turboplanner

The "reduction" of the ambient pressure above the wing can never be total (ie a vacuum) and the pressure below can be very high but only at crazy speeds. Above supersonic the air behaves differently to below. U/L's don't look like going there for a while, so generally we can regard the lift available from the curved section on the top to be greater than the "compression" effect on the lower surfaces at incidences that are positive,.. Manometer tubes will show local pressure but will be in a direction "normal, ((right angle)" to the surface where it's measured which is the way all pressure acts on a surface. Nev

I' agree with this; supersonic, I have 400 page US Navy theory book that would make your eyeballs spin. Sub sonic, wing section design needed varies with the power to weight ratio of the aircraft.

In the Pipers and Cessnas of the 1950s two thirds of the lift was derived from the upper surface due to the Bernoulli effect and one third from the lower surface due to the force.

 

WW2 british bombers, which had low power to weight ratio had upper surfaces much more deeply curved than aircraft which only carried a few passengers. This was to maximise the Bernoulli effect.

 

Model aircraft have a huge power to weight ratio, and you could fly most of them if you replaced the aerofoil with a flat profile because at anything above about one third throttle the engine is providing enough power to make them fly on the bottom surface only. They can be quite unrealistic compared to a full size aircraft until to pull the throttle back to about 1/3, then they are quite realistic in how they need to be flown. Aerobatic aircraft are approaching this level of power to weight ratio, so Bernoulli effect is almost irrelevant.

 

Other areas where the Bernoulli effect is used are:

 

Refrigerators

 

A gas under compression is forced through a venturi where it has to go faster, lowering the pressure; lowering the pressure reduces the temperature, and each time the gas recycles through the venturi the temperature drops again until the desired temperature is reached.

 

I found my old BAK notes with a very good explanation of Bernoulli including the relationship between Kinetic Energy and Pressure Energy; I'll rewrite/draw them here of anyone wants.

 

 

RAAF pilots are immune from the mistake made by other forces.

 

 

Based on the standard of photography it could have been a seagull.

 

 

My lovely Instructor Allan Baskett ( I keep blaming him don't I ? ) once said to me, after I was a little slow reacting to a situation " You've got to Do something Phil . .don't let your mind drop into 'Dialling Tone' "

It's a shame that this statement wouldn't make any sense to a youngster. . .since Smartphones don't have that feature. . . .

I believe that was something people did in the last century, a bit like "I'll ring you up", which could get you into a lot of trouble today.

(BTW, a few hours with a Ferguson and grader blade would almost bring your old CASEY field back into operation for STOL; Monash University set up a campus there but misdiagnosed the demographics and it failed.)

 

 

Interesting ...It reinforces the major car manufacturers' decision to change their method of product promotion.

 

Some of you may recall that Ford, Holden, Toyota and the like used to produce very expensive big glossy multi-page brochures each time they released a new model. Then suddenly that all stopped. I was told that it was because the manufacturers had conducted market research among people who had just purchased a new vehicle and they found that the vast majority only looked at the various brochures quite some while after they'd already made their purchase, using them to confirm that they had in fact made the right decision, rather than to assist with making the decision in the first place. So as far as the manufacturer was concerned the brochure was a waste of money.

There's a US saying "Sell the sizzle not the steak" and the brochures are designed to trigger that instant response, and are absolutely frustrating if you are really trying to find out details of the car.

The Industry hasn't given up on them, but they were becoming horrifically expensive to produce in paper - millions of dollars per year, so you'll find them on the Manufacturers website up there in wide screen high definition and with instant and very accurate colour selection, so you can set "your" colour and the car will rotate through 360 degrees glistening and bulging without a speck of dirt or shadow and highlights which don't reflect any natural light sources. What is becoming much harder to find are detailed specifications. My daughter has been looking for a 4WD with low range to go off road in the mountains, and it's amazing how many SUVs are being sold that are really incapable of enough overall gear reduction to drag themselves out of sand, and how they avoid stating that they have a single gearbox only.

 

 

Humans have a number of inbuilt cognitive biases.One of them ( I forget it’s proper “xx bias” nomenclature ) is that when shown something new humans jump to an immediate opinion based on nothing more than a like or dislike.

The strength that that this belief is held varies from person to person and is highest in the poorly educated or poorly experienced and sadly is more affected the older you get.

 

In some studies age overrides experience or education.

 

Only after this position is in place they then seek reasons to back up their already placed preference.

