onetrack

The chopper pilot was simply a complete idiot. Fancy flying around blind in California mountains, in a California fog! I cannot understand the stupidity of the mindset of some people.

It's the same dumb mindset as people driving along roads in thick fog at 100kmh with visibility at 10 to 20 metres.

The same dumb mindset that caused the $30M cost of the Lismore truck-train crash in 2006, when the Kenworth driver drove his loaded rig into the side of 3 locos at 90kmh in thick fog.

Boeing is heading for technical bankruptcy. The only thing that is saving it at present, is its military supply contracts, which are a guaranteed, unending source of income.

But building nearly 500 aircraft that no-one really wants currently, and which will have to effectively be given away in the future, when they are re-certified, is the greatest mistake that Boeing has ever made in its corporate career.

On top of that, is the hidden cost, yet to come, of compensating those airlines such as South West, who have a fleet of new aircraft they cannot use. That cost will impose a massive burden on Boeing for years into the future.

The facts are these;

1. Boeing has always insisted the "cleared to fly" date of the 737MAX will be sooner than it really is. The current "estimation" is mid-2020. They will be hard-pressed to get the aircraft re-certified again by the end of this year.

2. The secondary and equally pressing problem is that the FAA has been rubber-stamping Boeings requests for years. Now, there is major pressure to ensure that the FAA again becomes an independent certifying body. This is not helping Boeing one bit.

3. There will be more serious delays to 737MAX being re-introduced to airline fleets as pilots will now have to undergo more training to be able to become fully qualified to fly the re-certified 737MAX.

4. The flying public is currently very wary of the 737MAX and serious numbers of people will still be wary of getting on one when it is re-certified. It's not helped by whistleblowers still coming out of the woodwork, producing horror stories of Boeings failures in QC, and failures in oversight of subcontractors.

5. The financial impact is more than just the hit on Boeing. The financial impact is going right down the line, to subcontractors, to airlines, to many other areas of the aviation industry. Those impacts will still be being felt in 2 to 3 years time.

6. Add in a meteorite hit from left field, in the form of a nasty, global pandemic, that is hitting airlines bottom line right at this very moment, and things are looking decidedly financially poor, for any airline operator or manufacturer.

7. Boeing has consistently downplayed the cost of the 737MAX debacle. First it was going to be $5B, then it was going to be $8B - now it's estimated to be $18B. The final figure could easily be double that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/business/boeing-737-max-costs.html

I don't see why so many hose sizes are needed - particularly if short runs are involved. You can substitute metric rubber hoses for imperial sizes and vice versa, provided the hose fits onto the hose fitting satisfactorily,

Many hoses are marked with dual (metric and imperial) sizes. The only area a problem may arise is if you substitute a smaller metric size for an imperial size on a long run, such as a fuel line from, say a wing tank, to the engine.

In that case, the internal flow resistance of the smaller diameter hose may be excessive, and the pump suction may cause the hose to collapse, restricting flow even further.

It's not likely you would ever have problems substituting a larger diameter hose, to replace a smaller diameter hose.

Probably just a normal weather day in Bodø, and a normal arrival. They're putting some faith in that anchor chain. After seeing numerous snapped anchor chains, you'd want to ensure that chain was well-maintained.

There's only ever been one C-130 captured on video, losing both wings whilst firefighting. You may have seen a fabricated video of the event, plenty of video experts like to make them up.

This crash of a C-130 in Georgia in May 2018 is quite interesting. Essentially, they had a No.1 engine power rollback on takeoff, and the aircraft was then mishandled by the PIC, whilst trying to return to the airbase.

The PIC applied excessive rudder whilst carrying out a turn on three engines, the airspeed fell below 3 engine minimum airspeed, the port wing stalled, and this resulted in "departure from controlled flight".

The final report is very comprehensive and makes interesting reading, particularly the engine operation of the C-130 - and how little it takes to stall the C-130 with one engine out, coupled with low airspeed.

There's CCTV footage of the aircraft going down in this news report - Military cargo plane was on its FINAL FLIGHT after 60 YEARS of service

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Nov/09/2002061699/-1/-1/0/180502-AMC-MU%C3%91IZ%20AIR%20NATIONAL%20GUARD%20BASE,%20PUERTO%20RICO-WC-C130H-AIB-NARRATIVE%20REPORT.PDF%20

.......bent right over, patting her pussy. This was taken by both the Pipe Major and Cappy as a come-on sign, so they both dropped what they were doing instantly, and hurried over to her.

But when Mavis straightened up from fondling the cat, they were both dismayed, when she said, "Oh hello, boys! Would you like to pat the cat, too? She's a lovely thing, doesn't scratch you, or give you lots of cat hair!"

