Garfly

What do you do if you crash a twin engine transport (like a Fairchild C-82 Packet) in the desert and you can't be found? Well, as survivors, you gather your wits, your know-how and on-board tools and build yourself a single from bits of wreckage and take-off to safety. The producers did, in fact, construct just such a one-off Phoenix which was flyable. However, the real-world stunt pilot was not as lucky as our fictional heroes were. Flight of the Phoenix is intelligently directed by Robert Aldrich with a great cast including (real pilot) James Stewart, Dickie Attenborough and Peter Finch. Some of the interesting back-story: The Flight of the Phoenix (1965 film) - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG Fairchild C-82 Packet - Wikipedia EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG https://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Mantz-P1.htm The Flight of the Phoenix (1965) - Trivia - IMDb WWW.IMDB.COM The Flight of the Phoenix (1965) - Trivia on IMDb: Cameos, Mistakes, Spoilers and more...

Lead?! Hopefully few 912's do. C02, maybe. (But if you're up there for the view, a high wing is quite efficient ;- )

Me three.

Thrusty, you have too much fun at both ends of the speed spectrum! ;- )

This is the vid about the Zenith 701 guy in Canada who's first to fly behind a ZD in North America. (Engine discussion starts in earnest at 09:23 and goes for about 4 mins) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EviMc7UtueY

A new vid on the topic.

And now it seems the Skyranger has joined Foxbat on the suicide frontline.

Hopey, if you haven't come across it yet, you might find this (UK) Wing Nuts YT channel interesting:

Well, whoever resorts to this kind of research in this context hasn't studied airframe parachute 'landings'. Of course, just a small amount of collision force dissipation over time (crush) makes for much higher human survivability. No one doubts it. But we're talking here of 'arrival' speeds of between 10 and 20 knots. And whereas that could do damage statistics show that only a few airframe arrivals under canopy have led to occupant injury. Cirrus apart, not many ultralight BRS equipped craft would have crash-crush protection, however, the landing gear (for feet first only) seems to do the same shock absorbing job as it does for your everyday drop-it-on heavy landing. Only more so ;- )

Regarding the pull force needed in typical BRS devices, this is from an article by Thierry Couderc in the French "Bulletin of Flight Safety" Sep 2017 "The length of stroke and the force to be applied are nothing like the gesture of squeezing a brake lever or pulling the engine choke. The action to expect is more akin to the effort required to start a small chainsaw engine with a cord. Moreover, the user manuals for the most widely distributed parachutes mention, depending on the model, a pull force which will gradually increase until reaching 6 to 9 kilos at the end of its run of approximately 40 centimeters." bsv-40-septembre-2017.pdf For anyone interested, the full article, below, is actually a discussion on the best placement of the red handle in the cockpit. (This translation is my own gloss on Google's best efforts.) The parachute handle By Thierry COUDERC The relatively high number of ultralights equipped with airframe parachutes which weren’t deployed in accidents where they might have helped, had us wondering why. Could it be explained by the fact of the victims simply having had problems triggering the rocket? People who've had the experience of using ballistic ‘chutes often mention how surprised they were by the force and length of pull needed to ignite the rocket. It appears that quite a few of us have some wrong ideas about how these things work. Of course, it's essential to treat the handle with care to avoid inadvertent launches - with potentially serious consequences. But contrary to what we might think, it's not like a mouse trap, primed to snap as soon as the safety pin's removed. The firing device is actually not that sensitive; not easily triggered by mistake - at least not with the current pyrotechnic devices (*). Their design meets proven principles of safety and reliability. At rest, no element of the mechanism is in tension. It is the pulling of the handle which causes its arming, then, towards the end of the stroke, it's triggered. Thus, pulling on the cable will cause three successive actions (**): 1.Tensioning a spring to arm the percussion mechanism. 2.The removal of the mechanical safety devices which protect the primers against unwanted ignition, particularly in the event of a violent impact. 3. The release of the percussion mechanism. The length of stroke and the force to be applied are nothing like the gesture of squeezing a brake lever or pulling the engine choke. The action to expect is more akin to the effort required to start a small chainsaw engine with a cord. Moreover, the user manuals for the most widely distributed parachutes mention, depending on the model, a pull force which will gradually increase until reaching 6 to 9 kilos at the end of its run of approximately 40 centimeters. These parameters suggest that handles may not always be well placed to allow them to be pulled from the pilot’s seat with the necessary force over the entire length of the cable stroke. If the chosen location does not provide sufficient clearance to allow an easy pull, in an emergency situation, the occupants, possibly facing stress and unusual attitudes, may not manage to complete the pull. We must, then, consider what it would be like, faced with the need to pull the handle, in a given aircraft. In some cases, it may be wise to think about a change of location. For example, a handle arranged facing the pilots at the level of the instrument panel must be able to be pulled back without them needing to undo their harnesses in order to pull through without hitting obstacles such as a handle or lever, and/or without prematurely having their elbows blocked by the rear bulkhead. In any case, pulling the handle horizontally with the arm stretched to bring it back to towards the torso, may not be the most ergonomic option when it comes to exerting a continuous and progressively powerful pull. The most suitable locations could be: • The handle placed high, oriented forward and downward, behind the head, roughly above one shoulder, at ear level or on the ceiling. We reach up with the hand and push forward. This is the configuration used on certified aircraft which are equipped as standard. • The handle facing forward and upwards, placed in the low position on one side at the hip, which you grab with the hand on the other side while crossing your arm in front of you, to pull it here also forward, but upwards. • The handle located on the floor between the legs behind the stick, if there is one, turned slightly towards the rear, which can be pulled upwards. This type of assembly is known to favor speed of implementation, provided that the gesture is possible given the set up of the seat harness. But it assumes the installation of one handle per seat if we want both occupants have access to it. Be careful though, these are just suggestions, listing a few set-ups that have proven themselves. The most appropriate arrangement will clearly depend on the particular configuration.

