182 crashed into trees at Porepunkah
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
I don't think there is any. It seems under the CASR it is a pilot responsibility to assess the operation and to conduct it safely, and availability and/or use of lights is just one thing to consider (or so they advise in AC 91-02)
Should CASA disagree, it would be either they prove it wasn't, or the pilot prove it was. Any bets on the way that discussion will end?
Should CASA disagree, it would be either they prove it wasn't, or the pilot prove it was. Any bets on the way that discussion will end?
To CASA's credit, they're trying to address part of that with their AvSafety pilot seminars, but it's going to take a long time to reach every pilot in Australia!
Last edited by PiperCameron; 12th Jan 2023 at 23:34.
I don’t mean shake the wings as vigorously as you would a salad bottle containing oil and vinegar, which can indeed intermingle two ingredients that normally separate into distinct layers very quickly.
Just rock it gently. I was told that if a tank is not fully fueled, i.e., not up to the cap, water droplets can condense/form on the inside of the tank, and that gently rocking it can dislodge them and make them sink to the drainage point.
I was told to do this before draining the tanks because if there is water condensed inside the tanks, and you don’t get rid of it, it could come back to haunt you when the run up and take off dislodges it, and it then get into the fuel line to the engine, which does not burn water as efficiently as fuel.
Distinguishing between pale blue fuel and water is easy enough in broad daylight, but it might be more difficult at night. I was also taught to drain it twice if there was a significant amount of water.
[Am I the only one who was taught this?]
That’s all I ws trying to say.
Just rock it gently. I was told that if a tank is not fully fueled, i.e., not up to the cap, water droplets can condense/form on the inside of the tank, and that gently rocking it can dislodge them and make them sink to the drainage point.
I was told to do this before draining the tanks because if there is water condensed inside the tanks, and you don’t get rid of it, it could come back to haunt you when the run up and take off dislodges it, and it then get into the fuel line to the engine, which does not burn water as efficiently as fuel.
Distinguishing between pale blue fuel and water is easy enough in broad daylight, but it might be more difficult at night. I was also taught to drain it twice if there was a significant amount of water.
[Am I the only one who was taught this?]
That’s all I ws trying to say.
Once again this thread has proved that a lot of pilots operate with a lack of understanding of aviation legislation, and is sad reflection of the variation in standards between various training organisations
Whilst I was extremely confident that a self planned IFR departure was legal, I wasn’t sure of where in the new Part 91 it would be found. It ended up taking quite a bit of digging to find
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Agreed 200% about the complexity of the regs, but at the end of the day knowing how to plan a safe IFR departure where there is not a published SID is a fundamental, essential skill for any IFR pilot that flies at airports outside of radar coverage.
The following users liked this post:
And hence the issue with operating out of YPOK. In order to depart with bare minima you would need a way to ensure terrain clearance via approved methods to ensure at least low flying requirements are met, and most likely a court would want to see proof that you could maintain 500/1000ft terrain clearance during climb.
GPS waypoints not fixed in the units database cannot be used, so self plotting waypoints in valleys is out of the question. So you must then rely on cumbersome nearby waypoints or DR. Then there is calculating climb rate until reaching LSALT along your selected route, how accurately can you do this for a light aircraft that has fairly wafty manuals. Airlines usually produce escape procedures/CDPs that have surveyed the terrain/obstacles around an airport and using relevant data and worked out tracking that complies with regulations. These tracks have huge margins around them with splays expanding out to allow for winds and tracking errors etc... They can be approved to be flown via the FMS/GPS reducing splays, but those will be hard entered into the FMS database.
So in considering the points against a light aircraft departing legally from YPOK, it would be most sensible to depart VMC until reaching a safe altitude.
At night I doubt any departure direction from YPOK would comply with required night take-off splays, so even if you had lights it would be hard to prove legal.
GPS waypoints not fixed in the units database cannot be used, so self plotting waypoints in valleys is out of the question. So you must then rely on cumbersome nearby waypoints or DR. Then there is calculating climb rate until reaching LSALT along your selected route, how accurately can you do this for a light aircraft that has fairly wafty manuals. Airlines usually produce escape procedures/CDPs that have surveyed the terrain/obstacles around an airport and using relevant data and worked out tracking that complies with regulations. These tracks have huge margins around them with splays expanding out to allow for winds and tracking errors etc... They can be approved to be flown via the FMS/GPS reducing splays, but those will be hard entered into the FMS database.
