A coupla observations
RT
restricted, well regulated tracks used for that stuff and everyone
travelling in the same direction. Disagree? - go and look up the number of
collisions in circuit. It is ludicrous to expect pilots to use that method
for separation in general (as JB pointed out for heavies) and as I have
demonstrated with PIEV numbers and illustrated with the classic Canadian
example.
2. Using/relying on TCAS is criminally stupid. Why? One failure of
multiple installations and the system is compromised - BUT worse than that,
nobody KNOWS it's compromised.
I cannot see how the result of a collision between a (TCAS) heavy and a
non-TCAS, or failed TCAS aircraft, would not result in a civil/criminal suit
being brought against the regulators - I'm buggered if I can!
If a ground facility fails then all a/c can be notified and do their own
thing for separation (but note the result of simultaneous transmissions in
the Virgin/Cessna case), but if an on-board system fails, the notification
is..........?
Now it seems now there is a mixture of TCAS capable a/c with non-TCAS
capable a/c (which means effectively no TCAS for everyone in that area)
relying on see-and-be-seen.
VERY bloody handy.
Train travel is starting to seem much more attractive.
Peter Creswick
RT wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> 2. Using/relying on TCAS is criminally stupid. Why? One failure of
> multiple installations and the system is compromised - BUT worse than that,
> nobody KNOWS it's compromised.
> <snip>
RT
Graeme Hogan
"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:bqq0av$24cehm$1...@ID-194795.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Train travel is starting to seem much more attractive.
>
Brian May
RT> 1. "See and be seen" doesn't even work at circuit speeds with
RT> the restricted, well regulated tracks used for that stuff and
RT> everyone travelling in the same direction. Disagree? - go and
RT> look up the number of collisions in circuit. It is ludicrous
RT> to expect pilots to use that method for separation in general
RT> (as JB pointed out for heavies) and as I have demonstrated
RT> with PIEV numbers and illustrated with the classic Canadian
RT> example.
"Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle", BASI (now ATSB), 1991.
I believe you can download the report from
<URL:http://www.atsb.gov.au/> (I haven't checked).
--
Brian May <b...@snoopy.apana.org.au>
RT
Brian May wrote in message <84llpno...@snoopy.apana.org.au>...
>>>>>> "RT" == RT <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> writes:
> RT> 1. "See and be seen" doesn't even work at circuit speeds
>"Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle", BASI (now ATSB), 1991.
>
>I believe you can download the report from
><URL:http://www.atsb.gov.au/> (I haven't checked).
Thanks, Brian.
Seems the report is not available on the web but there is a later 5 page
editorial written in 2002 referring to the earlier report on the subject at:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorial/cavoid/index.cfm
which is definitely worth a read by people who aren't up to speed on this
sort of stuff.
However if you go to:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/sdi/index_paper.cfm
you can get a copy of the original report sent to you.
Quote:
"Archive
You may request copies of older reports by email. Please be sure to quote
the full title of requested report(s) and your full postal address. [Email
request...]"
and as you said the paper is titled: "Limitations of the See-and-Avoid
Principle (published April 1991)".
Mmm - seems ATSB works on 2 seconds rather than the 1.3 seconds I mentioned
and there are some scary graphs/diagrams included in the 2002 editorial
mentioned above.... :-(
Peter Creswick
single III-O with 4 x A4's. It is very scary, I can assure you !
RT
Peter Creswick wrote in message <3FD462BE...@ihug.com.au>...
>See the graphic on
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorial/cavoid/seavoid2.cfm and replace
the
>single III-O with 4 x A4's. It is very scary, I can assure you !
You wouldn't even have time for a lap of the beads!
Peter Creswick
Coop
> See the graphic on http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorial/cavoid/seavoid2.cfm and replace the
> single III-O with 4 x A4's. It is very scary, I can assure you !
>
>
A couple of other observations....
Situations where the relative closing speeds of GA aircraft with other aircraft reach figures like
600 knots (as shown in the example) are unlikley to occur very often. This is why there are LJR's,
military training zones, and exclusion areas. Max figures around 300-350 knots are more typical.
For two aircraft to approach on a collision course with no relative motion at all, they both have
to be flying in completely smooth air with no deviation up or down or sideways. In my experience,
even relatively small amounts of turbulence which cause aircraft to bob up and down a little can
make all the difference in detection. Not to mention slight control inputs added by pilots. These
movements may only be small deviations from an average path which may still be a collision course,
but they do cause small relative movements which aid detection (provided you are looking). In
theory, aircraft on a collision course don't appear to move at all relative to the background. In
practice, they usually do.
Try doing a streamer-cutting exercise one day in order to see how hard it can be to arrange a
mid-air collision.
(It's also a lot of fun)
Coop
Peter Creswick
400 approx closure. It was a thursday or friday, eleven fifty bright something, back in the 70's.
I was up in a blanik pre-solo, they were tracking over Camden below CTA step (4,000 back then) into
Sydney for a practice Navy Day fly past down the harbour. It had been in the Notams etc, we all
knew it. In fact, it was me that was detailed that morning to go to the tower to get the printout
off the old teleprinter. I brought it back, both instructors and the tug pilot all read it,
including me.
We were supposed to remain below 2000 between 11am and them passing overhead, but as Mr Murphy
decrees, stuff ups occur. I will not go into the details, but we were well above 2,000. We had
about 5 seconds in fact from visual on them as just black dots head to head closing fast, to the
pass. We rocked wings, praying for a sun glint. Leader jinked left, then the others rippled over,
quick smart, except the last guy, probably the new boy, slow. Miss distance on him was 200 ft
lateral, 50 ft below to our right. As they passed we rolled left and dived.
A "once is enough" experience.
What worries me about E and see and avoid is relative speed, and relative manoeuvre capability.
Relative speed has been done to death, but there is not much comfort in seeing if you can't do
anything worth the effort. We had next to no effective manoeuvre capability, even rocking the wings
was a full stick deal and not much roll rate at 50 in a blanik. We could not miss them. If they
didn't see us, we probably may have hit, if not, it would have been bloody close, they were a few
feet below us, I think. A4's do roll a hell of a lot quicker than a blanik. I wonder what the roll
rate of a Dash-8 is on autopilot.
PC
RT
Coop wrote in message <3FD5C42B...@chariot.net.au>...
>Peter Creswick wrote:
>
>> See the graphic on
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorial/cavoid/seavoid2.cfm and replace
the
>> single III-O with 4 x A4's. It is very scary, I can assure you !
>A couple of other observations....
>
>Situations where the relative closing speeds of GA aircraft with other
aircraft reach figures like
>600 knots (as shown in the example) are unlikley to occur very often. This
is why there are LJR's,
>military training zones, and exclusion areas. Max figures around 300-350
knots are more typical.
Considerably over the speeds of F1 cars, ie. You are aware that it is
apparently effectively impossible to cross an F1 racing circuit on foot
safely while there is a race in progress?
>For two aircraft to approach on a collision course with no relative motion
at all, they both have
>to be flying in completely smooth air with no deviation up or down or
sideways.
Ok - we'll use the term "no discernable relative motion".
>In my experience,
>even relatively small amounts of turbulence which cause aircraft to bob up
and down a little can
>make all the difference in detection. Not to mention slight control inputs
added by pilots. These
>movements may only be small deviations from an average path which may still
be a collision course,
>but they do cause small relative movements which aid detection (provided
you are looking). In
>theory, aircraft on a collision course don't appear to move at all
relative to the background. In
>practice, they usually do.