 

Some people will go to extremes of irrational evidence to support this position while ignoring strong valid evidence that does not support their belief.

Behavioural Psychology is a fascinating subject; reading your post I had already branched off into "what's he really trying to say with this.............."

Every salesman is trained to "qualify" every single potential customer who walks through the door. About 95% don't listen to their trainer.

 

 

Sort of disturbing to think that despite adequate transmission of concern and information it requires the uttering of specific words to have people act in a reasonable manner.

I shortened the story down a lot, but essentially you're right. A lot of people simply cannot bring themselves to believe they are at imminent risk also.

 

 

While you may not like it, (not you Yenn) standard phraseology is best. Minimises confusion. That HAS to be a worthy aim. Having this apply to OUR ops doesn't seem to fit as we CAN outland and do a few things a B 747 can't.. WE don't figure large in their considerations., so they don't write stuff especially for US, but our RT could improve (just in passing.) Nev

If people flight plan for fuel, the chances of having to make this call will be very rare, so there’s no need for people to start to weep. A Mayday Mayday Mayday Fuel call will immediately change your status with a controlled aero drone. Remember a few years ago Moorabbin closed due to bad weather. A pilot who couldn’t return to his own airfield due to low cloud headed for Moorabbin, and although he could see the runways he was told to go away, the airport was closed. He tried to get to an alternate but it was covered in cloud too, so by now low on fuel he headed back to Moorabbin where he could still see the runways and after a verbal fight with the tower controller said he was coming in and landed without clearance. The final statement in the subsequent report said that if the pilot had called a Mayday on the initial approach that would have triggered the tower controller to give him immediate access. This phrase would have avoided that situation.

 

 

Interestingly Stinton (perhaps controversially) writes in relation to the above quote "much of this design wisdom is being lost".

He's right; part of it could be the retirement of the designers who honed their skills in the unlimited budget days of WW2, part of it could be that the cheap Ultralights aircraft have nowhere near the hours spent in design by comparison with something like a Cherokee, part of is "contracting"; letting someone in a third world country do the design and development, then buying the aircraft cheap and putting a low mark up on it to sell to the lower end of the market, but much of it is that as a generation we just assume everything's going to be OK, and don't pay attention to the detail, and that's applying in our training facilities like Universities where someone did a stud and found 40% of the Courses produced skills which could not be used in industry.

 

 

There's five police officers in my immediate family. Superintendent, Senior Sgt, two Snr Constables, and a Sgt Detective.

Geez I hope you weren’t a speeder!

 

 

Nope. It clearly says when the pilot calculates that the fuel that will be left on landing is below the fixed reserve NOT when you reach the reserve. So in theory this could be quite some time and distance from the landing.“ 5) The pilot in command must declare a situation of emergency fuel when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the fixed fuel reserve for the flight. The pilot in command must declare an emergency fuel state by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL.

 

Note The emergency fuel declaration is a distress message.”

 

Well not quite.

 

And clearly says “MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY (3 times) FUEL”. Not “Mayday fuel “.

 

And given that a real Mayday call is then repeated 3 times -ie 9 MAYDAYS then odds on that the same pattern will get followed for this call.

 

Which in the real world means that by them time the listener gets to the second or third “Mayday” they are likely to be thinking “emergency”, brain in go-fast mode, miss the fuel bit completely and be off on a tangent of a real emergency management not just thinking “Ho Hum, OK let’s see if we can expedite the entry”.

I apologise; while the term "Mayday Fuel" has been used by CASA and a number of others, which confused me, the following appears to be the correct interpretation, and ICAO have an explanation for the term "MAYDAY FUEL"

CASA draft CAAP 234-1(2)

 

7.5.2 The pilot in command must declare 11 an emergency fuel situation by broadcasting "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL"

 

This originates from:

 

ICAO Amendment 36 to Annex 6 Part 1

 

4.3.7.2.3 "The pilot in command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL"

 

Note 2 The words "MAYDAY FUEL" describe the nature of the distress conditions as required in Annex 10, Volume II, 5.3.2.1, b) 3.

 

 

This picture shows the type of aircraft involved. Ignore the rego as it might not have been the one involved.[ATTACH=full]62041[/ATTACH]

 

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?

 

[ATTACH=full]62042[/ATTACH]

Only a guess but wings are a long way back mask angle to rudder is quite low, and distance from wing to rear stabiliser is short.