So in considering the points against a light aircraft departing legally from YPOK, it would be most sensible to depart VMC until reaching a safe altitude.
At night I doubt any departure direction from YPOK would comply with required night take-off splays, so even if you had lights it would be hard to prove legal.
The following users liked this post:
And hence the issue with operating out of YPOK. In order to depart with bare minima you would need a way to ensure terrain clearance via approved methods to ensure at least low flying requirements are met, and most likely a court would want to see proof that you could maintain 500/1000ft terrain clearance during climb.
GPS waypoints not fixed in the units database cannot be used, so self plotting waypoints in valleys is out of the question. So you must then rely on cumbersome nearby waypoints or DR. Then there is calculating climb rate until reaching LSALT along your selected route, how accurately can you do this for a light aircraft that has fairly wafty manuals. Airlines usually produce escape procedures/CDPs that have surveyed the terrain/obstacles around an airport and using relevant data and worked out tracking that complies with regulations. These tracks have huge margins around them with splays expanding out to allow for winds and tracking errors etc... They can be approved to be flown via the FMS/GPS reducing splays, but those will be hard entered into the FMS database.
So in considering the points against a light aircraft departing legally from YPOK, it would be most sensible to depart VMC until reaching a safe altitude.
At night I doubt any departure direction from YPOK would comply with required night take-off splays, so even if you had lights it would be hard to prove legal.
GPS waypoints not fixed in the units database cannot be used, so self plotting waypoints in valleys is out of the question. So you must then rely on cumbersome nearby waypoints or DR. Then there is calculating climb rate until reaching LSALT along your selected route, how accurately can you do this for a light aircraft that has fairly wafty manuals. Airlines usually produce escape procedures/CDPs that have surveyed the terrain/obstacles around an airport and using relevant data and worked out tracking that complies with regulations. These tracks have huge margins around them with splays expanding out to allow for winds and tracking errors etc... They can be approved to be flown via the FMS/GPS reducing splays, but those will be hard entered into the FMS database.
So in considering the points against a light aircraft departing legally from YPOK, it would be most sensible to depart VMC until reaching a safe altitude.
At night I doubt any departure direction from YPOK would comply with required night take-off splays, so even if you had lights it would be hard to prove legal.
Everything in aviation doesn't need to be rocket science. ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields. And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.
Before NVGs and GPS we used 1:25000 and 1:50000 maps to determine safe alts for arrivals and departures for marks on the ground we needed to land on. Normally lit by cyalume sticks or hexy burners. It can't be hard if we could do it.
Not true re airline Airline EOP or CDPs. The splay is normally starts at 1.5 to 1.95 time the wingspan (depending on aircraft category) and expands out to 600m eithrr side of centreline, increasing to 900m for turns. They don't need to be in the FMC data base, they could be track/distance, or even track to intercept a radial, or track runway Centreline. The use of the FMC fix page, to display pilot entered points to help with tracking is not only approved but encouraged. If you have an engine out SID all the better.
Everything in aviation doesn't need to be rocket science. ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields. And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.
Before NVGs and GPS we used 1:25000 and 1:50000 maps to determine safe alts for arrivals and departures for marks on the ground we needed to land on. Normally lit by cyalume sticks or hexy burners. It can't be hard if we could do it.
Everything in aviation doesn't need to be rocket science. ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields. And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.
Before NVGs and GPS we used 1:25000 and 1:50000 maps to determine safe alts for arrivals and departures for marks on the ground we needed to land on. Normally lit by cyalume sticks or hexy burners. It can't be hard if we could do it.
Anyway the point being somebody has done all this for you and its kept up to date with approved aerodromes feeding data to the airlines about survey details.
None of this applies to YPOK, I doubt it pays for any obstacle surveys of the area and no expanded ERSA data is available for gradients, which only apply in a very small area from take-off, which in the case of YPOK would be useless as the en-route climb requirements would be just as bad.