Hmph. How many mid-airs have you had?
What you've described does happen - BUT - how far away will this minimal
bobbing and weaving attract your attention - particularly if the a/c is
climbing and masked by background below the horizon, eg - or you're trying
to do some paperwork at the same time.
Now I've no doubt that the long thick plume of pungent blue oil smoke
drifting slowly downwind from a struggling Auster effectively renders it
immune from collision with ANYTHING by making it considerably more visible
than your average irridescent puce hot air balloon, but not all a/c have the
same inherent defence mechanism.
>Try doing a streamer-cutting exercise one day in order to see how hard it
can be to arrange a
>mid-air collision.
>(It's also a lot of fun)
Hah. You mean the streamer was falling faster than your Vne.
RT
Peter Creswick wrote in message <3FD5CDE2...@ihug.com.au>...
>Not easy to chase down toilet paper, but A4's can hit you. We were doing
50, they 350 approx, so
>lateral, 50 ft below to our right. As they passed we rolled left and
dived.
>
>A "once is enough" experience.
>
>What worries me about E and see and avoid is relative speed, and relative
manoeuvre capability.
>Relative speed has been done to death, but there is not much comfort in
seeing if you can't do
>anything worth the effort. We had next to no effective manoeuvre
capability, even rocking the wings
>was a full stick deal and not much roll rate at 50 in a blanik. We could
not miss them. If they
>didn't see us, we probably may have hit, if not, it would have been bloody
close, they were a few
>feet below us, I think. A4's do roll a hell of a lot quicker than a
blanik. I wonder what the roll
>rate of a Dash-8 is on autopilot.
Scary stuff :-(
'Pologies for flogging dead horses but "there is not much comfort in seeing
if you can't do
anything worth the effort" covers exactly the example I've mentioned before.
They both saw. They both reacted. The result was crossed silhouettes with
everyone dead.
(In passing - did a repair job on a Blanik. What a beautifully made bit of
gear! Anodized skins and all flush riveted! Shame they didn't fit an
engine :-) BS aside, tho - the Blanik is the best made airframe I've ever
worked on.)
Eric J. Whitney
>
>>
> (In passing - did a repair job on a Blanik. What a beautifully made bit
of
> gear! Anodized skins and all flush riveted! Shame they didn't fit
an
> engine :-) BS aside, tho - the Blanik is the best made airframe I've
ever
> worked on.)
>
>
I think they did! Wasn't there a motorglider produced not so long ago based
on the Blanik? I think it had a LOM engine?
Hmm.... I have to rub my chin really hard to remember more than that.
Eric
Peter Creswick
Eric J. Whitney
> Now I've no doubt that the long thick plume of pungent blue oil smoke
> drifting slowly downwind from a struggling Auster effectively renders it
> immune from collision with ANYTHING by making it considerably more visible
> than your average irridescent puce hot air balloon, but not all a/c have
the
> same inherent defence mechanism.
>
Of course, you're pretty safe as well RT. Just bend over a little and the
sunshine should be visible from at least 50 NM!
Eric
P.S. Just kiddin' :-P It's probably more like 30 NM.
Tosser
"Coop" <aust...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
news:3FD5C42B...@chariot.net.au...
> Try doing a streamer-cutting exercise one day in order to see how hard it can
be to arrange a
> mid-air collision.
Midair collisions are usually flown by Murphy.
I have it on good authority he doesn't even have the manners to say "Taking
over."
JB
> For two aircraft to approach on a collision course with no relative motion
at all, they both have
> to be flying in completely smooth air with no deviation up or down or
sideways. In my experience,
> even relatively small amounts of turbulence which cause aircraft to bob up
and down a little can
> make all the difference in detection. Not to mention slight control inputs
added by pilots. These
> movements may only be small deviations from an average path which may
still be a collision course,
> but they do cause small relative movements which aid detection (provided
you are looking). In
> theory, aircraft on a collision course don't appear to move at all
relative to the background. In
> practice, they usually do.
Well, they will move 'in close' if they aren't going to hit you personally.
Unfortunately, a hit anywhere on the aircraft will do. Otherwise they are
effectively stationary. The bobbing you a talking about may make you feel
better, and it may help on occasions, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable
thing to base an airspace system on.
>
> Try doing a streamer-cutting exercise one day in order to see how hard it
can be to arrange a
> mid-air collision.
> (It's also a lot of fun)
Try a dogfight, and see how hard it is to not have a mid air. That's also
lots of fun. Even just operating in some of the restricted areas could be
bad enough. And we did look outside, with what I expect was a far more
disciplined methodology than most pilots. The basic rule was that if you
were ever knocked out of the sky it would almost certainly be by someone
that you didn't see..... Near misses were common (and by near I mean tens of
feet). I've had friends killed in midairs, so this isn't just a academic
discussion.
Having flown in class E a few times over the past couple of days, I'm more
convinced than ever that the jets are unlikely to see you at all, even if
the TCAS sees you first.
Back in the days when I was a student at Pearce, you were told how many
aircraft were in the circuit when you switched to tower. All rejoins were
via 'initial' (unless they were IFR). You were not allowed to 'break' into
the circuit until you had found every one of the aircraft that tower had
called, and if that mean blowing right through and doing it again, then so
be it. It was amazing how hard it was to find all of the aircraft. And they
were all orange, none stationary in your windscreen, and all contained in a
fairly small bit of real estate. Even closures were no higher than we are
talking about here.
To a degree, I think the point is being lost. I don't think anyone believes
that aircraft will start raining from the sky because of NAS. The sky is
big. The questions that have to be answered are how many, how often, and how
big, is considered acceptable. Given the lessons of history, I would suspect
that 'none' won't be an option.
JB
JB
"Peter Creswick" <vent...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:3FD5CDE2...@ihug.com.au...
> Not easy to chase down toilet paper, but A4's can hit you. We were doing
50, they 350 approx, so
> 400 approx closure. It was a thursday or friday, eleven fifty bright
something, back in the 70's.
Small, smokeless, fast, and either blue/grey camo, or the USN grey/white
(which apart from being gloss, was also wonderful camo).
> I was up in a blanik pre-solo, they were tracking over Camden below CTA
step (4,000 back then) into
> Sydney for a practice Navy Day fly past down the harbour. It had been in
the Notams etc, we all
> knew it. In fact, it was me that was detailed that morning to go to the
tower to get the printout
> off the old teleprinter. I brought it back, both instructors and the tug
pilot all read it,
> including me.
>
> We were supposed to remain below 2000 between 11am and them passing
overhead, but as Mr Murphy
> decrees, stuff ups occur. I will not go into the details, but we were
well above 2,000. We had
> about 5 seconds in fact from visual on them as just black dots head to
head closing fast, to the
> pass. We rocked wings, praying for a sun glint. Leader jinked left, then
the others rippled over,
> quick smart, except the last guy, probably the new boy, slow. Miss
distance on him was 200 ft
> lateral, 50 ft below to our right. As they passed we rolled left and
dived.
You're unkind to the last bloke. If they were flying a diamond, then he
would have been looking at nothing but the others. If they suddenly
manoeuvred and left him behind, then there isn't much he can do. He would
have had very little reference to what was happening out of the formation.
