flying dog

Ok, question about when you arrive in a new country: Or, say you are coming into Oz (not a resident) and not yet completed immigration. My question is when are you "in" Australia? I'm guessing after going through immigration. Ok, so what is the area between the plane and the other side of immigration called? Who's rules (country) apply? Some bloke was yabbing on about it and how it is "wrong" that as you are not in Oz, that Oz rules are applied. Who's rules should be applied? Thanks in advance.

RKW, Indulge me: You fly a plane on your own then with ..... 400% extra load and try to ace the landings. Or vice versa: Fly a plane and ace the landings then reduce the loading in the plane by 400% and try to repeat. I'm picking 400% only as a nominal figure. Seems that shouldn't be a problem for you. PCM, Yes, but attitude translates to airspeed and rate of descent. All other things being equal. I am trying to keep an airspeed of 50-60 kts. (Could be 60 -70.....) I pull back on the stick and there is a MASSIVE change to VSI - as stated. Getting the instructor in the plane completely changes the plane's dynamics. COMPLETELY!

What about departures? Where is "Departing crosswind" come into the mix? Sorry, just want to get it right.

Again: FLAME PROOF JACKET AT THE READY. I've kinda mentioned this with my instructor and it is in no way meant to show any ill thoughts on what was said. I am only wanting to LEARN. The other week I did 42 minutes of circuits to "keep my hand in". YWOL, me, J230, first stage flaps, runway 34. Starting at THE southern end of 34, I am off the ground BEFORE the cross runway. Climing at about 800 FPM! I am nearly at circuit height mid field! By runway end at worst. Well, I can stretch it out if I keep the nose down. I did about 7 circuits. Some good, a couple of "multiple landings" (bounces) but nothing serious. The plane wasn't damaged and all is good........ But is it? (No, I don't mean I think it is dangerous, or anything like that.) That's why I am here, now asking/thinking/talking. Doing circuits is testing. Especially if you haven't flown in a while. Trim is not really kept "set" as for take offs it is "FULL FORWARD and back a crack". Now, I accept that performance changes with every flight: Fuel, PAX, "cargo" and so on. So all you can do is practice with what you have at the time..... No prizes for guessing/know that. I learnt to fly in a Gazelle. TOTALLY different plane. TOTALLY! The processes were also different in what I was told and why. I'm not going into that. It is a whole other can of worms - to me. Don't bring it up in replies, as I can't "process it" as applicable. Be it "true" or otherwise. First off I have realised that I need to learn the landing curve of the Jab. But more so I need to get the landing "angle" (and I'll get back to that in a sec) right. *1 Although engine failure landings are needed and all that, the whole "landing a jab" is different to "landing a gazelle". How it was explained to me was that (and there is no offence to any plane meant here... Read it all first) A gazelle is a lower performance plane than a jab. So landing a gazelle is "easier" than a jab. Why? Well, taking it a bit to the the extreme: A gazelle is a brick and a jab is a sheet of ply wood (flat). Where you start your descent in a gazelle: You are landing "in front" of where you are pointing. A jab - how ever - you are landing........ "out there". Pointing forwards, somewhere. *2 So, when I am flying my circuits and hap-hardly getting the base/final altitudes all 'wrong', I need to first off set myself a "rate of descent" I want to use in the jab. Let's say 500 FPM. I was told to "watch the angle between the lane and the runway" - which is a great idea: once you have said angle. I'll try to get back to that later too. *1 So in keeping with my 500FPM approach to the runway - and gee isn't it GREAT we have GPS's! - I'm going to have to set a 500 FPM rate of descent and fly around (when low traffic) the southern end of the runway and find the point at which I am on the glide slope. (Ha! Yeah, good luck) Then start an approach and mentally mark the place when I am 500 AGL. That is the point where I need to be when turning base to final. Hopefully: From there on in, I can locate that place: know I should be at 500 AGL and know what the plane needs to be doing to "make the runway". As you can surmise: This is going to take a few attempts to get right. But I think it is the best way to get things established in my mind the positional awareness of the plane when landing. *2 Performance! So every flight is different! Yikes! What does that mean??!! Well, if you are low houred, it can be frightening when you go off with a "loaded plane" and a mate on a weekend trip...... You are used to flying solo and empty. All the landing stuff you practice won't "work" now. Or will it? Well, I can't say, but rest assured, it should help you. Although the plane is heavier than usual, you have "established" the patterns in your mind of what things should look like when landing. Try to concentrate on the runway, rather than surrounding things. As these change from place to place and therefore won't "work" at every airport. But that's not to say you shouldn't! By all means when you are doing circuits at your local airport, use these things. But then consciously turn and look at the runway. THIS IS WHAT I SHOULD SEE! This way you establish the patterns. You use the land marks to "check yourself" then you look at the runway and set that as what it should look like. Doing this over and over will help imprint in your mind the picture of what you need to see to be "on the ball" for a good landing. So, back to the "away trip with a loaded up plane and a mate". Where does all that fit in? Well, as the way of landing has slightly changed to how I was told/practised, you know where the runway should be as you are coming in to land. If it is high: power. If it is low: well, pull back more on the throttle and/or more flaps. Of course: If you are too high: GO AROUND! But you have the "looks" in your mind and they will help you check your height/distance to the runway. So back to me and my circuits: I've take off, cross wind, down wind. Passed the end of the runway. Power back and start to slow. Turn base, start descent..... and so on. Turn final.... Usually I am way too high. But I haven't established the "correct" (desired) rate of descent and airspeed. See earlier. Anyway: I get down near the runway. I'm coming in steep-ish and at about 60-70 kts. Even the SLIGHTEST adjustment pulling back on the stick the plane goes from -400 FPM to +200 FPM . Now, ok, I am saying "SLIGHTEST" when really I could be more articulate and more the stick less...... But that is where the practise comes in. That is another 7 minutes away! I admit I need to fine tune that a bit more. People have mentioned the TRIM, but seriously: That is making a difficult situation more complicated. For the 7 minutes in the circuit, the "extra" pressure required on the stick is neither here or there. I know that if it is a long flight I would set the trip and so the amount of pressure would be different. But that is PRESSURE and not the DISTANCE the stick needs to be moved. So I am at odds with that way of thinking. I hope someone - somewhere - has found this "rant" helpful.