"Errrr ... No thanks", spluttered Cappy, as both he and the Pipe Major started to step backwards. "I'm actually allergic to cats, I would start sneezing uncontrollably if I touched her! Besides, I've just realised I forgot to tie the Drifter down, so I'll catch you a little later on, after I've attended to that!"

With that, both he and the Pipe Major sprinted away, leaving Mavis nonplussed and looking for........

.... of the caber - flat onto the ground, without even a proper toss, to the jeers of the assembled Scots.

"It was much bigger and harder than I ever thought it would be!", cried a disappointed Cappy.

"Well, that's certainly one thing I've never said, when approached by Cappy looking for a sexual adventure", said Mavis ruefully.

"This only goes to prove he's not really a tosser, as everyone has reckoned he was", said Mandy. "So even though he didn't win the caber toss, he can at least tell everyone truthfully now, he's not a tosser".

"But what about his kilt-wearing?", said Hi Ho. "He's only wearing a kilt, because he really wanted to wear a skirt, but thought he would gain more acceptance if he just wore a kilt instead".

"What he really wanted, was to be able to wear high heels and fishnets and lipstick, so he could show off his soft feminine side!"

Suddenly, the bagpipes started up with a skirl, and Cappys attention was drawn away from cabers and kilts and dresses. "Did you hear that?", cried Cappy. "I swear I heard......

M61A1 - I was under the impression that somatogravic illusion only becomes present under conditions of high acceleration/high deceleration?

I don't see that happening clearly in the video, although it's certain they would've shoved the throttles forward to commence a climb after the retardant drop.

I don't see enough damage on that single prop blade shown, that would indicate it was running at full, or near-full throttle.

One would expect a prop blade to be bent severely along its length, if it was producing full power. However the angle of the photo may not show the full extent of any bending.

The aircraft collided with moderately-rising terrain, and obviously whilst descending. The commencement of the left turn and bank seems to indicate that they were planning to head out down the valley, to the right of the impact site.

There's an initial pitch-up, right after the retardant drop, then the aircraft appears to level out again. The aircraft does not appear to be gaining height through the partially-smoke-obscured view, as one would expect.

Maybe there was a wind shear event that effectively stalled the aircraft. They appeared to be still slow on airspeed, in the last view of the aircraft.

I think Facthunter is onto it, the wave effect appears to be strong - you can always expect increased windspeeds on the lee side of hills in strong winds, and it appears they were turning to a tailwind position, which seems all wrong to me, for low altitude and low airspeed.

Watch the smoke in the valley at the 55 sec to 1:00 minute mark in the video - it's travelling downhill, not rising or travelling horizontally, as you'd expect.

The C-130 is last visible at a steady height in the smoke at 22 secs in - at 29 secs it would have already hit the ground - at 30 secs, the fireball appears. That's just 7 seconds from normal flight, to hitting the terrain.

If anything was going wrong mechanically, or power-wise, they had very little time to figure it out. Maybe there was a lag in transition from VFR to IFR, and in that short time, spatial disorientation set in.

However, these guys were reportedly highly skilled pilots, so my money is on some kind of engine failure, or partial failure.

It's interesting that the pilots story has now changed from "loss of rudder control" to "engine failure"? That's a pretty major change in the story - unless the journos who reported it initially, mis-reported the story.

....outrageous displays of fornication between animals and humans, and so many other varieties of sexual deviations, he looked like a moving Khajuraho Temple.

But it was more than just his tattoos and haircut that took the others interest. It was the fact that he was wearing a skirt as well - which skirt took the Captains eye, and which he secretly admired greatly, because he was very fond of wearing skirts in the privacy of his home, but had not yet gained enough courage (despite the urgings of his local LGBTQIA brigade) to wear one in public. However, that would soon change, when.....

The wording used, is (the fire) "was likely caused by a landing light from an Army MRH-90 helicopter, while the aircraft was on the ground".

That wording, and the fact the underside of the chopper was damaged by fire, doesn't seem to leave much room to weasel out of anything.

The media is reporting on a widespread basis, "Defence admits to starting Namadji Park bushfire".

https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media-releases/orroral-valley-bushfire-update

"Operation Bushfire Relief's Lieutenant General Greg Bilton told reporters on Tuesday evening a Defence reconnaissance helicopter was believed to have started the fire.

He said the heat of the landing light likely started a grass fire under the chopper when it landed in the park, with the fire growing rapidly, and damaging the craft before it took off.

Lt Gen Bilton said Defence would be further investigating the cause of the fire, but had ceased use of that type of landing light in the meantime."

