gaunty

Feather #3 the stats were up to 1973, I'm having the same trouble getting on to the site but last night it was working OK,

You may well be right, anecdotaly you sure are, but I recall a preponderance of US Navy aircraft in the stats. When I can get on the site I'll do a stat analysis on the date.

I hear what you say but I don't think that should be read as a reflection of the skills, experience and ability of those who maintain and fly her, I for one don't and I imagine any thinking person in full knowledge of the facts as to whom could argue otherwise.

IMHO the issue is the aircraft herself although the Queen of the Skies in modern safety and efficiency as it was known in days of yore it is no longer so beyond nostalgia.

I had the pleasure some weeks ago of spending a day with a mate who is into vintage and post vintage cars at one of their rallies. Great fun careening around the course, fascinating machinery, great nostalgia, there was even a mint Rover P8, my grandmother drove one and a smelled new Austin A70, my fathers first new car. My fond memories of them as a small child were modified a little by a drive of both. Both excellent in their day.

When I slipped back to my late model AWD car with SIPS, ABS, TRACS, WHIPS, 37? airbags, 5 speed lockup auto, computer run distributorless 5 cylinder 2.5 turbo returning 7.5l/100km highway and 10.1l/100kmh city cycle and six steak knives I decided that it had been a really great day, but I was happy to be back to the real world free of brake fade, scary suspension, bicycle like wheels, cranky ignition, noisy and intractable gearboxes and wheels bolted direct to the body, with the hope that the enthusiasts who made it possible would invite me back next time.

BTW I found in the bits you collect over the years a "Lockheed Super Constellation Pocket Handbook" circa 1959.

I can't recall how it came in to my posession but it is signed on the inside cover by "Rus Bomanjie 1049 + Transit servicing".

It is full of humorous but amazing cutaway drawings of the aircraft at the head of each chapter. Schematics, systems diagrams and descriptions, checklists, weight and balance.

"This brief summary has been prepared to familiarise sirline personnel with features, systems and characteristics of the airplane"

I pull it out every now and then to do a "Walter Mitty", you may already have one, but it may be of more use to you or your org as a training aid or just part of the memorabilia than gathering dust on my bookshelf.

If you would like to have it please let me know to where I can send it.

Feather #3

Gaunty,

Thanks for the offer, but I've received one from another source. Hang onto it!! May help fund a walking-frame when sold on E-bay one day [joke!! ]

Umm......you balance the argument very well with the vintage motor racing scene. OTOH, if operated sensibly within their envelope, the vintage racers work just fine. So, I'd suggest do vintage aircraft.

From the acknowledgement sheet to the placarding, I'd doubt anybody who flies on our a/c have any doubt that their not getting on some modern airline a/c certified and flown to RPT standards. Statements about mis-leading our flying visitors and Society members are highly specious.

Equally, I think I could safely say that the Society members are also offended in the extreme by comments about illegality and danger in our operations. Does it occur to any of them that one reason CASA don't take any action against us [and they DO read this forum!] is that we are operating within the law? Aspects of this law and agreements we have with CASA they may not like, but to vilify us "out of Court" is decidedly "off". Indeed, one reason you'll rarely find anybody who knows the facts replying here to these accusations is that one is on a "hiding to nothing". There's no accountability or redress [despite this thread and its forebears being shutdown repeatedly.]

Thanks for the chance to at least put an alternative viewpoint.

G'day

doesn't look good

Feather #3 at last maybe we can get a sensible discussion on these matters. The answer to this mystery may well be that CASA is talking through both sides of its mouth.

Maybe we should take one point at a time.

CASA have stated very clearly, on the record, the documents are with Woomera, that Connie and many of the other HARS planes are PI 2 and prohibited from flying over built up areas. The AC also states that Connie, Neptune, DC3 are PI 2.

We are now aware that last year the AOC for Connie was changed and the certificate now says PI 0 although it is unclear that Dines has the authority to do this( see the AAP Top Gun judgement). I have witnessed personally and there have been many reports of Connie and the other HARS planes flying over built up areas, at time low on approach to AP. Some Photographs are also posted on the HARS website. Is this denied or does HARS believe that their aircraft, Connie before the change of PI, and the Neptune’s and DC3’s are and were allowed to fly over built up areas.

