikey? Or, knowing YOU, YOU could probably care less, RIGHT! Thought so! I second that emotion! Sounds like much is going on with this particular company! I’m sorry, I can’t seem to get the money out of my wallet … not even just a little! Its probably because its so fully stuffed with your socks, gay boi. Wow, see, we learn more about Belfort time after time! What the "HELL" is going on at this company! The only reason they would sue former employees, is to shut them up! They must have something to hide! It is obvious! Plus, it makes this comapny which looks bad, look much worse! If they handeld their matters properly, they would not need to sue a former employee! What did they do! What were they trying to hide! Usually, courts see through the clutter and definitely scrutinize the intentions of companies like Belfort! Hell, turn on the television at night! All kinds of things going on in the corporate world! Usually, the employees have a legitimate gripe which is never addressed! If it was addressed, their wouldn’t be a problem! these types of employers are just a bunch of fu**ing a**holes! Suing employees!!! A better term would be a bunch of pu**ies!!! Their activities are mean spirited, bullying tactics, spineless, and are obvious! DO NOT SUPPORT THESE COMPANIES IN YOUR PURCHASING DECISIONS! Maybe Belfort Instrument Company can find some more former employees to sue while SuperAWOS finds new markets and customers to sell too. Sounds like a well executed business plan by Belfort owners Bruce R. Robinson, Nicholas C. Kaufman and Mark W. Decker. These three stooges need to get together and write a book about "How NOT to market DigiWx AWOS?" By the way, have any DigiWx AWOS been FAA commissioned? Has even one DigiWx AWOS been Approved by the FAA to transmit official weather information to aviation pilots? I BET NO! Meanwhile, SuperAWOS is pulling customers out of the woodwork. Look at these bona-fide SuperAWOS installations versus Belfort’s list of "demo" DigiWx AWOS field units! https://potomacaviation.com/select.asp At least these weather systems are installed at airports versus sewage plants where you can find at least one DigiWx system! 1 Default AA OLD 2 Defualt-SL40 AA SL40 3 FoleyMunc AL 5R4 4 29Palms CA KTNP 5 AppleValley CA KAPV 6 Fallbrook CA L18 7 Redlands CA KL12 8 YuccaValleyAirport CA L22 9 FortMorgan CO 3V4 10 GlenwoodSprg CO GWS 11 Meadowlake CO 00V 12 RangeLee CO 4V0 13 SALIDA-HARRIET- ALEX CO 0V2 14 Milton FL 2R4 15 Sebastian FL X26 16 Valkeria FL KX59 17 Copley MA CIC 18 FitchburgAirport MA FIT 19 ProductResources MA PROD 20 David-Stack MD STK 21 PotomacAirfield MD KVKX 22 PotomacAirfieldTest MD VKX 23 LaurelMunicipal MT K6S8 24 MaltaAirport MT KM75 25 ScobeyAirport MT K9S2 26 Goldsboro NC GWW 27 AlexandriaField NJ N85 28 BaderAirfield NJ AIY 29 Blairstown NJ 1N7 30 GreenwoodLake NJ 4N1 31 Hammonton NJ N81 32 Old Bridge NJ 3N6 33 Princeton NJ 39N 34 RedLion NJ N73 35 Woodbine NJ 1N4 36 DoubleEagleII NM AEG 37 Boulder NV 61B 38 Buffalo-Lancaster NY D77 39 OrangeCounty NY MGJ 40 Lockhaven PA LHV 41 Cleveland TN HDI 42 ReelFoot TN 0M2 43 Duchesne UT U69 44 Newport VT EFK 45 Arlington WA AWO 46 Auburn WA S50 47 Blaine WA 4W6 48 LAKE-CHELAN WA S10 49 PierceCty-Thun WA 1SO 50 PortTownsend WA 0S9 Don’t you just love, Don’t you love it, don’t you love it. OOOOh yeah, don’t you love it!

Response:

Mikey is hiding tonight. He is probably down working the glory hole right now! You know you cannot keep a gay man away from his environment for too long! He’s servicing his clients and making a little stipend on the side from his regular paycheck from Belfort. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And YOUR mouth is probably full of GLORY HOLE patrons at the belfort bar! Do YOU ever wonder who is on the other side of that GLORY HOLE Mikey? Or, knowing YOU, YOU could probably care less, RIGHT! Thought so! I second that emotion! Sounds like much is going on with this particular company! I’m sorry, I can’t seem to get the money out of my wallet … not even just a little! Its probably because its so fully stuffed with your socks, gay boi. Wow, see, we learn more about Belfort time after time! What the "HELL" is going on at this company! The only reason they would sue former employees, is to shut them up! They must have something to hide! It is obvious! Plus, it makes this comapny which looks bad, look much worse! If they handeld their matters properly, they would not need to sue a former employee! What did they do! What were they trying to hide! Usually, courts see through the clutter and definitely scrutinize the intentions of companies like Belfort! Hell, turn on the television at night! All kinds of things going on in the corporate world! Usually, the employees have a legitimate gripe which is never addressed! If it was addressed, their wouldn’t be a problem! these types of employers are just a bunch of fu**ing a**holes! Suing employees!!! A better term would be a bunch of pu**ies!!! Their activities are mean spirited, bullying tactics, spineless, and are obvious! DO NOT SUPPORT THESE COMPANIES IN YOUR PURCHASING DECISIONS! Maybe Belfort Instrument Company can find some more former employees to sue while SuperAWOS finds new markets and customers to sell too. Sounds like a well executed business plan by Belfort owners Bruce R. Robinson, Nicholas C. Kaufman and Mark W. Decker. These three stooges need to get together and write a book about "How NOT to market DigiWx AWOS?" By the way, have any DigiWx AWOS been FAA commissioned? Has even one DigiWx AWOS been Approved by the FAA to transmit official weather information to aviation pilots? I BET NO! Meanwhile, SuperAWOS is pulling customers out of the woodwork. Look at these bona-fide SuperAWOS installations versus Belfort’s list of "demo" DigiWx AWOS field units! https://potomacaviation.com/select.asp At least these weather systems are installed at airports versus sewage plants where you can find at least one DigiWx system! 1 Default AA OLD 2 Defualt-SL40 AA SL40 3 FoleyMunc AL 5R4 4 29Palms CA KTNP 5 AppleValley CA KAPV 6 Fallbrook CA L18 7 Redlands CA KL12 8 YuccaValleyAirport CA L22 9 FortMorgan CO 3V4 10 GlenwoodSprg CO GWS 11 Meadowlake CO 00V 12 RangeLee CO 4V0 13 SALIDA-HARRIET- ALEX CO 0V2 14 Milton FL 2R4 15 Sebastian FL X26 16 Valkeria FL KX59 17 Copley MA CIC 18 FitchburgAirport MA FIT 19 ProductResources MA PROD 20 David-Stack MD STK 21 PotomacAirfield MD KVKX 22 PotomacAirfieldTest MD VKX 23 LaurelMunicipal MT K6S8 24 MaltaAirport MT KM75 25 ScobeyAirport MT K9S2 26 Goldsboro NC GWW 27 AlexandriaField NJ N85 28 BaderAirfield NJ AIY 29 Blairstown NJ 1N7 30 GreenwoodLake NJ 4N1 31 Hammonton NJ N81 32 Old Bridge NJ 3N6 33 Princeton NJ 39N 34 RedLion NJ N73 35 Woodbine NJ 1N4 36 DoubleEagleII NM AEG 37 Boulder NV 61B 38 Buffalo-Lancaster NY D77 39 OrangeCounty NY MGJ 40 Lockhaven PA LHV 41 Cleveland TN HDI 42 ReelFoot TN 0M2 43 Duchesne UT U69 44 Newport VT EFK 45 Arlington WA AWO 46 Auburn WA S50 47 Blaine WA 4W6 48 LAKE-CHELAN WA S10 49 PierceCty-Thun WA 1SO 50 PortTownsend WA 0S9 Don’t you just love, Don’t you love it, don’t you love it. OOOOh yeah, don’t you love it!

