[Kharon]

“Abracadabra!”

An interesting word, of unknown origin. Amateur magicians have used it for generations, Mums, Dads and Grand Papas the world over have enthralled millions of children with the word. The 'power' of a word cannot be underestimated; not ever, but can it 'stand alone'? The short answer is no; not when 'presenting' or 'performing' a trick. So, at the birthday party, in rolls Grandpa, to perform his sleight of hand trick to bamboozle the little ones; and, with the utterance of the 'magical' word – the choc rabbits appear – on cue. Bravo. But; is the 'word' enough to sell the whole gambit to savvy kids? Of course not; there is a whole lot more required. Watch any video you care to of 'magicians' performing their acts; or of the professional manipulators of 'card tricks' and the whole thing becomes very clear; entertaining for sure; and, in context a lot of fun for all involved. Well, Fun until the same 'sleight of hand' and 'showmanship' is grafted onto more serious issues than 'entertainment'. 

“And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,”

When one deals with animals and those who's hands earn their living, reading 'body language' becomes an essential skill; will a dog bite, will a horse kick, will a wether attack the dog? All valid questions. Will the 'sound' of  mallet on chisel signal a dull blade and a careless approach to task? Is the pilot 'tuned in' and cognoscenti of engine sync to adjust the power during a bad weather climb out, hand flown? To the careful observer these small things matter. Indeed, they matter a great deal.

“Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.”

I confess to having a great enjoyment of 'magicians' as a child, being delighted by their illusions and show; until Grand papa muttered - “watch his hands son” -”carefully”. And, so I did, the 'illusion' very quickly evaporated and a life long 'habit' of watching actions, not gestures evolved. Patience now, almost there. Body language – compelling and, probably, more subtly convincing than the words spoken. And; here I am – right back at 'magicians', sleight of hand, body language and a curiosity which the ubiquitous  'Halfwit' triggered. To wit – hand waving; or in the vernacular; testiculating. AKA – talking bollocks, larded with 'supporting' hand gestures. Training 'execs' in this 'art' is an industry: see and listen to this glib spiv, selling the good oil.

Now, the dearly departed (unloved) Electric Blue Halfwit had obviously taken a 'cheap' course – and, being naturally a 'Klutz' mostly got his 'testiculation' moves 'wrong'. But – (and; children this is important): a careful study of the highly schooled 'testiculation' exhibited by the high rollers featured in the last Estimates 'go-around' by 'the airport' speaks to some serious investment intent on only one agenda; airports and noise go 'hand in glove'. The artistic hand gestures and placatory words speak of only one thing – profit. To hell with sensible approach paths; bugger sensible take off paths; sod wake turbulence and the ASA will do as its bloody well told by the airport owners. The only 'honest man' at that table was the bespectacled, honest man who hardly moved his hands at all; just told 'it' as it is; and, tried hard to get the 'real' message through to the Senators. But, it is what it is. Another Senate gab-fest – which although expensive, achieves exactly sweet Fanny Adams for the nation, aviation or the poor sod trying to travel to watch a football match; WOFTAM.

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Dogs, more than horses respond to 'body language' – they lack the capacity to sort spoken shit from Shinolah; but, the psychology of body language – for what that's' worth in the context of meaningful application matters aeronautical – is redundant. ASA is ruled by those who are schooled in the arts of body language; not in what benefits this nations aeronautical business interests. I wonder if any Senator has considered the costs and restrictions of establishing a tax paying, employing, beneficial air service to this wide brown land? It is a frigging nightmare, expensive, restrictive, counterproductive and almost impossible to manage. - I wonder, have 'they' ever wondered why it is so?

“It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense”

Aye well: I managed to scrape together enough 'English Oak' (real McCoy) to make a desk chair for a granddaughter; finished with Shellac; waxed and polished, in 100 years it will still serve at the desk I made almost two decades ago alongside the blackboard and easel. Perhaps it's naivete, but IMO what we do today really matters to the future and being 'persuaded' by those carefully schooled in 'persuasion' using 'body language' to deflect open, clear foresight of what is 'of value' to those following us could not withstand a 'greed' test. Don't know – I do know big dog's body language says but one thing – OUT – now – (now). Best crack on.

Selah – 'K'.

[Kharon]

Lets get a little crazy here; just for fun....?

Just for a moment (indulge me). At the tag end of this post – HERE – we find an ATSB 'report' into a recent event. A C210 appears to have run out of 'motion lotion'

“An ATSB investigation determined the aircraft departed Maitland with sufficient fuel to complete the intended flight, but it was likely the amount of fuel reduced to a level that, in combination with unbalanced flight approaching Bankstown, resulted in the engine being starved of fuel”.

