turboplanner

So everyone's clear on this?

Ok all, seeing we have a zillion pages about an aircraft on a conveyor belt I thought I would start a never ending story.

It goes like this...every one adds a post that adds a bit to the story but at the end of their post they always leave it with an opening for the next post to continue it on.

 

Lets see how many pages of posts we can get creating the never ending story and have a laugh as we go - oh, it has to be about flying as well :big_grin:

 

The start....

 

After a long night morning finally came with the sun breaking through the window as Mr Ford Prefect (also known as Jabiru Joe) woke to suddenly find that....

In absolute shock at the unfounded remarks made by the Multiperson, who even himself has added another rat character, Turbo sat down and poured out a cup of Camomile tea...and one for his mate Slarti, one for his mate Ian, one for his mate Tomo, one for his mate Ahlocks, and a saucer of Ratsak for Le Crappe.

"Let's start with post #1" he said, "and you'll see I'm perfectly in character and syntax with the very skeleton of the NES.

"Paragraph 2 - well le Crappe never gives anyone an opening (and they all nodded), so I have to struggle with a new story every time."

"Paragraph 3 - "have a laugh as we go - oh, it has to be about flying as well"?

"Let's go to the story as written by Ian the Gazelle

IT'S ABOUT A FRIGGING CAR!!!!!

And what's funny about Mr Ford Prefect waking up

"I ask you comrade NES'ers (mates), is Le Crappe correct in what he says."

"Noooo" was the loud reply as they reeled back at the thought of the "Neighbours"-like thread being put forward by the German/Waggan/Japan/Rodin critic.

"What do you say to that solid support (aviation - just)" said Turbo cleaning the brown font off his shoes......

Octave: Ar Geez, I over smoked it!]

BrentC: We've covered that - we're talking about landings in contravention of Regulation 166 (2) (f) - whach are illegal.

Brent, are you suggesting the RAA should sit back and do nothing?

All good points Octave. My issue is with illegal downwind landings, ie used for convenience, and non standard behaviour which becomes peculiar to an airport, which only those who regularly use the airport know about. Your comments on giving way are correct, but when those actions encourage the non standard patterns it can blow back on you if there's an accident.

Nothing wrong with what you were taught about the double S turn either, but the point I was making about the City pilot was that there is only one direction on the duty runway for normal operations so the threat is only coming from one direction. It's just like a City driver coming out into the country and driving at night on a country roads - he isn't aware there could be a downwind landing because it has never happened.

I didn't explain the Tamworth scenario very well. The point is if illegal operations are allowed to flourish what will evolve is a different procedure at every airport.

For example, you are used to yours, but if you go to Wagga you have to contend with Melbourne RPT's landing on 05 and departing on 23 and Sydney RPT's landing on 23 and departing on 05, regardless of wind according to Captain.

If it was in the ERSA, you'd know what to expect, but it's not and if there's a radio issue or a sighting issue you may finish up in the path of a Dash 8 - which would be his fault if you were following a standard circuit, but that's little comfort if it's just cost several lives

Alright I'll smoke you a kipper.

"But why is the Evinrude wrecker being so cruel to his fellow NES'ers?" asked Admin "Is it because he has a dark secret, or does he just have the doo-doos because he spent all his Jab time money on his Boxer that craps all over the house."

"Rocky Marciano stayed at my joint once" said Nanna "And he did the same thing".

 

"Are you taking the dog up to Echuca with you Tubb?

 

....................

"You just open the throttle, the engine goes "Brrrppppth" (with a high oil level) and suddenly you're an Evinrude wrecker" rued Turbo eating his diner of crackers, but Turbo had noticed it wasn't the real Admin (Slartiphartblaster) who was asking the question about Turbo being cruel to fellow NESers, so obviously the Craps brown nosing had been identified early. Good one Slarti, you're on the ball.

He wasn't going to take his pup to Echuca either, not with dog eaters like FatPipes Suzuki in town.