Response:

And YOUR mouth is probably full of GLORY HOLE patrons at the belfort bar! Do YOU ever wonder who is on the other side of that GLORY HOLE Mikey? Or, knowing YOU, YOU could probably care less, RIGHT! Thought so! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I second that emotion! Sounds like much is going on with this particular company! I’m sorry, I can’t seem to get the money out of my wallet … not even just a little! Its probably because its so fully stuffed with your socks, gay boi. Wow, see, we learn more about Belfort time after time! What the "HELL" is going on at this company! The only reason they would sue former employees, is to shut them up! They must have something to hide! It is obvious! Plus, it makes this comapny which looks bad, look much worse! If they handeld their matters properly, they would not need to sue a former employee! What did they do! What were they trying to hide! Usually, courts see through the clutter and definitely scrutinize the intentions of companies like Belfort! Hell, turn on the television at night! All kinds of things going on in the corporate world! Usually, the employees have a legitimate gripe which is never addressed! If it was addressed, their wouldn’t be a problem! these types of employers are just a bunch of fu**ing a**holes! Suing employees!!! A better term would be a bunch of pu**ies!!! Their activities are mean spirited, bullying tactics, spineless, and are obvious! DO NOT SUPPORT THESE COMPANIES IN YOUR PURCHASING DECISIONS! Maybe Belfort Instrument Company can find some more former employees to sue while SuperAWOS finds new markets and customers to sell too. Sounds like a well executed business plan by Belfort owners Bruce R. Robinson, Nicholas C. Kaufman and Mark W. Decker. These three stooges need to get together and write a book about "How NOT to market DigiWx AWOS?" By the way, have any DigiWx AWOS been FAA commissioned? Has even one DigiWx AWOS been Approved by the FAA to transmit official weather information to aviation pilots? I BET NO! Meanwhile, SuperAWOS is pulling customers out of the woodwork. Look at these bona-fide SuperAWOS installations versus Belfort’s list of "demo" DigiWx AWOS field units! https://potomacaviation.com/select.asp At least these weather systems are installed at airports versus sewage plants where you can find at least one DigiWx system! 1 Default AA OLD 2 Defualt-SL40 AA SL40 3 FoleyMunc AL 5R4 4 29Palms CA KTNP 5 AppleValley CA KAPV 6 Fallbrook CA L18 7 Redlands CA KL12 8 YuccaValleyAirport CA L22 9 FortMorgan CO 3V4 10 GlenwoodSprg CO GWS 11 Meadowlake CO 00V 12 RangeLee CO 4V0 13 SALIDA-HARRIET- ALEX CO 0V2 14 Milton FL 2R4 15 Sebastian FL X26 16 Valkeria FL KX59 17 Copley MA CIC 18 FitchburgAirport MA FIT 19 ProductResources MA PROD 20 David-Stack MD STK 21 PotomacAirfield MD KVKX 22 PotomacAirfieldTest MD VKX 23 LaurelMunicipal MT K6S8 24 MaltaAirport MT KM75 25 ScobeyAirport MT K9S2 26 Goldsboro NC GWW 27 AlexandriaField NJ N85 28 BaderAirfield NJ AIY 29 Blairstown NJ 1N7 30 GreenwoodLake NJ 4N1 31 Hammonton NJ N81 32 Old Bridge NJ 3N6 33 Princeton NJ 39N 34 RedLion NJ N73 35 Woodbine NJ 1N4 36 DoubleEagleII NM AEG 37 Boulder NV 61B 38 Buffalo-Lancaster NY D77 39 OrangeCounty NY MGJ 40 Lockhaven PA LHV 41 Cleveland TN HDI 42 ReelFoot TN 0M2 43 Duchesne UT U69 44 Newport VT EFK 45 Arlington WA AWO 46 Auburn WA S50 47 Blaine WA 4W6 48 LAKE-CHELAN WA S10 49 PierceCty-Thun WA 1SO 50 PortTownsend WA 0S9 Don’t you just love, Don’t you love it, don’t you love it. OOOOh yeah, don’t you love it!

Response:

Spitfire Ace – ABCTV 8-30pm

admin — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Having seen the first one I will be watching the other three. A smooth BBC style production – personal interest too as Dad was doing the initial training referred to in the first episode – he was shot over there to the Empire Central Training School (?) to instruct the initial training in Tigerschmidts.

Response:

Having seen the first one I will be watching the other three.

Agree totally – someone on this or another forum canned it as having too much waffle – don’t know what they found uninteresting about the oldtimers reminiscences. All good stuff – and brilliant footage. Wonder why they now put the students in the front seat on the Tigers? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A smooth BBC style production – personal interest too as Dad was doing the initial training referred to in the first episode – he was shot over there to the Empire Central Training School (?) to instruct the initial training in Tigerschmidts.

Response:

Most enjoyable. Since when has the Tiger student used the front seat? JW

heads up!

admin — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | | | Seem to recall there was a heads up from one our team for a TV show tonight | but can’t find it, anyone else know of it? or I am I in dream land?? | | Spitfire Ace, 2030 hrs ABC | Brian | | Hope it improves, a bit of a disappointment so far.

Some of the romanticism(??) was a tad cloying perhaps, but overall an enjoyable watch. I also learnt a few things as well. Somehow "achtung, achtung Shrew" doesn’t have the same sort of ring to it! rb

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | | .. | Seem to recall there was a heads up from one our team for a TV show tonight | but can’t find it, anyone else know of it? or I am I in dream land?? | | Spitfire Ace, 2030 hrs ABC | Brian | | Hope it improves, a bit of a disappointment so far. Some of the romanticism(??) was a tad cloying perhaps, but overall an enjoyable watch. I also learnt a few things as well. Somehow "achtung, achtung Shrew" doesn’t have the same sort of ring to it! rb

Try and get a German to say "Shrew" – it may well have been a good war tactic for the British to name the plane "Shrew". "Achtung achtung shoo, sroo, soo donna an bltzen!!! Britischer! ach too late…"

Response:

| ||| message ||||

|||| ||| ||| .. |||| Seem to recall there was a heads up from one our team for a TV |||| show tonight but can’t find it, anyone else know of it? or I am I |||| in dream land?? |||| |||| Spitfire Ace, 2030 hrs ABC |||| Brian |||| |||| ||| ||| ||| ||| Hope it improves, a bit of a disappointment so far. ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| || Some of the romanticism(??) was a tad cloying perhaps, but overall an || enjoyable watch. I also learnt a few things as well. || Somehow "achtung, achtung Shrew" doesn’t have the same sort of ring || to it! || || rb | | Try and get a German to say "Shrew" – it may well have been a good war | tactic for the British to name the plane "Shrew". | | "Achtung achtung shoo, sroo, soo donna an bltzen!!! Britischer! ach | too late…"

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Dave Kearton"

Helios B-737 FDR Information Destroys QF Captain's Media Slur

admin — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Before the Helios 737 Crash thread diverted into window heating matters JB made following the extraordinary suggestion – that the crew had not reported the aircon problem, at a time there was an abundance of credible evidence to the contrary – Ah, hindsight. The best part of the checklist. We don’t really know exactly what they reported, but if it was

an air conditioning problem, then continuing may well have been a reasonable option. I’m not really sure why an aircon problem would be reported to anyone, so I suspect that it’s a media furphy.

To which I enquired – Extraordinary! Why do you suppose the media would invent something like that?