I did my IFR pre GPS, on clocks and needles, doing things like DME homing, still had various ADME. Never surveyed a map, just used the IFR charts and WACs for terrain details. In anycase a load of planes flying into hills at night changed all the arrival rules for night in the 90s for good reason.
PS I'd still prefer some more VOR/DMEs regularly placed, I don't trust GPS 100% and it has let me down a few times.
Moderator
Not true re airline
In Oz, the rules for heavies have always been reasonably well prescribed. Except for benign terrain airports, it has always been a reasonably detailed exercise for the ops engineers to run the sums to keep the aircraft out of trouble. Some places require a bit more work than others, of course. The rules for lighties, on the other hand, are not of much practical use. In years gone by, when I played with lighties, I used to do a bit of a mix and match to improve my chances of seeing another day ... The use of GPS for track guidance gets a bit complex as there are various accuracy and reliability considerations which come into the melting pot. The older pilot flown mandraulic analyses included a fair bit of fat to account for reasonably likely stick and rudder problems.
ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields
I have a slightly secondhand bridge to sell you ..... generally, such splay data as may exist is too short to be of much interest or use.
And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.
STODAs can be of use as one can run some sums and infer discrete obstacle information to some extent. Most folks aren't aware of this - I can recall, in these pages, introducing Old Smokey to the technique, years ago. Given that no-one (as far as I am aware) does inclino surveys (one identifies and figures the discrete obstacle data from a traditional survey and then works backwards to get the surface data for ERSA - why ? Who knows). And then, those of us who do the backroom work ring the surveyor and get the discrete data for use.
However, STODAs are of little direct value to light aircraft operations as the takeoff is predicated on a relatively high AEO climb gradient capability. OEI and one wants to do a discrete obstacle analysis ? Pardon me, briefly, while I suck in my breath somewhat .... I've had a few robust discussions with CASA folk in years gone by regarding their published requirements for lighties but that's a whole different story.
Type A charts, for the major runways, are a lot more value but, even then, they often don't go out far enough or, for some runways, still need an escape path turn to avoid the rocky bits. Keep in mind that some Types go on forever before the net flight path gets to 1500 ft. The DC9, for instance, due to the lengthy third segment, takes a LOT of miles to do so ....
aerodromes feeding data to the airlines about survey details.
Not quite the case but such information as the aerodrome operator has can be obtained. Problem is that, oftentimes, that data is nowhere near enough to be fit for purpose. In such cases, the operator's ops engineers have to resort to this and that to get an adequate set of data. In general, Captain Speaking, out on the line, would have no way of achieving what is necessary to figure the RTOW. The sums are the easy bit, getting the obstruction profile data is where the workload lies.
I notice that all ERSA provides for this strip is a bland statement that there is "high terrain in the circuit area". That's pretty useful stuff is it not ?
In Oz, the rules for heavies have always been reasonably well prescribed. Except for benign terrain airports, it has always been a reasonably detailed exercise for the ops engineers to run the sums to keep the aircraft out of trouble. Some places require a bit more work than others, of course. The rules for lighties, on the other hand, are not of much practical use. In years gone by, when I played with lighties, I used to do a bit of a mix and match to improve my chances of seeing another day ... The use of GPS for track guidance gets a bit complex as there are various accuracy and reliability considerations which come into the melting pot. The older pilot flown mandraulic analyses included a fair bit of fat to account for reasonably likely stick and rudder problems.
ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields
I have a slightly secondhand bridge to sell you ..... generally, such splay data as may exist is too short to be of much interest or use.
And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.
STODAs can be of use as one can run some sums and infer discrete obstacle information to some extent. Most folks aren't aware of this - I can recall, in these pages, introducing Old Smokey to the technique, years ago. Given that no-one (as far as I am aware) does inclino surveys (one identifies and figures the discrete obstacle data from a traditional survey and then works backwards to get the surface data for ERSA - why ? Who knows). And then, those of us who do the backroom work ring the surveyor and get the discrete data for use.
However, STODAs are of little direct value to light aircraft operations as the takeoff is predicated on a relatively high AEO climb gradient capability. OEI and one wants to do a discrete obstacle analysis ? Pardon me, briefly, while I suck in my breath somewhat .... I've had a few robust discussions with CASA folk in years gone by regarding their published requirements for lighties but that's a whole different story.
