Flight test of the Jetpod
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flight test of the Jetpod
After the very sad news that the Jetpod prototype has crashed, killing the company owner Michael Dacre I would be very grateful if the experts on this thread might venture an opinion on a couple of questions.
British aviation pioneer dies after prototype crashes in Malaysia - Times Online
What are the normal protocols for flight testing a prototype like this?
Would the aircraft have been fitted with a Flight Data Recorder (i.e. is it mandatory for testing a jet aircraft in this category)?
Given that it appears that the testing was being undertaken in Malaysia, would the UK AAIB have any input into the investigation of the accident (apparently the aircraft in question belongs to a Malaysian subsidiary of Avcen)?
British aviation pioneer dies after prototype crashes in Malaysia - Times Online
What are the normal protocols for flight testing a prototype like this?
Would the aircraft have been fitted with a Flight Data Recorder (i.e. is it mandatory for testing a jet aircraft in this category)?
Given that it appears that the testing was being undertaken in Malaysia, would the UK AAIB have any input into the investigation of the accident (apparently the aircraft in question belongs to a Malaysian subsidiary of Avcen)?
"Normal protocols" would be a fairly rugged set of risk assessments, work up, safety procedures, crew training... I've no idea if this was in place or not.
Would it be fitted with an ADR? I don't know anything about Malaysian regulations, but in the UK it would be regarded as good practice but not legally mandatory. Ditto telemetry.
Would AAIB be interested? Almost certainly not - it had no British registration and any lessons learned are unlikely to impact upon flight safety in the UK fleet.
I am rather curious as to why a UK company would choose to conduct flight testing in an obscure corner of Malaysia? There's a lot of flight test infrastructure and expertise in the UK, but it's not something for which the Malays are particularly known.
G
Would it be fitted with an ADR? I don't know anything about Malaysian regulations, but in the UK it would be regarded as good practice but not legally mandatory. Ditto telemetry.
Would AAIB be interested? Almost certainly not - it had no British registration and any lessons learned are unlikely to impact upon flight safety in the UK fleet.
I am rather curious as to why a UK company would choose to conduct flight testing in an obscure corner of Malaysia? There's a lot of flight test infrastructure and expertise in the UK, but it's not something for which the Malays are particularly known.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis
I appreciate your detailed answer.
I left your question unsaid in my list but I am just as curious to the background to the test.
I was fascinated by the concept of the Jetpod when it was publicised in 2004 but have struggled to find any detailed specifications for the prototype (not surprisingly) in the interim. It is particularly sad to see the prototype flight end in this tragic way.
I appreciate your detailed answer.
I am rather curious as to why a UK company would choose to conduct flight testing in an obscure corner of Malaysia? There's a lot of flight test infrastructure and expertise in the UK, but it's not something for which the Malays are particularly known.
I was fascinated by the concept of the Jetpod when it was publicised in 2004 but have struggled to find any detailed specifications for the prototype (not surprisingly) in the interim. It is particularly sad to see the prototype flight end in this tragic way.
From "The Star Online" found with Google
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/8/17/nation/4533356&sec=nation
Avcen Limited Malaysia is based at Patimas Technology Centre, Technology Park, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur and Dacre had intended for the eight-seater flying taxi to be ready in 2010.
The incident was witnessed by many residents including retired soldier Halim Hamid.
Halim, 50, who resides at nearby Taman Saujana Jaya said he was scooping shrimps to feed his pet fish at a pond about 50m from where the aircraft had crashed.
“Earlier, I saw it revving down the runway thrice but it could not take off and later another three times in the opposite direction.”
“However, on the fourth run, the jet took off but at about 200m high, it shot vertically to the sky before veering to the left and falling to the ground.”
“There was a loud explosion when it crashed and firemen who were at the scene managed to put out the blaze,” said Halim.[/font]
He said the Jetpod, brought in parts in a lorry container, arrived at the airstrip about a week ago.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/8/18/nation/4540606&sec=nation
TAIPING: No flight plan was filed for the maiden test flight of the Jetpod which crashed at the Tekah airstrip here on Sunday, killing its inventor Michael Robert Dacre.
The Civil Aviation Department said the test flight was not registered in the Civil Aircraft Register.
MCA vice chairman Datuk Ho Cheng Wang said the Tekah airstrip was no longer surrounded by jungles as in the old days.
“The airstrip is now surrounded by housing estates and who is going to be responsible had the plane crashed into some houses in the vicinity?” he asked.
