flying dog

Yeah well, seeing somd replies, it seems people are not allowed to SPEAK THEIR OPINIONS if they are not in line with what is expected. (And I wonder why I am so %ucked up with social iteractions.) I'm outa here. Again I dont need this re-enforcement of how useless I am.

Weird, I got 2 notifications of replies and neither was for the only one I see as a reply. Anyway, in "reply" to the reply: Here is an analogy and I hope it is right - or I will look a bit silly. (I can live with that I guess. Done it for all my life so far.) I dont need say any more.

Just a couple of things: If rego become/s: VH-XXX, there is going to be a problem. Now, RAA are 19- 24- 55- and something else. Also they are numbers, not letters. Not that it will be a blanket change, but this will put more planes in the VH- range. THEY ARE GOING TO RUN OUT QUICKER! Not that that is a problem for the owners, but systemically there will be a problem. And guess who pay for fixing these kind of problems ONCE they have happened? The users! Oh, a PS at the start: (Yeah, ok I am not one of these bookface people, (I kinda have a life) and though it may be "the way" think about this: If it is a company, they would have a website set up as well - if not first. Why haven't they got a WEB PAGE? Forget the excuses: We haven't got around to it, etc. If they are serious, all that would have been done as a matter of fact and be done by this stage. So if they can't get that sequence right, what else aren't they getting right?) That is a whole can of worms. WHO are these people? REALLY??!! Although "our" system has "problems" (voting, politics, etc) NO SYSTEM IS PERFECT, and excluding these from the new system may look good, but it WILL have problems. "We" vote on things which are (though sometimes not easily seen) to do with us! The rules which control where were we fly, the weight, altitude and all that kind of stuff. Those things are part and parcel of the "game of flying". Similar to the rego for your car. So these 50 people CONTROL the system. You are a CLIENT - as stated - so you have less say. Here is an analogy and I hope it is right - or I will look a bit silly. (I can live with that I guess. Done it for all my life so far.) 1 - You buy a car outright. It is YOURS! You have to pay rego, insurance, etc. But you can drive it on what ever road you want and any problems are YOURS. 2 - You go into a syndicate where a few of your "mates" also chip in for the car. All in all, it is "yours" as in, you know the people who own it. You all chip in for communal rego, and other costs, and pay for petrol as needed. This is nice in the beginning, but as time goes on problems appear. "You are driving the car more than the rest" "The dent wasn't there when I left the car" "Who drove the car and didn't check the oil first?" "You are driving the car a lot less than expected" and so on. But you still KNOW (well, that is now up for debate) the people. Money divides the group and friendships are lost. It does happen. 3 - You rent a car from a company, as needed. It only costs you to drive it per kilometre. But it COSTS more / KM than if you bought it in example 1. The cost can change at the company's will (remember what happened with the GREEN SLIPS for cars). You have no say. When you take it back, THEY dictate the cost you pay. Fighting it is an expensive proposition. If you don't like it, go to "another" rent-a-car company and have the EXACT SAME THING done to you, just differently. I am sure you get the meaning. As CLIENTS your rights are restricted and though this will be glossed over when you "sign here" you REALLY should get a microscope (forget the magnifying glass) and go over it quite a few times. Sure it may be better, but it also may be worse. I am not trying to be an antagonist, but before things change: "We" need to really know the BIG PICTURE of what is going on. Is this simply a grab by people for money? They set up a Pty Ltd and they are NOT linked to the financial happenings. (Ltd kinda gives it away.) They get members, site new (different?) rules and things "go south". WHO is liable? I'm not saying the answers are any easier now with what we have. But further complicating it does NOT make it easier. Sure it would be nice if it makes it SIMPLER, but honestly? People higher up the food chain won't let that happen. Please be careful in your choices. This is simply an external view, and though some may see it as biased, believe me: It isn't. It is calling it as I see it. Sure it may be a poor reflection on me as a person, but standing in judgement of me for that is more a poor reflection of yourself than of me. NO ONE is perfect. I wish you all well in the outcome.

I'm then taking it no one actually has seen said episode of ACI. :( (Should I?) SPOILER SPACE! The problem was a nut/bolt assembly fell "off" the slat mechanism and when the slats were retracted, the bolt punctured the fuel tank, and so when the engines were shut down: Blam-o! After extensive research, they discovered that the washer had fallen off the bolt and so the entire nut/bolt unit would "fall through the hole which would otherwise be stopped by the washer. The nut was taken off because of a "design flaw" where the nut could come off anyway and cause such a problem. In taking off the nut and applying locktight, the washer fell off and so negated the nut being fixed on. (How much do the people who design these things get paid? It seriously worries me when you see the problems.) So: Although the bolt couldn't fit through the hole, the nut could. So a washer was used. BUT HANG ON! WTF??!! If the nut can pass through the hole: Isn't the bolt too thin? That's a pretty simple question. I just can't see HOW this happened - in real life - that no one actually thought: "Maybe we should make the bolt a bit thicker, or the hole a bit smaller." Using the washer there seems........ stooopid. And that they didn't put a crown nut rather than a normal nut seems just ......... (I give up.)