Looser formations, that gave everyone a good chance to lookout and keep
track of everything would be used for transits, but from what you describe,
I would expect they were closed up. If they'd been in 'battle', which was
how the LJRs were often flown, then you might have found one of them, but
the others would be spread over a mile or so of sky.
>
> A "once is enough" experience.
>
> What worries me about E and see and avoid is relative speed, and relative
manoeuvre capability.
> Relative speed has been done to death, but there is not much comfort in
seeing if you can't do
> anything worth the effort. We had next to no effective manoeuvre
capability, even rocking the wings
> was a full stick deal and not much roll rate at 50 in a blanik. We could
not miss them. If they
> didn't see us, we probably may have hit, if not, it would have been bloody
close, they were a few
> feet below us, I think. A4's do roll a hell of a lot quicker than a
blanik. I wonder what the roll
> rate of a Dash-8 is on autopilot.
Well, the A4 roll rate was somewhat outside the experience, and perhaps even
imagination, of most people. The stabilised roll rate (using aileron only)
was in the region of 720° per second. The aircraft would start to couple
after only 360°....an experience in itself. The rate of onset of roll was so
high that the insides of the canopies were often marked by impacts with the
pilots' helmet. But, roll isn't what you need. Pitch is the way to avoid a
collision.
Just before I left, a pair came back from an antishipping mission. One had
+10 on the g meter, whilst the other had -5.5. Very nearly in the same spot
at the same time.
JB
RT
JB wrote in message ...
>Just before I left, a pair came back from an antishipping mission. One had
>+10 on the g meter, whilst the other had -5.5. Very nearly in the same spot
>at the same time.
Whoops! :-)
Peter Creswick
Peter Creswick
PC
JB
> They were camo and were flying in echelon right.
>
>
Even worse...I could never hang in as #4 in echelon. One of my 'mates'
reckons I was the only guy he ever saw who used full control deflection
whilst in formation.
JB
RT
JB wrote in message ...
>
With 720 deg/sec you must've been like a 1-armed paperhanger :-)
(Did/do those control columns move or are they force sensitive - or
selectable?)
JB
effect in another.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1997/PDF/H-2106.pdf
That should keep you amused for hours...
JB
"GB" <g...@sonicresearch.mailme.org> wrote in message
news:Aq-dnbIZlfh...@inspired.net.au...
> "JB" <jb0...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:PJuBb.46591$aT....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> > Well, the A4 roll rate was somewhat outside the experience, and
> > perhaps even imagination, of most people. The stabilised roll rate
> > (using aileron only) was in the region of 720° per second. The
> > aircraft would start to couple after only 360°....an experience in
> > itself.
>
> What does 'couple' mean in that context please JB.
>
> Ta,
>
> G
Coop
>
> Just before I left, a pair came back from an antishipping mission. One had
> +10 on the g meter, whilst the other had -5.5. Very nearly in the same spot
> at the same time.
>
> JB
Ouch!
Coop
True. All the more reason to reduce his opportunities....
Coop
> "Coop" <aust...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3FD5C42B...@chariot.net.au...
>
> > For two aircraft to approach on a collision course with no relative motion
> at all, they both have
> > to be flying in completely smooth air with no deviation up or down or
> sideways. In my experience,
> > even relatively small amounts of turbulence which cause aircraft to bob up
> and down a little can
> > make all the difference in detection. Not to mention slight control inputs
> added by pilots. These
> > movements may only be small deviations from an average path which may
> still be a collision course,
> > but they do cause small relative movements which aid detection (provided
> you are looking). In
> > theory, aircraft on a collision course don't appear to move at all
> relative to the background. In
> > practice, they usually do.
>
> Well, they will move 'in close' if they aren't going to hit you personally.
> Unfortunately, a hit anywhere on the aircraft will do. Otherwise they are
> effectively stationary. The bobbing you a talking about may make you feel
> better, and it may help on occasions, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable
> thing to base an airspace system on.
True, but that depends on how thick the traffic is. Where the traffic is thin,
its perfectly reasonable.
> >
> > Try doing a streamer-cutting exercise one day in order to see how hard it
> can be to arrange a
> > mid-air collision.
> > (It's also a lot of fun)
>
> Try a dogfight, and see how hard it is to not have a mid air. That's also
> lots of fun. Even just operating in some of the restricted areas could be
> bad enough. And we did look outside, with what I expect was a far more
> disciplined methodology than most pilots. The basic rule was that if you
> were ever knocked out of the sky it would almost certainly be by someone
> that you didn't see..... Near misses were common (and by near I mean tens of
> feet). I've had friends killed in midairs, so this isn't just a academic
> discussion.
So have I. I know what I'm talking about. The air you have flown in is
inherently dangerous with much higher speeds, deliberate attempts to get to
grips with each other, and aircraft painted to render them less visible. A bit
like competition gliding, (without the paint and at lower speeds, but much
smaller aircraft cross-sections when head on) where mid-airs are also
relatively more common. A couple of gliders approaching the same thermal from
opposite directions at 120kts or so (not that uncommon near turning points) can
also have difficulty seeing each other. That's why we invented audio
variometers. And with 15 meter wingspans (or more for open class) you had
better see each other in time and make the right moves, or you'll need some
other means of transport to the ground.
> Having flown in class E a few times over the past couple of days, I'm more
> convinced than ever that the jets are unlikely to see you at all, even if
> the TCAS sees you first.
I'd like to hear more of this, You speak from experience in the new
environment.
> Back in the days when I was a student at Pearce, you were told how many
> aircraft were in the circuit when you switched to tower. All rejoins were
> via 'initial' (unless they were IFR). You were not allowed to 'break' into
> the circuit until you had found every one of the aircraft that tower had
> called, and if that mean blowing right through and doing it again, then so
> be it. It was amazing how hard it was to find all of the aircraft. And they
> were all orange, none stationary in your windscreen, and all contained in a
> fairly small bit of real estate. Even closures were no higher than we are
> talking about here.
>
> To a degree, I think the point is being lost. I don't think anyone believes
> that aircraft will start raining from the sky because of NAS. The sky is
> big. The questions that have to be answered are how many, how often, and how
> big, is considered acceptable. Given the lessons of history, I would suspect
> that 'none' won't be an option.
None hasn't been the option up to now- the old system wasn't perfect either.
The question then really is, will there be any more than there were before? The
only way we can predict this in advance is to look at the rate of close
approaches to see if there are an increased number of those. The problem is,
with so many people taking up positions before giving it a try (and I include
myself in that) will we get fair data? If people go reporting every sighting of
another aircraft (and there should be more of those now that people have
heightened awareness) as a "near miss" then the figures will be fudged.
That leaves us with looking at similar situations elsewhere- which is why I
asked if anyone knew of areas in the US with similar radar coverage to ours (ie
limited SSR and no primary) to see how they structured the airspace there. I
would be surprised if this wasn't part of the safety case that was undertaken
before the changes were planned. (But I've been surprised before, too...)
> JB
Regards
Coop
Coop
Hear, hear!! I presume you've crawled down the inside of the fuse with a dolly?
(the metal sort, not the cute ones....).
I didn't enjoy that much- I was the skinny one in the club so I drew the short
straw that hot day. But even my untrained eye could see the quality in the
build. Waikerie sacrificed its first Blanik on the altar of research when
someone discoveed that they had never been certified beyond 3,000 hours fatigue
life. At the time, ours had done over 10,000 if I remember correctly...... in
Europe they had no idea we could build the hours up that quickly.... I think
they eventually got certified to 6,000 with a couple minor mods.
