onetrack

Despite looking like a sound idea initially, a "safety ramp" deceleration area at the end of a runway, would bring in another raft of problems, such as stopping emergency/rescue vehicles from approaching closely to a wrecked aircraft. Airstrips have been in use and constructed for over 115 years, and no-one has yet improved on having a nice big flat area, clear of dangerous obstructions, adjacent to runways, for overruns.

I've already given the ABC journalist who co-wrote that article, a good serve over the quality of the article. It's been modified/edited several times since it first appeared this morning. First off they wrote that Keith Link was flying a Piper, and I had to remind them that VH-UVS was actually a Cessna. They state that aviation fatalities for 2024 were 27 (with no breakdown) - and took out the part that originally stated the fatalities were down from 34 in 2023. I gave the journo a serve over failing to address the complexity behind the reasons for aircraft crashes, and pointed out that the ATSB doesn't have unlimited numbers of crash investigator staff, and unlimited funding. I'm surprised that Lorraine MacGillivray would make a statement that seems to indicate that young people and total inexperience are the major reason for aircraft crashes, and seems to indicate this is leading to an increase in crashes. I pointed out that it's largely older people flying aircraft, because they're the ones normally with accumulated money that enables them to indulge in aviation. I also pointed out the fact that no-one has yet found a way to stop pilots from having medical events that can easily fly under the doctors radar. And I also detest the way the article conflates recreational flying with commercial flying, mustering and other dangerous air work. All in all, a pretty badly done article, and I expected better from the ABC.

Page 30 on the following document clearly outlines the rules for shutting down a perfectly good engine during flight. https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/plain-english-guide-part-91-new-flight-operations-regulations-interactive-version.pdf

The data sheet for a typical 20mm stroke Actuinox Motion Device linear actuator, is linked to, below. Note that the "maximum duty cycle" is only 20%, and they also note that "repeated stalling of the actuator against a fixed load will shorten the life of the actuator". This indicates to me that the micro linear actuators are not really "industrial grade", nor really suitable for full-size aircraft use, where you'd normally expect a substantial degree of durability and reliability. https://docs.rs-online.com/f045/0900766b814ad9d3.pdf

It pays to remember that any enclosed cabin that reaches speeds of around 40kmh or more, develops negative pressure inside the cabin. This applies to every cabin, whether it's aircraft, car, truck, item of plant, or what have you. As a result, you must either keep the cabin airtight, or slightly pressurised, from air coming in from the front side. Failure to do so, will see your cabin fill with nasty and poisonous fumes. On the ground, on unsealed surfaces, over 40kmh, it will also be dust being sucked in. It's the reason exhaust systems on vehicles are not allowed to exit under rear doors in front of rear wheels, and the reason why you must keep your station wagon/hatchback seals in good condition.

Skippy, you're obviously looking for a micro linear actuator, as compared to a regular size industrial linear actuator. AFAIK, the major manufacturers/suppliers of micro linear actuators, are those people in the RC controls industry. As a last resort, you could try RS Components. They will supply nearly anything electrical (and promptly), but usually at aircraft-parts-style pricing. The major advantage of RS Components is their website is very good, and you can select all types of technical product criteria in your part search - such as stroke, threads, lengths, voltages, loads, etc, etc - to go pretty accurately to the product you're looking for. RS sell micro linear actuators from a company called Actuonix Motion Devices, who are Canadian, and who were once part of Firgelli, before they decided to operate as a stand-alone company. Electric Linear Actuators | RS AU.RS-ONLINE.COM Browse our Electric Linear Actuators offer. Place your order today for our Electric Linear Actuators.

Skippy, have you tried the company listed below? Despite your (and my) abhorrence of Chinese-made parts and components, it's becoming extremely difficult to find anything that is not manufactured there now. I've tried in vain recently to acquire bearings that are not made in China, and despite buying "quality, brand names" (including the finest Japanese and European bearing names), I've continually been upset to open the "quality" box, and find "Made in China" stamped on the bearing!! They have won the manufacturing war by sheer volume, by constant "competitive" pricing, and by being able to supply parts/components rapidly, in vast numbers. The car industry is next. Chinese cars will dominate the world within 5 years, I reckon. I read where BYD have 1,000,000 employees, and 110,000 engineers!! FFS, why would anyone even try to compete?? Linear Actuators, High Quality and Low Cost WWW.MOTIONDYNAMICS.COM.AU Explore our premium range of Linear Actuators (12V-24V), offering high performance with force capacities from 200N to 7000N and strokes from 100mm to 500mm (IP65 rated). Comparable to top global brands...