He was saddened by this hit below the belt from Le Crapp, particularly since the boys had invented ChippenRat the Warwick Capper-like Mardi Gras dancer from Rio de Janeiro.

This would have lifted Cap's multi persona mega star image if it wasn't for the fact that just as we are about to have ChippenRat overcome terrifying and almost impossible odds (loved the photo), his alter ego NatflyRat wakes up and it all goes to pieces.

Le Crappe thought on this for a moment and realised Turbo was only trying to help, and was really a lovable sheep whisperer......

I checked the ATSB statistics and found 11 proximity incidents involving Dash 8's since 1997. That's not to imply anything against Dash 8's or that their pilots were to blame, however if you add all the other makes of Regional RPT aircraft, that's a lot of proximity incidents, and my point is that it's a safety issue which should be given some importance.

It's noticeable that the country pilots are all for the non standard variations, whereas the city pilots are scratching their heads wondering what's so hard about circuits. You have the whole downwind leg to decide whether it's prudent, polite or safe to move in front of or behind a fast aircraft. When Recreational Aircraft start using the city airports you are going to have to fit into a pattern which might involve 10 aircraft all heading for the same spot, so you will need to be able to read the pattern.

Octave - you're still focussed on your own airfield, but what would happen if you decided to fly into Tamworth, where the local procedures might be more formal, then on to Toowoomba where they might be different again - becomes difficult to observe the whole sky.

Youngmic, if you are going to be belligerent and tell people to go boating because they believe it is safer to use estanblished procedures, at least get the rules right.

"Practicable" is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "that can be done", feasible.

Regulation 166 (2) states:

The pilot in command of an aircraft that is being operated in

the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome must: (my emphasis)

then in 166 (2) (f) states:

"to the extent practicable, land and take off into wind"

This means, "if it can be done he must do it"

THAT IS THE REGULATION YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH

Cases where it is not practicable, may be sloping runways, emergencies, but not to save time, or money or because you've always done it and those who don't should drive boats.

You also picked up on a quote posted by Octave relating to RAAus 2.4 Non standard circuits:

"The straight -in approach is often made on the longest runway, not necessarily into wind"

This is an explanatory comment, not a Regulation, fits in with 166 (2) (f), but is not very helpful, since most airfield where there is a mixture of heavy traffic will be GA where GA regulations apply.

The greatest danger in this scenario is where a city pilot is departing from a country airfield and follows his normal procedure of angling into wind for a better view of aircraft on final, or must angle into wind to see the final path due to airframe configuration, thus masking the down wind approach angle, then gives a lining up and rolling call and rolls on to the runway just as a high speed local arrives for a downwind landing.

Captain, I'm opting for your Rio approach.

That may be so Andy, but right now RAA has a public relations crisis, is in the fish bowl, and needs to take some immediate and public action to reassure the public who may be living under flight paths or thinking of going for a flight, or about to make a decision on new weight limits.

So, Captain, we appear to have drifted on to a second but equally interesting subject.

Have we cleared things up for you?

"All Prefects are drongos (because they used to make me cry when I was a little tacker at school) and Ford is short of cash, so forget about them, Rotec, and by the way how's your gearbox, have you thrown a rod lately, and is that bloke in the US still sticking it up you?" asked the worldly Rat.

Rotac thought, winked and replied ".............

".....just what I'd expect from someone who rides a Suzuki and drives a Toyota. In the war we would have called you a fifth columnist. What was the point of winning the war if you throw over the pride of owning a Ford Prefect and buy that crap - they're made out of paper you know"

The Rat thought, struck a very provocative pose that showed everyting in silouette and said "....................

"Come and get it!

Olive came out of the dim light and made a lunge for him. As he felt the vice like grip on his skinny little hams, he screamed in terror...

Natfly Rat woke up: "Where were we?" he asked Rotec "well you were full of it before you dozed off" said a frustrated Rotec. "I was trying to tell you what happened to Ford Prefect.....