Your news item was correct, but I doubt very much it would have been the woman passenger from the Cessna. I'd have to hazard a guess it was more likely a drowning at a Hervey Bay beach.

https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/womans-body-found-at-hervey-bay-beach-in-queensland/news-story/fdd908bce769632561636303546fe617

The ATSB investigation has been initiated, it is in the "evidence collection" phase. If any safety critical issues with the C-130 are found in the investigation, the information will be disseminated immediately.

There was speculation that the CVR would "be read" last Sunday. Either the speculation was ill-founded, or the CVR is seriously damaged, or the transcript is proving difficult to interpret.

Perhaps the speculation did not consider the fact it takes time to assemble a group of experts to transcribe the conversations, and to define precisely what is being said.

Many CVR conversations in fatal crashes have taken quite some time to figure out who is speaking, and what they are actually saying. One hopes this CVR provides some pointers as to what went wrong.

There's no indication in the ATSB report, as to when there will be any update, on what has been found.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-007/

Police divers have found the wreckage of the Cessna in 36M of water, N of Moreton Island,, but there's no sign of the bodies of the pilot and passenger.

I'm guessing the aircraft broke up substantially on impact, and the bodies were flung out. I don't know what the chances are of finding the bodies, more than a week after the crash.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-29/police-divers-locate-plane-wreckage-off-moreton-island/11911588

If it was, it sounds like their maintenance is suss.

It's simply a lack of understanding and training in the risks. Apparently the lights were turned on to assist with landing because of poor visibility.

But to not understand that the heat from those lights will set fire to dry grass is simply inexperience and a lack of education.

Just as people using angle grinders in the open, set fire to dry grass - and inside buildings, set fire to flammable items such as rags, inside workshops.

In my neck of the woods, if you use a gas axe or a grinder during repairs in a paddock, you're obliged to have a 1000L water tanker and pump on standby.

They must've had an onboard extinguisher on the chopper, surely? Why didn't they spray the fire with that as soon as it flared up? Those dry powder extinguishers are the ducks gonads, they'll snuff out decent-size fires.

The following NTSB crash investigation report, on a Zodiac 601XL in Tennessee, makes one realise there are numbers of pilots out there that should not be flying, full stop.

The ATSB was involved in this report, because the engine of the Zodiac was a Jabiru 3300A.

The pilot was in extremely poor physical (and likely mental) shape, with a record that involved impulsive behaviour and poor decision-making, uncompleted training, a previous crash that led to him handing in his PPL, and adverse reports from instructors.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20171221X55208&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA

Well, it's sad to see that video, knowing that 3 good men are dying there - but it's good to see that a video exists of the crash, that must be a big help to the investigators. 

One can only conclude that uncommanded power rollback happened in the thick smoke and hot air - or they weren't on instruments and became disoriented quickly in the smoke (and dust).

My money is on the uncommanded power rollback, the U.S. military has had 71 reported incidents of UPR, and the Allisons sensitivity to excessive heat, and pollutants, in the engine turbine assemblies, seriously affecting turbine condition and performance, was noted 33 years ago.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/sustainment/csc/service-news/sn-mag-v11-v20/V14N1.pdf

Anyone who has disconnected their landline and their mobile number is making it pretty obvious they don't want to be contacted, by anyone.

Either that, or it's a rare case where the person has disconnected their landline to go just mobile (or sat) connection only.

If such is the case, it is possible they got a new phone and new SIM card, with a different mobile number.

But people who get a new phone number generally advertise the fact.

Facthunter, Boeing managed to cure their Li-Ion battery problems with the Dreamliner, via a redesigned battery case, and improved battery QC from Yuasa.

So heat containment design for battery locations is certainly a necessity for safe flight - but it's not an impossible order.

You could also say that Avgas and Jet A-1 is a very major fire risk, but it's pretty well managed in every aircraft design.

All I take from the crash site is power loss over rising terrain - a low angle of impact with debris over a kilometre - a wreckage trail similar to the Erebus disaster, as someone else has noted.

It appears the aircraft has screwed 45-60 deg to the port side as it skidded, thus I think the other two engines may be buried in the wreckage near the tail - i.e. - the tail assembly skidded up over the starboard wing.

I wouldn't like the job of trying to determine exactly what happened with the level of destruction there.

I really doubt the CVR will produce anything of major value, apart from maybe an expletive or two, because I reckon things happened very fast, and they would've had little time to fault find, due to low level flight, and they were possibly in heavy smoke and dust as well.

The metal oxide LiPo's that power your phone, tablet and laptop are the ones with the fire/thermal runaway issues.