Since then JB appears unwilling or unable to provide any support or justification for this allegation. However the recent release of FDR data from head of the Greek Air Accident Investigation and Aviation Safety Board Capt Akrivos Tsolakis confirms that my sources were correct and the call was in fact made. Following is taken directly from Flight International. The known flight sequence, confirmed by Tsolakis from his initial examination of high quality digital flight data recorder (FDR) readings, was as follows (times are local): 09:05: Take off from Larnaca. 09:11: 50 Pilots report air conditioning problem. 09:1?: Climbing through 14,000ft (4,270m), the cabin altitude warning alert activates and is not cancelled by the pilots for the duration of the flight. It self-cancels when the aircraft eventually descends through 10,000ft. 09:16: Last radio communication with pilots as aircraft climbs through 22,000ft. 09:24: Aircraft adopts cruise at flight level (FL) 340 (34,000ft/10,360m), probably flying on autopilot with direction from the pre-programmed flight management system (FMS). 09:35: Cyprus ATC tells crew to contact Athens as it approaches the flight information region (FIR) boundary. 09:37: aircraft enters Athens FIR near Rhodes. Radar picture shows aircraft on time and on track at FL340. 10:07: Athens airport tries to contact the inbound aircraft because it should have begun its descent. No reply. 10:20 (approx): Aircraft enters holding pattern at the VOR on Kea island south east of Athens, probably still on autopilot/FMS. 10:25: Athens airport contacts search and rescue services. 10:30: Minister of Defence and Greek air force alerted. 10:55 (approx): Two Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters scrambled. 11:25 (approx): F-16s formate within a metre of the 737, report no captain in seat, copilot slumped on controls, two other people in cockpit, passenger oxygen masks deployed, no movement in cabin. 11:50:45 Aircraft begins descent, leaving holding pattern flown by the air steward, a student pilot with only a few hours

Passenger pics from Toronto Airfrance

admin — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Sylvia said…. Perhaps one needs to accept that people do not behave very rationally in such situations. After all, most people have no experience of being in an accident. The crew can shout "LEAVE YOUR HAND LUGGAGE BEHIND", but

As a part of my job, I have to regularly go through emergency response training, which includes the use of BA in smoke/fire environments. I would imagine that an aircraft, having just pranged like this A340 did, would become a similar environment – dark, smokey, cramped and lots of people suddenly to be wanting to be somewhere else. I’m surprised that the AF pax were all safely evacuated. Anything that facilitates the quick exit from the cabin without causing panic has to be the main aim of the exercise. If the pax want to grab their carryons, then let ‘em. Other than that, the best that the crew can do is to calmly direct them to the escape exits.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Missed that one. Are you seriously suggesting rolling a 767? Leaving aside the views of the airline, the insurers, the aviation authority, the manufacturer, and indeed anyone who’s remotely sane, is there a good reason this cannot be done successfully, without damaging the aircraft? Sylvia. Other than it is the one thing a Simulator won’t let you do (because it cannot) Why can’t it? It’s not as if it has to simulate negative g. Sylvia.

The simulator is a mechnical device with gimbal limits, and very simply, there simply is no way to turn the cab upside down on the hydraulic struts that support it.

Response:

Petzl said…. An uncle of mine Evan Mackey flew spitfires (WWII) and he once said to me that the RAF disallowed full Victory Rolls but (sort of) allowed similar (Wing Waggling?) as a replacement gesture as it was (sort of) becoming compulsory (peer pressure) for returning flyer’s to do Victory Rolls.

I recall reading about this in Douglas Bader’s bio, "Reach for the Sky". He banned his pilots from doing victory rolls, as he remembers a pic of a battle scarred bi-plane breaking up in mid air. The argument against that was that such aircraft, being made of wood and fabric, were lucky not to fall apart during normal flight. Whereas, the more modern and robust Spitfires and Hurricanes were somewhat less likely to suffer such airframe damage.

Response:

Sylvia said…. Missed that one. Are you seriously suggesting rolling a 767? Leaving aside the views of the airline, the insurers, the aviation authority, the manufacturer, and indeed anyone who’s remotely sane, is there a good reason this cannot be done successfully, without damaging the aircraft?

I remember watching a show in the History Channel about Boeing’s first B707 test flight. They had a photo taken from inside the cabin looking out through a window at the wing. It showed the ground on the other side of the wing to the engines…. From memory, it was the first and only time that a 4 engined jet did a roll. Of course, your average pax who thinks that disaster is imminent because of a routine go around would not appreciate being a part of an aerobatic maneuvre (although I reckon it’d be a ball tearer….)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Missed that one. Are you seriously suggesting rolling a 767? Leaving aside the views of the airline, the insurers, the aviation authority, the manufacturer, and indeed anyone who’s remotely sane, is there a good reason this cannot be done successfully, without damaging the aircraft? Sylvia. Other than it is the one thing a Simulator won’t let you do (because it cannot) , if you are careful (as Tex Johnson was when he did it with the Dash-80 and maintained a positive 1G load at all times), it obviously can be done. Sure you can barrel roll the sims. They can’t emulate the real motions involved, but the instruments handle it perfectly well. They regularly end up in very extreme attitudes. For what it’s worth you can’t barrel roll anything, whilst maintaining 1G. If there is nose motion involved, then the G loading will have to be greater than 1G. JB

Wonder what passengers would pay t be in a 767 victory and or barrel roll? Russians are selling fighter plane trips as are Camden Petzl — SECURE YOUR WINDOWS COMPUTER NOW!!

Response:

Missed that one. Are you seriously suggesting rolling a 767? Leaving aside the views of the airline, the insurers, the aviation authority, the manufacturer, and indeed anyone who’s remotely sane, is there a good reason this cannot be done successfully, without damaging the aircraft? Sylvia.

There is some good footage of Boeing’s 707 test flight doing just that :)

Response:

Well time to educate the little man – or fuel his conspiracy theories FedEx Flight 705 in 1994 (google it) – after a hijack attempt by a nutter the captain barrel rolled the aircraft (a DC10) several times to help overpower the hijacker. Yup they can do it, though in this case the plane was somewhat second hand by the time they got to the ground… /viz

Response:

I saw a pic in a book that someone on board took while that happened. What looks like the sky is actually a lake :-p Would love to be in a heavy when someone actually tried a roll (with a very skilled pilot of course). I’d reckon it’d be a hoot!!!! duffo21

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This dates back some years (2000) when I noted some low flying 767 ansett aircraft (about 1500 feet over Campbelltown) not being picked up on "radar" (towards Kingsord Smith) indicating they were flying with transponders off? During the flight the Aircraft were heavily rocking one wing tip then the other (about 15 degrees) I reported the incident to CASA and BASI (as it was then called) An uncle of mine Evan Mackey flew spitfires (WWII) and he once said to me that the RAF disallowed full Victory Rolls but (sort of) allowed similar (Wing Waggling?) as a replacement gesture as it was (sort of) becoming compulsory (peer pressure) for returning flyer’s to do Victory Rolls. There was a good reason, at one time, for this RAF instruction. Several pilots ending up killing themselves inexplicably with this maneouvre. If I remember correctly it was established that an assembler had inadvertently inserted split pins in the reverse direction on the aileron hinges of a number of Spitfires. Under heavy loading the aileron would jam. I think the details are in in test pilot Jeffrey Quill’s book "Spitfire". John

Thanks for that Both Uncles Allan (stationed in Cairns & flew Catalina’s) and Evan at their funerals the New Zealand Air force gave flyovers to them both in remembrance (really good people and great pilots and war hero’s) Something I would like to see Australia copy Petzl — In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me: As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on. Julia Ward Howe

Response:

Why can’t it? It’s not as if it has to simulate negative g. Sylvia.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Missed that one. Are you seriously suggesting rolling a 767? Leaving aside the views of the airline, the insurers, the aviation authority, the manufacturer, and indeed anyone who’s remotely sane, is there a good reason this cannot be done successfully, without damaging the aircraft? Sylvia. Other than it is the one thing a Simulator won’t let you do (because it cannot) , if you are careful (as Tex Johnson was when he did it with the Dash-80 and maintained a positive 1G load at all times), it obviously can be done.