The airstrip is not suitable for conducting test flights and the Civil Aviation Department should take action.
Taiping deputy OCPD Superintent Syed A. Wahab Syed A. Majid said since the airstrip was surrounded by housing schemes, advice from the police should have been sought.
“Although we are not empowered to approve or disapprove the maiden test flight, we would have studied the matter and given our views because we must also think about the safety of civilians in the vicinity,” he said.
Avcen Limited Malaysia is based at Patimas Technology Centre, Technology Park, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur and Dacre had intended for the eight-seater flying taxi to be ready in 2010.
The incident was witnessed by many residents including retired soldier Halim Hamid.
Halim, 50, who resides at nearby Taman Saujana Jaya said he was scooping shrimps to feed his pet fish at a pond about 50m from where the aircraft had crashed.
“Earlier, I saw it revving down the runway thrice but it could not take off and later another three times in the opposite direction.”
“However, on the fourth run, the jet took off but at about 200m high, it shot vertically to the sky before veering to the left and falling to the ground.”
“There was a loud explosion when it crashed and firemen who were at the scene managed to put out the blaze,” said Halim.[/font]
He said the Jetpod, brought in parts in a lorry container, arrived at the airstrip about a week ago.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/8/18/nation/4540606&sec=nation
TAIPING: No flight plan was filed for the maiden test flight of the Jetpod which crashed at the Tekah airstrip here on Sunday, killing its inventor Michael Robert Dacre.
The Civil Aviation Department said the test flight was not registered in the Civil Aircraft Register.
MCA vice chairman Datuk Ho Cheng Wang said the Tekah airstrip was no longer surrounded by jungles as in the old days.
“The airstrip is now surrounded by housing estates and who is going to be responsible had the plane crashed into some houses in the vicinity?” he asked.
The airstrip is not suitable for conducting test flights and the Civil Aviation Department should take action.
Taiping deputy OCPD Superintent Syed A. Wahab Syed A. Majid said since the airstrip was surrounded by housing schemes, advice from the police should have been sought.
“Although we are not empowered to approve or disapprove the maiden test flight, we would have studied the matter and given our views because we must also think about the safety of civilians in the vicinity,” he said.
Last edited by Maoraigh1; 18th Aug 2009 at 07:34. Reason: Remove formatting data
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anecdotal "evidence" quoted here, indicates that there might have been up to three ground runs before the final fourth run and fatal flight!
'Jetpod' air taxi entrepreneur killed in test crash
'Jetpod' air taxi entrepreneur killed in test crash
Circumstances of the accident have yet to be established but a witness at the crash site tells Flightglobal that the aircraft had already made three runs, during each of which there appeared to be engine problems.
It made a fourth attempt to become airborne, he says, and took off at about 12:45, entering a "sharp climb". It appeared to suffer a problem with its left-hand engine, he says, at about 500-700ft, then yawed sharply to the left and crashed.
It made a fourth attempt to become airborne, he says, and took off at about 12:45, entering a "sharp climb". It appeared to suffer a problem with its left-hand engine, he says, at about 500-700ft, then yawed sharply to the left and crashed.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this tragic incident intriguing.
1. The Avcen Jetpod project was conducted in seemingly a very secretive manner (good on 'em though if that's what they wanted to achieve - they did a good job on keeping a low profile). I hadn't heard a whisper of how far they had got with their prototype and they managed to keep it off the web too.
2. The prototype, presumably unregistered and unknown to the Malaysian CAA, was shipped out there (presumably having been assembled elsewhere - in UK?) before being assembled.
3. If the Malaysian CAA did not know or approve of any test flying from what would appear to be an unsuitable airfield, the intention must have therefore been just to do high speed taxy tests without flying? Something must have gone seriously wrong for the aircraft to reach 600ft in that case.
4. Why go to Malaysia to do taxy testing?
5. The combination of a project prinicipal who is also project test pilot seems to me to be unnecissarily risky as often the two roles are in contradiction with one another.
I guess the facts will emerge in the fullness of time. My heart goes out to all those involved, it must be awful.
OG
1. The Avcen Jetpod project was conducted in seemingly a very secretive manner (good on 'em though if that's what they wanted to achieve - they did a good job on keeping a low profile). I hadn't heard a whisper of how far they had got with their prototype and they managed to keep it off the web too.
2. The prototype, presumably unregistered and unknown to the Malaysian CAA, was shipped out there (presumably having been assembled elsewhere - in UK?) before being assembled.