......their aircraft should've been leading the formation, as NooZulland was the leader in all thungs relating to aviation. To add important pressure to their protest, the NooZullanders started to do a Haka - but when the tongues came out, the Australians, now led by bull (who had asserted his authority with the unparalleled Jacka performance display), decided that it was time to show more than his aerobatic skills. Accordingly, bull lifted his ample-sized (and hairy, everyone noted) rear end, onto the side of the Jacka cockpit, pulled down his shorts, and slapped his..................

Direction reversing cam?? A complex device? Surely you're joking? It's normally referred to as a "direction reversing linkage" and I could knock up a simple one for you, in probably less an hour. Basics of Linkages - fundamentals of linkages. WWW.FIRGELLIAUTO.COM When two or more levers are interconnected, they form what is called a linkage. A linkage is a mechanism that transmits motion and force between the levers. By joining levers together, we can create a variety... (Incidentally, the above site contains a link to a sales page for electrically-operated linear actuators, that appear to meet your build quality requirements)...... Bullet Series 23 Cal. Linear Actuators WWW.FIRGELLIAUTO.COM The Bullet Series 23 Cal. linear actuators are made from SUS304 stainless steel. Available in 12V or 24V & in various stroke lengths.

.....also dreamt of being a President of a large country (besides being recognised as an aerobatics master), but his daydreaming was cut short as OT's voice came over the radio. "Jackeroo eight niner niner two, are you following me?" Bul was startled back to reality by the voice. He'd forgotten he was supposed to follow OT into the formation of 3 Jackas and 3 Drifters, and he also suddenly remembered that there was a ribbon-cutting-with-wings show to come, after the formation flying was finished. He thumbed the button on his joystick and replied, "Ahh, ahhh.............

The fuel-injected 2-strokes don't produce anywhere near the smoke of carburetted 2-strokes - but all 2-strokes do have a pungent odour in confined areas. If you can get plenty of air mixing with the exhaust, they aren't so bad. Also, the smell is different between older 2-stroke "dinosaur" oils as compared to synthetic 2-stroke oils. The removal of a lot of "dinosaur" oil contaminants and using manufactured chemicals in synthetic oils must be a big factor. I'm amazed, that in this day and age of miracle chemistry, someone hasn't invented a 2-stroke oil that leaves a smell like frying bacon, or frying onions. Imagine the sales leap, especially amongst the Americans!! 😄

.....received increasing applause from all of the assembled mob, as the Jackeroo laboured to reach a decent altitude, so bull could show off his Immelmann turn skills. But the Jacka coughed and spluttered as bull hauled back on the stick to commence the turn, and next thing, bull was seeing sky-ground-sky-ground-sky-ground-sky-ground, at a fear-inducing rate. But our intrepid hero wasn't fazed, and as the crowd gazed in horror and many gasped, and the applause stopped, bull pulled a...............

There's no comparison between incandescent lighting and LED lighting for luminosity and penetration. I reckon LED lighting must have nearly double the visibility of incandescent lighting. LED's output light over a narrower wavelength than incandescent, so the visibility is increased as compared to incandescent, which produces light over a wider range of the spectrum.

The "Fulfilment" part refers to Jeff Bezos acquiring his proper fulfilment of becoming the worlds richest man, and being able to treat all his workers like the common peasant serfs he desires them to be.

The exterior shots are of an MD-80, but the interior shots are of different aircraft. No film watcher knows what a commercial aircraft cockpit looks like, exactly! 😄 Plane (2023) - Goofs - IMDb WWW.IMDB.COM Plane (2023) - Goofs on IMDb - bloopers, mistakes, errors in continuity, plot holes, anachronisms, spoilers and more.

Wouldn't there be an autopsy to determine if a medical event preceded the crash? Who makes a decision as to whether an autopsy is carried out? Isn't it the Coroner? - and how does he go about deciding if an autopsy is warranted or not?

These last two reports have nothing to do with the Jeju Airlines crash. The media love to link any aircraft crashes together, just so the clickbait headlines draw in the money.

