flying dog

Wow, that's news for me. I got 24 out of my first one....... Hang on..... 107-84= close enough.

Yeah, ok. Got the first part. Nothing is perfect, etc. Kinda remember stuff about internal resistance. But how do you get the end ones getting more heat? If the chemical reactions create heat, wouldn't the middle ones get hotter as they have less external surface area? The end ones have a whole side exposed. Ah, "Downunder" posted while I was typing. Yeah, ok. Fair enough. For a 10 year old battery, I guess it has to die at some stage.

Yeah, but why the end two and not others?

And ok, not so much FLYING, but for my car. I'm an old fart and have an OLD battery in my car. The type where you can add water. Recently I was looking and there was a bit of white powder around the top where the clamp is. Corrosion. :( Ok, cleaned it and got rid of the muck. While there, I looked in the 6 cells. The FIRST and LAST were low in water. It has been too long since I did battery physics. Why the end two only?

No, don't be silly! I do things inDOGnito! I have an image to maintain. <Wink>

Facthunter, Not as far as I remember. I am given the log in screen, Username/password. There are references to bookface and the like. Just opened a new window and went to recflying and pressed the log in button: Username Password (log in Yes I am a member / become one) Book face / Tweeter log in. huh? LOG IN No "Remember me" to be seen. Ian, Granted it ma not be "your" problem, but this is getting annoying/worse. Every week I am sent the "popular topics" e-mail and it is nice. I read the interesting ones. But can't reply because I am not logged in. Weird, as in another TAB I am... But anyway, on the a "newer" problem related to this. So this weeks topic is "Nailed it!" Nailed it! Strong language warning, don't do this I can't post/watch the clip. (Dunno at this stage because of bookface or just not being logged in to this site.) Ok, go to search: Type in ---- nailed it Can't see it listed. Press BACK button and try --- strong language and tick the search topic only (as I guess opposed to ALL text) "Showing results 1 of 1" and the rest of the screen is BLANK. I'd send you a screen shot, but a: I can't as I am using a Raspberry Pi and don't know how to. b: The resolution is WAY beyond 1024 x 768 c: I need to be logged into search, and just now I am typing this post in the ONLY window in which I am logged in. (I don't want to start a trek to find my password) This "problem" isn't nice, as I am wanting to read the WHOLE thread with all privileges of a member, but can't. When I try to find it, I am bounced around with the search thingy.

It looks like SOME of it. The DVD is not just a 15 minute thing. It is about 1 hour long. There are 3/4 parts to it. I haven't watched it for years, sorry. I shall try to remember to dig it out (dig - dog... Ha!) and get more details. Update: The DVD is 54:20 long. It starts with a Gull flying through the air with a voice over talking about it. I shall look on youtube too, JUST IN CASE!

(Not going over ones already mentioned) If you like the coast, Caloundra, Bribie island, Nth Stradbroke. When I was up there the "jump" from Bribie to Nth Stradbroke was fantastic and you look down and see the sand below the water and the patterns were amazing! Then there is Fraser Island - Hervey bay. Did nearly a day flying around it. Tumut - snowy mountains. Take off, fly south over the lakes, climb up the "valley" to Cabramurra (Spelling?) then fly on the west side of the range to Mt Hotham. When I did it, it was just ........ breath taking. In a beautiful way. Not the "Holly $hit!" kind.

On another note: A long time ago, when I was learning, my CFI mentioned an old video "How an aeroplane flies". A video made by Shell "back in the day". It took me MONTHS of searching, but you can get the DVD - but you have to get it from Shell in England - and it costs. ($20 nom) I'm a tenacious dog. I can try to dig out the details, but if you contact Shell in England I am sure you will get there.

I know I failed English and gramma school but honestly? when it stalls, it will not provide ..... as it can't being stalled, with the angle of attack..... I think there are too many commas in there. I am still trying to make sense of it.

Well, in case you missed it - like me..... Search for it. It is about guys in trikes flying in Oz. I was told it is worth watching, but I've missed it for Sydney already. :(

Wow, that is different to the official story I heard. They had the "FMC" in landing mode and so when they commanded takeoff power, the computer just bawked at them, as it thought "You can't do that in THIS config" That is a cut down version and: Yes, it has holes. I can't remember the 100% word for word version. When landing, you have to expect GO AROUND requests, but something was done incorrectly and so the plane continued on "landing". Shame there was no runway on which to land.

But they cant press a TOGA switch/button, if such a thing in not on/in an airbus.

Maybe like the flying doc in Snake, but..... May I submit the suggestion: The sky ??

Hang on..... So reminiscing back to the early days of airbus, the pilots were going in to land, tried to do a "Go round" and the plane flew into the bushes. They would have had the throttles to the firewall, and it didn't do that. (But that's a whole other story)

So, the question remains: What happened? They landed, bounced, tried a "go round" and stalled, hit the ground and then stayed there. I don't know. Forgetting all the hoo hah about the luggage, why can't we stick to the real question of: WHAT HAPPENED and WHY? As to getting out of a plane, I'd climb over the seat tops. Forget the isles. But anyway: What is the latest of how it happened?