Type A charts, for the major runways, are a lot more value but, even then, they often don't go out far enough or, for some runways, still need an escape path turn to avoid the rocky bits. Keep in mind that some Types go on forever before the net flight path gets to 1500 ft. The DC9, for instance, due to the lengthy third segment, takes a LOT of miles to do so ....
aerodromes feeding data to the airlines about survey details.
Not quite the case but such information as the aerodrome operator has can be obtained. Problem is that, oftentimes, that data is nowhere near enough to be fit for purpose. In such cases, the operator's ops engineers have to resort to this and that to get an adequate set of data. In general, Captain Speaking, out on the line, would have no way of achieving what is necessary to figure the RTOW. The sums are the easy bit, getting the obstruction profile data is where the workload lies.
I notice that all ERSA provides for this strip is a bland statement that there is "high terrain in the circuit area". That's pretty useful stuff is it not ?
Not true re airline
In Oz, the rules for heavies have always been reasonably well prescribed. Except for benign terrain airports, it has always been a reasonably detailed exercise for the ops engineers to run the sums to keep the aircraft out of trouble. Some places require a bit more work than others, of course. The rules for lighties, on the other hand, are not of much practical use. In years gone by, when I played with lighties, I used to do a bit of a mix and match to improve my chances of seeing another day ... The use of GPS for track guidance gets a bit complex as there are various accuracy and reliability considerations which come into the melting pot. The older pilot flown mandraulic analyses included a fair bit of fat to account for reasonably likely stick and rudder problems.
ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields
I have a slightly secondhand bridge to sell you ..... generally, such splay data as may exist is too short to be of much interest or use.
And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.
STODAs can be of use as one can run some sums and infer discrete obstacle information to some extent. Most folks aren't aware of this - I can recall, in these pages, introducing Old Smokey to the technique, years ago. Given that no-one (as far as I am aware) does inclino surveys (one identifies and figures the discrete obstacle data from a traditional survey and then works backwards to get the surface data for ERSA - why ? Who knows). And then, those of us who do the backroom work ring the surveyor and get the discrete data for use.
However, STODAs are of little direct value to light aircraft operations as the takeoff is predicated on a relatively high AEO climb gradient capability. OEI and one wants to do a discrete obstacle analysis ? Pardon me, briefly, while I suck in my breath somewhat .... I've had a few robust discussions with CASA folk in years gone by regarding their published requirements for lighties but that's a whole different story.
Type A charts, for the major runways, are a lot more value but, even then, they often don't go out far enough or, for some runways, still need an escape path turn to avoid the rocky bits. Keep in mind that some Types go on forever before the net flight path gets to 1500 ft. The DC9, for instance, due to the lengthy third segment, takes a LOT of miles to do so ....
aerodromes feeding data to the airlines about survey details.
Not quite the case but such information as the aerodrome operator has can be obtained. Problem is that, oftentimes, that data is nowhere near enough to be fit for purpose. In such cases, the operator's ops engineers have to resort to this and that to get an adequate set of data. In general, Captain Speaking, out on the line, would have no way of achieving what is necessary to figure the RTOW. The sums are the easy bit, getting the obstruction profile data is where the workload lies.
I notice that all ERSA provides for this strip is a bland statement that there is "high terrain in the circuit area". That's pretty useful stuff is it not ?
In Oz, the rules for heavies have always been reasonably well prescribed. Except for benign terrain airports, it has always been a reasonably detailed exercise for the ops engineers to run the sums to keep the aircraft out of trouble. Some places require a bit more work than others, of course. The rules for lighties, on the other hand, are not of much practical use. In years gone by, when I played with lighties, I used to do a bit of a mix and match to improve my chances of seeing another day ... The use of GPS for track guidance gets a bit complex as there are various accuracy and reliability considerations which come into the melting pot. The older pilot flown mandraulic analyses included a fair bit of fat to account for reasonably likely stick and rudder problems.
ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields
I have a slightly secondhand bridge to sell you ..... generally, such splay data as may exist is too short to be of much interest or use.
And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.
