|
Post by madmac on Dec 1, 2014 8:38:13 GMT 12
Given that the speedo's are legally only required to be actuate to within 10%, one does wonder how those tickets are not challengible in court.
One would hope that the accident figures published by the police are not the the figures that are used for the planning of their road safety campaigns because they would be completely useless, unless they where adjusted for fleet mileage, and other factors (there wouldn't be any relationship between the years of the lowest road tolls and ecomonic down turn would there).
So how long will it be, before we all get tracking in our cars and you get a "safety fine" every time, we just drive on the road at any speed.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Nov 18, 2014 11:07:32 GMT 12
So in summary, an individual deliberately avoids security screening, and boards the aircraft, and hence it departs, at which point, no one (Avsec or the flight crew) can demonstrate that all screening procedures have been followed and hence the safety of the flight is lowered. it then follows that because the person expects to be recognized by the flight crew and the Avsec its all fine, so this means anyone [insert your least liked celebrity here] with $2000 & expects to be recognized can do the same thing.
The pilot should never have been put into this position, which raises another question, was he (the pilot) in breach of Air NZ procedures.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Nov 13, 2014 11:09:58 GMT 12
About 2006 - 07 I was told that Eagle made a dollar, a seat a sector with something like 200 sectors a day, so there was never a big margin in it.
My observation would be that to make money / breakeven in that part of the market, you would have to have good leadship that is very technically capable (currently in NZ those people don't tend to advance because they keep pointing out where the boss is wrong and then being proven right) with in house 145 / 146 & 148 (maintenace design and manufacture).
I seem to recall (never have worked there) Eagle had a period, where they cut costs by employing the cheapest labour they could and flogged the aircraft maintenance wise, and that is the fastest guaranteed way to drive up underlying costs and is really hard to claw back the increased costs (not that there is any thing remotely new about that in NZ). It was not helped by the 1900D being some what poorly designed (it is something like 5 stretches from a queen air and it showed) and most of eagles examples being not quite as well built as they should have been (beech were firing people from each assembly bay as the last parts where finished), which all in all would have made them somewhat labour intensive.
As for replacements, no one has built even close to really good 19 seater yet, the 1900D burns too much gas for its payload, the SA227 (metro) is fast but needs structural refinement, a bigger rudder and slightly bigger engines, while the J32 which is built like a real airliner but is completely hamstring by the lack of cargo space and the lack of a separate cargo door (nothing a couple of fuse plugs wouldn't fix), its also a bit slow.
In terms of replacements it is interesting to note that there is some thing like 70 metros in oz. I hear that M7 are looking at putting the SA227 back into production with minimum changes, which is a bit disappointing as it is a good frame, just it has lots of crap detail design on it that would take that much to fit really).
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 15, 2014 21:34:07 GMT 12
ISIS is the result of doing the job incorrectly the first time, unless they have a really plan to address the power vacuum (& economic, etc etc) there is no point even bombing anything.
The only functioning state in the region is Kurdistan, which isn't a state at all. To allow them to fight the ground war alone will just result in population burnout (think Laos in the Vietnam war where in at least one ethic group there were no men left between 12 and 65 by the end.
If we want stable solution it will have to end in a Kurdish state, if not a greater reshaping of the map and that's not on the table yet.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 14, 2014 20:43:53 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 27, 2014 21:34:49 GMT 12
Does appear to have been a few oops there by the TAIC.
It does demonstrate just how ignorant the general aerospace industry is about effects weight and balance control. I don't think their estimate of the aft cg is remotely realistic (it might be what you would get on a good day, but not on a bad day).
Is the coroners findings / test anywhere on line?
Just as well the press don't know that Boeing 737's have something like 250 AD's on them.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 12, 2014 20:26:14 GMT 12
Two pics of NAO with the spray system rigged (note the AG GPS on the flight deck).
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 21, 2014 17:52:52 GMT 12
This could be interesting particularly with regard to just how long they take to get it fully operation, when you read the following quote about how the USN is getting it into service “The P-8 requirements define supporting system characteristics or attributes that are necessary, but not nearly sufficient, to ensure mission effectiveness.”