CASA has written and stated this is not allowed and they have granted no exemptions to HARS.

Who is not telling the truth or where is the confusion. Perhaps if we sort this one out we can move to the next and put these matters to bed once and for all. The reason that some persons are casting aspersions is that CASA is clearly indicating that HARS are breaching air safety regulations. I agree with you there is confusion as no action is being taken. This leads to annoyance and threads like the one that says one rule for some. If there some secret deals then that could also explain things.

ASKARI

These are the figures applicable to the hull loss rates for the Connie:

Hull-loss Accidents: 98 with a total of 1032 fatalities
Other occurrences (hull-loss): 11 with a total of 31 fatalities
Unfiled occurrences (hull-loss): 2 with a total of 0 fatalities
Hijackings: 2 with a total of 0 fatalities
Selection of incidents: 0 with a total of 0 fatalities



Sorry, don't know how to import the graph but it is well worth the look!

gaunty

ASKARIthat is interesting but too simplistic and would need to cover ALL the accidents in similar types of the period.

The point is as Feather #3 points outThe importance of HARS, to the community at large, having a legitimate and secure home can not be underestimated.

I guess when it is all washed up, if the airstrip was permanently upgraded to 60t, and I suspect that hangs on the willingness of the Council to compete for HARS business on proper and economic terms, there would not be a problem. Why was this not negotiated in the first place.

Index shmindex, I understand that it is possible to construct a safe path for the aircraft PI 0, 1, 2 or 3 to which they must strictly comply.

If that is not reasonably possible then they must go elsewhere.

Whatever process is used it is clear "potentially contentious issues" nowadays whether it is done totally in good faith or not the "old boys club", "nod and a wink" and the "mates" club" does not work anymore and causes the form of angst seen here.

I suspect that if a full briefing and open discussion with the community including those on the airport during the whole transfer process was not applied, then I'm not surprised at the angst.

My experience in other areas dealing with enthusiasts suggests that the temptation to try and "get in under the radar" for fear of "kicking a sleeping dog" always backfires.

This is a perfectly understandable and natural reaction for any group of enthusiasts, who have difficulty understanding why others don't share their peculiar enthusiasm, "anoraks" and "train spotters " spring to mind. That comparison might start a bit of harumphing in the HARS ranks. It was not meant to demean their organisation or the "anoraks", but point out that both are equally entitled to their individual passions. Why else would "anoraks" enter an international airport through the drainage system at great risk to themselves to get that "perfect shot".

I don't recall seeing but if there are then they are clearly misinformed, as you know it's a legal requirement. Having said that I would be briefing my members not to make any comment or representation that could have the effect ot minimising or mitigating the intent of message in the placard, it is there for a reason. "Shallow end no diving" isn't an invitation to say "well it is a bit, but if you dive in a certain way it'll be OK."

with respect, disdain simply inflames negative responses, calm, factual, rational education and responses do not. Again with the greatest respect, it is HARS or any other similar organisations responsibility to show their fellow community they can and will be good community citizens not the other way around.

Go HARS but if you can't make it work with the owners of ShellHarbour Airport and the community you have to go somewhere else, if you are not to be limited and are going to achieve your long term success. Is it safe to assume that Connie wont be the last biggish aircraft in the planning stage and it is likely that it will not be possible for them to achieve the PI O that appears to be possible with Connies unique background effort and pedigree.

asac

DLG
You mean CofA or Special CofA not AOC. Apart from that what you say is correct.


Gaunty
You must know somebody at CASA. You are spot on in your analysis. Attempted to get under the radar and have now been caught out. You cannot over estimate what a major problem this is.

Feather #3
there are no special agreements with CASA. Hars have to obey the rules just the same as any other operator. Officers who may have indicated otherwise do not have the authority to do so despite what they might have told you.