Coop
Coop
> Not easy to chase down toilet paper, but A4's can hit you. We were doing 50, they 350 approx, so
> 400 approx closure. It was a thursday or friday, eleven fifty bright something, back in the 70's.
> I was up in a blanik pre-solo, they were tracking over Camden below CTA step (4,000 back then) into
> Sydney for a practice Navy Day fly past down the harbour. It had been in the Notams etc, we all
> knew it. In fact, it was me that was detailed that morning to go to the tower to get the printout
> off the old teleprinter. I brought it back, both instructors and the tug pilot all read it,
> including me.
>
> We were supposed to remain below 2000 between 11am and them passing overhead, but as Mr Murphy
> decrees, stuff ups occur. I will not go into the details, but we were well above 2,000. We had
> about 5 seconds in fact from visual on them as just black dots head to head closing fast, to the
> pass. We rocked wings, praying for a sun glint. Leader jinked left, then the others rippled over,
> quick smart, except the last guy, probably the new boy, slow. Miss distance on him was 200 ft
> lateral, 50 ft below to our right. As they passed we rolled left and dived.
>
> A "once is enough" experience.
I'd agree. You would have to be very unlucky indeed to encounter a situation like that again. And I
could see how it would bias you against see and avoid. But what are the odds against that happening
again? Maybe some of the ex-RAAF types can tell us how often encounters like this occur? (Maybe you've
met JB before and didn't know it...? Now that would be really weird..... )
>
> What worries me about E and see and avoid is relative speed, and relative manoeuvre capability.
> Relative speed has been done to death, but there is not much comfort in seeing if you can't do
> anything worth the effort. We had next to no effective manoeuvre capability, even rocking the wings
> was a full stick deal and not much roll rate at 50 in a blanik. We could not miss them. If they
> didn't see us, we probably may have hit, if not, it would have been bloody close, they were a few
> feet below us, I think. A4's do roll a hell of a lot quicker than a blanik. I wonder what the roll
> rate of a Dash-8 is on autopilot.
Not much, I guess. I wonder how fast they fly in cruise, and how many of them wear dull colours with
camouflage...
> PC
>
Coop
Coop
I've been flying in close company with a lot of other aircraft. Competition
flying in gliders, tugplane flying at comps, vintage fly-ins, Avalon three
times. In many cases mixing non-radio vintage machines (OK, at least they have
the plus of being slow moving) with some of the WWII fighters and trainers
(which although fast usually have radio). I've had the importance of keeping my
eyes outside the cockpit drilled into me ad infinitem by my instructors
(gliding and power) and enough relatively close encounters early in my career
to reinforce the need for it. The closest encounter I ever had occurred, oddly
enough, when I was on the ground, and was partly due to the other chap deciding
to land on a runway that was already occupied. I saw him in time, but only
just. (And if you want to read about it go back into your old copies of
Aviation Safety Digest. I was flying a Tiger at the time.)
> What you've described does happen - BUT - how far away will this minimal
> bobbing and weaving attract your attention - particularly if the a/c is
> climbing and masked by background below the horizon, eg - or you're trying
> to do some paperwork at the same time.
In my experience, at any but relatively low altitudes, the background assumes a
"flat" aspect, albeit with random patterning. ANYTHING that moves even slightly
should get your attention until you are sure its not an aircraft. If you are in
an environment where other aircraft are likely to be climbing or descending
than a dead straight course is not your best option. Slight turns help to clear
the area under the nose and also help relative movement. When descending from
dropping gliders I always flew a continuously reversing curve- this clears the
descent path and increases the chance that anything on a collision course will
have to move against the background at least part of the time.
I keep paperwork to a minimum by doing most of it on the ground before leaving,
or on the ground after arriving. There shouldn't be much paperwork en route
that needs to take your attention from the windows for more than five seconds
at a time. If the company you work for wants more than that then I suggest you
discuss it with them. The cockpit of an aircraft in flight is no place for
extensive paperwork unless you have two pairs of eyes up front.
> Now I've no doubt that the long thick plume of pungent blue oil smoke
> drifting slowly downwind from a struggling Auster effectively renders it
> immune from collision with ANYTHING by making it considerably more visible
> than your average irridescent puce hot air balloon, but not all a/c have the
> same inherent defence mechanism.
True. I do feel safe in the old girl......I admit it.....
> >Try doing a streamer-cutting exercise one day in order to see how hard it
> can be to arrange a
> >mid-air collision.
> >(It's also a lot of fun)
>
> Hah. You mean the streamer was falling faster than your Vne.
Jealousy is such a curse.......
:-)
Coop
Stealth Pilot
you may also see references to it as 'the secondary effect of' some
control input.
for instance secondary effect of rudder is roll in an aircraft with
dihedral
Stealth Pilot
RT
Coop wrote in message <3FD713A0...@chariot.net.au>...
>RT wrote:
>Hear, hear!! I presume you've crawled down the inside of the fuse with a
dolly?
>(the metal sort, not the cute ones....).
Lissen mate, I was the one on the outside with the gun. Some feral
apprentice or other was the one with the dolly and he wasn't cute - tho our
office dragon at the time was a little Greek sweetie... <drool>...
>I didn't enjoy that much- I was the skinny one in the club so I drew the
short
>straw that hot day. But even my untrained eye could see the quality in the
>build. Waikerie sacrificed its first Blanik on the altar of research when
>someone discoveed that they had never been certified beyond 3,000 hours
fatigue
>life. At the time, ours had done over 10,000 if I remember correctly......
in
>Europe they had no idea we could build the hours up that quickly.... I
think
>they eventually got certified to 6,000 with a couple minor mods.
Sounds reasonable. It was much lighter than the stuff we were used to
(C180s etc) but still quite sturdy, I thought. Long time ago, but I think
ours had landed hard and bent some stuff.....
Heh! Blaniks, HFBs - it's a worry.....
Peter Creswick
Applicability: All Model L13
Requirement: To extend service life of glider inspect and modify as detailed:-
1. Inspect spar flange in wing and centre section per LET Mandatory Bulletin L13/045.
2. Replace lower fuselage carry through member per Gliding Federation of Australia
(GFA) AD 369, Issue 1.
3. Modify and eddy current inspect wings per GFA AD 369, Issue 1, Option C.
Because of the expertise required for this inspection, persons performing this work
must be qualified in all respects of the eddy current procedure required. An approved
repair scheme must be used to repair any damage or cracks found. Report inspection
results per AD 369 to the GFA, and to the CAA of New Zealand.
Compliance: 1. At 3000 hours TTIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 300 hours TIS, until
5000 hours TTIS.
2. At 5000 hours TTIS.
3. At 5000 hours TTIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 500 hours TIS, until
10,000 hours TTIS, when wings must be removed from service.
Effective Date: DCA/BLAN/5 31 October 1971
DCA/BLAN/5A 19 March 1993
RT
Coop wrote in message <3FD71A07...@chariot.net.au>...
>RT wrote:
>In my experience, at any but relatively low altitudes, the background
assumes a
>"flat" aspect, albeit with random patterning. ANYTHING that moves even
slightly
>should get your attention until you are sure its not an aircraft.