STODAs can be of use as one can run some sums and infer discrete obstacle information to some extent. Most folks aren't aware of this - I can recall, in these pages, introducing Old Smokey to the technique, years ago. Given that no-one (as far as I am aware) does inclino surveys (one identifies and figures the discrete obstacle data from a traditional survey and then works backwards to get the surface data for ERSA - why ? Who knows). And then, those of us who do the backroom work ring the surveyor and get the discrete data for use.
However, STODAs are of little direct value to light aircraft operations as the takeoff is predicated on a relatively high AEO climb gradient capability. OEI and one wants to do a discrete obstacle analysis ? Pardon me, briefly, while I suck in my breath somewhat .... I've had a few robust discussions with CASA folk in years gone by regarding their published requirements for lighties but that's a whole different story.
Type A charts, for the major runways, are a lot more value but, even then, they often don't go out far enough or, for some runways, still need an escape path turn to avoid the rocky bits. Keep in mind that some Types go on forever before the net flight path gets to 1500 ft. The DC9, for instance, due to the lengthy third segment, takes a LOT of miles to do so ....
aerodromes feeding data to the airlines about survey details.
Not quite the case but such information as the aerodrome operator has can be obtained. Problem is that, oftentimes, that data is nowhere near enough to be fit for purpose. In such cases, the operator's ops engineers have to resort to this and that to get an adequate set of data. In general, Captain Speaking, out on the line, would have no way of achieving what is necessary to figure the RTOW. The sums are the easy bit, getting the obstruction profile data is where the workload lies.
I notice that all ERSA provides for this strip is a bland statement that there is "high terrain in the circuit area". That's pretty useful stuff is it not ?
Pardon me, briefly, while I suck in my breath somewhat .... I've had a few robust discussions with CASA folk in years gone by regarding their published requirements for lighties but that's a whole different story.
Agreed. Discussion about performance is very rare now. The more the better. Especially from someone who knows the subject and has experience to share. Very good idea for a new thread John.
Moderator
In some places STODA is all you have John.
And, in many places, not even that. If one is going to consider OEI for light twins, STODAs are going to provide very little comfort for the typical pilot. Indeed, we are very fortunate in Oz to have pretty benign terrain, overall - with the odd nasty aerodrome thrown in to keep us on our toes.
Make sure you can make that gradient if a motor stops to circling, and get above 10nm safe before leaving the circling area
Much sucking in of the breath !
STODA (or EOL values, in the dimmer, dark past which were introduced long before my time and, as far as I can reasonably surmise, back in single engine days) are of use to M/E aircraft with better performance but of very little value to the bottom feeder bugsmashers.
Keep in mind, also, that the certification standards for light twins provide for pretty abysmal OEI performance and, for lighter aircraft, effectively none. I have to say that the present rule rewrite for lighties does leave a bit to be desired in respect of performance. One of the problems is that, in earlier days, we had the (engineering) certification standards in ANO 101.22 and, before that (I can't recall the number now as those earlier documents disappeared shortly after I got into long pants) some long alphabetic orders the content of which has long been lost to my recall. The operational versions of the certification standards were published in Part 20 (20.4 for our interest, here). There were a few discrepancies but, in the main, one could get a reasonable version of the story from Part 20.
At least we had the Oz 0%/1% climb gradient rules for light twins which gave us some hope of living post engine failure.
A major problem arose some years ago when Qantas's Ron Yates was commissioned to undertake a certification study. Ron was a fine chap - no doubt about that - but the report did have a bias toward airline needs. The end result was that the local Oz rules were thrown out and we reverted to the OEM/overseas regulator documentation. For GA, that caused some heartache (Commander MTOWs and light aircraft maximum seating come to mind immediately). As a side corollary, Part 20 progressively acquired the undeserved "status" of a certification document, which was never its original aim in life. Worse, in latter years, the flying ops folks progressively lost the connect to engineering certification and a lot of the previously acquired corporate wisdom went down the gurgler.
For argument's sake, let's pick a figure for a continued takeoff in a light twin with a failure shortly after liftoff. Unless you have pulled the gross weight back a lot, perhaps you might get one percent at sea level ? 5 km straight out and there you are at a bit under 50 m (150-odd feet), noting that the climb gradient is reducing slowly all the way up. Tell me again how you were planning to climb to LSA/MSA in the circling area ? One of the difficulties is that most light twin pilots either never see a routine OEI operation ..or only on I/F renewals for a short period during the test so the AEO performance is what is etched in their minds.
