Bankrunner Bites Dust again... and again...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bankrunner Bites Dust again... and again...
I have heard - and this is strictly rumour - that the West Maitland Burger King has lost his house.
One of their aircraft is in for a 100 hourly but the client is the receivers, not the "owner". Evidently it is in rather poor condition... looks like all those downwind landing have taken their toll.
A sad day for the guys that worked for him and a sadder day for guys like Cruze Power that invested a lot of effort "on a promise" only to get dudded.
Even worse for the companies that shut down or lost money as a consequence of his predatory, short-sighted quoting.
One of their aircraft is in for a 100 hourly but the client is the receivers, not the "owner". Evidently it is in rather poor condition... looks like all those downwind landing have taken their toll.
A sad day for the guys that worked for him and a sadder day for guys like Cruze Power that invested a lot of effort "on a promise" only to get dudded.
Even worse for the companies that shut down or lost money as a consequence of his predatory, short-sighted quoting.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looks like all those downwind landing have taken their toll.
The A/C I operate is certified to 10kt and under certain circumstances, 20kt. All perfectly safe if conducted in accordance with the Flight Manual.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh me old.
Maybe the Industrial Weight/Quality aircraft you fly are a little more robust and designed with flexible airline ops in mind to absorb the higher landing and therefore stopping energies (Rev Thrust etc)? involved in landing downwind, being a square function 'n all.
I'm not baqging the beast when I say, the 'ol Chieftains legs and 'frame weren't designed for more than around 9,000 hours or 30 years whichever comes first, add to that the above high freq of landing to Flight hours and why are we surprised.
Tha'ts my take on it anyway
Maybe the Industrial Weight/Quality aircraft you fly are a little more robust and designed with flexible airline ops in mind to absorb the higher landing and therefore stopping energies (Rev Thrust etc)? involved in landing downwind, being a square function 'n all.
I'm not baqging the beast when I say, the 'ol Chieftains legs and 'frame weren't designed for more than around 9,000 hours or 30 years whichever comes first, add to that the above high freq of landing to Flight hours and why are we surprised.
Tha'ts my take on it anyway
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DWD Landings
OK Hugh; you have flown Chieftains so answer me this.
It is 17:50 on a summer afternoon in the Upper Hunter Valley and you are on "Downwind", heading west.
You are doing about 80 kts GS.
And there is a big, Blue-grey lump of cloud heading at you from the South-west spitting rain and lightning.
Which runway do you use?
An Old Timer tells me that the Friday Afternon Bankrunner arrivals have been the standard Friday Arvo entertainment at the Aero Club for months with an arrival about 3 weeks ago featuring 20 kts downwind on a wet runway .
I take the point you make above but there are downwind landings and there are Downwind "Oh no I havent touched down till halfway down the runway and I still have power on and I didn't use all my flap to begin with" Landings.
Your skill level, experience level, standard of training and grade of equipment are far removed from those of the operation in question (unless of course you can tell us otherwise?
)
Merry christmas all.
It is 17:50 on a summer afternoon in the Upper Hunter Valley and you are on "Downwind", heading west.
You are doing about 80 kts GS.
And there is a big, Blue-grey lump of cloud heading at you from the South-west spitting rain and lightning.
Which runway do you use?
An Old Timer tells me that the Friday Afternon Bankrunner arrivals have been the standard Friday Arvo entertainment at the Aero Club for months with an arrival about 3 weeks ago featuring 20 kts downwind on a wet runway .
I take the point you make above but there are downwind landings and there are Downwind "Oh no I havent touched down till halfway down the runway and I still have power on and I didn't use all my flap to begin with" Landings.
Your skill level, experience level, standard of training and grade of equipment are far removed from those of the operation in question (unless of course you can tell us otherwise?
)Merry christmas all.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is 17:50 on a summer afternoon in the Upper Hunter Valley and you are on "Downwind", heading west.
You are doing about 80 kts GS.
And there is a big, Blue-grey lump of cloud heading at you from the South-west spitting rain and lightning.
Which runway do you use?
You are doing about 80 kts GS.
And there is a big, Blue-grey lump of cloud heading at you from the South-west spitting rain and lightning.
Which runway do you use?
I had one of CASA's finest come accost a CPL student and myself in Canberra a few years ago on the subject when we accepted a downwind landing which was both within the limits of the Flight Manual and "commercially beneficial".
Basically I explained the situation as I saw it and suggested he speak with my CFI if he wanted to take it further. I can only assume she set him straight in a more diplomatic manner than I would have
Elk, it's been a long time since I flew the PA31, and I don't have much time on them anyway. I would assume that the PA31 has some downwind component allowed as most other types do.
The point I'm trying to make is that if the AFM permits it and the A/C is operated within the limitations of the AFM then there should not be a problem conducting a downwind landing (or takeoff).