If it's a little dot that isn't moving (aka a Lear on climb)......... The
problem is that it WON'T move if it's going to hit you.
>If you are in
>an environment where other aircraft are likely to be climbing or descending
>than a dead straight course is not your best option. Slight turns help to
clear
>the area under the nose and also help relative movement.
Huh..this merely 'sweeps' a larger volume of airspace so increasing the
chance of a meeting, tho I do understand it helps to explain your usual
extraordinarily erratic flight path.....
>I keep paperwork to a minimum by doing most of it on the ground before
leaving,
>or on the ground after arriving. There shouldn't be much paperwork en route
>that needs to take your attention from the windows for more than five
seconds
>at a time.
Mmmmm - actually, you might not have as long as that.....
>> Now I've no doubt that the long thick plume of pungent blue oil smoke
>> drifting slowly downwind from a struggling Auster effectively renders it
>> immune from collision with ANYTHING by making it considerably more
visible
>> than your average irridescent puce hot air balloon, but not all a/c have
the
>> same inherent defence mechanism.
>True. I do feel safe in the old girl......I admit it.....
Heh. Well, so you should. Provided everyone else understands your
semaphore signals.
>> >Try doing a streamer-cutting exercise one day in order to see how hard
it can be to arrange >> >a mid-air collision. (It's also a lot of fun)
>> Hah. You mean the streamer was falling faster than your Vne.
>Jealousy is such a curse....... :-)
Heh :-)
I can see it now. A Totteryauster with Stuka siren wailing, plunging
vertically earthwards after a feral streamer, the beagle with the leather
helmet enthusiastically beating Dorothy's ribs encouraging her to yet
another knot above the Vne......
Touching.
That's what it is.
Touching.... <sniff>......... <sniff>
RT
Peter Creswick wrote in message <3FD730F8...@ihug.com.au>...
Whoooo, strewth, Peter. Those are pretty savage inspection criteria! What
is the background, d'y'know? Any failures?
Particularly para 3 seems savage......... - reminiscent of the Beech 18 mod
for the main spars - a f'ing great cable from one wingtip to the other :-)
Paul Repacholi
> (In passing - did a repair job on a Blanik. What a beautifully made
> bit of gear! Anodized skins and all flush riveted! Shame they
> didn't fit an engine :-) BS aside, tho - the Blanik is the best made
> airframe I've ever worked on.)
Check ras, some mad swede has a Blanik with a pair of dogwistlers!
I'll find the url if you can't find it.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
RT
Paul Repacholi wrote in message <87fzfs7...@prep.synonet.com>...
>"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> writes:
>
>> (In passing - did a repair job on a Blanik. What a beautifully made
>> bit of gear! Anodized skins and all flush riveted! Shame they
>> didn't fit an engine :-) BS aside, tho - the Blanik is the best made
>> airframe I've ever worked on.)
>
>Check ras, some mad swede has a Blanik with a pair of dogwistlers!
>I'll find the url if you can't find it.
"Dogwhistlers"? Is that something like the channel bill cukoo that
inadvertantly dropped dead when I was cleaning the .410?
Tosser
> I'd agree. You would have to be very unlucky indeed to encounter a situation
like that again. And I
> could see how it would bias you against see and avoid. But what are the odds
against that happening
> again?
Nil.
New Zealand's contribution to NAS.
Peter Creswick
Unfortunately I don't have details of major failures, but there were rumours, but not concerning the
wing so much, more the wing pins and the support assembly. Note the reference to the lower carry
through member. A few of us joked we might have a silent F-111 on our hands.
There was also something referred to in hush tones as a "Lewellin Mod" - details of which were
shrouded in secrecy, at least - it was kept from a pesky engineering uni student that seemed too
nosey. It centred around the drag pin, and the need to ream the main pin holes in the upper and
lower carry through members, to put in oversize tapered main pins.
The spar cap issue I thought was the air brake attachment issue. The loads there can be high if
they are opened savagely at high speed, but I never really found out.
Old Jack Detto was the LAME at Camden at those days, and you could never get a straight answer out
of him. He kept all the manuals etc locked in his office as well. In the end I gave up.
When we got our third blanik, I vaguely remember discussion among the club heavies being worried
that service life may be less than planned, and they might have to put the hourly flying cost up and
the price of the training courses as well (back then SCGC ran a full time - full week course with
John Blackwell instructing, and a 2 day part time course with Bert Johnson instructing). In fact,
they later (after I left in 78) stopped the 2 day courses to save hours on GVB which was JB's bird
(Blackwell), and moved GOY to the 5 day. I just did a check on the register of GVB and GOY and they
are both still listed with interstate / territory owners, and I presume still flying.
So, I presume the 500 hour checks people can live with, both safety wise and cost wise. It would be
interesting to get some current info from someone in the loop today.
PC
Peter Creswick
Tosser
"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:br7g9i$781k$1...@ID-194795.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Dogwhistlers"? Is that something like the channel bill cukoo that
> inadvertantly dropped dead when I was cleaning the .410?
You bastard.
You zotted something that flies further every year than Stealth will in his
entire visit to the planet ???
Paul Repacholi
> "Dogwhistlers"? Is that something like the channel bill cukoo that
> inadvertantly dropped dead when I was cleaning the .410?
Twin Turbojets, on top of the aft cockpit panel over the spar..
Abandon ears...
RT
Tosser wrote in message ...
If ther useless thing HAD flown instead of hanging around the house with its
mates making a bloody awful noise day and night for the last month or more,
it wouldn't have been zotted :-)
matt weber
wrote:
>"JB" <jb0...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:PJuBb.46591$aT....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>> Well, the A4 roll rate was somewhat outside the experience, and
>> perhaps even imagination, of most people. The stabilised roll rate
>> (using aileron only) was in the region of 720° per second. The
>> aircraft would start to couple after only 360°....an experience in
>> itself.
>
> What does 'couple' mean in that context please JB.
I suspect he is talking about Roll to Yaw Coupling, which can be
significant in transonic/supersonic, swept wing aircraft. It is a
problem that wan't well understood for a long time, and quite a few
F100 super sabres were lost to it.
If you look at an F100A and compare it to an F100D, there is one very
noticeable change. The Fin area was increased dramatically to provide
additional control authority. In some cases the roll coupling was so
severe in the F100A that the aircraft came apart before it could be
brought under control.
I suspect what JB is saying politely was that after about 360 degrees,
the aircraft became very badly behaved.
JB
> What happened to the A4's after the RNZAF folded ? Were they sold back to
the yanks or what ?
>
I don't know for sure, but I did hear somewhere that a US company was
looking to buy them, so that they could be used for contract naval air
support.
JB
studentpilot
RT wrote:
> *Tosser wrote in message ...
> >
> >"RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
> >news:br7g9i$781k$1...@ID-194795.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >> "Dogwhistlers"? Is that something like the channel bill cukoo
> that
> >> inadvertantly dropped dead when I was cleaning the .410?
> >
> >
> >You bastard.
> >
> >You zotted something that flies further every year than Stealth will
> in his
>
> If ther useless thing HAD flown instead of hanging around the house
> with its
> mates making a bloody awful noise day and night for the last month or
> more,
I look forward to hearing and seeing "stormbirds" at this time of the
year, it means round here the colder weather is gone for a while.
I'll bet you blow away those pesky Lyre birds too RT, making all that
noise, what about those bloody noisey yellow tailed black cockies more
targets for the great white hunter?
