old man emu

I have to take task with blaming the pilot for lack of assertiveness.

 

Let's look at the Human Factors at play here.

 

1. The pilot was a woman. We know that women often feel oppressed in male-dominated environments, especially as they appear to be in the USA.
    
    
   
2. The pilot appears not to have been used to operating in this type of traffic situation. It would be like someone flying into one of our Capital cities from their base at a country airport where traffic volumes were almost non-existent.
    
    
   
3. The pilot might have had impressed on her that if she was flying into this airport, she must do as she was directed to by ATC. She might not have known that as PIC she had the right to demand other solutions to the problem. This would be in accord with the behaviour of the pilot in Factor 2, above.
    
    
   
4. Maybe there was some Must-use-this-airport-itis. The pilot had undertaken a 3 hour cross-country for the purpose of visiting a sick relation in a major city hospital. Would you fly into, say The Oaks if you wanted to get to a hospital near the the Sydney CBD? Maybe the pilot had arranged car hire from this airport.
    
    
   

 

 

I reckon the lack of assertiveness was due to Factor 3. Don't forget that to the ATC blokes the Cirrus was just another aircraft amongst the hundreds they would deal with each week.

 

 

Don't sweat. The Rs end of the thunderstorm is just beyond that rising ground to the west. You should be boarding soon.

 

 

A HWP constable said on on 13 August 2018 that he was booking me for an alleged traffic offence. He said that I would get a ticket in the mail. Two months later, I'm still waiting.

 

However, I don't mind. By the time it gets to Court for a hearing, it will be over six months and they can't drop anything else on me when I get the matter dismissed through lack of evidence.

 

 

Well, that's the AD to beat all AD's. Usually the result of an AD is just a hole in the roof of the hut.

"S'all right, Sarge. I checked the trigger button, and it works OK."

 

 

Spotted this Luftwaffe aircraft parked in the bizjet area of Kingsford-Smith last Sunday. I wonder who it brought here.

 

[ATTACH]37321[/ATTACH]

 

Sorry about the quality of the pic - old mobile phone camera. The military marking (iron Cross) is in the break in the trim line under "bundesrepublik" and the word "luftwaffe" is on the vertical stabiliser just visible above the winglet.

 

[ATTACH]37322[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

Isn't the application of "Scientific Method" begun in infancy?

 

1. Do I want a bicky?
    
    
   
2. Where does Mummy keep the bickies?
    
    
   
3. If I can open the bicky tin, I can get one for me.
    
    
   
4. I just have to open the cupboard, grab the bicky tin and open it.
    
    
   
5. I can open the cupboard, but the bicky tin is too high to reach. No bicky.
    
    
   
6. Further refinement of the plan. If I climb up the shelves I can reach the bicky tin.
    
    
   
7. Climbing up the shelves gets me to the bicky tin.
    
    
   
8. If I want to get a bicky, I just have to open the cupboard and climb up the shelves to reach it.
    
    
   
9. I won't tell Mummy that I can reach the bicky tin. She'll only go and hide it.
    
    
   

 

 

 

 

I reckon the main test of scientific ability is whether you do tests and learn from the evidence so collected.

The scientific method involves:

 

 

The problem with the WBs was their refusal to enter into communication with other aviation pioneers after 1903, and their dogged insistence on enforcing their patent, although we have seen in this discussion that there was much knowledge available from the work of mid-19th Century experimenters.

 

 

I doubt that the WBs would ever deny that they "invented" the flying machine. They used all the prior knowledge of aeronautics to construct firstly an airframe, then a motive system. Their breakthrough was the development of a method to control the diversions of the flying machine from its intended path, ie roll, pitch and yaw control. Look again at the relevant lines (from about Line 45 on page One of the application). That clearly states that the patent is for a method of controlling these movements. The rest of the guff 'n' stuff relates to how they built the airframe to include their control method.

 

The concept of ailerons was an old one in aeronautical research. The modern aileron was invented and patented by the British scientist Matthew Piers Watt Boulton in 1868, based on his 1864 paper On Aërial Locomotion. I imagine that the WBs may have looked for a different method from ailerons on the basis of the weight such a system might add to a flimsy construction. As aircraft became faster, and the military need for maneuverability became a high priority, it was soon clear that wing warping did not work for those aircraft. Form follows function.

 

Here's a link to Boulton and his patent application: Matthew Piers Watt Boulton - Wikipedia

 

 

FH is correct about keeping the weight off the nose wheel for as long as possible. The nose wheel attachment is relatively flimsy compared to the main gear. Fixing the nose gear is a complex and very expensive job. The force generated by a hard landing on the nose wheel is transmitted to a lot of fuselage structures that are hard to remove and require extreme care in their alignment when being replaced.

 

Nose wheel gear is like the brakes on the main wheels. Both should only be used at low speeds and gently.

 

 

"Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity. An aerofoil (wing) is such a device. If air does not pass over a wing, no lift is produced. If air does flow, a Force with a vector component opposite to the vector component of gravity towards the Earth is produced. The difference in the magnitude of the Lift vector and the Gravity vector allows the aircraft to go up, down, or not change position vertically.

 

 

The Wrights understood lift better than anyone else at the time. That's how they were able to develop an effective method to control their aeroplane (wing warping) as well as understand the requirement for a rudder. They also managed to design a propeller with an efficiency similiar to modern propellers with out any previous data to work with.