3. If the Malaysian CAA did not know or approve of any test flying from what would appear to be an unsuitable airfield, the intention must have therefore been just to do high speed taxy tests without flying? Something must have gone seriously wrong for the aircraft to reach 600ft in that case.
4. Why go to Malaysia to do taxy testing?
5. The combination of a project prinicipal who is also project test pilot seems to me to be unnecissarily risky as often the two roles are in contradiction with one another.
I guess the facts will emerge in the fullness of time. My heart goes out to all those involved, it must be awful.
OG
If there was a Malaysian financial backer, that would explain development continuing from a Malaysian technology park.
A little-used runway might be all they could get for early taxi trials.
Taxi trials, with a very low stall speed, very high power to mass ratio, aircraft could easily lead to an inadvertant take-off. A wind gust or a bump on the runway could be the trigger. If it happened near the end of the run, continuing the flight might appear the best (only?) option.
A little-used runway might be all they could get for early taxi trials.
Taxi trials, with a very low stall speed, very high power to mass ratio, aircraft could easily lead to an inadvertant take-off. A wind gust or a bump on the runway could be the trigger. If it happened near the end of the run, continuing the flight might appear the best (only?) option.
Looking at `GE`,the old runway was removed and it is an old strip,does`nt appear to have had much frequent use,and only about 3000` in length. Whilst many claims are made for the aircraft`s performance,early taxi runs should have been carried out on a hard surface;Ipoh is not far away and about 6000` long,and doesn`t appear to be a very busy airfield.
Rushing into taxi runs on a short `strip` is fraught with problems,and getting airborne inadvertently,without all the control and stability handling necessary in ground effect on an unconventional type is not to be viewed lightly and approached incrementally.
Does anyone have any knowledge of the pilot; background,experience,qualifications etc? anyone on here been `approached` to offer advice,direction etc?
it also appears from the video `clips` that the wing shape of the aircraft appears to be more conventional( straight,not tapered) than the artists early impressions.
I find it very sad that someone has died seeking a dream, when advice,perhaps encouragement,knowledge,experience,could have been received from a wealth of talent,from a source such as this......Perhaps we`ll never know....
Rushing into taxi runs on a short `strip` is fraught with problems,and getting airborne inadvertently,without all the control and stability handling necessary in ground effect on an unconventional type is not to be viewed lightly and approached incrementally.
Does anyone have any knowledge of the pilot; background,experience,qualifications etc? anyone on here been `approached` to offer advice,direction etc?
it also appears from the video `clips` that the wing shape of the aircraft appears to be more conventional( straight,not tapered) than the artists early impressions.
I find it very sad that someone has died seeking a dream, when advice,perhaps encouragement,knowledge,experience,could have been received from a wealth of talent,from a source such as this......Perhaps we`ll never know....
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding that this is a rumour network, can I suggest some benefit of the doubt is given in this case until more facts are known?
How do you know that he had not approached this first flight in a thoroughly professional and incremental manner?
How do you know that he got airborne 'inadvertently'?
How do you know that he did not seek advice from professionals?
It certainly does not seem from your post that you know the answers to these questions, so why assume the worst?
I can understand people speculating on the causes of an accident, but I dont see why it is necessary to imply criticism of an individual at such an early stage after the accident.
How do you know that he had not approached this first flight in a thoroughly professional and incremental manner?
How do you know that he got airborne 'inadvertently'?
How do you know that he did not seek advice from professionals?
It certainly does not seem from your post that you know the answers to these questions, so why assume the worst?
I can understand people speculating on the causes of an accident, but I dont see why it is necessary to imply criticism of an individual at such an early stage after the accident.
Guest
Posts: n/a
until more facts are known?
The accident occurred at a Malaysian airport and by all accounts the aircraft was assembled there.
The accident killed a UK subject but as Ghengis has pointed out, the aircraft does not appear to have been registered in the UK.
These registration issues beg a number of questions but the one that I would like to ask here is, who will investigate this accident and, more specifically, who is likely to investigate it rigorously?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
What qualifications did Mr. Dacre have regarding flight testing?
What sort of team did he have behind him for things like weight and CG control, to list just the first of many such questions.
What sort of team did he have behind him for things like weight and CG control, to list just the first of many such questions.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should add: the website of the company has been replaced by a single message, and only partial information is on the site maintained by archive.org
Times like this, the first question should be: "What do we know about this guy anyway?"
The initial press release was in October 2004, and announced they were looking for a single private investor to take up to 50% of the company.