--
studentpilot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -
Coop
> DCA/BLAN/5A Fatigue Life - Inspection and Life Limitation
> Applicability: All Model L13
> Requirement: To extend service life of glider inspect and modify as detailed:-
> 1. Inspect spar flange in wing and centre section per LET Mandatory Bulletin L13/045.
> 2. Replace lower fuselage carry through member per Gliding Federation of Australia
> (GFA) AD 369, Issue 1.
> 3. Modify and eddy current inspect wings per GFA AD 369, Issue 1, Option C.
> Because of the expertise required for this inspection, persons performing this work
> must be qualified in all respects of the eddy current procedure required. An approved
> repair scheme must be used to repair any damage or cracks found. Report inspection
> results per AD 369 to the GFA, and to the CAA of New Zealand.
> Compliance: 1. At 3000 hours TTIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 300 hours TIS, until
> 5000 hours TTIS.
> 2. At 5000 hours TTIS.
> 3. At 5000 hours TTIS and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 500 hours TIS, until
> 10,000 hours TTIS, when wings must be removed from service.
> Effective Date: DCA/BLAN/5 31 October 1971
> DCA/BLAN/5A 19 March 1993
>
>
Thanks for the update, Pete. Good to see they got them to 10,000 hours.
Coop
RT
studentpilot wrote in message ...
>RT wrote:
>> If ther useless thing HAD flown instead of hanging around the house
>> with its
>> mates making a bloody awful noise day and night for the last month or
>> more,
>> it wouldn't have been zotted :-) *
>I look forward to hearing and seeing "stormbirds" at this time of the
>year, it means round here the colder weather is gone for a while.
Oh - how sweet, diddums.
Must make a nice change from Indian Miners and sparrows.
Have you any f'ing idea what a channel bill cuckoo sounds like?
No. I thought not.
>I'll bet you blow away those pesky Lyre birds too RT, making all that
>noise, what about those bloody noisey yellow tailed black cockies more
>targets for the great white hunter?
Now that is really interesting, oh Wannabe Great White Protector of
Endangered Wildlife.
So the official name of the "bloody noisey yellow tailed black cockies" is?
And their range is? And characteristics are?
____________________________________________________________
And I really DO want answers to those questions, studentpilot. Because I'm
fairly sure you're bullshitting and have no clue about any wild life
whatever. In fact I suspect you couldn't tell the difference between a
black and a wood duck (eg) and have spent the entire extent of your
miserable existence in hi-rise in Melbourne
______________________________________________________________
>studentpilot
At least you got your nik right - you *are* the perpetual student -
perpetually pig-ignorant.
Peter Creswick
too !
RT
Peter Creswick wrote in message <3FD86A02...@ihug.com.au>...
>I am now officially "old". Had my first bowls lesson today. Parked it
near the jack a few times
>too !
Don't feel bad about that - it's a schmick game I've enjoyed for the last 4
decades ;-)
Paul Repacholi
> So, I presume the 500 hour checks people can live with, both safety
> wise and cost wise. It would be interesting to get some current
> info from someone in the loop today.
I'll try to remember to ask when I'm at CDN next. I know GGG is
either about to hit 10K, but I think that is landing/TOs, no hrs.
L-13s have been put on the no-aerobatics diet I know, so as to extend
their life.
studentpilot
RT wrote:
> *studentpilot wrote in message ...
>
> >RT wrote:[color=green]
> >> If ther useless thing HAD flown instead of hanging around the
> house
> >> with its
> >> mates making a bloody awful noise day and night for the last month
> or
> >> more,
You acknowledge "Storm Birds" are Channeled Billed Cookoo's? What's the
colour of a brown duck got to do with it clown? You'd be a good one to
live next to, shot gun pellets raining down on the roof.
Your now the self appointed expert on all things wild as well as the
opinioned and loudmouthed expert on aviation. Perhaps you'll tell
everyone what you wildlife qualifications are just like you did with
with your aviation expirience, you gutless net prowler.
You may have a little play around "werkin on" machinery, is that the
problem? You think you do all the work and then some one else has the
fun bit of flying. Did a pilot run off with you girlfriend once? Is
that the reason you hate pilots so much?Maybe if you did some flying
the world would be a better place, you would'nt have to be so hostile
and bitter.
Yes there are grammar and spelling errors (you won't have to run
spellcheck, WERKIN is one). You were almost right I have lived in
Melbourne but it was only for 6 months, I found it an interesting place
to live.:D
Tosser
> I am now officially "old". Had my first bowls lesson today. Parked it near
the jack a few times
> too !
Omigod! I read that as "bowels" the first time through!
<ROFL>
Graeme Hogan
"Stealth Pilot" <tail...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:k79etvgeg3566p2gq...@4ax.com...
> you may also see references to it as 'the secondary effect of' some
> control input.
>
> for instance secondary effect of rudder is roll in an aircraft with
> dihedral
Why didedral, wouldn't any wing do it.
JB
in particular have a look at what it says about intertia roll coupling.
A 'secondary effect' will not cause an aircraft to yaw violently to the
left, upon application of right aileron (with zero rudder). That's the sort
of behaviour coupling can come up with...
JB
"Stealth Pilot" <tail...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:k79etvgeg3566p2gq...@4ax.com...
Tosser
"Graeme Hogan" <ghog...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3fd911f2$0$13107$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Yus.
Back to the books for Stealth.
If anything, anhedral should be more pronounced due to dutch roll.
IMO.
RT
____________________________________________
>> So the official name of the "bloody noisey yellow tailed black
>> cockies" is?
>> And their range is? And characteristics are?
____________________________________________________________
>> And I really DO want answers to those questions, studentpilot.
>> Because I'm
>> fairly sure you're bullshitting and have no clue about any wild life
>> whatever. In fact I suspect you couldn't tell the difference
>> between a
>> black and a wood duck (eg) and have spent the entire extent of your
>> miserable existence in hi-rise in Melbourne
>> >studentpilot
>>
>> At least you got your nik right - you *are* the perpetual student -
>> perpetually pig-ignorant. *
>You acknowledge "Storm Birds" are Channeled Billed Cookoo's?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? <giggle> Nope. Absolutely NOT. You really do
have no clue, do you?
Now would you care to answer the question asked in the last post:
_______________________________________
So the official name of the "bloody noisey yellow tailed black cockies" is?
And their range is? And characteristics are?
_________________________________________
> What's the
>colour of a brown duck got to do with it clown? You'd be a good one to
>live next to, shot gun pellets raining down on the roof.
>Your now the self appointed expert on all things wild as well as the
>opinioned and loudmouthed expert on aviation. Perhaps you'll tell
>everyone what you wildlife qualifications are just like you did with
>with your aviation expirience, you gutless net prowler.
Erm - "gutless"?
One of us uses his real name. One doesn't. So who is gutless,
"""studentpilot"""?
And the question I asked was:
_______________________________________
So the official name of the "bloody noisey yellow tailed black cockies" is?
And their range is? And characteristics are?
_________________________________________
>You may have a little play around "werkin on" machinery, is that the
>problem? You think you do all the work and then some one else has the
>fun bit of flying. Did a pilot run off with you girlfriend once? Is
>that the reason you hate pilots so much?Maybe if you did some flying
>the world would be a better place, you would'nt have to be so hostile
>and bitter.