(FLAME PROOF JACKET AT THE READY) Gee some terms have been "adjusted" since I started flying and I am sure people will start to remember other ones which have also changed. Here is my example. Runway 36. See picture. Sorry it doesn't show ALL the arrows: problems with the program and cropping. Red: UPWIND Orange: CROSSWIND Yellow: DOWNWIND (Base got cropped off) Light Green: FINAL And that's fair enough when arriving. But the other green line (arrow also cropped off - pointing RIGHT) is ........? Departing Cross Wind? Or is it supposed to be LEFT pointing and still called Departing Cross Wind? And the blue line towards the bottom...... Joining Cross Wind? I know nowadays it is "mid field" but I kinda made the runway too small and only for clarity did I put it there. Where is "CROSS WIND"? Originally to me it was: over the numbers at the OTHER END of the runway. Then it became halfway down the runway - midpoint between the numbers. Which kind of makes sense if the darker green arrow is supposed to be LEFT pointing and also halfway between the numbers. I'm not saying I'm stupid. There are enough people already doing that. But I wan to get it clear in my mind what is what and where things are. Again: I don't think the picture is helping - &*^&&*^*^ paint program and cropping. (I'm using Linux and "painta" is not good at cropping then "Crop to selected"..... It crops to what it wants instead.) But to "put it out there" for any other noobs who may be a bit vague on where things are in circuits.

Thanks OME. Got and all good.

Yeah, just a bit too far away. But thanks.

Yeah, well it is for Scouts and they are having a "shin dig" in a couple of weeks. I am sure a BBQ could be organised, but it is not in my area of power. I am but a "lemming" asked to find some. But it is possible it could be done.