Sure you can barrel roll the sims. They can’t emulate the real motions involved, but the instruments handle it perfectly well. They regularly end up in very extreme attitudes. For what it’s worth you can’t barrel roll anything, whilst maintaining 1G. If there is nose motion involved, then the G loading will have to be greater than 1G. JB

Response:

Other than it is the one thing a Simulator won’t let you do (because it cannot) , if you are careful (as Tex Johnson was when he did it with the Dash-80 and maintained a positive 1G load at all times), it obviously can be done.

Response:

It made no sense to me either at the time? So I reported my observations I did note he 9/11 planes had transponders off? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -During the flight the Aircraft were heavily rocking one wing tip then the other (about 15 degrees) I reported the incident to CASA and BASI (as it was then called) An uncle of mine Evan Mackey flew spitfires (WWII) and he once said to me that the RAF disallowed full Victory Rolls but (sort of) allowed similar (Wing Waggling?) as a replacement gesture as it was (sort of) becoming compulsory (peer pressure) for returning flyer’s to do Victory Rolls. So I described the 767’s as Victory Rolls (but not full rolls) Some have suggested it was Turbulance but I doubt this Well, I’ve got no particular problem with someone waggling the wings (for want of a better term), even if I don’t see the point of it. The cycle rate in a 767 would be somewhat less than what you could achieve in a Spitfire though. JB

and as I have been saying since 2000 it made no sense to me either? Petzl — LET’S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/ Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat

Response:

As I’ve explained previously, it makes absolutely no sense to be flying transponder off. During the flight the Aircraft were heavily rocking one wing tip then the other (about 15 degrees) I reported the incident to CASA and BASI (as it was then called) An uncle of mine Evan Mackey flew spitfires (WWII) and he once said to me that the RAF disallowed full Victory Rolls but (sort of) allowed similar (Wing Waggling?) as a replacement gesture as it was (sort of) becoming compulsory (peer pressure) for returning flyer’s to do Victory Rolls. So I described the 767’s as Victory Rolls (but not full rolls) Some have suggested it was Turbulance but I doubt this

Well, I’ve got no particular problem with someone waggling the wings (for want of a better term), even if I don’t see the point of it. The cycle rate in a 767 would be somewhat less than what you could achieve in a Spitfire though. JB

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The footage of the passengers showed them carrying luggage This was a concern raised with Qantas Bangkok crash as it delays evacuation Petzl It was not a crash it was an incident It was a crash Fair enough. But how do you suggest stopping the passengers from taking their luggage? Other than not allowing them to bring it on in the first place. I don’t but the speed of an evacuation must be severely hampered if passengers stop to take out on board luggage. Maybe there is a way to lock the overhead compartments during evacuation? Now be a good kook and go watch those barrel rolling 767’s again I said victory rolls not barrel rolls Missed that one. Are you seriously suggesting rolling a 767? JB This dates back some years (2000) when I noted some low flying 767 ansett aircraft (about 1500 feet over Campbelltown) not being picked up on "radar" (towards Kingsord Smith) indicating they were flying with transponders off? During the flight the Aircraft were heavily rocking one wing tip then the other (about 15 degrees) I reported the incident to CASA and BASI (as it was then called) An uncle of mine Evan Mackey flew spitfires (WWII) and he once said to me that the RAF disallowed full Victory Rolls but (sort of) allowed similar (Wing Waggling?) as a replacement gesture as it was (sort of) becoming compulsory (peer pressure) for returning flyer’s to do Victory Rolls.

There was a good reason, at one time, for this RAF instruction. Several pilots ending up killing themselves inexplicably with this maneouvre. If I remember correctly it was established that an assembler had inadvertently inserted split pins in the reverse direction on the aileron hinges of a number of Spitfires. Under heavy loading the aileron would jam. I think the details are in in test pilot Jeffrey Quill’s book "Spitfire". John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So I described the 767’s as Victory Rolls (but not full rolls) Some have suggested it was Turbulance but I doubt this

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t but the speed of an evacuation must be severely hampered if passengers stop to take out on board luggage. Maybe there is a way to lock the overhead compartments during evacuation? I can’t see that working, even if it’s technically practical. All that would happen is that people would waste time trying to get the compartments open. In such incidents, there’s probably a fine line between complacency and panic, and any attempt to eliminate the former risks causing the latter, which could also be detrimental. Perhaps one needs to accept that people do not behave very rationally in such situations. After all, most people have no experience of being in an accident. The crew can shout "LEAVE YOUR HAND LUGGAGE BEHIND", but beyond that I can’t see there’s much to be done. Do evacuation timing tests allow for people collecting hand luggage? Sylvia.

Sometimes raising an observation can produce a easy fix (called brainstorming) It may also be that there is no obvious way to correct Petzl — LET’S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/ Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat

Response:

alt.binaries.jfkjr.plane.pictures Hell they are lucky on the spot pics looks like was rather wild weather more than other pics show

Response:

alt.binaries.jfkjr.plane.pictures Hell they are lucky on the spot pics looks like was rather wild weather more than other pics show

That group must have limited circulation ? The footage I saw on TV showed all passengers taking their on board luggage out with them. This was a concern raised with Qantas Bangkok crash as it delays evacuation Petzl — LET’S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/ Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat

Response:

alt.binaries.jfkjr.plane.pictures Hell they are lucky on the spot pics looks like was rather wild weather more than other pics show That group must have limited circulation ?

No that is the area between your ears Pretzel . The footage I saw on TV showed all passengers taking their on board luggage out with them.

*All* Passengers eh Pretzel hate to break it to you but the twilight zone does not constitute news . This was a concern raised with Qantas Bangkok crash as it delays evacuation Petzl

It was not a crash it was an incident Now be a good kook and go watch those barrel rolling 767’s again Bye

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – alt.binaries.jfkjr.plane.pictures Hell they are lucky on the spot pics looks like was rather wild weather more than other pics show That group must have limited circulation ? No that is the area between your ears Pretzel . The footage I saw on TV showed all passengers taking their on board luggage out with them. *All* Passengers eh Pretzel hate to break it to you but the twilight zone does not constitute news .

The footage of the passengers showed them carrying luggage This was a concern raised with Qantas Bangkok crash as it delays evacuation Petzl It was not a crash it was an incident

It was a crash Now be a good kook and go watch those barrel rolling 767’s again

I said victory rolls not barrel rolls Petzl — LET’S LOOK OUT FOR AUSTRALIA http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/ Protecting our way of life from terrorist threat

Response:

The footage of the passengers showed them carrying luggage This was a concern raised with Qantas Bangkok crash as it delays evacuation Petzl It was not a crash it was an incident It was a crash

Fair enough. But how do you suggest stopping the passengers from taking their luggage? Other than not allowing them to bring it on in the first place. Now be a good kook and go watch those barrel rolling 767’s again I said victory rolls not barrel rolls Petzl

Missed that one. Are you seriously suggesting rolling a 767? JB

Response:

Missed that one. Are you seriously suggesting rolling a 767?

Leaving aside the views of the airline, the insurers, the aviation authority, the manufacturer, and indeed anyone who’s remotely sane, is there a good reason this cannot be done successfully, without damaging the aircraft? Sylvia.

Response:

No, but Pretzel doesn’t know that. JB

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The footage of the passengers showed them carrying luggage This was a concern raised with Qantas Bangkok crash as it delays evacuation Petzl It was not a crash it was an incident It was a crash Fair enough. But how do you suggest stopping the passengers from taking their luggage? Other than not allowing them to bring it on in the first place.