"Did a pilot run off with you girlfriend once?" (I suppose you meant
"your" - but in any case it's funny you should mention that, because
exactly the opposite happened :-) :-) - and I have a commercial :-)
Now answer the question:
_______________________________________
So the official name of the "bloody noisey yellow tailed black cockies" is?
And their range is? And characteristics are?
_________________________________________
>Yes there are grammar and spelling errors (you won't have to run
>spellcheck, WERKIN is one). You were almost right I have lived in
>Melbourne but it was only for 6 months, I found it an interesting place
>to live.:D
Oh, I'm so pleased for you - now answer the question:
_______________________________________
So the official name of the "bloody noisey yellow tailed black cockies" is?
And their range is? And characteristics are?
_________________________________________
Or go back to to amusing yourself by abusing yourself until grade 6 starts
next year and leave the rest of us in peace........
Tosser
>
> >You acknowledge "Storm Birds" are Channeled Billed Cookoo's?
>
> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? <giggle> Nope. Absolutely NOT.
But they are channel-billed cuckoos.
I reckon you blew away one of the noisy buggers --- a koel.
The female looks similar to the c-b cuckoo and is nearly as noisy as its male,
the one that whoops in the middle of the night.
I had a couple in my mulberries last month.
Amazing to think they flap all the way from PNG or Indonesia and back just for
the summer...
(Those that survive the air defences of feral banana-benders, that is).
Cheers.
RT
Tosser wrote in message ...
>
>news:brcet2$1r8be$1...@ID-194795.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>
>> >You acknowledge "Storm Birds" are Channeled Billed Cookoo's?
>>
>> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? <giggle> Nope. Absolutely NOT.
>
>But they are channel-billed cuckoos.
Que? No way known to man!
Storm birds are little birds - unless you Mexicans have redesignated 'em!
>I reckon you blew away one of the noisy buggers --- a koel.
>
>The female looks similar to the c-b cuckoo and is nearly as noisy as its
male,
>the one that whoops in the middle of the night.
>
>I had a couple in my mulberries last month.
Mmm - don't think so, but'll go back to my bird books to make sure
>Amazing to think they flap all the way from PNG or Indonesia and back just
for
>the summer...
>
>(Those that survive the air defences of feral banana-benders, that is).
Heh :-) From now on I'll net 'em and post 'em to you for your
mulberries :-)
Tosser
> Heh :-) From now on I'll net 'em and post 'em to you for your
> mulberries :-)
Nah. I'll send you the tree.
<GRIN>
studentpilot
RT wrote:
> *studentpilot wrote in message ...
> >
> >RT wrote:[color=green]
> >> *studentpilot wrote in message ...
> >> >RT wrote:[color=green]
> >> >> If ther useless thing HAD flown instead of hanging around the
> >> house
> >> >> with its
> >> >> mates making a bloody awful noise day and night for the last
> month
> >> or
> >> >> more,
> [color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >I look forward to hearing and seeing "stormbirds" at this time
> of
> >> the
> >> >year, it means round here the colder weather is gone for a
> [color=green]
> >> Oh - how sweet, diddums.
> >> Must make a nice change from Indian Miners and sparrows.
> >> Have you any f'ing idea what a channel bill cuckoo sounds like?
> [color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >I'll bet you blow away those pesky Lyre birds too RT, making all
> >> that
> >> >noise, what about those bloody noisey yellow tailed black
> cockies
> >> more
> [color=green]
> >> Now that is really interesting, oh Wannabe Great White Protector
> of
> ____________________________________________[color=green]
> >> So the official name of the "bloody noisey yellow tailed black
> >> cockies" is?
> ____________________________________________________________[color=green]
> >> And I really DO want answers to those questions, studentpilot.
> >> Because I'm
> >> fairly sure you're bullshitting and have no clue about any wild
> life
> >> whatever. In fact I suspect you couldn't tell the difference
> >> between a
> >> black and a wood duck (eg) and have spent the entire extent of
> your
> [color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >studentpilot
> >>
> >> At least you got your nik right - you *are* the perpetual student
> -
>
> >You acknowledge "Storm Birds" are Channeled Billed Cookoo's?
>
You always answer a question with another question clown? You still
havn't told everyone what you do for a living gutless. What are your
wildlife qualifications?. Sooooo you have a commercial (if that's
pilots licence you should get out and use it), is that pilots licence
or something else like a commercial wildlife expert that qualifies you
to shoot wildlife. Real name ehh? RT seems unusally short for a
real name, wanker would suit better.
RT
studentpilot wrote in message ...
Erm, aptly named, me ole china ;-)
The first rule is if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging :-)
Stealth Pilot
<studen...@REMOVETHISOziPilotsOnline.com.au> wrote:
>You always answer a question with another question clown? You still
>havn't told everyone what you do for a living gutless. What are your
>wildlife qualifications?. Sooooo you have a commercial (if that's
>pilots licence you should get out and use it), is that pilots licence
>or something else like a commercial wildlife expert that qualifies you
>to shoot wildlife. Real name ehh? RT seems unusally short for a
>real name, wanker would suit better.
mate I'll vouch for the guy.
RT are his initials.
shoot wildlife? you dont need credentials for that you just need to be
a good shot. he qualifies there as well :-)
Stealth (RT a wanker ....never!) Pilot
studentpilot
Stealth Pilot wrote:
> *On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:46:42 +1100, studentpilot
R christian name I believe, Sole would be a better surname. Mr Sole
still won't answer questions. :D
studentpilot
GB wrote:
> *studentpilot <studen...@REMOVETHISOziPilotsOnline.com.au> wrote
> in
> news:studentpi...@OziPilotsOnline.com.au:
> > Your now the self appointed expert on all things wild as well as
> the
> > opinioned and loudmouthed expert on aviation.
>
> been here for at least two weeks now, plenty of time to become
> an expert at everything. (Except maybe grammar, spelling, and
> the correct use of the lesser apostrophe.)
>
> G *
It's good you care so much, just tell me to fix my posting style now
and you'll have all the issues that matter. Both you and RT or R
Sole as the case my be have been welcoming and warm people and it's
good to see you encourage conflicting views. :D
SP
Alan
You've been posting here since Oct. It's time you started being constructive
instead of abusive - especially to people who have been contributing in a
positive manner to the group for years.
Hope you take the advice - new "talent" is always welcome.
Alan
RT
studentpilot wrote in message ...
>
>> mate I'll vouch for the guy.
>> RT are his initials.
>>
>> shoot wildlife? you dont need credentials for that you just need to
>> be
>> a good shot. he qualifies there as well :-)
Be fair to the poor studentpilot - he doesn't know I was the Australasian
director of the international shooting coaches association, member of the
state team, state coach etc :-)
>> Stealth (RT a wanker ....never!) Pilot *
Ta, Stealth - but it still won't get you a discount :-) And on that topic
her indoors is now hooked on Houghton's Chenin Blanc which I will admit is a
1/2 respectable rough white. However you bloody West Australians are a
buncha thieves for the prices you charge for your bathtub plonk ........
<sigh> :-( Prolly cheaper to buy a B-double tanker and do a run across
the Nullabor.........
>R christian name I believe, Sole would be a better surname. Mr Sole
>still won't answer questions.
>studentpilot
"Still won't answer questions", eh?
And your answers to:
_______________________________________
> So the official name of the "bloody noisey yellow tailed black
> cockies" is?