Folks, sorry for the short notice, but I have been tasked to help get a couple of old (used) 44 Gal drums. Needed to make a big BBQ by 10 June. I was wondering if anyone at Bankstown would have any "lying around". Prepared to pick up. Anyone please?

So really, the initial report that the prop fell off near Camden is a lie. I summise that the initial problem happened there and the prop fell off over Revesby. I know/accept the pilot may not have seen the actual separation, but it is strange that it was incorrectly reported to when/where it fell off. Though, if the pilot feathered the prop and had the engine shut down, I am a bit interested in HOW it fell off. The air pressue would be the same on all the blades. Granted turning or descending would not help. However, at that point, when it did fall off, wouldnt the pilot have felt the change in the planes dynamics? And so it should have been known where to look.

Ok, quickie. It was pointed out that about 18:00 there are TWO PAN flights inbound. One the REXX and one was ...... Air Ambulance? So, given the REXX flight was unexpected, listening to the file/playback, I couldn't discern that the other flight had problems. They were just a "medical emergency" flight. Granted they need to be helped, but I would have thought that the medical flight would be IFR (or what ever) and it was IN THE SYSTEM, so the people at Sydney would already know of its impending arrival. Yeah, ok. I'm dumb.

Ok, listening to the "file". What frequency is it? Half is arrivals but some sound like something else. Arrivals would not do takeoffs too?

No comment.

I cant give an exact BMI, but I am about 152 cm tall and fifty something kilos (on a good day). I dont own a set of scales, so my weight is really unknown. But last time I did weigh myself, it was fifty something. This is actually amazing as for a long time, my weight was 40 kg. FOUR ZERO. There would be slight drifts up and down, but that would be more from food eaten or...... well, passed out. But it was four zero. Back in2011, I went to America for a few weeks and that is where it all started. I seem to remember coming home, when checking in and was weighing my luggage, I asked the person if I could weigh myself. I was 53 kg. I soon went back to the 40-ish area, but at some time since then I have put on the extra 10 kg. Oh the shame! 25% increase in weight! ;)

I knew them personally and had flown in that Mallard last year. He wasnt careless at all. On Jan 10 he and his family were leaving Evans Head to fly to Perth. He will be missed. Not only by me, but many many other people who knew him (and his family).

So where does Nancy Bird Walton fit in to the story?

Yeah, ok: It's been done before. I even think Flying High had it as a joke, but..... On the way to Evan's Head, I saw it and had to take a picture. (Shame about the timing, but....) ARRGGHH! Sorry. These stupid phones and "META DATA" stuff..... It needs rotating 90 degrees CCW.

Well, if anyone wants to say hi, find one of the "officials" and ask for me: Andrew.

I shall be there.

Im catching the "kerosene bus" to go there. It will be about my 7th year.

Work once used them. I injured my back and was in pain. "They" jerked me about something shocking. It came dowm to: GET BACK TO WORK NOW OR ELSE! Wouldnt trust them at all. And I have had issues with other ones as well. They are head and shoulders the worst.

Yeah well, seeing somd replies, it seems people are not allowed to SPEAK THEIR OPINIONS if they are not in line with what is expected. (And I wonder why I am so %ucked up with social iteractions.) I'm outa here. Again I dont need this re-enforcement of how useless I am.

Weird, I got 2 notifications of replies and neither was for the only one I see as a reply. Anyway, in "reply" to the reply: Here is an analogy and I hope it is right - or I will look a bit silly. (I can live with that I guess. Done it for all my life so far.) I dont need say any more.