Degrade gradient for turns
And there goes another 1 % plus from your gradient .....
It's not perfect, but a bit better than TLAR (that looks about right).
It sure isn't perfect and should be a very rude wake up call for the typical GA pilot. Forget TLAR - unless you have the data and do the sums, the gradients (OEI) are so shallow that they are just absolutely not amenable to winging it on the fly.
Seems to me that a story lurks there
Nothing specific but I have had the occasional discussion over the years .... a separate thread going beyond this one sounds like a good idea.
Discussion about performance is very rare now. The more the better.
Couldn't agree more. How about one of you good folks dream up a suitable thread title and we can see where it might lead us. Might be a useful vehicle to get into a looksee at the new regs, perhaps, with a view to teasing out any subtle meanings and problems ?
And, in many places, not even that. If one is going to consider OEI for light twins, STODAs are going to provide very little comfort for the typical pilot. Indeed, we are very fortunate in Oz to have pretty benign terrain, overall - with the odd nasty aerodrome thrown in to keep us on our toes.
Make sure you can make that gradient if a motor stops to circling, and get above 10nm safe before leaving the circling area
Much sucking in of the breath !
STODA (or EOL values, in the dimmer, dark past which were introduced long before my time and, as far as I can reasonably surmise, back in single engine days) are of use to M/E aircraft with better performance but of very little value to the bottom feeder bugsmashers.
Keep in mind, also, that the certification standards for light twins provide for pretty abysmal OEI performance and, for lighter aircraft, effectively none. I have to say that the present rule rewrite for lighties does leave a bit to be desired in respect of performance. One of the problems is that, in earlier days, we had the (engineering) certification standards in ANO 101.22 and, before that (I can't recall the number now as those earlier documents disappeared shortly after I got into long pants) some long alphabetic orders the content of which has long been lost to my recall. The operational versions of the certification standards were published in Part 20 (20.4 for our interest, here). There were a few discrepancies but, in the main, one could get a reasonable version of the story from Part 20.
At least we had the Oz 0%/1% climb gradient rules for light twins which gave us some hope of living post engine failure.
A major problem arose some years ago when Qantas's Ron Yates was commissioned to undertake a certification study. Ron was a fine chap - no doubt about that - but the report did have a bias toward airline needs. The end result was that the local Oz rules were thrown out and we reverted to the OEM/overseas regulator documentation. For GA, that caused some heartache (Commander MTOWs and light aircraft maximum seating come to mind immediately). As a side corollary, Part 20 progressively acquired the undeserved "status" of a certification document, which was never its original aim in life. Worse, in latter years, the flying ops folks progressively lost the connect to engineering certification and a lot of the previously acquired corporate wisdom went down the gurgler.
For argument's sake, let's pick a figure for a continued takeoff in a light twin with a failure shortly after liftoff. Unless you have pulled the gross weight back a lot, perhaps you might get one percent at sea level ? 5 km straight out and there you are at a bit under 50 m (150-odd feet), noting that the climb gradient is reducing slowly all the way up. Tell me again how you were planning to climb to LSA/MSA in the circling area ? One of the difficulties is that most light twin pilots either never see a routine OEI operation ..or only on I/F renewals for a short period during the test so the AEO performance is what is etched in their minds.
Degrade gradient for turns
And there goes another 1 % plus from your gradient .....
It's not perfect, but a bit better than TLAR (that looks about right).
It sure isn't perfect and should be a very rude wake up call for the typical GA pilot. Forget TLAR - unless you have the data and do the sums, the gradients (OEI) are so shallow that they are just absolutely not amenable to winging it on the fly.
Seems to me that a story lurks there
Nothing specific but I have had the occasional discussion over the years .... a separate thread going beyond this one sounds like a good idea.
Discussion about performance is very rare now. The more the better.
Couldn't agree more. How about one of you good folks dream up a suitable thread title and we can see where it might lead us. Might be a useful vehicle to get into a looksee at the new regs, perhaps, with a view to teasing out any subtle meanings and problems ?
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