Captain:

1. I've told the story of the US Jumbo pilot at Kingsford Smith who was told to do a go round for a slower twin and complained about the cost to his company, and was then told to make a $16,000 go round. That's what they do there.

However, I don't think we are talking about anyone enforcing their rights - more that in spite of good intentions a collision could occur because the aircraft were not where they were expected.

2. I've read a lot of fatal accident reports where the cause was downwind. The manual might say the landing distance is X, but that is if you are up to a spot landing and don't float due to the unusual behaviour compared to upwind landings.

3 You eventually had to catch me didn't you. In my opinion, if the RPT was there first and was the only aircraft, then that was the duty runway until the second aircraft and any newcomers decided to change it to upwind.

Brentc

Reports seem to be coming in of flying behaviour at Natfly which would be more appropriate in a wild west show, ranging from an crash at night before the event, to flying in non VMC conditions - potentially fatal actions.

I'm sure professional students and pilots who have family nervous about the safety of recreational flying will be disappointed at the very least to hear of this poor behaviour.

The public at large is also hearing about it through the storis posted here, and word of mouth as people return and voice their disgust.

The fact that all of this was taking place in the presence of the full Board of RAA is also bemusing.

There would appear to have been a number of opportunities at Natfly for a fatal accident, and if the allegations that demonstrations were taking place in IMC, opportunities for visitors to be killed.

the pilots involved may ultimately have their Pilot Certificates suspended, and could have left families without bread winners - that's one level of responsibility.

However, this was an organised Event, and the question for all responsible people is who was in charge? who was supposed to step in when things were getting out of control?

At the moment the damage is limited to adverse publicity.

But an out of control situation can quickly lead to insurers deciding to walk away, and then there'll be no Natfly.

An Insurance claim will do the same.

The above applies to the Promoter or Manager of the Event.

To be fair to the RAA, if it was not the promoter, we have to be sure the Board members and employees knew about the bad behaviour, however I would expect some very fast and positive reaction from them, including statements on this thread within the next week or so, and if this doesn't happen, six of them are up for re-election next month and you can throw them out and get people who will manage a situation like this, which can only be doing us harm.

Octave, I note you're not acknowledging the touring aircraft which comes on this local departure from procedures unawares.

He and the RPT are likely to be the ones involved in the multiple fatal accident.

If, and this is purely hypothetical the Coroner was to say "it had been the practice at this airport for local pilots to depart from established procedure and vacate the circuit, which led to the RPT flights adopting a straight in approach" or similar, you move up the ladder to primary defendant.

I understand what your motive is and that no one is being inconvenienced within the local group, but you are at a similar risk to a factory which leaves a guard off a machine. Everyone knows what to do except the new guy who gets his fingers cut off.

You're aware of the local custom at your local airport, but a touring pilot is looking at the ERSA, and if, like my early history, he was accustomed to all aircraft using the duty runway, then there can be blood on the concrete.

You make a good point about parallel circuits, but from another perspective it's much much safer if everyone is doing the same thing than it is if eveyone is a little uncertain of what's going to happen next.

It's interesting that the Victorian Boat Operator's licence book goes into a lot more detail on where each boat should be placed, and they also go to the extent of differentiating for heavy ships which can't change course and can't slow down as easily.

The legal situation would be interesting if an RPT, or any other aircraft on a downwind lading collided with another aircraft going about its lawful business, and best practice comes in to the argument - probably one broke RPT.

So who takes responsibility for this event?

..."Bugger" responded Curt...

...iss Flatwing (see above for the poorly constructed sentences of Natfly Rat which led to this)

"In that case when Ford Prefect hit the gas the aircraft would have flopped in a heap"

"Precisely" said Rotect, and that's why Prefect's plane is painted pig poo green these days.

They were interrupted by a loud snore from Natfly Rat.......

ChippenRat skipped across the floor of Studio One, his lithe Warwick Capper-like body (I get that a lot) shimmering in the television lights.

He'd been very specific to them producers to ensure that no CWA girls got into the Studio audience, and now he was turning, nodding, using that ludicrous 'day mate" finger pointing that John Farnham pioneered.