I recently watched the ACI about the China air plane which caught fire after landing and AFTER engine shut down. (No spoilers.) But it has raised this query from me: What is the function of a washer? Apart from the possible exclusion of a spring washer which is used to keep nuts tight....... I don't get it. As a kid, I accept that I knew "jack" about how that kind of thing worked. There were simply "nuts and bolts". It seems weird that a washer is needed for the function mentioned in that episode. Actually if I remember I will put my idea on a better solution at the end. Also, the word BOLT is somewhat vague and general, as really what most people call a BOLT is not a bolt, but something else which I now can't remember. But AFAIK, the idea is that two things are to be joined at a point, a "nut and bolt" combination facilitates that. Similar to nailing two pieces of wood together. I won't start on SCREWS. As there are "now" nylock nuts and crown nuts, I am really stumped to the mechanics of a washer - as in THAT episode. But, I am interested to learn and expand my knowledge on their functions if anyone is willing to share. Thanks in advance. (spoiler space) So the "problem" was the nuts were coming off the bolts. The solution was to put locktight on them. Why not use a crown nut and lock wire? Yeah, ok, they would still need to remove the existing one, blah blah. AND the bolt too.... Ok. But also the "practice" of not having a good view of the area seems silly. It is leaving a whole new vector for faults - as shown - to happen. That seems very strange.

Noisy Italian........ That's a given. Is there any other kind?

Funny, I thought it was a 74'.

It may be old, but I am just fascinated by this. It is a JET POWERED Cri Cri! Oh, and look at the rego too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAdCt6qgj9k

There is a story about a jet. Flying over the ocean, carrying a lot of people. They deviated from their flight path and went a bit south of the plan. Suddenly, it was noticed that they were losing fuel! Because of systemic problems with the process, they did NOT shut off the fuel to that engine and rather connected the tanks together with the cross flow system. This further wasted fuel. Only by luck did they make it and no one was killed. Having the two tanks linked could be very dangerous for that exact reason. You get a leak in one tank and it drains - not too much of a worry. You get a leak in one tank and both tanks run empty: BIG PROBLEM

And who was playing with the joy stick! EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

Then you include the 19 but otherwise.....

Robbo, I was kidding. It wasn't used on the Menangle report.

If we are reporting accidents, I think YYMMDD should suffice. 20 is a given now.

AARRGGHH!! The C Word!

Yeah, but I was just thinking if *we* can put a LITTLE effort into the subject line it could help so many people. Ah, what do I know. ;)

Hey, I won't be the first and probably not the last, but double posts on the same topic are a bit silly. I am sorry I goofed with the Menagle one just yesterday. When posting abut an incident, I was wondering if we should try to adopt a way of doing the SUBJECT so double ups are not as easy? (OPEN DISCUSSION) Location Incident Type-of-plane Severity That way you know: Where, What, Type and how bad. If something is not known, put something like: Menangle landing ---- no deaths I know it is dangerous for me, but it is just a thought. :)

Sorry guys, I didn't see this when I posted my thread about the Menangle landing.

So, other than what happened, I wonder how red his little botty will be. RUNNING OUT OF FUEL! Gee that is just sloppy airmanship.

Only a brief mention on the news. And! It was NOT a Cessna! <wink> Low wing. No one injured.

Yeah, well, I don't venture into those parts of the existence. Life is hard enough. Stay away from dangerous places like drugs/murder and that sort of stuff. There are enough other things to try which do not have anywhere near as harsh a judgement on them.

Phew, Then I am not the ONLY "fruit loop" in here. Onetrack: Dude, guilty or innocent, I ask myself this when I read these stories: If you go a another country OBEY THEIR RULES. There are no IF's or BUTs about it. All this winging about the punishment. If you don't like the "Terms and conditions" then DON'T GO!

Terminator (Arnie) Rise of the machines. Sarah Connor is the ONLY person who can save us from SKYNET - where AI takes over because humans are deemed too dumb. Originally Arnie was sent back to kill her, and failed. She hacked him and so they sent back another one (Terminator 2) and it tries to kill her and her son.

Dunno if you have been listening to the news lately, but I think this is just too good not to pass on. An Aussie woman (MOTHER) called Sarah Connor has been arrested overseas on the claim she killed a local police officer. So, it would seem Skynet is really out to get her. She has a son, who may be our only hope to stop the machines rising against us!

Thanks Tillmanr, I was trying to find the link too. That's it.

Kinda shame - huh?