ASKARI

The members should neither be offended nor surprised that people have made comments about perceived dangers and illegalities in their operations to date. Just one simple example; the willful and continued operation of a 60t aircraft into a 8t strip that caused impact damage to the flight strip on 8 seperate occasions! Each occasion required strip closure and repairs to be effected. Their operations should have been curtailed immediately after the first damage was discovered and it was encumbent on both HARS, the airfield operator and the airport manager to act in the best interest of the public, other airport users and the HARS membership and none of them did.
IMHO, this is a clear derilection of duty of care by all three agencies and the aircrew who knowlingly risked their aircraft, crew and the public by continuing these operations. As if that were not enough, they then started operations onto runway 08/26 which is unrated and in even more appaling condition than the main one causing similar damage to this runway.
ICAC is now asking questions about the cost of these repairs and the authority of the airport manager to waiver the costs to HARS and have the public pick up the tab. The rules clearly state that airfield repairs will be levied against the offending organisation and the $50,000+ bill was picked up by the community!

wylie_cyote

Askari, You are 100% correct in your above post. Despite all the gumflapping, the operations should have been stopped immediately it was discovered that these operations were doing serious damage to the flight strip; end of story. and they should have been stopped immediately by either:
* Airport Manager (council)
* HARS or
* CASA
All three groups could be guilty of criminal negligence and I think they are all damned lucky that nothing untowards happened!

Wunwing

Askari DLG and others.
If we are examining Connie accidents we must compare apples with apples.
Thumbing through my copy of Classic Airliners Lockheed Constellation by Jim Winchester I have come up with the following figures in the period 1953 to 1965.
There were 318 MIlitary 1049s (C121 etc) and 312 Civil 1049s delivered and by the end of 1965 most 1st level operators had sold off their 1049s.
Therefore it is valid to look only at this period, as beyond that there were a number of 1049 operators that redefined the coyboy outfit.It is also valid to only look at 1049s and civilian operators as the US military were using their C121 for many unusual opertions including flying into war zones.I am not sure for example if the fact that a C121 was hit by a Phantom tells us much about the HARS Connie expected safety level.
During that period there were 37 hull losses with 730 killed on L1049s. Of those accidents only 5 could be put down to aircraft defects that may have been uncontrollable( mainly prop problems), the rest were the usual CFIT and midairs. Mostly put down to poor skills and a different era prior to simulators.
All in all the Connie appears to be a lot better than the DC6/7 etc of the era. I suspect that 5 hulls over 12 years due to design problems and mech failures is good even by todays standards, although our modern level of training probably makes most current failures survivable.
All up from this review I think that the Connie was and is pretty safe.

gaunty

Wunwing I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

But ASKARIs point remains regardless of whose and what type of aircraft it was.

The simple test is, were this damage caused by any other aircraft of the same weight in commercial, or any other operation for that matter, what would have been the resulting action, from CASA and the Council.

Wunwing

gaunty
Actually at least 2 posters to this site do disagree and on this subject.
doesn't look good made a number of inaccurate observations on page 1 and so did collie. Now that I have the actual figures I am answering their comments.
It was claimed that Constellations had 110 hull losses and Collie claimed L188 losses of 70%. Actually there were 10 hull losses of L188s out of 170 built during the period of 1959 to 1970 and my earlier post covers the L1049s. At least 5 of the L188s were prior to identifing the engine mount problem.
To quote Jim Winchester "In regular airline service the Constellation was one of the safest post war propliners."
A number of posters say they are giving us the facts. Inaccuracies like these bring into question the accuracy of their other "facts" and so it is valid to examine all information posted , not just some of it.
There are people out there who for whatever reason want to close down HARS and anything associated with it. If they are going to criticise HARS on PPRUNE to promote their aims it is up to us to ensure all information posted is accurate.

COLLIE

Wunwing, the statistics offered were evidently directly downloaded from a statistics website about the poor flying records of the constellation....the figures are factual and accurate from that site.
Despite all the above, there is little to nothing you can say or do that will negate the last post from Askari which highlights probably the lions-share of the issues facing HARS. The inconsiderate and selfish manner that HARS have conducted their operations from the IRA in the past is quite appalling and certainly without any regard for fostering an existence in communal harmony with other airfield users or the general public at large.
As to the suggestion that there are groups/people who want to see HARS closed down - baloney! The common thread throughout all these posts has been the questionable level of special treatment offered exclusively to HARS through waivers of charges/repairs/sweetheart deals/landing charges etc etc etc. I know of not one person who is driven to see the closure of HARS as a legitimate organisation on the field and I take offence to your suggestion otherwise!

doesn't look good

Dammed statistics. I thought figures off an Aviation safety site would be a safe bet. I guess I was wrong. If you reckon only 5 were lost because of failure you’d better write in and tell them that they got it wrong. Each loss is identified. Easy to call people cowboys and discount losses.

http://aviation-safety.net/database...pe.php?type=332

“One of the safest post war propliners”. I guess this says what we all know and translates to operates in the Limited category today. That was really my only point with the data. Then and now.