 

 

What does the ICAO standard say?

 

 

The mayday call is much more appropriate in a dense traffic controlled environment. There's been planes and lives lost when pilots have failed to "require" expediated landing clearance. Getting people through other people's levels and maintaining separation isn't easy. Much less evident in our operations how relevant itis Regarding pulling a stunt to get in quicker I'm sure the fuel remaining at the terminal will ne assessed in the circumstances AND why the reserves were not there if they should have been.

Are you talking about the "Mayday Fuel" call, or the "MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY" call?

 

 

CASA announced the call as “Mayday Fuel” and also that this was to bring Australia into line with ICAO.

 

However they could have explained the new terminology better.

 

 

Last RBT I had, I was asked “When did you have your last alcoholic drink?” (Stupid question!) My answer “The Christmas before last”

The next person may have responded "an hour ago", providing his own evidence.

 

 

So what is the point of Human Factors training?

The point is that ATSB do have good statistics on pilot deaths caused by Human Factors, and from my observations over the years on the annual death toll in recreational aviation crashes the HF numbers may be quite a bit higher.

In both cases, GA and RA I'm of the opinion that CASA and RAA have not succeeded in coming up with a training and compliance method which is good enough. While it is true that if your had gone scuba diving, and then jumped into an aircraft without doing your calculations you could be in trouble, that;s not one of the central training examples I would have given.

 

Both have some urgent work to do.

 

We are regarded as being responsible enough to have a licence/certificate

In both GA and RA you are assessed for the physical skills to manipulate an aircraft, and tested for the theory and practical guidelines of safe flight, but the missing link, to a degree, is the responsibility (or behaviour).

You are not tested for behaviour, and while a very large percentage of licence and certificate holders will be totally responsible for life, a small percentage will be accidents waiting to happen because of their day to day habits and behaviour. Some of those go on to contribute to the fatality statistics, often killing others. Three I remember vividly were one who killed six people doing a steep turn after takeoff and smashing into a radio tower, one who incinerated himself in front of his lunch companions when he tried to do a steep turn between two hangars and hit the power line, and the third killed himself in front of the neighbours children when he buzzed them below roof level on Christmas Day, hitting....well you can probably guess what he hit.

 

While testing is not a reliable behaviour indicator, auditing is. I raced for twelve years under the full time supervision of at least six stewards who watched my behaviour for the full night. BMX racing doesn't start until about six stewards are in place, and at a Sporting Shooters range you are under constant supervision. You would expect that under this level of behaviour control, there would be very little behavioural accidents, and that's true, however, in one case I had to adjudicate on, a driver who was miffed at something or other which happened out on the race track, came into the pits at high speed, oversliding into his parking spot jamming a woman who had been feeding her baby up against a marker tyre, and in another case a driver, accused of forging a doctor's signature on his medical just about had us letting him off. He seemed a nice man and was very believable, but I tried one more question and he came back with "The only reason I signed the Certificate was...................." I upheld his 12 months suspension.

 

With a Compliance and Enforcement system in place then benefits of auditing for safety are accepted quickly, provided the Compliance standards are justifiable and the Enforcement follows natural justice principles.

 

- without publication of detailed RBT outcomes CASA hasn't got a leg to stand on.

CASA does have a leg to stand on if a CASA employee finds alcohol in your system.

The best RBT outcomes would be where x number of people had been tested and there were zero offences, so the back end doesn't mean much.

 

If you want Audits to be justified the best measure is a started datum of the number of pilots who died with alcohol in their blood at the start of the programme, and then measure against that year by year.

 

 

Part 149 is law.

 

The consultation process for the Manual Of Standards is underway.

 

This would be a good time to read the documents very carefully, and decide, as self administrators what you want those standards to be.

 

If you want the structure of 95.55 then put forward the policies required to make it work, and make it work safely.

 

If you fly rag and tube, or you want simplicity now is the time to step forward and let CASA know.

 

If you think RAA Ltd or ELAAA, or any other existing or future Self Administering Organisation will look after your interests, then you don't need to do anything.

 

 

I deleted the post as the multiple quotes came out mashed up.But no, it's not a free country, that's absolute bullsh1t !

Not if you show up, no.

 

 

It’s a free country; you can stay away if you want to.

 

 

Which is why we should be returning to the fatality evidence. Victoria's road toll has been hovering around a J curve for a few years, and additional issues confusing the decision makers are drug driving, Inattention (incl mob phones), and fatigue which are all more pronounced than they used to be 20-30 years ago.