Just a couple of things: If rego become/s: VH-XXX, there is going to be a problem. Now, RAA are 19- 24- 55- and something else. Also they are numbers, not letters. Not that it will be a blanket change, but this will put more planes in the VH- range. THEY ARE GOING TO RUN OUT QUICKER! Not that that is a problem for the owners, but systemically there will be a problem. And guess who pay for fixing these kind of problems ONCE they have happened? The users! Oh, a PS at the start: (Yeah, ok I am not one of these bookface people, (I kinda have a life) and though it may be "the way" think about this: If it is a company, they would have a website set up as well - if not first. Why haven't they got a WEB PAGE? Forget the excuses: We haven't got around to it, etc. If they are serious, all that would have been done as a matter of fact and be done by this stage. So if they can't get that sequence right, what else aren't they getting right?) That is a whole can of worms. WHO are these people? REALLY??!! Although "our" system has "problems" (voting, politics, etc) NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT, and excluding these from the new system may look good, but it WILL have problems. "We" vote on things which are (though sometimes not easily seen) to do with us! The rules which control where were we fly, the weight, altitude and all that kind of stuff. Those things are part and parcel of the "game of flying". Similar to the rego for your car. So these 50 people CONTROL the system. You are a CLIENT - as stated - so you have less say. Here is an analogy and I hope it is right - or I will look a bit silly. (I can live with that I guess. Done it for all my life so far.) 1 - You buy a car outright. It is YOURS! You have to pay rego, insurance, etc. But you can drive it on what ever road you want and any problems are YOURS. 2 - You go into a syndicate where a few of your "mates" also chip in for the car. All in all, it is "yours" as in, you know the people who own it. You all chip in for communal rego, and other costs, and pay for petrol as needed. This is nice in the beginning, but as time goes on problems appear. "You are driving the car more than the rest" "The dent wasn't there when I left the car" "Who drove the car and didn't check the oil first?" "You are driving the car a lot less than expected" and so on. But you still KNOW (well, that is now up for debate) the people. Money divides the group and friendships are lost. It does happen. 3 - You rent a car from a company, as needed. It only costs you to drive it per kilometre. But it COSTS more / KM than if you bought it in example 1. The cost can change at the company's will (remember what happened with the GREEN SLIPS for cars). You have no say. When you take it back, THEY dictate the cost you pay. Fighting it is an expensive proposition. If you don't like it, go to "another" rent-a-car company and have the EXACT SAME THING done to you, just differently. I am sure you get the meaning. As CLIENTS your rights are restricted and though this will be glossed over when you "sign here" you REALLY should get a microscope (forget the magnifying glass) and go over it quite a few times. Sure it may be better, but it also may be worse. I am not trying to be an antagonist, but before things change: "We" need to really know the BIG PICTURE of what is going on. Is this simply a grab by people for money? They set up a Pty Ltd and they are NOT linked to the financial happenings. (Ltd kinda gives it away.) They get members, site new (different?) rules and things "go south". WHO is liable? I'm not saying the answers are any easier now with what we have. But further complicating it does NOT make it easier. Sure it would be nice if it makes it SIMPLER, but honestly? People higher up the food chain won't let that happen. Please be careful in your choices. This is simply an external view, and though some may see it as biased, believe me: It isn't. It is calling it as I see it. Sure it may be a poor reflection on me as a person, but standing in judgement of me for that is more a poor reflection of yourself than of me. NO ONE is perfect. I wish you all well in the outcome.

I'm then taking it no one actually has seen said episode of ACI. :( (Should I?) SPOILER SPACE! The problem was a nut/bolt assembly fell "off" the slat mechanism and when the slats were retracted, the bolt punctured the fuel tank, and so when the engines were shut down: Blam-o! After extensive research, they discovered that the washer had fallen off the bolt and so the entire nut/bolt unit would "fall through the hole which would otherwise be stopped by the washer. The nut was taken off because of a "design flaw" where the nut could come off anyway and cause such a problem. In taking off the nut and applying locktight, the washer fell off and so negated the nut being fixed on. (How much do the people who design these things get paid? It seriously worries me when you see the problems.) So: Although the bolt couldn't fit through the hole, the nut could. So a washer was used. BUT HANG ON! WTF??!! If the nut can pass through the hole: Isn't the bolt too thin? That's a pretty simple question. I just can't see HOW this happened - in real life - that no one actually thought: "Maybe we should make the bolt a bit thicker, or the hole a bit smaller." Using the washer there seems........ stooopid. And that they didn't put a crown nut rather than a normal nut seems just ......... (I give up.)