Your point of simulators and better training is wonderful. I guess you again make the point for me. Or are the Connie pilots using a Connie simulator. Yet again I am only saying limited category.


Collie you get back to the matters at hand. Did you know that in the middle of the period when Connie was landing and breaking through the 7.5 tonne pavement it took up full loads of passengers and landed then, thank god without serious incident, pavement disintegrating under it. It was called fund raising and CASA turned the other way.

I guess this also raises question 3. The regulations covering limited category aircraft say 6 passengers maximum. Connie is carrying full loads. Who has the authority to overrule the air safety regulations? Does anybody? Can Dines? Is there any limit on the ability of a CASA authorized person to overrule air safety regulations if he wants to? What do air safety regulations mean if they can be over ruled for convenience?

Question 4 even today the CofA says Connie can only fly passengers back to the airfield that the plane originally departed from. Did CASA give a special exemption to fly to Kal? That flight appears to have violated the CofA.

Finally nobody wants HARS closed, not even me. I just want somebody to explain to me how all these things can be allowed to happen and why nobody in CASA will answer a straight question on this matter. Perhaps Wunwing you could start.

Animalclub

I'm ignorant... but wasn't the L188 the Electra?

CARDIA

HARS and the Airport Manager have made it very clear to everyone that they will use what ever tactics they need to to stop anymore stuff appearing on this subject. They have agreed to use as much misinformation and open hostility if need be to close down this thread so anything eminating from wunwing or his clones needs to be treated with sceptisism and caution.
They are very worried that the continual reference to the airfield damage will (has) lead to unwanted snooping and investigation as there seems to be too much interest at the moment in what money was spent, where and under what authority. One very worried Airport Manager at the moment as there are a LOT of questions being asked and very few (acceptable) answers being given.

Woomera

This or any other thread is closed on our terms and only for trangression of the rules.

And in case anyone is tempted to try and have a thread closed by said transgressions should know we have much experience in these matters.

We have been there before in much more fraught situations.

It usually results in the offender being banned.

LewC

Cardia.Maybe someone has at last stumbled across Section 435(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.Briefly,this Section provides for Councillors or Council employees found to have caused a financial loss to ratepayers as a result negligence to be forced to make good the financial loss.The process is known as "surcharge".The action has to be initiated by the Local Government Department and of course being infested with "public servants" that outfit is usually reluctant to act,nevertheless if enough ratepayers become aware of how much stupidity might have cost them then sufficient pressure might be applied to overcome their inertia.

CARDIA

LewC,
You too are correct. I think more than 1 person has stumbled upon the relevant Local Government Act. I understand that the DLG may well be looking into these very issues as we speak.
There is a lot more to come in the next few weeks.....I will keep everyone posted as best I can.
Cardia

wylie_cyote

Looks like Curley and Barney are in for a pretty rough week or two (and not before time!)
A whole pile of questions are on there way from a government agency covering:
*unauthorised expenditure
*Lying
*Misleading council and the public
*falsifying official documentation/memos/letters
*code of conduct issues
*breeches of the tendering protocols, and
*defamation issues.
Larry is AOL so won't be available to rally the troops for a rescue mission - interesting to watch how the 'W' twins wiggle their way out of this little messup!

CARDIA

Whoever it was who coined the phrase "There is no honour amoung thieves" surely must have had Shellharbour Council in mind when they thought up this saying.

The Mayor has recently gone overseas on holidays. The 'W' twins are now telling people that he is travelling on 'free' or 'scammed' tickets in an effort to generate trouble for their comrade in absentia! Seems that their illustrious leader has become a bit(or lot) of a liability in the survivor stakes and the twins are taking advantage of his absence to prepare the masses for his very soon departure (with a little bit of a push from them)!

Others knowledgeable within council also claim that the newly-elected Deputy has been seen trying out the BIG chair - and it fits nicely!