From the January 2005 press release:
Their last press release was four months later, on the occasion of a CNN feature. This release announces:
Here the tune changes slightly:
So, they were hunting whales from the start, and might have gotten a few.
For those of you interested in the business operations of the Avcen and "Jet Central", the web points to at least one company willing to sell you the information on AVCEN and Jet Central. Both are registered to the same addressed; Avcen was incorporated in 1994; the "Newly Formed" Jet Central was incorporated in 1996.
Additional company info tells us that Mr. Dacre's BA was in Aviation and MSc in "Air Transport Management". A Register Article also calls him a pilot.
So we have a company with only one person as a contact for any of their press releases, design information, sales, listed as:
Mike Dacre, MSc. Managing Director
So also Managing Director, "The conceptual innovator and creator of the Jetpod", and, apparently and alas, Chief Test Pilot.
He claimed to have enough money for "proof of concept' tests, but sought (and apparently secured) outside investors, or at least one. PoC testing was supposed to take place in 2006. What's the next we hear from them?
Archive.org's versions of the Avcen homepage link to now-unavailable 2006 press releases regarding opening a "Malaysian Satellite Office" (August 1) and increased staffing" (April 24). Their "VP, Corporate Development" is "Mr. Kenneth Mo"
2008, they post the following two videos:
From this we gather: A. they had a prototype fuselage in a hangar somewhere, without engines or cockpit. B. Their company/Jetpod info piece takes place entirely in front of a bluescreen. C. The poster of the child/hangar video, ccannonball, lists her or his location as Malaysia.
So a Malaysian investor, or even the thing being built in a Malaysian hangar is entirely likely. This is confirmed by a mention on the City University's ATM MSc page. Under "More", subheading "Graduate Destinations":
I'm hoping that Mr. Dacre was a misunderstood genius, and the Jetpod becomes a screaming success. His aircraft were to be small, with vertical thrust provided by angled jets. Flight time would be short (and range would be shorter). From the descriptions, he would need to get regulatory approval for something that could only stay airborne for 10-15 minutes without running out of gas, flew very low to ground in built-up areas, and needed both engines turning for short-field performance.
In building a startup, you need to take plenty of risks. In building a STOL jet-powered commuter that shoots silently along urban corridors at 300 knots at 300 feet AGL (better have a tough windscreen and impressive wiper blades), you have to be crazy or know something the rest of us don't. Considering the way the project was funded and developed until now, common opinion is pointing to obsession leading to madness rather than genius. Either way, it makes a fascinating story, especially since, unlike so many other flying car types, he obviously believed in his design; he may have been deluded, but Dacre was no huckster.
So "Taxi Tests" does not sound plausible, especially if the same witness described those "taxi attempts" as takeoffs aborted due to engine problems. Years behind, on a shoestring budget, with a small number of investors, we find a small company (that from the outside appears even a 'one-man' job) performing an unannounced test (flight) on an unapproved airframe of a completely novel design with two completely new "revolutionary" 2400-lb-thrust engines.
Times like this, the first question should be: "What do we know about this guy anyway?"
The initial press release was in October 2004, and announced they were looking for a single private investor to take up to 50% of the company.
From the January 2005 press release:
Situation update:
Avcen is still concentrating on getting the Proof of Concept aircraft into the air as soon as possible, approximately 16 months from now. We have been approached by many potential buyers and people wanting to invest. We are not accepting deposits for the aircraft and we are not accepting investment from small-stake investors. Some potential larger-stake investors have offered us reasonably large amounts of capital but we felt that their business interests were not consistent with ours. We are still holding out for a "single" investor that may of may not be associated with aerospace. This single investor might be a private individual, a consortium, a Government, or an aerospace company. Avcen does not need investment to get to the POC flight trials, but such early investor interest would certainly accelerate this process. After the POC is completed, we know that we can raise considerable funds to take the aircraft into production. Ideally, we are keen to talk to a "partner" investor in a country interested in hosting the manufacture of as much as 80% of the Jetpod. We are particularly interested in the Gulf region, e.g. UAE. The aircraft design office will remain in Europe and the aircraft will be finished in Europe. The conceptual innovator and creator of the Jetpod is Mike Dacre and interested investors should email him at [email protected]
Avcen is still concentrating on getting the Proof of Concept aircraft into the air as soon as possible, approximately 16 months from now. We have been approached by many potential buyers and people wanting to invest. We are not accepting deposits for the aircraft and we are not accepting investment from small-stake investors. Some potential larger-stake investors have offered us reasonably large amounts of capital but we felt that their business interests were not consistent with ours. We are still holding out for a "single" investor that may of may not be associated with aerospace. This single investor might be a private individual, a consortium, a Government, or an aerospace company. Avcen does not need investment to get to the POC flight trials, but such early investor interest would certainly accelerate this process. After the POC is completed, we know that we can raise considerable funds to take the aircraft into production. Ideally, we are keen to talk to a "partner" investor in a country interested in hosting the manufacture of as much as 80% of the Jetpod. We are particularly interested in the Gulf region, e.g. UAE. The aircraft design office will remain in Europe and the aircraft will be finished in Europe. The conceptual innovator and creator of the Jetpod is Mike Dacre and interested investors should email him at [email protected]
April 28, 2005 -- Avcen Limited in London is pleased to announce the following: Jet Central Limited, a newly formed sister Company to Avcen Limited, has been appointed sole worldwide agent responsible for offering specific advice to global city municipals on Jetpod innercity VQSTOL operations.