The newer technology Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries have a considerably lower fire risk and the chances of thermal runaway with them are very low.

I've read articles where the LiFePo4's were cooked to test their combustibility, and ability to initiate a TR, and even at 250 deg C, the LiFePo4's would only smoulder, and they wouldn't initiate a TR event.

I do agree, battery design and energy intensity is still lagging seriously, and it may be 10 years before we see battery technology advance enough to provide adequate energy capacity for size and weight.

Caterpillar poured about US$10M into a JV with Firefly, in 2006, with the intention of producing a lightweight, low-cost battery, made from simple basic elements such as carbon and silica, that were readily available anywhere, and which were not rare earth elements that could be cornered to hold the market to ransom. 

Cat and Firefly failed in that respect, but Firefly did end up developing a carbon-foam lead-acid battery (Firefly Oasis) that is quite successful as far as a Standby/RV/Truck/Marine power battery goes.

It is lighter than the standard L-A batteries, but lasts 2 to 3 times as long as a standard L-A, can be taken to a very low SOC regularly without problems, and can be produced at 60% of the cost of other "advanced" batteries.

Firefly Oasis production cannot keep up with demand just in the U.S., that's the reason we haven't seen it here yet.

Interestingly, it appears that the Universities are the area where we will see major battery developments - not from companies or private enterprise, or venture capital - although Ralph Sarich, he of the Orbital Engine fame, has enough money and interest in such developments, to progress them.

The Uni's have the facilities and students who are interested enough in fiddling and constant testing of new materials and processes, to finally produce a breakthrough in battery technology. 

I was quite surprised to find the Americans bemoaning the lack of venture capital, and their low level of tertiary-qualified people intent on, and occupied in, R&D - such that America now has the lowest level of R&D of any developed country, and the lowest level of tertiary-qualified people, per capita, overall.

It seems rather obvious that American companies are simply interested in quick dollars, and rapid developments leading to major returns in a short time frame - which is not what improved battery technology is all about. It's a slow grind over an extended time frame, with many setbacks.

As a result, I believe it is more likely we will see vastly improved battery design come out of Asia, long before we see it come out of America.

With the U.S.'s substantial reserves of fossil fuels and a history of being tied completely to those fossil fuels, the mentality of America is that electric power is not something that will ever replace fossil fuels, particularly in transportation.

Thruster & APenNameAndThatA - I think you're misunderstanding proposed future hybrid layouts for aircraft.

I didn't say regenerative braking, I said regenerative power production - the system that turns the electric motor into an alternator, to recharge the batteries as you're descending.

In cars, it is used for braking purposes, in aircraft it doesn't need to act to help stop the aircraft - it merely uses the energy on descent to develop charging power.

As regards having an IC engine with an electric motor and batteries - what's wrong with that? Isn't that normally called redundancy?

How many pilots who crashed in "tiger country" would have liked a battery-powered electric motor to fall back on, to extend the glide substantially, after their IC engine failed completely and disastrously?

As far as the IC engine power and BSFC is concerned, it's pointless having a 912ULS throttled back to 30Kw, when the engine weighs 77Kg?

A new design Wankel, AIE (UK) or a LiquidPiston engine will now produce 30Kw from 10kg to 12Kg all-up engine weight.

This leaves a lot of available weight for batteries and electric motor. An IC motor rated at 30Kw coupled with an electric motor of 60Kw gives a combined 90Kw available for takeoff and climb. 

Once in cruise, power requirement is much lower, allowing the electric motor to provide propulsion, whilst the 30Kw IC Wankel/AIE/LiquidPiston engine charges the batteries, providing a range as good as, if not better than, the average 912ULS-powered aircraft.

An electric motor is exceptionally efficient, has no reciprocating power losses, and only has one shaft and two bearings, which generally give substantial indication of pending failure, unlike IC engines.

Skippy, that's true, tyre factories are in nearly every country today, with India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Korea featuring big in tyre production.

But the interesting thing is that the tyre manufacturing factories in these countries are all set up with knowledge and technology from the "biggies"in the tyre manufacturing industry - Michelin, Bridgestone, Continental, Sumitomo, Goodyear, Dunlop, and Pirelli. 

The "premium" tyre manufacturing however, is still largely carried out in America, Japan, Korea, France, Spain, Germany and Italy.

Unfortunately, Australia's last tyre manufacturer closed down in 2008.

It's interesting to find that the larger aircraft manufacturers such as Airbus and Boeing utilise tyre supply contracts as a lever to sell their aircraft.

Thus, Airbus awarded tyre supply contracts to Bridgestone in Japan to encourage the Japanese to buy Airbus aircraft. Boeing operate in a similar fashion.