I don’t but the speed of an evacuation must be severely hampered if passengers stop to take out on board luggage. Maybe there is a way to lock the overhead compartments during evacuation? Now be a good kook and go watch those barrel rolling 767’s again I said victory rolls not barrel rolls Missed that one. Are you seriously suggesting rolling a 767? JB

This dates back some years (2000) when I noted some low flying 767 ansett aircraft (about 1500 feet over Campbelltown) not being picked up on "radar" (towards Kingsord Smith) indicating they were flying with transponders off? During the flight the Aircraft were heavily rocking one wing tip then the other (about 15 degrees) I reported the incident to CASA and BASI (as it was then called) An uncle of mine Evan Mackey flew spitfires (WWII) and he once said to me that the RAF disallowed full Victory Rolls but (sort of) allowed similar (Wing Waggling?) as a replacement gesture as it was (sort of) becoming compulsory (peer pressure) for returning flyer’s to do Victory Rolls. So I described the 767’s as Victory Rolls (but not full rolls) Some have suggested it was Turbulance but I doubt this

Response:

I don’t but the speed of an evacuation must be severely hampered if passengers stop to take out on board luggage. Maybe there is a way to lock the overhead compartments during evacuation?

I can’t see that working, even if it’s technically practical. All that would happen is that people would waste time trying to get the compartments open. In such incidents, there’s probably a fine line between complacency and panic, and any attempt to eliminate the former risks causing the latter, which could also be detrimental. Perhaps one needs to accept that people do not behave very rationally in such situations. After all, most people have no experience of being in an accident. The crew can shout "LEAVE YOUR HAND LUGGAGE BEHIND", but beyond that I can’t see there’s much to be done. Do evacuation timing tests allow for people collecting hand luggage? Sylvia.

Response:

UK planning to evict N-registered aircraft

admin — Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0000

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

Can you hear me CASA……..

admin — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel for GA? We all express our views on these forums about the poor conditions associated in GA, but is CASA really listening. Are they listening to any GA representatives? Does CASA really believe that they are doing a good job? If GA goes belly up, wouldn

More airbus photos

admin — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

PS Foxes a plenty out here at the moment

No need the Old Lithgow single shot .22 Iron sights does just fine Along with the fox whistle on the key chain.

Response:

PS Foxes a plenty out here at the moment No need the Old Lithgow single shot .22 Iron sights does just fine Along with the fox whistle on the key chain.

Response:

PS Foxes a plenty out here at the moment

Response:

I like the Boeing fix. On those aircraft where tail strikes are a problem, install a tail skid. There are cases where rotation to the tail (almost) hits the ground is necessary and electronic protection could well be worse than the cure. If you experience a windshear whilst on the ground, you may have to rotate at way below the normal speeds, and if the choice is between removing some paint or going off the end before liftoff, then I know which way I’ll vote. The SQ event in Auckland was much more than a simple application of the wrong Vr. That was so nearly another crash. Someone was looking out for them that day…. JB

My God yes ain’t *that* the truth talk about pogo sticking it into the air . Jb Snr20 I think had a question you are better equipped to answer on descent profiles in another thread – Cache goes west Sat mornings so can’t pull it up for you . PS Foxes a plenty out here at the moment – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – .jfkjr.plane.pictures to stop spam bots finding that news group add alt.binaries in front of the above . Three photos good quality sent by a mate apparently on net somewhere but no URL . Make good wall paper also enjoy Cheers Pits Unstick tests with tail dragging. I understand the motivation for the tests, but I’m a bit surprised the flight control system even makes it possible. Would this aircraft as delivered to a customer even be capable of excess pitch on takeoff? Ask the EK crew who did it at JNB with an A340 and dragged the tail down the runway by trying to use the wong indicator on the primary flight display for show aircraft pitch. An SQ crew ground the back end off a 747 at JNB not that long ago by getting Vr seriously wrong… I’d suggest Asking the A330 test crew that crashed the test article. Even with envelope protection, bad things can still happen if you don’t pay attention, but they died so you cannot…. For the most part what you get is envelope protection on FBW systems, as long as you are within the ‘envelope’, you get little interference. I.E. as long as the wheels are on the ground, it will probably allow you to input almost anything. It is only when the nose starts to get too high and you get to the edge of the envelope that control limits are likely to kick in. No doubt there is a sensor on the tail to detect tail strike and force the nose down (envelope protection)…. Sylvia.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/asd-moderated Join direct on line . — Q: Why don’t Scotsmen ever have coffee the way they like it? A: Well, they like it with two lumps of sugar. If they drink it at home, they only take one, and if they drink it while visiting, they always take three.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – .jfkjr.plane.pictures to stop spam bots finding that news group add alt.binaries in front of the above . Three photos good quality sent by a mate apparently on net somewhere but no URL . Make good wall paper also enjoy Cheers Pits Unstick tests with tail dragging. I understand the motivation for the tests, but I’m a bit surprised the flight control system even makes it possible. Would this aircraft as delivered to a customer even be capable of excess pitch on takeoff? Ask the EK crew who did it at JNB with an A340 and dragged the tail down the runway by trying to use the wong indicator on the primary flight display for show aircraft pitch. An SQ crew ground the back end off a 747 at JNB not that long ago by getting Vr seriously wrong… I’d suggest Asking the A330 test crew that crashed the test article. Even with envelope protection, bad things can still happen if you don’t pay attention, but they died so you cannot…. For the most part what you get is envelope protection on FBW systems, as long as you are within the ‘envelope’, you get little interference. I.E. as long as the wheels are on the ground, it will probably allow you to input almost anything. It is only when the nose starts to get too high and you get to the edge of the envelope that control limits are likely to kick in. No doubt there is a sensor on the tail to detect tail strike and force the nose down (envelope protection)…. Sylvia.

Response:

Unstick tests with tail dragging. I understand the motivation for the tests, but I’m a bit surprised the flight control system even makes it possible. Would this aircraft as delivered to a customer even be capable of excess pitch on takeoff? Sylvia.

The A340-600 has such a safeguard because it is so long (don’t know about the -500)… Other than that I thought the motivation of the tests was to prove that the aircraft was capable of lifting off with the nose raised to the maximum possible (ie. with the rear fuselage scraping the runway)… In some early jet aircraft (the early Comet springs to mind) it was possible to raise the nose to such an extent that the extra drag created prevented the aircraft accelerating to liftoff speed (a few accidents occured because of this)… A similar problem was found during certification trials of Qantas’ first 707-138s (due to the shorter fuselage than a regular 707-120 making it possible to raise the nose excessively)…. Regards, BB.

Response:

Ask the EK crew who did it at JNB with an A340 and dragged the tail down the runway by trying to use the wong indicator on the primary flight display for show aircraft pitch. An SQ crew ground the back end off a 747 at JNB not that long ago by getting Vr seriously wrong… I’d suggest Asking the A330 test crew that crashed the test article. Even with envelope protection, bad things can still happen if you don’t pay attention, but they died so you cannot…. For the most part what you get is envelope protection on FBW systems, as long as you are within the ‘envelope’, you get little interference. I.E. as long as the wheels are on the ground, it will probably allow you to input almost anything. It is only when the nose starts to get too high and you get to the edge of the envelope that control limits are likely to kick in. No doubt there is a sensor on the tail to detect tail strike and force the nose down (envelope protection)…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Sylvia.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – .jfkjr.plane.pictures to stop spam bots finding that news group add alt.binaries in front of the above . Three photos good quality sent by a mate apparently on net somewhere but no URL . Make good wall paper also enjoy Cheers Pits Unstick tests with tail dragging. I understand the motivation for the tests, but I’m a bit surprised the flight control system even makes it possible. Would this aircraft as delivered to a customer even be capable of excess pitch on takeoff? Sylvia.

Yes.

Response:

Why?

Response:

The 777 isn’t capable of banging its tail unless the system is over-ridden manually (as in screw-driver type over-ride; not a switch the pilots can "flick"). I saw a video of the 777 flight testing with the system active and deactivated. Fascinating stuff. It uses a combination of squat switches, body angle and radar altimetry to calculate the maximum body angle without whacking the tail on the deck. I think the A340 uses the same sort of logic too, so I assume the A380 would as well. Cheers, James — No one gets sick on Wednesdays.