I take the point you make above but there are downwind landings and there are Downwind "Oh no I havent touched down till halfway down the runway and I still have power on and I didn't use all my flap to begin with" Landings.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh Jarse, most light aircraft POH state the max. continuous power is. max. RPM and full throttle. You might say we CAN fly them that way all day. However if you pay the bills, you don't. Mass and Groundspeed = energy that has to be dissipated = brakes. The brakes wear out, the tyres wear out. If the undercarriage is mounted on the wings, every brake application puts a twisting force into the wings. Its amazing how airmanship changes when the pilot owns the aircraft and pays the bills. Downwind landings are also not a good idea IF you have to do a go around. You might be trying to climb into a increasing downwind. A couple of years ago, at my local airport a C150 tried to do a downwind landing on a 1464m runway and the result was "spectacular" for the neighbours where they arrived unannounced.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: nsw
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To deliberately Bankrupt one of the nicest guys (refueller) at YSBK, and seemingly not care one iota, what an ar....le.
What goes round comes around, sadly not quick enough.
When are CASA going to do something - after there is an incident?
What goes round comes around, sadly not quick enough.
When are CASA going to do something - after there is an incident?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Fly,
I understand and respect your points.
That's like saying the POH also states that the undercarriage should be down (in retractables) for takeoff and landing but if you don't pay the bills you won't use it. It just doesn't make sense. I don't know of anyone that flies around at MCP in a normal situation.
Quite a valid point, but is climbing into an increasing tailwind any different to climbing into a decreasing headwind (when landing into wind)? It can and does happen. I think the result is the same if you're talking about energy. The aircraft doesn't know whether it has a headwind or tailwind. The effect on climb angle will be the same either way.
Sure, each downwind landing needs to be carefully evaluated before its execution, taking into consideration runway length, climb performance in the go-around, etc. However you need to also consider the challenges of unusual places such as one-way strips (PNG for example) where you may have to take off or land (or both) in tailwind conditions. Or the airport where it may be more beneficial (ie safer) due to local weather conditions (ie Lord Howe Island) to accept the downwind if the landing is going to be safer.
Or the airport that is subject to noise abatement, ie Sydney. I do more downwind landings in SY than into-wind.
I've never seen any maintenance action or decrease in service life of main spars related directly to the number of, or types of brake applications. I have only seen them related to flight cycles.
Braking is a technique thing, particularly in training aircraft. I've seen pilots land into wind on 2000m+ runways and absolutely slam the brakes on when they could have used no braking at all apart from a little just before the taxiway.
Perhaps we should not land in crosswinds either because of the potentially excessive side-loadings imposed on the undercarriage as well? That'll keep costs down.
Your comments seem to be based mainly on cost. You cannot always base how you operate an aircraft purely on this (for the reasons above). If cost is a significant factor with downwind landings, then you need to factor that in to your hire cost and disperse it across the hire charge accordingly.
What we need here is sound training, commonsense and an open mind.
I understand and respect your points.
most light aircraft POH state the max. continuous power is. max. RPM and full throttle. You might say we CAN fly them that way all day. However if you pay the bills, you don't.
Downwind landings are also not a good idea IF you have to do a go around. You might be trying to climb into a increasing downwind.
Sure, each downwind landing needs to be carefully evaluated before its execution, taking into consideration runway length, climb performance in the go-around, etc. However you need to also consider the challenges of unusual places such as one-way strips (PNG for example) where you may have to take off or land (or both) in tailwind conditions. Or the airport where it may be more beneficial (ie safer) due to local weather conditions (ie Lord Howe Island) to accept the downwind if the landing is going to be safer.
Or the airport that is subject to noise abatement, ie Sydney. I do more downwind landings in SY than into-wind.
If the undercarriage is mounted on the wings, every brake application puts a twisting force into the wings.
Mass and Groundspeed = energy that has to be dissipated = brakes.The brakes wear out, the tyres wear out.
Perhaps we should not land in crosswinds either because of the potentially excessive side-loadings imposed on the undercarriage as well? That'll keep costs down.
Your comments seem to be based mainly on cost. You cannot always base how you operate an aircraft purely on this (for the reasons above). If cost is a significant factor with downwind landings, then you need to factor that in to your hire cost and disperse it across the hire charge accordingly.
What we need here is sound training, commonsense and an open mind.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh Jarse
The Aircraft does"nt know wheather it has a tailwind .The effect on climb angle is the same either way
A tail wind will reduce the angle of climb........(Bob tait)
Don"t tell me he is Wrong !!!!
Buck.
No. my old mate Bob isn't wrong (know if he's sold his Pitts yet? Beautiful aircraft!!) But YOU aren't displaying much depth of understanding.
Hugh and I Fly are discussing the effect of WIND CHANGE WITH ALTITUDE on angle of climb, (also known as vertical windshear) and Hugh is quite correct when he says the net effect on angle of climb is the same in a decreasing headwind as it is with an increasing tailwind.
It is less common for the actual speed of the wind to decrease with altitude (though certainly not impossible) but is quite common for the wind to quite suddenly veer or back at quite a low altitude, varying the head or tail wind component.