In an extreme case, he continues, “the contractor could deliver an aircraft that meets all the KPPs but has no mission capability whatsoever. Such an airplane would only have to be designed to be reliable, equipped with self-protection features and radios, and capable of transporting weapons and sonobuoys across the specified distances, but would not actually have to have the ability to successfully find and sink threat submarines in an Anti-Submarine Warfare mission (its primary mission).”www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/151275/us-weapons-testing-faces-systemic-failure.htmlThe US isn't what it use to be, it seems to be almost 1960's English in its approach these days.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 13, 2014 21:34:16 GMT 12
That is something I have noticed as well overseas every one thinks CAA is so lovely to deal with compared to their own.
Me thinks the most of CAA issues seem to revolve around CAA being grossly under resourced. In some parts its man power & others education.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 17, 2013 20:03:21 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 17, 2013 19:59:57 GMT 12
"funds would be used to move from the back office to the frontline", so that means the doing the paper work on the front line. NZDF already has serous issues with maintenance of its institutional knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 2, 2013 19:07:10 GMT 12
We won't mention all the people work at the airport, who now have to use the park in ride now the staff car park has gone. Nothing quite like adding 30 minutes plus to your day just for the airport company's bottom line. Second runway, won't see that till someone gets serous about about a second international airport in Auckland.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 29, 2013 22:29:05 GMT 12
It is a Charlie foxtrot all round. Once again, the joys of the the cheapest winning tender.
The other point is he was clipped to his machine gun, which i understand isn't SOP until close to shore, which maybe a reflection of loss of institutional knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 26, 2013 21:07:20 GMT 12
Unfortunately the rules got the way they are, by inspecting the mortal remains of numerous pilots / aircraft. that isn't to say the rules are perfect, TSO'd aircraft harness are simply too weak and contribute significantly to fatalities (this is small aircraft, they are also used in airliners, but they have more give in them so don't tend to produce as higher loads). The general crash worthiness of even the new aircraft isn't that flash.
Interestingly the as far as I am aware study's of the effectiveness of electronic instruments, the only only one that really made a difference was capacitance fuel gauges which same to reduce the number of people running out of gas ( funny that). The modern stuff is much more reliable, but also as far more failure modes some of which are not as obvious. Plus the pilot interfaces tend to be poor and provided plenty of scope for inflight distraction.
Of course the interesting thing is who is lobbing from Garmin etc, the accountant / managers who just see numbers or the guys who actually design the things. It is probably not the later. Also how many of the LAS homebuilts etc actually need / use the full capability of they electronics.
The general problem in aviation is everyone tends to think the CAA/ FAA/Guys they replaced/ the guys before they/ etc are incompetent idiots, that is really the case
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 26, 2013 18:30:34 GMT 12
It is all a bit of a crock. Lets be blunt, LSA are somewhat marginal from a duablilty point of view and most an't going to happy do 5000 hours let alone the 10000, cessna's and tomahawks do.
The only real difference be that will result if they replace FAR / CS23 with a GEMA code, is no independent vetting. The amount of time required to design a safe aircraft is unchanged (they can't change the laws of physics or maths). So stand by for a more flash in the pan manufactures, and a S*** load more AD's
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 6, 2013 21:55:15 GMT 12
If air ambulance's (fixed and rotor) weren't a bit of a rout there would be something like 100 of them in the country. Most organizations involved, are there because it makes money for them.
The whole system needs its ass kicking, it should be formed in a single RFDS type operation. Things as simple as stretches are typically not interchangeable between different helicopters or aircraft or road ambulances. DHB's don't talk to each other so there might be 4 different version's of the same kit built, again probably not interchange.
The fit-out required are not a trivial project, which is why when you look closely a lot of what is currently in use falls under the description of half assed.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 1, 2013 20:26:13 GMT 12
Is the Red cross on the first aid kit a service standard?
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 31, 2013 21:57:30 GMT 12
There is an interesting point that is missing here. In the last twenty years the yanks run aerospace projects have fundamentally changed for the worst. The projects are now managed by pure managers, who have little to no technical understanding as such bad decisions tend to run for substantially longer time periods before being abandoned for a better solution. Second there has been lots of grey hairs retired and their skills were not really past onto the next generation.
Bluntly the USA has lost a lot (most) of its legacy design Skill and any of the big company's can't do a well run development program.
The F35 still has a long way before it is useful & even then it is, it is still of limited performance. The days of combat op's being about kicking the shit of 3rd world countries is over.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 31, 2013 18:05:06 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 13, 2013 21:18:32 GMT 12
Of course we could buy several weapon types, & issue them as operational required instead of this s**t about one size must fit all conflicts. When did you last see someone play golf with one club, & that is only a game.
|
|