The general design of a propeller had been known for close on 2000 years before the WBs [Propeller (aeronautics) - Wikipedia]. Longer if you want to include the aerofoil shape of a returning boomerang. The twisted (aerofoil) shape of an aircraft propeller was pioneered by the Wright Brothers. While some earlier engineers had attempted to model air propellers on marine propellers, the Wright Brothers realized that a propeller is essentially the same as a wing, and were able to use data from their earlier wind tunnel experiments on wings, introducing a twist along the length of the blades. This was necessary to maintain a more uniform angle of attack of the blade along its length.[17] Their original propeller blades had an efficiency of about 82%,

 

The chapter on Lift in the Fly Better books by Noel Kruse describes it well. Effectively, the AoA and chamber of the wing bends the airflow creating a low pressure area above the wing (lift). This area of low pressure causes the airflow to speed up (opposite to what is commonly taught). Engineers used Bernoullis' theorem to measure the increased dynamic pressure of the airflow created from the low static pressure above the wing to test different shapes of wings, and at some point this was used to explain how lift is created rather than a resultant of the creation of lift.

That puts you into the Bernoulli camp. Modern writings agree that both Bernoulli's principle and Newton's laws are relevant and either can be used to correctly describe lift . It is not the Bernoulli principle itself that is questioned because this principle is well established (the airflow above the wing is faster, the question is why it is faster).

 

How an an anti-gravity force is produced by an aerofoil is probably one of those questions that does not have an answer that can be expressd in simple terms. It is akin to religious faith. We know an aerofoil works, but we don't know how.

 

 

At least there doesn't seem to be any hard feelings in his harem.

At least three times there were.

 

 

I didn't want to start that Newton -v- Bernoulli thing again. It's just that I saw that description of Lift according to the W B's and thought it would be worth quoting. Also, it was a chance to give people access to the patent application as a matter of interest.

 

 

Have you ever read the Wright Brothers' Patent for a Flying Machine? On Page 1 from Lines 37 to 43 they tell us that the machine is supported in the air by reason of the contact between the air and the undersurface of one or more aeroplanes (their term for 'wings'), the contact surface being presented at a small angle of incidence to the wind"

 

Page:Wright-Patent-US-821393.pdf/4 - Wikisource, the free online library

 

That description of how a wing generates lift is proposed by those who say that Lift is an effect of Newton's Laws of Motion.

 

 

The other camp - Bernoulli's Boys, propose that Lift is an effect of the relative velocities of air passing under or over a wing.

 

 

Given that the Wright Brothers were practical mechanics, and not theoretical physicists, I doubt that they had a clue 'how' an "aeroplane" produces lift. They just knew from their own experiments (and correspondence with Lawrence Hargrave) that a wing, angled slightly above the horizontal and faced into the wind could be used to raise a structure into the air.

 

It is interesting to note that the Wright Bothers' patent was not about the design of and aeroplane's wings and fuselage per se, but about the means to control the position of the wings in the airflow, i.e., turning, rising and descending.

 

 

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/us-bolts-torques-d_2055.html

?????? the recommended dry thread torque setting should be reduced by 10%, when threads are lubricated ??? I thought that a lubricated bolt would require higher torque, but I was wrong.

 

When a bolt is lubricated - less torque is required to achieve bolt axial load or tension. Reduction of torques for lubricated vs. dry bolts are indicated in the table below.

 

Lubricant Torque Reduction

 

Lubricant Torque Reduction (%)

 

No lube 0

 

Graphite 50 - 55

 

White Grease 35 - 45

 

SAE 30 oil 35 - 45

 

SAE 40 oil 30 - 4

 

The maximum tightening torque for a slightly lubricated 1" Grade 5 coarse bolt is 483 lb ft. Dry bolt torque is approximately 30% higher - or 628 lb ft.

 

Tdry = (483 lb ft) (1 + (30%) / (100%))

 

= 628 lb ft

 

If the bolt is lubricated with SAE 30 oil - the torque compared to a dry bolt is reduced with approximately 40%.

 

TSAE30 = (628 lb ft) (1 - (40%) / (100%))

 

= 377 lb ft

 

Note that if torque specified for a dry or slightly oiled bolt torque is applied to a lubricated bolt - the bolt may overload and break.

 

 

This picture shows the type of aircraft involved. Ignore the rego as it might not have been the one involved.

 

 

Just by looking at this aircraft, can anyone see how different it is from, say a Tecnam, that one would suspect that it couldn't be recovered from a flat spin?

 

 

 

Smith's Weekly headline "Overpaid pilot lands in gravy train"

 

 

Serpentine is obviously an airfield where the owner likes to milk the cows in other paddocks.

 

 

 

As far as the CASA 29/18 Civil Aviation (Fuel Requirements) Instrument 2018 instrument goes when the minimum is reached the pilot must call "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL" and it is specified a Distress call. How is that different to a normal Mayday distress call?

Because the caller clearly indicates that the problem is related to fuel consumption, and not something that imminently catastrophic like control failure. I agree that the use of "Mayday" in a situation where one is starting to use fixed and variable reserves of fuel might be a bit over the top, and "Emergency" would suit the situation better.

 

The thing that went wrong for Sydneysiders was that as soon as a Mayday was called, the disaster action plan was put into action, and part of that plan would be to clear ground vehicles from the vicinity of the runways. Thus the closure of several major traffic arteries. I wonder if the Airport rail loop was closed as well.

 

 

We might be wrong as to why the Mayday call was made.

 

From Fuel requirements for Australian aircraft "The new rules will commence on 8 November 2018.", and "The declaration is an internationally recognised standard aligning Australia with the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization."

 

 

From Google Maps, I'd reckon you are right. Looks like there are some nice unusual aircraft based there.

 

 

According to the Arrivals board at Kingsford-Smith, UA839 was due at 06:45 am and actually landed at 06:37 am.

 

Closing the roads around K-S at 6:30 am would have sent the whole south and southwest Sydney road system into gridlock, as well as affecting the traffic coming from Manly-Warringah and the Lower North Shore.

 

Good one CASA!