And you mine. We're square. Although, you didn't answer my question.

Turbs, I really don't understand your almost religious devotion to the text of that particular PPL O&P module. Sure, it's good (and something like it is necessary) but just 'doing' a module - once - doesn't guarantee much in the real world. (As you point out, yourself, vis-a-vis the OP video). Anyway, how can 'picking and plucking' (aka, continuing study and consolidation of knowledge) lead to aircraft flying at different heights in the circuit? Makes no sense. Also, regarding the need to be "fluent enough to replan in the air for safe transit and landing at an alternate field if the weather ahead of you closes in. etc." : maybe having some handy rules-of-thumb in your head (and/or checklist) would be even better than those "step by step calculations" you worked through once, yonks ago, to satisfy the regulator that you 'knew' that stuff. In any case, pilots not averse to a little "picking and plucking" might find the Performance rules-of-thumb, cited above, useful, somehow. I know I did.

I like this article on the subject of DA / Aircraft Performance: DA EFFECTS ON PERF..pdf A few highlights: (screen shots - click for full rez)

https://discussions.flightaware.com/t/general-confusion-about-aircraft-ads-b-altitude/79557 "ADS-B and Mode S (and for that matter Mode C) transmit uncorrected pressure altitude as the primary altitude value. That is, it’s directly related to static air pressure. That’s not necessarily a true altitude, and it needs to be adjusted to produce a correct height above AMSL or height AGL, but it has the large advantage that every aircraft is doing exactly the same thing, which is very important when used for resolving conflicts"

Yeah, Juan was asking the same question, that is, about a kill switch for pilots in case the seat starts moving forward while they're in it (un-commanded by the pilot's own seat switches on the console). The design of the rocker switch on the seat-back presumably assumes that the cover is there to guard against inadvertent operation whenever the seat was occupied. But there ya go In the confusion of having a meal tray plonked down on your moveable table and your sudden realisation that you're being moved forward relentlessly - and possibly being out of reach of the console switches (even assuming they countermand the rear switch) I can imagine the inevitable HF/WTF! pause could easily see you - or your dinner - jamming the yoke forward to no good effect. Certainly would not have been trained for in the simulator.

Juan explains:

This recent (30 min) video history of the B727 has a sting in its T-tail for today's Boeing Company.

2022 Kangawallafox KWF Aircraft | Aircraft Listing | Plane Sales Australia WWW.PLANESALES.COM.AU This aircraft holds the current Australian record for the most touch-and-go circuits in one day. 145 circuits were completed in 6.8 engine hours. I thought that this was the best way for me to prove the concept of the...

Wow! What's going to happen to our friendly, quick and savvy local support service? Will we all be moved over (like it or lump it) to the FF app, after OzRWYs Classic is quietly withdrawn? This comes as a bit of a shock - even for iOS users; a Starbucks style takeover, quite out of the blue. Will AvPlan bat on as the only little Aussie battler EFB?

Not too many takers for Lisa's "Just make the next 5 seconds perfect" little mind trick to counter mental drift (vid above). Well, Paul Bertorelli came up with an equally pithy take on the same subject which might prove more memorable: "You are unlikely to stall if you just take your head out of your ass." He goes on, in this film (posted before) to confess his own failure to comply, which, he reckons, very nearly did him in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2mzsjXn88Y&t=73s

Yes, I've had quite similar lapses and I know exactly what you mean. But then, it's generally agreed that humans (+ friends) can only really concentrate on one thing at a time; So what to do about it? ... how to get the discipline needed to save us, as pilots, from our primal brains. (To be fair to the Creator Spirit, flying too high with some guy in the sky was Her idea of nothing to do.) Of course, the old "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" mantra addresses the same (universal) problemo. In any case, I just found this video of a US CFI, "Lisa", in conversation with Rich Stowell. Among other things, she explains that after many years of instructing, she finally came up with her own simple mantra to help her students: "Just make the next 5 seconds perfect". (Long enough for any squirrel to be no-factor ;- ) She explains it from around 06:30

As I read it, anything below 1000kg MTOW will be deemed a tonne of fun, no less.