Close Call - Beyond the Pale
Thread Starter
Close Call - Beyond the Pale
What is the purpose of putting drivel in Flight Safety Australia like the "story" on page 44 of the Nov-Dec 2007 edition?
"when I checked with the Perth weather bureau - forcast to scattered cumulus to 6,000 ft"
then
"Nearing Mt Solus, I observed fairly heavy cumulus directly ahead, and decided to climb above it when cloud enveloped the aircraft very quickly"
what are we supposed to take from this?
1) the nasty cumulus cloud reared up suddenly and enveloped my aeroplane?
or
2) I deliberately flew into cloud!
"within a couple of minutes, I spotted a fairly big break in the cumulus, with the terrain visible below. Turning the aircraft towards the break, we were descending, probably too fast, when we re-entered cloud"
1) the nasty cumulus got me again?
or
2) I deliberately flew into cloud - again!
"my mistake was trying to climb above cloud. I believe it went to 10,000 ft AGL on the day"
Yes, you should never try to climb above cloud! You never know when it will be one of those aggro cumuli (?) that rear up and get you!
"Don't try to climb over the top of clouds - they can rise at an alarming rate. When confronted by cloud, TURN BACK"
How will I know when I am being "confronted" by a cumulus cloud?
Tell me $500 of tax payers money wasn't wasted on this cr*p. A peanut would have been sufficient payment.
Bring back the Aviation Safety Digest, I say!
Dr
"when I checked with the Perth weather bureau - forcast to scattered cumulus to 6,000 ft"
then
"Nearing Mt Solus, I observed fairly heavy cumulus directly ahead, and decided to climb above it when cloud enveloped the aircraft very quickly"
what are we supposed to take from this?
1) the nasty cumulus cloud reared up suddenly and enveloped my aeroplane?
or
2) I deliberately flew into cloud!
"within a couple of minutes, I spotted a fairly big break in the cumulus, with the terrain visible below. Turning the aircraft towards the break, we were descending, probably too fast, when we re-entered cloud"
1) the nasty cumulus got me again?
or
2) I deliberately flew into cloud - again!
"my mistake was trying to climb above cloud. I believe it went to 10,000 ft AGL on the day"
Yes, you should never try to climb above cloud! You never know when it will be one of those aggro cumuli (?) that rear up and get you!
"Don't try to climb over the top of clouds - they can rise at an alarming rate. When confronted by cloud, TURN BACK"
How will I know when I am being "confronted" by a cumulus cloud?
Tell me $500 of tax payers money wasn't wasted on this cr*p. A peanut would have been sufficient payment.
Bring back the Aviation Safety Digest, I say!
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 18th Dec 2007 at 13:09.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the cloud, "what safety message can we infer from this": 
Pilot did not have positive control of her aircraft?
Or: Pilot had control but had no clue what performance she required to achieve her aim at the time?
I agree, Fawk, and have been saying it for ages:
The old ASG was the goods. It featured who crashed, what type, rego and how many KIA/WIA. Then a detailed description of what happened and whose fault it was and why.
This new feel-good rag they put out is full of non-pilot tales of woe the likes of "Me spanner broke!" and "HOsty Action - Trolley Emergency at 22000ft!"
Nothing against grease-monkeys AT ALL but this mag used to be a quality source of info about prangs (and how to avoid them yourself).
Lately they feature a silly photo of an airplane caught in a tree and an exhortation to describe a safety message "to be inferred" but which invariably brings on a series of (very cheesy) Gary Larson-style comments which would have the great man rolling in his grave. (Best entry wins $50.00 worth of safety literature????????? Jesus Christ!!! Does anyone ever claim it???)
And the tarts should have their own pink mag for their cabin warries, packed with ads for skin care and other products.
we were descending, probably too fast
Or: Pilot had control but had no clue what performance she required to achieve her aim at the time?
I agree, Fawk, and have been saying it for ages:
The old ASG was the goods. It featured who crashed, what type, rego and how many KIA/WIA. Then a detailed description of what happened and whose fault it was and why.
This new feel-good rag they put out is full of non-pilot tales of woe the likes of "Me spanner broke!" and "HOsty Action - Trolley Emergency at 22000ft!"
Nothing against grease-monkeys AT ALL but this mag used to be a quality source of info about prangs (and how to avoid them yourself).
Lately they feature a silly photo of an airplane caught in a tree and an exhortation to describe a safety message "to be inferred" but which invariably brings on a series of (very cheesy) Gary Larson-style comments which would have the great man rolling in his grave. (Best entry wins $50.00 worth of safety literature????????? Jesus Christ!!! Does anyone ever claim it???)
And the tarts should have their own pink mag for their cabin warries, packed with ads for skin care and other products.
Lately they feature a silly photo of an airplane caught in a tree and an exhortation to describe a safety message "to be inferred"