Since 15th April 2005, Avcen has offered 20% of the Company in the form of 200 shares to help fund the proof-of-concept flight trials next year. Thus far, we have been inundated by investors looking to purchase individual shares. In the meantime we are encouraging one or two large-stake investors to come forward and take either 50, 100, or all 200 shares and benefit from this once-only opportunity.
For those of you interested in the business operations of the Avcen and "Jet Central", the web points to at least one company willing to sell you the information on AVCEN and Jet Central. Both are registered to the same addressed; Avcen was incorporated in 1994; the "Newly Formed" Jet Central was incorporated in 1996.
Additional company info tells us that Mr. Dacre's BA was in Aviation and MSc in "Air Transport Management". A Register Article also calls him a pilot.
So we have a company with only one person as a contact for any of their press releases, design information, sales, listed as:
Mike Dacre, MSc. Managing Director
So also Managing Director, "The conceptual innovator and creator of the Jetpod", and, apparently and alas, Chief Test Pilot.
He claimed to have enough money for "proof of concept' tests, but sought (and apparently secured) outside investors, or at least one. PoC testing was supposed to take place in 2006. What's the next we hear from them?
Archive.org's versions of the Avcen homepage link to now-unavailable 2006 press releases regarding opening a "Malaysian Satellite Office" (August 1) and increased staffing" (April 24). Their "VP, Corporate Development" is "Mr. Kenneth Mo"
2008, they post the following two videos:
From this we gather: A. they had a prototype fuselage in a hangar somewhere, without engines or cockpit. B. Their company/Jetpod info piece takes place entirely in front of a bluescreen. C. The poster of the child/hangar video, ccannonball, lists her or his location as Malaysia.
So a Malaysian investor, or even the thing being built in a Malaysian hangar is entirely likely. This is confirmed by a mention on the City University's ATM MSc page. Under "More", subheading "Graduate Destinations":
A pilot and broker when enrolled, a 2004 British Graduate has set up an aircraft manufacturing company in Malaysia to build his own design of Very Light Jet, the Avcen Jetpod.
I'm hoping that Mr. Dacre was a misunderstood genius, and the Jetpod becomes a screaming success. His aircraft were to be small, with vertical thrust provided by angled jets. Flight time would be short (and range would be shorter). From the descriptions, he would need to get regulatory approval for something that could only stay airborne for 10-15 minutes without running out of gas, flew very low to ground in built-up areas, and needed both engines turning for short-field performance.
In building a startup, you need to take plenty of risks. In building a STOL jet-powered commuter that shoots silently along urban corridors at 300 knots at 300 feet AGL (better have a tough windscreen and impressive wiper blades), you have to be crazy or know something the rest of us don't. Considering the way the project was funded and developed until now, common opinion is pointing to obsession leading to madness rather than genius. Either way, it makes a fascinating story, especially since, unlike so many other flying car types, he obviously believed in his design; he may have been deluded, but Dacre was no huckster.
So "Taxi Tests" does not sound plausible, especially if the same witness described those "taxi attempts" as takeoffs aborted due to engine problems. Years behind, on a shoestring budget, with a small number of investors, we find a small company (that from the outside appears even a 'one-man' job) performing an unannounced test (flight) on an unapproved airframe of a completely novel design with two completely new "revolutionary" 2400-lb-thrust engines.