As he turned, he caught sight of a tea lady in the background.....it was Olive!......

"No, you misunderstood me" was the reply "Mine is the full-sized Mk II Border, not the 75% scaled down MkII Bordello."

"Oh" said Kit "Tubb buggered that up, as he assumed that is was a ..................

.....MkIII upgrade of the MKII imitation model with the Rotec R2800 seven cylinder 110 hp, longer fuse and taildragger undercarriage to get more flow on landing.

The unmentioned respondent read Kit's mind, then said "Rotec, are you related to the Rotec that worked in the Lycoming factory then went to Continental before being fired and moving to Pratt & Whitney?"

"No Kit" said Rotec who was laconic.....

A series of stepped regulations would solve your concerns Ozzie.

The lighter and slower, the less regulation intrusion, or to put it another way, the heavier and faster, and more people the tougher

the regulations for medicals, structure, maintenance standards.

If you look further ahead the most likely break from CASA will be private operations versus commercial, primarily based on Public Liability case histories.

Human nature is to want to do your own thing, build or fly your own design, and, subject to safety, there's no reason to squash this.

In Speedway in Victoria at one stage we had 1100 drivers and over 23 car classes to administer and it was no problem. Each of those classes had their own rules and standards. Although you probably wouldn't notice, on race night there could be two or three changes of officials as the class specialists took over to provide their expertise. Construction standards varied from very basic for the low powered slow cars to very complex for Sprint Cars, so there was a graduated cost of operation depending how serious you were about climbing to the top.

Something like this is nothing to fear in fact it would be better than being in the one Ultralight pot so to speak.

Yes. I'm the victim of learning the basics at Moorabbin

Any fuel saving RPT there would have half a dozen students and getoutamywaybarons up his nose.

Tooradin taught me to look at a wind sock.

Hadn't thought about the RPT's and wayward ultra ultralights

Phew! bet the tentman's heart lifted a few beats.

..... that well known thong freak, Ahlocks.

So after offending most of the forum members between the Murray & the Lachlan, Tubb went fishing, started his outboard and ........ thud ....... he lunched another one.

 

At the same time Ford Prefect (Admin's favourite NES character) gave his rolling call on 19, accelerated to full bottle throttle, centred the ASI, flattened the VSI, unhooked the ALT, sucked his thumb, went woosh, lit his afterburner (better out than in), watched his fuel meter go vertical (note the conglomeration of aviation terms and fuel flow references) and ..........

......who should give a "lining up and rolling" call without paying any attention to the two Drifters on final (one containing a hysterical dotDash), not to mention the Vari-Eze making a downwind landing, but Natfly Rat fresh from the bordellos of Kings Cross.

He gave the Jab throttle a jab, sank the right boot to the floor to offset the Spitfire like torque, and after three little skips, two sinks and full left full right full left aileron in quick succession. cleared the pig farm by a boar's whisker.

It was at this point he lost his presence of mind and dumped all the flap, which is hard to do in a Jab with eternal electric control.

Splash! the Waggajab now had two tones of green to go with the matching white.

He pulled hard back on the control yoke ("This Y shaped thingy" said his instructor, Olive, is the yoke"), and the powerful Jab motor didn't let him down.

Ford Prefect, now following close behind thought there must be some sort of object/bird flock in the flight path, and pulled back on his Flowmaster yoke.....

Youngmic

That's a point, but a lot of ac will turn upwind for a clear view of incoming upwind traffic, so the risk factor increases.

the risk factor on landing gear increases exponentially, and anything with a 60 kts+ approach and sub standard brakes will find find the end fence quite often.

Other than an emergency, or training for a circuit engine failure, when there will be radio traffic, is there a reason for the downwind landings?

In fact there is a large thong wearing community here ..... and most of them are aviation freaks, such as .......

......Possum, Aileron, Ki Gas Mick, Lee Da Vinci (also fruit grower), Prop Wash, and......