Just on the overhead baggage thing.try Alitalia! #$*£! The plane has harldy taken off, people walking in the isles. Going in to land, WAY after the signs and announcements, say about the middle marker, people walking down the isles, opening the luggage cabinets. While flying at altitude, people asleep on seats near the emergency exits, with their feet entangled in the handle to open the door! On the "go around": Ok, you need to "get out of there, and back in the air", but until you have a positive rate of climb, why would you retract the wheels? However, all things considered: it is amasing that only one person died.

Well, hang on...... Again I am confused. If QUOTE: I suspect there are protocols about not identifying aircraft that were not involved in the actual incident. Their radio calls were significant which is why they are mentioned UNQUOTE Actually that doesn't make sense now either. Either they ARE or they ARE NOT involved. (Added way after typing and put in later on reflection) They are NOT INVOLVED, why were they mentioned in the first place? And again I ask: WHY WERE THEY REFERRED TO AS AIRCRAFT TWO and not THREE when there were already TWO aircraft named and identified? I am getting a headache from this and all the other crap going on just now.

So........ There was (were?) MYI and RZP. As declared in the title. Therefore there are ALREADY two aircraft in the scope. Whether you want to call MYI "aircraft 1" or "aircraft 2" and vice versa for the other is purely academic. However the person who wrote the article then goes on to use the identifier "Aircraft 2" and not stating to which they were referring is really slack reporting.

Well, as I stated in my post: There are the given TWO aircraft in the scenario. Suddenly there is this "Aircraft 2" declared but never identified. If it is an UN-KNOW, then it should be Aircraft 3. Yeah? (And people get paid to write these reports.) Sorry, but as bad as I am with clarity and this language, the report IS badly written and is confusing.

So no comment on "Aircraft 2" the THIRD aircraft and where it fits in to the scheme of things?

Ok, I am only at page 5 (table 1). 16:45:47 ATC contacts MYI to pass IFR traffic to them. Huh? MYI are the RPT - right? Are there TWO RPT planes in this story? If so, why aren't they both shown and not just MYI? and who is "Aircraft 2"? Although nicely mentioned in the PDF, the use of the number 2 is problematic as there are already 2 planes in the story. So is it just a "lazy way" of referring to one of the EXISTING planes in the story, or is it YET ANOTHER plane? In which case wouldn't it be aircraft 3? I may not be good with this language, but reading this is becoming confusing. Also to add to the confusion: King Island is a CTAF. Common Traffic Advisory Frequency. Just below the second part of Table 1 on page 6 is the weather report. King Island Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF) Notice it is the last 3 letters of CTAF. Yeah, ok, there are only so many "TLA" and "FLA"s available, (Three Letter Acronyms and Four Letter Acronyms) but having two which mean so much differently yet so close to each other is problematic. Page 7 is worrying. "They use an iPad with a popular navigation application, and were able to maintain the flight-planned track far more accurately than relying on navigation using a map. There was no traffic awareness facility on this software application." Ok, it is stated there is no traffic awareness facility. But it raises the question to me: Where were their eyes? INSIDE or OUTSIDE the cabin? I have been in a very similar situation (Right seat) and it really worried me when the pilot was flying EYES INSIDE the cabin to stay out of restricted air space, when there was a very easy train track to follow. (No prizes for guessing where we were.) I am not sure of the "requirements" of this part of a trip (King island to where ever they were going.) but I am guessing it is a ONE LEG trip. That is: They take off at point A and fly to point B. All this fandangled stuff is dangerous if incorrectly used! You get the track from A to B, factor in the wind and determine the heading. You take off, and turn to the heading. Climb to altitude but maintain heading. You are looking at the altimeter, VSI and compass. How it is described here is "Looking at the iPad and following the purple line." Which to me is NOT VFR. No, I am not perfect and have had my own "adventures". Guilty. And sure: Hindsight is a luxury. For someone who says they have done it "many times" and to be making those kind of mistakes..... Well..... I'm sorry. To me, a re-think is needed. (Hey, I am typing as I read) Yes, the pilot goes on to say that "in future they would not fly an almost reciprocal track to the inbound IFR aircraft. Instead, they intend to track a coastal route...." Good, they have seen the mistake and corrected. But again: The iPad part isn't REALLY needed other than the PLANNING phase. Plan the track from the Barwon Heads to the mainland. Easy. The first phase would be simple. Take off, climb, head for Barwon Heads THEN fly the compass to the main land. (Sorry for the poor wording of the last part of that. I hope you understand what I mean.) I love all the modern things, like GPS, and "smart" phones. But they have their place. Complacency is DANGEROUS! Relying on them too much is where things go wrong. I am very glad that there were no casualties from this and that both (both - does that include THREE parties?) parties have become wiser from it. I am slightly curious if there was a change of undies required by either party at the end of events.

Ian, Another "problem" which has sort of started to happen. I am logged in. (Obvious) I close the window and go else where. ITMT, someone replies and I get an email. I open the email and click on the "View this thread". It wants me to log in again. BUT! If I close that window, and open a new one, and go to "recflying" (home page) it logs me in right away. So the cookies are working - I guess. What am I missing? Oh, I am using Rasbian - Debian/Linux on a Raspberry Pi and using Firefox as the browser.

A guy walks into the store and tells the person he wants to buy fork handles...... The guy behind the counter asks "What colour?"

Far easier than chatting with an Irish or Scotsman! Och aye!