Really? .Who investigates this stuff – the local knitter of sweaters for cats? The local basket weaver's fraternity? What happened to 'investigation'?  On balance; given the one simple, sensible statement above, blind Freddy could make a very accurate assessment of the 'facts' before he broke wind first thing AM, based on facts, which should lead to the CASA realising that because the volume of regulation, waffle and the work of wordsmiths, there are some gaping holes in their knitting. Those holes are allowing some shocking displays of piss poor airmanship, common sense and attention to 'situational awareness', proactive flight management and, (IMO) a lack of depth in the actual 'training' of pilots. Ayup, big call I know: but, examine the current spate of inconsequential 'incidents'. All there, writ large, clear as day. ATSB just roll out some half arsed dribble, late as usual, which is of little practical value, let alone intrinsic. Let's take a punt at what really happened and see if there are not some lessons (not bloody learnings) from this latest ATSB publication.

“An ATSB investigation determined the aircraft departed Maitland with sufficient fuel to complete the intended flight,”

Great – where was that fuel load? Now a C210 cruises at (about) 160 kts; it burns 15 US gph (60 lts per hour - for ease of reference). OK, so lets trim those numbers – on a short flight < 100 nms – (taxi, take off, climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing – knock off what?– 15 knots to obtain an average (start up to shut down) no wind flight time; what? Call it 130 kts;(for a number); sensible planning would budget a hour (call it 60 liters) fuel burn off. Call the journey 100 nms @ 130 ≈46 minutes – but lets' budget 60 minutes all up. The standard air frame carries 90 USG – (340 lts) or ::170 per tank. Keeping it easy; with reserves, how about a minimum fuel load of 2 hours – 120 lts. One tank = 170 lts @ 60 per hour ≈2 hours at cruise + a safe 45 minutes (give or take).

You could almost write the dialogue for this event; Charlie's aircraft needs maintenance,

“the ferry flight was conducted under a CASA special flight permit, requiring only essential operating crew be carried,”

Read that statement again – then wonder why the ATSB was very careful not to reveal why a 'special' was issued. Clearly there was an 'airworthiness' matter which demanded attention; bald tire or engine overhaul? – Maybe a fuel flow problem; who knows – Hell, it may just have had an expired MR. Not mentioned; wonder why? Then ask why there was a 'need' “to carry non-essential crew on a ferry flight for maintenance that placed an additional occupant at unnecessary risk of injury” Why indeed..???.....

This report is 'junk' mail. Indeed, the more I read through it,  the more 'flawed' it becomes; some of the fatuous statements within the report 'scream' a blatant disregard for the basic tenets the ATSB and its predecessors defined. It is a worthless,  glib, slippery non investigation of a right royal example of a failing  'safety culture' – one won the hard way, in blood and and experience,  being watered down to a thirty second read. Wrong! on all counts.

This 'pilot' completely buggered it up. Who, in the seven Hell's would be configured 'clean' withing 5 miles of YSBK? Or, any airport for that matter – approach flap, speed stable – gear down – landing checks complete. You see children, by completing the checks; the 'gear' not cooperating could, with time in hand, could have been extended using the manual  system; if not then there would be time to alert the excellent ATCO's at BK that there was a 'problem'. There was even enough fuel (ATSB numbers) to hold off and await fire and ambulance. Who was the pilot and why is he /she still holding a valid brief?

ATSB - “During the approach to Bankstown, the engine stopped.”

No kidding - but Why?

ATSB - “The pilot identified a taxiway on the airport as a suitable place for a forced landing and elected to leave the flap retracted and the gear up in order to reduce drag and maximise glide range,”

WTD + Why? 

“An ATSB investigation determined the aircraft departed Maitland with sufficient fuel to complete the intended flight, but it was likely the amount of fuel reduced to a level that, in combination with unbalanced flight approaching Bankstown, resulted in the engine being starved of fuel.”

Why? (and BOLLOCKS). Perhaps the fuel load should/could have been 'balanced' through rudder trim (ball in the center - wings level etc. (Remember that?)

I'd bet serious beers that the truth is far simpler than the ATSB cobblers (borderline perfidious) report presents. Fuel is at a premium; there was possibly one nearly full and one nearly empty tank – imbalance indicated. Owner unhappy with the expense of ferry and a pilot willing to accept the imbalance. Fair enough, was the 'fuller' tank dipped? Was the fuel in the lower tank exhausted (during the cruise) before the 'fuller' tank was brought on line? Why were the gear and flap not utilsed during the approach, as per the manufacturers check list?  Why was the approach not delayed untill the emergency gear extension drill was performed - ?

Look, I could bang on all night about this event; so many holes in the ATSB cheese as to beggar belief. It was a straight forward stuff up; one which begs answer to many serious breaches of 'sound' operational management, a failure of operational diligence, discipline; and, like many other 'accidents'; shows a complete disregard for airmanship, training, produced by the current system which supports the CASA/ ATSB  'laissez faire' and the work rounds which allow such shoddy workmanship from the ATSB. It is Pony Pooh of the first water; expensive and completely counter productive to 'safety' and can only lead down one road. The road to perdition.

There all better now; that's off my chest; I won't read that particular load of dribble again; not ever. Shameful – Kim Bliss would have the roof off the building – enough said.

