Jump to content

flying dog

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,755

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by flying dog

  1. flying dog
    P.S. Damkia, Just love this tag: Nothing says unprofessional job like wrinkles in duct tape. Top marks!
  2. flying dog
    Yeah, ok. But gee it makes me worried. Here I am trying to get my head around the maths so I can make a quick spreadsheet for my phone to do that sort of stuff, and being given the wrong examples is doing my head in because I am getting different/"wrong" answers compared to what they get and I am thinking I am doing something wrong. I've got that bit ok, now I just need to get the temperature correction in.
  3. flying dog
    YIKES! I looked at that site for the Balooning lot: https://www.brisbanehotairballooning.com.au/faqs/exam-help/133-pressure-density-height.html EXAMPLE 1. An aerodrome of elevation 670 ft has an Aerodrome QNH of 1020 hPa. What is its pressure height? Elevation = 670 feet QNH = 1020 hPa Answer: Pressure Height = 670 - 7 x 30 = 560 feet Ok, I am not the brightest spark, and we all make mistakes. Answer: Pressure Height - 670 - 7 x 30 = 560 feet. Let's look at that a bit more: 670 - 210 = 560. What did I miss at school?
  4. flying dog
    Correction to what I said: I was told that you "gain" 120 feet per degree difference between the temp and the ISA temp. So if it was 3 degrees warmer it would be 3 x 120 feet. I goofed when I put in the 3 x 30 (above) (edit doesn't work second time around) Where did the values used in the formulas I read come?
  5. flying dog
    Not to be a "ney sayer" but looking at the sheet: Putting aside the default QNH, there seems to be a problem with what is going on with the numbers. I have forgotten what is what for "Pressure height, density height, and all the other names". But if I am at 2000 feet and the QNH is ..... what ever. I calculate where in the ISA that QNH is and that is my height. Then - I am told - I get the temperature where I am and compare that to the ISA. So: If it is 3 degrees cooler, that is 3 x 30 feet LOWER in the atmosphere. If it was 3 degrees WARMER, it would be higher. But you have to do the QNH calc first to get the altitude then factor in the temperature. Or that is how I remember it.
  6. flying dog
    Thanks all for the replies. I downloaded the sheet and shall look at it. I bashed one together, but it had an error in it, so I will be interested to see what Eric's looks like. I didn't quite get all the maths stuff as none of the names were declared and I didn't know what/where you were starting. Alt/temp. Anyway, thanks.
  7. flying dog
    Partly in light of that FOOL who couldn't take off and crashed into tree tops with 3 other people in the plane, I am trying to remember the formula of how to calculate temperature height and density height. You do temp first, then density - right? What is the formula? So far I have: Pressure Height = Elevation + 30x(1013-QNH) But that is AFTER the temp' calculation. Someone?
  8. flying dog
    Yeah, thanks you lot. Maybe this thread needs to be moved to the HUMOUR part. Not exactly what I was wanting. :(
  9. flying dog
    That doesn't really tell me the maths behind it. So Sunday 7 October is the FIRST Sunday of October, and not the first COMPLETE weekend.
  10. flying dog
    Sorry folks, I've tried the interweb but can't understand what is said. In as simple a English as possible, what is the way to know when DLS starts and ends? I believe it is the first sat/sun of October to start and the First sat/sun of ...... April? I am wanting to try and get a "formula" so my new clock can auto adjust for DLS in Sydney.
  11. flying dog
    Mythbusters did that. It not true.
  12. flying dog
    Ozzie, That happens quite often. It is the ARMY's "Anit-terrorisum" thing. But seeing a small plane flying around over Central and Darling Harbour - and it must have been doing it for a while as it now makes sence that it was I heard earlier on - is rare, for me anyway.
  13. flying dog
    I was at work, and hear a noise. Didn't think much of it, as there are a lot of noises and though it sounded like a plane, for one to be THAT low, it was probably something else. How wrong I was. Driving home that afternoon I was going down Elizabeth St, just of Wentorth Ave. Looking up in a generally southerly direction I see a plane. LOW FLYING SINGLE ENGINE, High wing. White as..... Nah! It's a remote! Look, look, look. No, hang on. It isn't! It IS a real plane, but it is probably as low as they can legally fly - maybe lower! It flew up over certral station and then NorthWest out over Darling harbour. By that stage I lost visual, as I was driving. I couldn't make out the rego, thinking it wasn't there, but finally did get to make out some black marks on the underside of the wing. But there was bugger all markings on the plane. I think the ONLY marking was the rego under ONE wing. Anyone heard about this?
  14. flying dog
    Please sir: Can I have some more?
  15. flying dog
    Yes, well I made a bit of a fool of myself. On Saturday, I rang David to have a chat, and was told then of what happened Friday. I didn't want to talk too long as his wife was still in shock from what happened. Life isn't fair
  16. flying dog
    Yes the technology exists. IMPLIMENTING it is another story. Who would pay for it? To apply the above idea would cost a lot of money and time. (It will probably be done and sent off-shore to India)
  17. flying dog
    Yeah, but how important is that part of the information? It was a 767 and there was this confusion about the Co-Pilot seeing Venus and mistaking it for another plane. The "fact" that a 767 has two engines is IRRELEVANT.
  18. flying dog
    I just love the article, or at least this part: The incident occurred at night on board a Boeing 767 twin engine passenger plane And what other option is there? 1,3,4,5?! It is kind of redundant saying it is a 767 TWIN engine. Ah, gotta love the yanks.
  19. flying dog
    I think it was last week when I saw on the news about a 152 which did an emergency landing in Bringelly (Sydney). Anyone heard any more?
  20. flying dog
    When you backtrack a runway you are supposed to be on the right side. So if you did have to pass another on a taxiway then i would think that would carry over as well. Most of the passing/ overtaking rules for aircraft are the same as maritime when you are in the air. That's not what I was told/instructed.
  21. flying dog
    Me thinks he pulled back on the Cyclic rather than the collective.
  22. flying dog
    English is predominantly latin and greek Wow, that's news for me. There was a show on Foxtel and a lot of English is from German they were saying. I know Latin and the other languages have some influence on the words, but PREDOMINATNLY?
  23. flying dog
    Just noticed this: When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane
  24. flying dog
    Yes, granted the are on different taxiways, but it still seems "strange". Ok, analogy: In cars we pass each other to left. That is to say we keep the other (oncoming) car to our RIGHT. When we are on highways - where there is sepeartion between the oncoming traffic - they are still on our right. It isn't that sometimes they are on our left. Now, planes going to/from RWY 16L at Sydney have to go on the taxiway to get there. Obviously there are two so there is one to "go there" and one to "get back". Yes, I sort of agree there MAY be minor benefits to planes going certain ways, but as there are planes coming and going, I don't get why they would be put on taxiways which would make them pass oppostie to how planes are "supposed to" pass.
  25. flying dog
    As a rule if you are passing another plane, you each turn right and have the plane pass on your left. Ok, that is when flying, but what about when taxiing? Watching the planes at Sydney airport - the big one - planes going to 16 L. There are two taxi ways and I was interested that the planes were being put to pass on each other's right. Ok, it is accademic and they were on seperate taxi ways, but I would have thought that as a general rule the controllers would have maintained the same side for passing when taxiing as to when they are flying.
×
×
  • Create New...