The general opinion amongst all the discussion is that some degree of power is still being produced from at least one engine, or both, and that engine spool down noise is still on the audio for several seconds after the aircraft exploded. Despite the long float and the touchdown more than halfway down the runway, the general impression is there's no appreciable loss of aircraft speed in the slide, despite the full contact sliding on the tarmac for 800-900 metres, and over 200 metres of dirt past the end of the runway. Juan Brown estimates the aircraft was still doing close to 150mph when it hit the localiser berm, other figures I have seen people calculate, come out at around 125kts, that's 144mph, so some pretty close estimates there. The B737 approach speed is normally 142kts, the aircraft seems to be going faster than that on the approach in the video, but it landed, so it must have been doing 145-150kts on touchdown, that means it only lost maybe 20-25kts in speed over more than a kilometre - that shows some degree of engine power was still being produced, well above idle. Why that happened, we can only guess. Perhaps the bird strike damaged engine controls, and the crew were unable to bring the engines back to idle on touchdown? Juan points out just how robust the hydraulic system is on the B737, it has triple redundancy and the electric motors will still drive the systems, provided they have power. The aircraft shows an approach that is under good control. The CVR and FDR have been recovered, but it appears both show signs of damage. As their location and mounting/protection arrangements are built to withstand fires and serious levels of impact, I'd be surprised if useful information can't be acquired from them. Another angle is why the ADS-B signal and information ceased 7 minutes prior to the crash? Perhaps the bird strike released engine debris that damaged electrics? More questions than answers at present. Decoding plane black boxes to take over a month WWW.KOREAHERALD.COM Decoding the black boxes from the Jeju Air crash in Muan, which claimed 179 lives, is expected to take at least a month, with one box partially damaged the Transport Ministry reported. If the damage...

Some more useful videos below. All the signs point to a messed-up emergency landing, they forgot to lower the gear, floated for a long way down the runway before they finally belly-flopped onto the tarmac, and by then it was all too late. They had too much speed on for where they touched down. The CVR record will be interesting, not the first time there was panic and confusion in the cabin - and it appears they'd been on duty for quite a while, too. But the simple fact remains, those who constructed the solid-concrete-with-earth-berm-reinforcement for the localiser should be lined up and shot. The brick perimeter wall of the airport would have posed no major threat to a sliding B737, it was the solid earth berm and the massive concrete under it, at the localiser, that caused this dreadful loss of life.

I understand that is SOP for any aircraft where it is determined by the crew that they can safely continue flight until the excess fuel is consumed (or dumped, if the dump ability is available to them). But it appears that this landing was an urgent emergency landing as indicated by landing with a tailwind. So perhaps the aircraft had suffered control damage or other major damage, that the crew determined was serious enough to warrant an immediate landing. We won't know until more information is available from the authorities. I have seen/read nothing about what type of emergency was declared by the crew.

The insurance company site below has useful information in their FAQ's. Insurance is all about the following; 1. Understanding the risks involved in what you're doing. This means you have to clearly outline to your insurer, the activities you're undertaking, so they can assess the risk. 2. Making sure you clearly disclose to your insurer, anything that could affect a claim. "Non-disclosure" in insurance is a critical feature of insurance. If you do not disclose important information that an insurer needs to calculate risk, then you stand to have claims rejected due to that non-disclosure, which can either be intentional or non-intentional. Insurance companies treat non-disclosure as misleading or even fraudulent. 3. Insurance is all about "good faith". You make disclosures on the basis of good faith, and your insurer makes payouts based on good faith. Anything outside good faith recognition is regarded as misleading or fraudulent. 4. Public Liability insurance is based on the insured party either admitting negligence, or being found guilty of negligence. Admitting negligence after an insured PL event is not necessarily a bad thing, it saves a lot of costs involved in arguing and determining fault. If you are covered properly by an adequate PL policy, you should not fear repercussions by admitting negligence, when you are clearly at fault. Aviation Insurance | Airport & Aviation Liability | QBE AU WWW.QBE.COM Get aviation insurance for aircraft owners, pilots, operators, maintenance organisations, airports, aviation businesses and more with QBE. Find out more.

In that case, the answer is simple, your aircraft is not insured if you're not in the act of flying it. If you want to cover the chances of your aircraft catching fire while you're nowhere near it, you need hull insurance. If you want to insure it against being picked up by a storm gust, you would need storm damage insurance. All policies must have a clear insurance PDS that comes with them - this document includes information regarding your policies key features, what is covered, what is excluded, claims information, and the companies complaints handling procedures.

Click on the fuzzy photo in my last post above, and it brings up the Channel 9 news site, and the first video is a clear video of the belly landing and crash through the brick wall. Marty is correct, there's only 2 survivors, both crew members.

Number 2 would be correctly interpreted by reading the fine print in the policy. It would have to state whether the members aircraft was insured (or not) when he/she wasn't in it.

As I understand it, the passenger is only entitled to a claim of compensation in a crash if the pilot failed in his duty of care, or was outright negligent. The placarded warning simply advises that the RA aircraft is not built to the same standards of safety or scrutiny as a certified aircraft. The passenger is deemed to accept the risk of aircraft failure accordingly. If a wing parted company with the rest of the aircraft in normal flight, with the pilot doing everything correctly, then I'd surmise the passenger would have very little legal standing to mount a claim for compensation.