> And their range is? And characteristics are?
> _________________________________________
(which I've already asked you 47 times before) are?
<snigger>
Slow learner eh, studentpilot?
Now stop digging that hole you're in before you bugger your back.
Oh - and F-orf until you have something sensible and/or interesting to say.
Ben James
midnight rambling from the senile old goat snipped in the interests of
good taste.
><snigger>
>
>Slow learner eh, studentpilot?
>
>Now stop digging that hole you're in before you bugger your back.
>
>Oh - and F-orf until you have something sensible and/or interesting to say.
>
paying the freight while you scum off the taxpayers and the Tax Office
with your cushy little CQU freeby internet arrangement.
Of course you do declare that fringe benefit don't you?
RT
Ben James wrote in message <5vtotv83qh2j4h883...@4ax.com>...
>He's got every right express his own opinion in here - unlike you he's
>paying the freight while you scum off the taxpayers and the Tax Office
>with your cushy little CQU freeby internet arrangement.
>
>Of course you do declare that fringe benefit don't you?
Fringe benefit? This is like your wannabee corn snakes at Maroochydore is
it, Ben baby?
You poor stumbling idiot. And now - your post to aus.av that has anything
to do with aus. (or av.) or any bloody thing at all is.................?
Taught a corn snake to fly recently have you ?
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh............
<sigh>
Just go back to aus.politics and stay there where everyone has you
killfiled, eh?
(For the benefit of newbies: The ole Ben has this real thing about snakes.
He has been agitating for at least 5 years to get permission to import/keep
"""corn snakes""". No, I don't know why. No, I don't think he has a
wife.)
studentpilot
Alan wrote:
> *studentpilot
There are other views Alan, as I posted on the NAS thread. I stated my
views and they were treated with contempt and hostile replies.
There are people that fly for a living and agree with the NAS, you GB,
RT and the LAME or ATC association or whoever you are, havn't been able
to accept that. So far you've all been proven wrong, if something does
happen Nas will be blamed, resposible or not.
I'll treat the posts on merit and reply with a view (spelling,
grammEr, use of the lesser apostrophe and posting style included).
Your just posting for a bite RT? "Flood, Rain or Stormbird; Giant or
Storm Cuckoo; Fig Hawk, Hornbill, Channel-bill, Toucan.....Scythrops
novaehollandiae....any OZ bird book.
International shooting coach eh? bet you've got a mustache too.:D
studentpilot
RT wrote:
> *Ben James wrote in message
> <5vtotv83qh2j4h883...@4ax.com>...
> >He's got every right express his own opinion in here - unlike you
> he's
> >paying the freight while you scum off the taxpayers and the Tax
> Office
> >with your cushy little CQU freeby internet arrangement.
> >
> >Of course you do declare that fringe benefit don't you?
>
> Maroochydore is
> it, Ben baby?
>
> You poor stumbling idiot. And now - your post to aus.av that has
> anything
> to do with aus. (or av.) or any bloody thing at all
> is.................?
> Taught a corn snake to fly recently have you ?
> Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh............
>
>
> <sigh>
>
> Just go back to aus.politics and stay there where everyone has you
> killfiled, eh?
>
> (For the benefit of newbies: The ole Ben has this real thing about
> snakes.
> He has been agitating for at least 5 years to get permission to
> import/keep
> """corn snakes""". No, I don't know why. No, I don't think he has
> a
And what have you flown lately RT? All you post are about aviation too
are they RT?, the international coach shooting wildlife out the house
window sort of aviation posts?:D
Paul Repacholi
> Stealth (RT a wanker ....never!) Pilot
No way!. He is a Queenslander, and they can never remember which end
of the bannana to hold :)
mqd_117.3
studentpilot wrote:
> *There are other views Alan, as I posted on the NAS thread. I stated
> my views and they were treated with contempt and hostile replies.
> There are people that fly for a living and agree with the NAS, you
> GB, RT and the LAME or ATC association or whoever you are, havn't
> been able to accept that. So far you've all been proven wrong, if
> something does happen Nas will be blamed, resposible or not.
> I'll treat the posts on merit and reply with a view (spelling,
> grammEr, use of the lesser apostrophe and posting style included).
> Your just posting for a bite RT? "Flood, Rain or Stormbird; Giant or
> Storm Cuckoo; Fig Hawk, Hornbill, Channel-bill, Toucan.....Scythrops
> novaehollandiae....any OZ bird book.
>
>
SP,
I've been sitting back watching you turn this thread and others like
it, into complete and utter drivel and you wonder why your views are
"treated with contempt".
MQD_117.3
--
mqd_117.3
studentpilot
mqd_117.3 wrote:
> *SP,
>
> I've been sitting back watching you turn this thread and others like
> it, into complete and utter drivel and you wonder why your views are
> "treated with contempt".
>
Complete and utter drivel? you blokes have to admit there are other
views and you don't know everything (although RT has international
shooting coaching, wildlife and the shooting of, airspace, flying in
general and pedantics as his specialty subjects). Even if others havn't
your vast knowledge base and world expirence, surely they can comment
without being debased and ridiculed? If not, expect some criticism and
the respect you give wanker.
--
studentpilot
mqd_117.3
studentpilot wrote:
> *Complete and utter drivel? you blokes have to admit there are other
> views and you don't know everything (although RT has international
> shooting coaching, wildlife and the shooting of, airspace, flying in
> general and pedantics as his specialty subjects). Even if others
> havn't your vast knowledge base and world expirence, surely they can
> comment without being debased and ridiculed? If not, expect some
SP,
I suppose your reply makes sense to you..........It's sure got me
f^#$*ed !!!
MQD_117.3
--
mqd_117.3
RT
Paul Repacholi wrote in message <873cbn2...@prep.synonet.com>...
>Stealth Pilot <tail...@iinet.net.au> writes:
>
>> Stealth (RT a wanker ....never!) Pilot
>
>No way!. He is a Queenslander, and they can never remember which end
>of the bannana to hold :)
Heh! Last blue flashes you get from ME, mate! :-)
RT
Tosser wrote in message ...
>
Heh. Anyway, you were right - bloody Koels. I prolly should get a better
bird book.......
Ben James
RT
Ben James wrote in message ...
>Wrong dude man. Never posted to aus.politics in my life.
>
>On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:14:09 +1000, "RT" <r.th...@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>You poor stumbling idiot. And now - your post to aus.av that has
anything
Fair nuff.
Tosser
"JB" <jb0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ey9Cb.49006$aT.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> No Stealth, coupling is not the standard secondary effect. Read the article,
> in particular have a look at what it says about intertia roll coupling.
>
> A 'secondary effect' will not cause an aircraft to yaw violently to the
> left, upon application of right aileron (with zero rudder). That's the sort
> of behaviour coupling can come up with...
Sorry to revisit something five days old, JB, but doesn't the A4 have
differential ailerons?
And, is this is the case, was there some design reason?
Cheers.
Ben James
>
>Ben James wrote in message ...
>>Wrong dude man. Never posted to aus.politics in my life.
>Fair nuff.
>
That's cool :-).
BTW, that helo in the Flooded Runway thread didn't crash. IIRC Boeing
Vertol in the Arctic ca 1982 towing a barge or sled with huge weight
of oil drilling gear. Also IIRC John Eacott posted somewhere on a
thread about it a coupla yrs back.