Response:

I understand the motivation for the tests, but I’m a bit surprised the flight control system even makes it possible. Would this aircraft as delivered to a customer even be capable of excess pitch on takeoff? Perhaps not in the ‘normal’ course of things, but certainly feasible should things not go entirely to plan. I’d like to know that, should the aircraft I’m sitting in decide to scrape it’s bum on the ground, it’s not going to fall apart.

As I understand it, the idea is to show that if the pilots pull up that much the aircraft won’t depart the end of the runway while still on the ground. I suppose sometime in the distant past, a ‘plane did exactly that. Sylvia.

Response:

Perhaps not in the ‘normal’ course of things, but certainly feasible should things not go entirely to plan. I’d like to know that, should the aircraft I’m sitting in decide to scrape it’s bum on the ground, it’s not going to fall apart.

Response:

Bit busy at moment but go back to the bum scrape at Auckland by a 747 sq if the nuts behind the wheel dial in the incorrect parameters yes it would conceivably be done as the’puters are fooled into thinking its something else than it is –think weight, oleo compression angle of rotation by ‘puter etc Have dashed a mail off to a EU chap who knows this aircraft *very well* If definitative answer arrives and is not considered a secret by the frogs will advise here .

Response:

.jfkjr.plane.pictures to stop spam bots finding that news group add alt.binaries in front of the above . Three photos good quality sent by a mate apparently on net somewhere but no URL . Make good wall paper also enjoy Cheers Pits

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you can’t access binary groups and haven’t seen them elsewhere I have some emailed to me totalling about 178K IIRC. Speak up if you want them.. I can’t get very excited about them – the tyre distortion will be worse than that in any landing with a bit of drift on, I reckon I can’t get those pics via groups.google.com and my regular news feed doesn’t have binaries. However, if people have A380 (or other aviation) photos they’d like to make available, I’m happy to host them like this: http://www.grayonline.id.au/gallery/A380Scrub - shameless plug Yeah, those are the ones I was sent…

OK, Pits sent me a couple more with some varied content (Russian aerobatic shots, busted up Qantas nacelles, A380’s and a, errrm loooooong take off). So coz the content has changed, I’ve chagned the URL too: http://www.grayonline.id.au/gallery/FlyingContrib Sorted by upload date – newest first. PITS (and anyone else too) – create an account on my main site (www.grayonline.id.au) and I can give you permission to add captions etc. to the photos you own. Cheers James — Booker’s Law: An ounce of application is worth a ton of abstraction.

Response:

If you can’t access binary groups and haven’t seen them elsewhere I have some emailed to me totalling about 178K IIRC. Speak up if you want them.. I can’t get very excited about them – the tyre distortion will be worse than that in any landing with a bit of drift on, I reckon I can’t get those pics via groups.google.com and my regular news feed doesn’t have binaries. However, if people have A380 (or other aviation) photos they’d like to make available, I’m happy to host them like this: http://www.grayonline.id.au/gallery/A380Scrub - shameless plug

Yeah, those are the ones I was sent…

Response:

Ah well – they must be different piccys as these ones are just badly

The photos I’m referring to show tyre distortion too… I was looking at the sidewall damage… The distortion is nothing because as you’d expect the tyres are pretty tough things… I thought the impressive shot was of the tyre actually gouging the bitumen from the surface but anyhow… All part of certification I guess… Regards, BB.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – .jfkjr.plane.pictures to stop spam bots finding that news group add alt.binaries in front of the above . Three photos good quality sent by a mate apparently on net somewhere but no URL . Make good wall paper also If you can’t access binary groups and haven’t seen them elsewhere I have some emailed to me totalling about 178K IIRC. Speak up if you want them.. I can’t get very excited about them – the tyre distortion will be worse than that in any landing with a bit of drift on, I reckon

I can’t get those pics via groups.google.com and my regular news feed doesn’t have binaries. However, if people have A380 (or other aviation) photos they’d like to make available, I’m happy to host them like this: http://www.grayonline.id.au/gallery/A380Scrub - shameless plug Contact me here: http://www.grayonline.id.au/about.php or here, http://www.grayonline.id.au/users.php?mode=profile&uid=4 (I don’t publish my e-mail addy on Usenet). Cheers, James — The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy.

Response:

If you can’t access binary groups and haven’t seen them elsewhere I have some emailed to me totalling about 178K IIRC. Speak up if you want them.. I can’t get very excited about them – the tyre distortion will be worse than that in any landing with a bit of drift on, I reckon I don’t know… I’ve never seen any large a/c with tyres as badly damaged en masse as those after a landing (aside from the odd burst or f.o.d impact) and even then it’s usually only one or two of them at a time….

Ah well – they must be different piccys as these ones are just badly

Response:

I don’t know… I’ve never seen any large a/c with tyres as badly damaged en masse as those after a landing (aside from the odd burst or f.o.d impact) and even then it’s usually only one or two of them at a time…. Regards, BB.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – .jfkjr.plane.pictures to stop spam bots finding that news group add alt.binaries in front of the above . Three photos good quality sent by a mate apparently on net somewhere but no URL . Make good wall paper also If you can’t access binary groups and haven’t seen them elsewhere I have some emailed to me totalling about 178K IIRC. Speak up if you want them.. I can’t get very excited about them – the tyre distortion will be worse than that in any landing with a bit of drift on, I reckon

RT agree but I make up various screen savers set to music sounds for the aircraft nuts etc So bit of a bower bird on all things aviation Re the lateral loading side forces etc yes but it would get a tad more exciting I reckon if NOT tested prior to certification On another aspect wonder how much Lee-way they have in control authority before a pod strike on landing . What is it only about +_ 3 degrees on 767 747 is it not ? Question for matt Webber – Any external differences on the diameter of the engine choices ? Distance to ground etc ? Cheers http://groups-beta.google.com/group/asd-moderated Join direct on line .

Response:

Gary IN to CVG?

admin — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Lunken airport is only 12 miles from CVG, more GA friendly and is closer to downtown. CVG is actually in Kentucky. Unless you have a specific reason to go to CVG, I would choose LUK. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t recall anything that says some big shot in a jet has a higher priority reason to land there than you do. That’s why it’s called a public airport. Of course they have a higher priority. They have 100+ passengers, they are trying to make a schedule, their fuel costs more than your plane, they fly at speeds that match the local traffic, they are almost always perfect at low IFR approaches – they fit in the system that was designed for them. You don’t. If you want to use a Class B, go for it. But don’t get pissed off when you get vectored for half an hour to fit you into the pattern – that’s like getting angry that New York has more traffic than Peoria. It’s just part of the environment. And, by the way, if you get upset at the approach end, wait until you have to wait on line to depart behind 18 stinking jets at 105 degrees because you couldn’t get the taxi clearance you wanted. Sure, we have every right to fly in and out of Class Bs. Sometimes, like in the case of the OP, it probably makes sense. But 99% of the time life is much easier landing at one of the local GA airports. Michael

Response:

So RDU remains a Class C and can’t seem to make the big time from an ATC perspective. But there are new facilities all over the place. New parking, new ramps, new hangars,

Take a look at the Airport Authority membership at http://www.rdu.com/aboutrdu/meet.htm Notice some of the same names that you see on the construction vehicles for the companies that are pouring all that new concrete? Cynicism aside, I’m based there and I like the facilities. Y’all come on down. Dave

Response:

Well George, you would barely recognize the place now. All new buildings and ramps and taxiways in the FBO area. I know people considered Southern Jet the spam can FBO and Piedmont for big iron. Before the last set of renovations, I always went to Piedmont when I couldn’t get home due to weather. I’m ashamed to say I never spent a dime there but they never charged one either. Parked on their ramp overnight many times, several days on occassion. Charging me never seemed worth the effort. I just made myself at home and did whatever I needed to do. I’ve since used SJ and like them too. Always willing to drive a passenger to the terminals or whatever. Little known secret of RDU – the new GA ‘terminal building’ situated between Piedmont and SC is empty but has a little grill upstairs with a glassed in balcony to watch the traffic from. During normal daylight hours you can eat in peace and splendor while watching your plane and traffic. You’ll usually be alone with the grill man. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yeah. I landed there just before the spamcan FBO closed one night. Both landing lights were out, and I bought bulbs there just as they were shutting the register up. When I landed, the dew point and temperature were about 4 degrees apart, so I was interested in staying over. My sister lives in the area, but she was on the road and nobody answered the phone. A big hurricane (Hugo?) had blown through a few weeks before. The guy at Piedmont called every hotel in Raleigh. They were all full, including the $150/night places. He got off the phone just as I finished up with the landing lights and just tossed me the keys to one of their pilot "emergency" rooms. No charge. OK, the gas is a bit pricey, but the people are great! 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:

They serve the flying public well. And they don’t ‘deny’ services to anyone. Want to practice an ILS while a bunch of 767s are inbound? Great. Proceed direct HOLGR and hold…expect further clearance in 4 hours. You want to do some touch and goes in your 152 during the Delta push? No problem at all…right turn 360, expect a turn inbound in 40 miles. Want to take back off? Sure. Excellent. You will be number 23 for takeoff behind that 15th RJ. Why should one expect anything else? Class B airports, by definition, are air carrier airports. That is their primary reason to exist. The controllers understand that, and act accordingly. You ‘can’ go into a Class B airport if you’d like in your 152. But is it wise? generally not. You know it, I know it, and the controllers know it. This is how they let you know that they don’t like it. And I completely understand.

I got my commercial and instrument licenses flying in the Denver area (class A). Denver had the only ILS at the time. There was no "push" time since United training flights filled the lulls in the normal traffic. The controllers didn’t park me in western Kansas until the continuous stream of big iron was handled before I got to make an approach. It may have been a nuisance but the controllers made a hole in the line and vectored me alongside the line until the hole caught up with me. I was then vectored over to the localizer (and told to keep my speed up, of course). No fuss and all in a day’s work for the controllers. I’ve also been given the "treatment" by controllers in Rhode Island. I once asked for an ILS approach to PVD and was told to expect a two-hour delay. There was no other traffic in the area of any kind but there were controllers in the area who thought all small planes should be banned from the air.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I thought the FAA’s job is to properly handle /all/ aircraft. Well, presumably they will. Just with a bad attitude. I think it’s pretty funny how certain ATC locations have noticeably negative personalities. But on second thought, it’s not surprising. It’s a job, offices have ‘cultures’, and management quality varies. Fortunately they have a pretty well defined set of operating procedures to follow and plenty of controls so as long as they get it done, what’s the problem? Charlotte used to be kind of funky in this pilot’s book but that’s long gone. Maybe a little hub downsizing gets everyone’s attention. Great place now.

When RDU was an AA hub, they didn’t want local pilots coming in to do practice stuff. After AA pulled out, RDU controllers came to local flying club meetings and invited them come on over and practice as much as they want. The above happened before I started flying. My only experience with RDU is in the post-AA era and they have been nothing but friendly and helpful IMO.

Response:

RDU is close to my home airport and I go in there a lot. They are very friendly. Of course one of my airpark neighbors is a controller there too. I’ve attended various meetings where RDU issues have been covered and here’s how I understand it: When an AA hub, RDU was on track for a Class B. More ATC pay, perhaps prestige, and no need to solicit more traffic (or friends?). When the hub collapsed, they slipped below the traffic threshold required for Class B. Apparently they’ve been very close over the years because Class B hearings and planning sessions and such have been held repeatedly, but they seem to keep coming up short of whatever the criteria is. I remember an ATC rep in one of the meetings half joking about how they welcome every operation in order to help them make the numbers. So RDU remains a Class C and can’t seem to make the big time from an ATC perspective. But there are new facilities all over the place. New parking, new ramps, new hangars,the FBOs seem successful and flush, big iron GA floods the ramp, and *visiting* spam can flyers benefit from it all. A GREAT place to fly into for whatever. Yaaay! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When RDU was an AA hub, they didn’t want local pilots coming in to do practice stuff. After AA pulled out, RDU controllers came to local flying club meetings and invited them come on over and practice as much as they want. The above happened before I started flying. My only experience with RDU is in the post-AA era and they have been nothing but friendly and helpful IMO.

Response:

I have heard the same thing about the Cincy Approach. If you go to Lunken, park at Million Air and if you refuel there, they will give you a new loaner Jaguar. You can drive your passenger to CVG and enjoy the Jag (did I mention it was new when I got it two weeks ago !). …Robbie.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks; I have a passenger that needs to take a flight out of CVG, otherwise Lunken would be better.

Response:

Don’t know *who* they think they are. And I’ve flown into other Class B airports without the headaches too. But CVG really seems to go out of its way to make things difficult sometimes for GA folks. I’m a CFI out of LUK, and generally have no problem at all doing stuff in their airspace…but ask to land? They *definitely* don’t like it. Even at slow times, they don’t like small planes, especially doing practice approaches. In fairness to them, tho, when it matters they are solid. I had to miss off of the LUK ILS a couple of times earlier this year, and the CVG guys did a fine job, basically offering me anything I wanted either at LUK or CVG (I got into LUK on the next try); fine vectors no problems at all. But I’ve tried to go in there VFR a couple times, and do some practice approaches with students, and I felt distinctly unwelcome. Can’t blame them…their job is first and foremost to get the big iron in and out…unnecessary GA planes just make the mix more complex for them. Cheers, Cap

Response:

File VFR and talk to them before the Class B. Follow their vectors to the T and be professional and courteous to them on the radio. Keep your speed up as long as you can. If you have an issue with a controller, get his initials and call his supervisor when you land. I don’t recall anything that says some big shot in a jet has a higher priority reason to land there than you do. That’s why it’s called a public airport.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Considering a flight into CVG, which is Class B and would appreciate some insight from the group. 1. The IFR routing with STAR is very circuitous – better to file VFR? 2. Reservation required? Flight will be on Saturday. Any other tips – FBO, etc? Piper Arrow.

Response:

I don’t recall anything that says some big shot in a jet has a higher priority reason to land there than you do. That’s why it’s called a public airport.

Of course they have a higher priority. They have 100+ passengers, they are trying to make a schedule, their fuel costs more than your plane, they fly at speeds that match the local traffic, they are almost always perfect at low IFR approaches – they fit in the system that was designed for them. You don’t. If you want to use a Class B, go for it. But don’t get pissed off when you get vectored for half an hour to fit you into the pattern – that’s like getting angry that New York has more traffic than Peoria. It’s just part of the environment. And, by the way, if you get upset at the approach end, wait until you have to wait on line to depart behind 18 stinking jets at 105 degrees because you couldn’t get the taxi clearance you wanted. Sure, we have every right to fly in and out of Class Bs. Sometimes, like in the case of the OP, it probably makes sense. But 99% of the time life is much easier landing at one of the local GA airports. Michael

Response:

Apparently they’ve been very close over the years because Class B hearings and planning sessions and such have been held repeatedly, but they seem to keep coming up short of whatever the criteria is. I remember an ATC rep in one of the meetings half joking about how they welcome every operation in order to help them make the numbers. So RDU remains a Class C and can’t seem to make the big time from an ATC perspective.

So, maybe us spam cans ought to avoid the airport, lest we get more Bravo airspace. Jose — Nothing takes longer than a shortcut. for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Response:

So RDU remains a Class C and can’t seem to make the big time from an ATC perspective. But there are new facilities all over the place. New parking, new ramps, new hangars,the FBOs seem successful and flush, big iron GA floods the ramp, and *visiting* spam can flyers benefit from it all. A GREAT place to fly into for whatever. Yaaay!