Last edited by DingerX; 21st Aug 2009 at 10:25.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Years behind, on a shoestring budget, with a small number of investors, we find a small company (that from the outside appears even a 'one-man' job) performing an unannounced test (flight) on an unapproved airframe of a completely novel design with two completely new "revolutionary" 2400-lb-thrust engines.
Mr Dacre was obviously a well liked and highly regarded pilot judging by the posts on the Where Are They forum here on PPRuNe.
I certainly hope that this concept is taken forward and tested further.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: key biscayne
Age: 61
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned accidental take off.
If you look at the design of the aircraft, you can clearly see that the main gear are way aft of the center of lift.
Because of that configuration, the excessive downward force required by the elevator to cause the plane to raise the nose with the pivot point being the (too far aft) main gear would guarantee pitch-up once the wing generated lift and the "pivot point" changed from the main gear to the center of lift.
The fact that nobody was filming the crowning achievement of his first flight leads me to believe he did not intend to take off.
I feel he was doing high speed taxis with a bit of elevator deflection to lighten or maybe even raise nose so he could get a feel of the elevator authority but the wing generated lift, the "pivot point" swapped from the gear to the wing greatly increasing the authority of the elevator to raise the nose further, it pitched up sharply, and the wings blanked the airflow to the elevator which stuck him nose high.
If you look at the design of the aircraft, you can clearly see that the main gear are way aft of the center of lift.
Because of that configuration, the excessive downward force required by the elevator to cause the plane to raise the nose with the pivot point being the (too far aft) main gear would guarantee pitch-up once the wing generated lift and the "pivot point" changed from the main gear to the center of lift.
The fact that nobody was filming the crowning achievement of his first flight leads me to believe he did not intend to take off.
I feel he was doing high speed taxis with a bit of elevator deflection to lighten or maybe even raise nose so he could get a feel of the elevator authority but the wing generated lift, the "pivot point" swapped from the gear to the wing greatly increasing the authority of the elevator to raise the nose further, it pitched up sharply, and the wings blanked the airflow to the elevator which stuck him nose high.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icepaq / DingerX
What a pair of armchair investigators you two are. From nothing more than some press releases and cartoon photos/animations you have managed to figure out what most likely happened in this tragic accident and are even able to comment on the character of Mike Dacre without knowing who he was or his aviation background.
Perhaps Walt Disney Productions could use you both to investigate some of Mickey Mouse's mishaps.
Might I suggest that if you crave recognition as anything serious, you write to AVCEN and request the facts. If they feel your expertise is of value then I'm sure they will give you the facts you deserve. Until you have such facts on which to base your amazing deductions, I would suggest you scribble your notes on your next square of toilet paper, just before its function is fulfilled.
Nil further.
Tam Macklin
Perhaps Walt Disney Productions could use you both to investigate some of Mickey Mouse's mishaps.
Might I suggest that if you crave recognition as anything serious, you write to AVCEN and request the facts. If they feel your expertise is of value then I'm sure they will give you the facts you deserve. Until you have such facts on which to base your amazing deductions, I would suggest you scribble your notes on your next square of toilet paper, just before its function is fulfilled.
Nil further.
Tam Macklin
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: key biscayne
Age: 61
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!
I never expected an ad hominem attack that contains zero relation to the topic of the thread.
What we both did was offer our best guesses.
I also only made mention of the physics involved and said nothing that questions the skills or decisions of the pilot.
I never expected an ad hominem attack that contains zero relation to the topic of the thread.
What we both did was offer our best guesses.
I also only made mention of the physics involved and said nothing that questions the skills or decisions of the pilot.
Last edited by IcePaq; 10th Sep 2009 at 18:26.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What we both did was offer our best guesses.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
As you know I'm no Kiddley Spam, but surely this points to a control surface rather than propulsion failure, especially with a jet ?
Unintended take-offs might be attention grabbers, as we've seen recently with a much heavier aircraft in the U.K, but am I being anal or wouldn't a pilot & team have an aircraft set up anyway as Plan B ?!
As you know I'm no Kiddley Spam, but surely this points to a control surface rather than propulsion failure, especially with a jet ?
Unintended take-offs might be attention grabbers, as we've seen recently with a much heavier aircraft in the U.K, but am I being anal or wouldn't a pilot & team have an aircraft set up anyway as Plan B ?!
Last edited by Double Zero; 14th Sep 2009 at 18:50.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And my idea of ' Plan B ' doesn't involve spare aircraft or pilots, though a second experienced person on board, able to monitor things rather than pure flying, seems a good idea to me !
Last edited by Double Zero; 14th Sep 2009 at 18:54.