No. my old mate Bob isn't wrong (know if he's sold his Pitts yet? Beautiful aircraft!!) But YOU aren't displaying much depth of understanding.
Hugh and I Fly are discussing the effect of WIND CHANGE WITH ALTITUDE on angle of climb, (also known as vertical windshear) and Hugh is quite correct when he says the net effect on angle of climb is the same in a decreasing headwind as it is with an increasing tailwind.
It is less common for the actual speed of the wind to decrease with altitude (though certainly not impossible) but is quite common for the wind to quite suddenly veer or back at quite a low altitude, varying the head or tail wind component.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanx Wiz.
Buck, perhaps you should have quoted me on the whole paragraph. That was the context I meant it in (decreasing headwind or increasing tailwind and its effect on climb angle). I've seen decreasing headwinds quite a lot in the last few years, particularly with the advent of GPS. Just bring up the wind page and away you go. Yes, I monitor it during the approach whether it is an into wind or tailwind landing.
The point I've been trying to make is that we can be called upon anytime to do a downwind landing whether it be due to noise abatement, curfew (yes I've ended up at BK when the TWC exceeded the A/C maximum), and local conditions where it is actually safer to land with a tailwind.
It is no less safe than an into wind landing if it's done within the guidelines of the AFM. Remember that on the CASA approved tables, downwind landings carry a significant penalty factored in. I can't remember the exact percentage as I did my CPL a loooong time ago. Perhaps Bob Tait or Creampuff can help me out here?
Who is Bob Tait?
I just can't buy this airmanship/ownership/excessive loading analogy. I accept that landing under limiting conditions in a tailwind can place strong demands on the aircraft (and pilot), but that is just 1 factor in the big picture. The pilot has to make a judgement call at the time.
An example: I would rather land in SY after curfew with an 18kt downwind on 34L, because I KNOW (having done the calcs) that the A/C can do it LEGALLY and SAFELY, and I won't have to use the brakes OR reverse to stop. This is more favourable than diverting to an alternate.
Just because a pilot conducts downwind landings doesn't mean he or she is displaying poor airmanship. Look at the big picture folks........
Buck, perhaps you should have quoted me on the whole paragraph. That was the context I meant it in (decreasing headwind or increasing tailwind and its effect on climb angle). I've seen decreasing headwinds quite a lot in the last few years, particularly with the advent of GPS. Just bring up the wind page and away you go. Yes, I monitor it during the approach whether it is an into wind or tailwind landing.
The point I've been trying to make is that we can be called upon anytime to do a downwind landing whether it be due to noise abatement, curfew (yes I've ended up at BK when the TWC exceeded the A/C maximum), and local conditions where it is actually safer to land with a tailwind.
It is no less safe than an into wind landing if it's done within the guidelines of the AFM. Remember that on the CASA approved tables, downwind landings carry a significant penalty factored in. I can't remember the exact percentage as I did my CPL a loooong time ago. Perhaps Bob Tait or Creampuff can help me out here?
Who is Bob Tait?
I just can't buy this airmanship/ownership/excessive loading analogy. I accept that landing under limiting conditions in a tailwind can place strong demands on the aircraft (and pilot), but that is just 1 factor in the big picture. The pilot has to make a judgement call at the time.
An example: I would rather land in SY after curfew with an 18kt downwind on 34L, because I KNOW (having done the calcs) that the A/C can do it LEGALLY and SAFELY, and I won't have to use the brakes OR reverse to stop. This is more favourable than diverting to an alternate.
Just because a pilot conducts downwind landings doesn't mean he or she is displaying poor airmanship. Look at the big picture folks........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh
I think you missed the original aircraft type and assosiated conditions,,,,,Piper Cheiftain (No Reverse Thrust) mid down wind , 700m to run (Not 3000m) 20 kts tail wind and of cause wet runway , there appears to be two conversations going and your not listerning. I think these sort of situations eventualy will catch you out. We all know of the C210 of late .
oh www.bobtait.com.au
oh www.bobtait.com.au
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: land down unda
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from Elk's situation where a diversion is the only other option rather than accepting downwind, doesn't it say somewhere in the aip's something about landing in the most into wind runway??
But thats only the law....
But thats only the law....
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take the point you make above but there are downwind landings and there are Downwind "Oh no I havent touched down till halfway down the runway and I still have power on and I didn't use all my flap to begin with" Landings.
why am i thinking VH-OJH in Bankok? proof that anyone, no matter how senior, or big the aircraft can f* up.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRAKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Fat Mans cause wasnt helped last night when one of his chieftains taxied into the back of another chieftain on x hire from another operator on his behalf. Apparently the left prop collided with the left elevator, tail cone and rudder of the x hired chieftain. The pilot apparently forgot to engage the park brake while waiting to progress in the queue to get unloaded when the aircraft rolled forward 
.
DOH!
AFD
.DOH!
AFD