Yeah. I landed there just before the spamcan FBO closed one night. Both landing lights were out, and I bought bulbs there just as they were shutting the register up. When I landed, the dew point and temperature were about 4 degrees apart, so I was interested in staying over. My sister lives in the area, but she was on the road and nobody answered the phone. A big hurricane (Hugo?) had blown through a few weeks before. The guy at Piedmont called every hotel in Raleigh. They were all full, including the $150/night places. He got off the phone just as I finished up with the landing lights and just tossed me the keys to one of their pilot "emergency" rooms. No charge. OK, the gas is a bit pricey, but the people are great! 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:

[snip] I’m not saying the OP *can’t* go into CVG. Obviously he can, and he seems to have a very good reason for choosing CVG over Lunken. But I am saying is that these guys have a job to do, and random GA planes flying PLAs into their airport can make their jobs harder. They don’t like it, and they make that known.

If they don’t like their job, they can find another line of work. Controllers are Government employees whose job it is to serve the (flying) public. If they can’t do that in a reasonable and responsible manner, they should be shown the door.

Response:

Not knowing all this I arranged to be dropped off there to catch af flight by my client in a BE-35. No problem at all. Saturday afternoon as I recall. Bill Hale

Response:

I thought the FAA’s job is to properly handle /all/ aircraft. Well, presumably they will. Just with a bad attitude. I think it’s pretty funny how certain ATC locations have noticeably negative personalities. But on second thought, it’s not surprising. It’s a job, offices have ‘cultures’, and management quality varies. Fortunately they have a pretty well defined set of operating procedures to follow and plenty of controls so as long as they get it done, what’s the problem? Charlotte used to be kind of funky in this pilot’s book but that’s long gone. Maybe a little hub downsizing gets everyone’s attention. Great place now. Savannah usually managed to seem nasty for no apparent reason. Probably an a–h— manager or 2, who knows.

Response:

Yes it is. And as I said, when something *really* matters, they do it well, regardless of whether you are an A340 or a Cherokee. But there is a reason a Class B airport is a Class B airport. And while, theoretically, a 152 on an IFR training flight is no ‘different’ from a 767 with a full load of passengers, the realities *are* different. The guys at CVG don’t want a 172 mixing with their big iron. And I can’t blame them. Their job is to help ensure the safe and efficient operations in and out of their airport, and 75 knots just doesn’t mix well with 180 knots. They know there are 3 perfectly good GA airports within 25 miles. If you are GA, it seems that they want you to use them. They also know that that 777 costs $15,000 an hour to operate, and making him miss because he can’t slow down enough and the 172 ahead of him can’t speed up enough is going to cause all kinds of headaches. It’s like most other things in aviation operations. If an approach controller is pretty certain you know your stuff (i.e. you’re a freight dog, and he recognizes your tail number or call sign) he may well give you a different approach (i.e. slam you in right at the marker, between traffic) than if he thinks you are a ‘random’ or inexperienced GA IFR pilot (i.e. stick you in a hold until everything is clear, then give easy vectors out to the boonies to get you established). And can you blame him? I’m not saying the OP *can’t* go into CVG. Obviously he can, and he seems to have a very good reason for choosing CVG over Lunken. But I am saying is that these guys have a job to do, and random GA planes flying PLAs into their airport can make their jobs harder. They don’t like it, and they make that known. Cheers, Cap

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t know *who* they think they are. And I’ve flown into other Class B airports without the headaches too. But CVG really seems to go out of its way to make things difficult sometimes for GA folks. I’m a CFI out of LUK, and generally have no problem at all doing stuff in their airspace…but ask to land? They *definitely* don’t like it. Even at slow times, they don’t like small planes, especially doing practice approaches. In fairness to them, tho, when it matters they are solid. I had to miss off of the LUK ILS a couple of times earlier this year, and the CVG guys did a fine job, basically offering me anything I wanted either at LUK or CVG (I got into LUK on the next try); fine vectors no problems at all. But I’ve tried to go in there VFR a couple times, and do some practice approaches with students, and I felt distinctly unwelcome. Can’t blame them…their job is first and foremost to get the big iron in and out…unnecessary GA planes just make the mix more complex for them.

I thought the FAA’s job is to properly handle /all/ aircraft.

Response:

I second what the captain says, except I’ll say it stronger: Don’t fly into CVG in a light aircraft under any circumstances. Lunken is much better in all respects. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Considering a flight into CVG, which is Class B and would appreciate some insight from the group. 1. The IFR routing with STAR is very circuitous – better to file VFR? 2. Reservation required? Flight will be on Saturday. Any other tips – FBO, etc? Piper Arrow.

Response:

Thanks; I have a passenger that needs to take a flight out of CVG, otherwise Lunken would be better.

Response:

Why not? Who do they think they are? I’ve flown light aircraft at peak hours (both VFR and IFR) into DFW, LAX, IAH, etc, all of which are significantly busier than CVG and it was a breeze. Chip P.S. everyone on airnav commenting about CVG seems to be flying a 172 or equiv and seems to think it was a great experience.

Response:

Why not? Who do they think they are? I’ve flown light aircraft at peak hours (both VFR and IFR) into DFW, LAX, IAH, etc, all of which are significantly busier than CVG and it was a breeze.

I’ve flown a Warrior VFR to IAD also and it was a great experience. Yeah I got vectored all over the place to keep me out of the way of bigger and faster and IFR traffic and they worked me onto the runway during a lull so I ended up flying a 13 mile downwind and final but I enjoyed the tour of the area and the controllers never made me feel unwelcome.

Response:

I was based at LAX with a major airline for many years. In the early days knowing the peaks and valleys I used to fly a light aircraft in there when our company would let us park at the hangar. Then, traffic increased and one day I was almost blown over in an Arrow by a Continental 727 who blasted the power around the corner taking 25L for takeoff even though the tower told him to be careful. It’s too easy to end up in a nasty situation like that at one of these major airports. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why not? Who do they think they are? I’ve flown light aircraft at peak hours (both VFR and IFR) into DFW, LAX, IAH, etc, all of which are significantly busier than CVG and it was a breeze. Chip P.S. everyone on airnav commenting about CVG seems to be flying a 172 or equiv and seems to think it was a great experience.

Response:

Hi Paul, I’m based out of Cincinnati Lunken. My experience is that the CVG folks are *extremely* unfriendly towards GA aircraft. If you are terminating here in Cincy, any chance that you might fly into Lunken (LUK)? It’s much more GA friendly, and closer to the city anyway. If you are flying into CVG, I’d do it VFR…CVG seems to get a little pissy about IFR arrivals who won’t take a STAR. Also, I’d aim for a time other than 8-10 AM and 4-7 PM, as these are arrival pushes for Delta…lots of big iron flying around at that time, and CVG approach is even more testy than usual. Either way, good luck, and enjoy Cincinnati! Cheers, Cap – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Considering a flight into CVG, which is Class B and would appreciate some insight from the group. 1. The IFR routing with STAR is very circuitous – better to file VFR? 2. Reservation required? Flight will be on Saturday. Any other tips – FBO, etc? Piper Arrow.

Response:

Considering a flight into CVG, which is Class B and would appreciate some insight from the group. 1. The IFR routing with STAR is very circuitous – better to file VFR? 2. Reservation required? Flight will be on Saturday. Any other tips – FBO, etc? Piper Arrow.

Response:

Specific Gravity of Avgas (Australia)

admin — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0000

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

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

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

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.

Response:

an avgas flame war

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

Response:

Ooops. INCOMING!!!

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:

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:

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:

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:

Ooops. INCOMING!!!

Response:

an avgas flame war

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:

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:

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

Response:

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:

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:

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:

Isn’t that given in the exam info sheet?

Response:

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).