There is no credibility in RBT numbers. There could be a very low rate of test failures due to the testing officers inflating the number of tests done, by not actually conducting a test. You may think this wouldn't happen, but only a week or so ago it was reported to have happened in Victoria, in tests supposedly conducted by the Vic police.

Agree, they are looking at the wrong part of the equation, haven't yet rounded up all the drunks, and the explosion of drug driving is one of the more serious issues the community faces today.

 

 

ICAO rules aren't compulsory. The only requirement is to notify ICAO of differences. Apart from the airline ops, Australia can do what it likes in GA/sport/recreational as international ops are an insignificant part of them and mostly those aircraft that are are operated more like airline aircraft anyway in the IFR/Flight levels system.

You're way too late to be bring that up now; our regulations have changed for conformity, we're working to the regulations today, and you're trying to unscramble an egg from the inside.

 

 

Turbs, are you really saying that you approve of random audits? In what areas of your life do you approve of these? Are there areas of your life you don't want audited?The very possibility of being audited by an uneducated CASA inspector would always keep me away from a fly-in. This has nothing to do with feeling guilty and everything to do with hating bullies.

Starting at the back end first; the comments which came back from the locations where CASA inspectors, and were published have been that all were very educated; in fact the pilots thanked them for telling them things they didn't know, and they were thankful the inspectors didn't book them for things like no WB calculations, no fuel calculations, not met reports, no flight plans etc.,things that should be second nature to every pilot.

Yes, I approve of random audits in the safety area, where there are appeals/natural justice processes.

 

The reasons are:

 

1. For self administration bodies, it allows a sport to be affordable, and it works very well. Probably less than 1% or participants ever get to go through the non-compliance process because it has that psychological motivator which gently adjusts behaviour.

 

2. As an entrenched objector to speed controls on the road, I've seen the modification of driver speeds on the road due to the random audit process which has got beyond being able to predict when you might be audited. It has achieved common traffic speeds in each zone, which does have an effect on safety, but overall has had no real effect on fatalities, so I'm looking forward to the zone speeds gradually being lifted.

 

I know this itches your skin and you don't want any controls, but we're being pulled down by the small minority that can't help themselves from killing and injuring other people and themselves.

 

 

The CASA 2016/17 annual report claims that 10,000+ drug and alcohol tests were performed in that year. However, no results were recorded. Does that mean that there were no positives. Surely if the report of how many tests were performed, the effectiveness of those tests should also be reported.The Victorian Transport Accident Commission reports (Drink driving statistics - TAC - Transport Accident Commission ) that 99.7% of the 24 million tests conducted 1997-2016 did not exceed the .05 BAC. Applied against the 10,000 tests conducted by CASA I would suggest that a maximum of 30 people tested would have returned a positive test. Why a maximum? many of the tests would have been carried out in the hours of darkness. the South Australian DPTI reports that "the majority of drink driving crashes occur between the hours of 6pm and 6am (79%)". In addition, many people who are tested under the CASA regime are just on the airfield, maybe not even pilots or as Bruce and I experienced, just picking up some tools to take home.

So the proposition remains that without clear evidence to support effectiveness of the random testing regime, it is at best an unwarranted intrusion of the State and at worst window dressing by an organisation looking to show it is "doing something".

 

However organisations with DAMP have other reasons to undertake testing - if indeed many of them do!

You've just discussed the issue from one direction; that of the failure number in X number of tests. I have serious concerns about the academics at TAC who look at it from that viewpoint, because that's not why it was started. It was started as a result of 50% of dead drivers having excess alcohol in their system out of, if I recall 1034. So all the alcohol related deaths were coming from a minute section of the community, and that's where the focus should have stayed. The initial response to advertising led to a major drop in fatalities on the road, but the drop didn't continue, and these fatalities were coming from the recalcitrant rump, hence the introduction of RBT. You can imagine the cost of testing 24 million people, and the Courts still finding serial offenders, and that's what is leading the push for alcohol locks; then everyone is tested on every drive.

For the same reasoning I agree with you on CASA walking into a hangar and testing someone who might be just visiting to look at an aircraft; there needs to be some crossover point similar to keys in the ignition in a car. In addition to that, the audits should relate to the number of pilots killed with alcohol or drugs in their blood. You are at least then attacking the problem.