That's it; read through P2's recent posts i(without a bucket handy) if you can; then dream of sanity, respect and dare I say probity returning to the management of 'matters aeronautical', rescued from the abyss, brought back to a rational, reasonable state; Hell's bells, we might even try for ICAO compliance – but enough...My twiddles don't matter a damn, but someone, somewhere, sometime, has to set matters to rights. Gods alone know what our peers would make of this rubbish from the ATSB; but, I do have an inkling (76 furious emails) all asking WTD?   - As if I could answer that....

Selah.......

[Kharon]

Uncertain outcomes..

“Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.”

Monday, 4 November 2024.
“Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts”.

OK, so – Communications and the Arts are 'excluded'. The program reads as though 'outcomes' aka. 'reports' will be presented; in short 'work done' related to the subject matter; or, at least near enough to pass unmolested.

Pick a department – anyone of those mentioned will do; and, break it down to a 'cost' number – start at the beginning – premises, essential services to those premises, insurance, equipment, basic services, furnishings, staff to keep the place clean etc.. Then count up the cast and crew within; do a salary budget, add in expenses, add in all the nice little incentives and paid leave, add on bonuses etc. It becomes a staggering number, even for a 'small' outfit.  Then, look across the room – Senators, cast and crew, tea ladies, security, video, Hansard and staff to manage it all.  Senator's 'aides' plus crew, plus offices, travel, expenses etc. Not too much imagination required to gauge the eye watering per hour cost of the program.  Fair enough, say the tax paying public; democracy and all that; couldn't agree more – it is the 'cost' of the freedoms we have in this wide brown land. No quarrel with that – but; what about results for the money?

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”

How about those 'outcomes' then? What improvements do we have, if any, from this expenditure – in real terms, in real time? Are any of the nominated 'departments' able to show a tangible, measured improvement in any of the nominated 'subjects' and back it with 'proof' of theory; or, at very least, a list of quantifiable savings? You know the answers; you can estimate the cost and weigh that against 'outcome'. Say no more; the answers are writ large on nearly every industry balance sheet.

“Our inequality materializes our upper class, vulgarizes our middle class, brutalizes our lower class.”

There's one undeniable fact related to matters aeronautical; get more than three people in a 'discussion' and the chances of consensus become slim. Had one lately with a couple of folks. Back in the day, the very first 'powered' approach and landing I did was after second solo. Prior to this, every approach was a 'glide approach' – the notion being that in the event of an engine failure, the forced landing would not be a first learning experience; just another 'glide approach'. It made – to me  at least – good sense, made for a solid default setting and a knowledge of what to expect from the aircraft. The C 210 event at YSBK still troubles; for many reasons (as previously banged on about). For some reason, the event troubles me. A C210 is a junior grade entry level aircraft for professional crew; and not too much for a competent PPL to manage; good ship and a workhorse. There was – according to 'reports' not too much wrong with the aircraft; CASA issued a special (SFP) and charged for it -  approving a one off to maintenance, so not too much awry with the aircraft. Which leads us back to the human equation – and (MO) to basic training. I wonder how much time and effort was devoted to 'forced landing' technique and current 'practice' of the same. Aye, a rare event – but one that is always on the cards. Then we must examine both systems management and aircraft performance; both essential items, intimate knowledge available within the AFM.  I ain't saying there is a fault, but the whole thing just seemed a bit 'left handed' to me. There are most certainly questions for the ATSB to answer (No?  - I wonder why not). For example:-

1) Specifically against what was the 'SFP' issued?  Bald tyre, compass card out of date, MR overdue – what?

2) Did ATSB determine if the undercarriage had been extended manually on a previous flight?

3) Was there a fuel flow problem noted on previous flights? Strange thing, this massive fuel imbalance -  as is taking off on the tank with the lowest fuel reading. Routine take off on the fullest tank and change at preset times to keep the fuel (and aircraft) balanced. Why take off on the low tank – perhaps there was a reason.

4) Not certain if the C210 manual calls for 'coarse' propeller to be selected as part of an OEI landing; but the benefit in glide performance is well noted, tried and tested.

Oh, there's more, all academic – although interesting and probably a worth while exercise for the ATSB – all in the name of safety and good airmanship of course. Alas; silence was the stern reply; that and a glib skim over. Lets see what (if anything) the ever present Popinjay makes of the Oaks collision, that will be interesting – given the disinterest shown in past events.

“Wisdom begins in wonder.”

Got to love this time of the year; warm enough, a breeze, bright light streaming in through open stable doors; dogs stretched out soaking up the rays: definitely beer o'clock. I shall take a sketch pad outdoors and attempt to design and execute my latest commission. Royal command no less; a 'short wheel base' Urchin (grubby) marched into the workshop, her acolytes followed struggling with a large 'lump' of Gum tree; no idea yet what it is, but its nicely figured.”I need a bedside cabinet of four drawers, no bigger than this (wide) this deep and this high. Specifications sketched with spread hands. So here I will sit, enjoy my Ale, smoke, sunset and try to make some semblance of design – for approval. Looks like I am alone for the while – the dogs heard the food bowls being sorted – loyalty eh?....

Selah..