At one stage we increased the time between failures of F27 gyros by simply not changing them as often - they were extremely sensitive to shock and we were able to prove that they were often damaged (brinelling the bearings) in the process of fitting them, a rather extreme and expensive case of infant mortality.

System reliability tends to show a bathtub curve. Most errors in assembly or grossly dodgy components tend to show up quickly. Once they are repaired/replaced the system settles down to it's expected level of reliability until it starts to wear out and defects appear at the end of its life. But of course we are talking large numbers of the same system here.

I keep asking engineers to go with me on first flight after maintenance, for some reason, they always decline.:E

I know an aircraft engine engineer that has been working on the same engine type for probably 20 plus years and he has never been in an aircraft that runs this type of engine.

He trusts the engine and his work implicitly.

It's the nut behind the yoke that he doesn't trust.

Lesson there Sunfish? :)

It stalled on approach...................

;););)

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/195241...ilure_data.gif

Small piston airplane accidents in 2001 through 2005 attributed by the NTSB to engine failure, by hours (top) and years (bottom) since engine overhaul.

These are only statistics, which as always can be fudged. I would have thought it is pretty obvious though that by spending money on an engine overhaul doesn't automatically guarantee a smooth road ahead.

I realise this is a subject in itself, and probably more orientated at the engineering fraternity. I think it important that pilot's are aware of what they are flying though.
Having said that....... What percentage of aircraft accidents are REALLY due to an engine issue. I would have thought SFA....
IME at least.

I believe the answer to my earlier question was:
Five times more likely in the first 50 hrs TSO.

Now Atlas, PlankBlender isn't here anymore... Still, good call!

MBB Area
 

I'm a pilot and have lived in the MBB circuit area for over 40 years, (since birth).

1. I think it is fair that the locals accept there is an airport and that planes fly over and, sometimes, there are incidents.

However, as a local,

2. Clearly, there are quite a few pilots that fly too low and think that there is some inalienable right to buzz houses in a PA31 or King Air at 250 feet.

I think the locals would be a lot happier if aircraft flew at the correct heights.

On quite a few cloudy days, they seem to think that 200-250ft agl is just simply o.k.

I agree that the value of the land is probably so high for housing that economics is going to win out at the end of the day and it will be carved up for housing. But I've heard other rumours that an extended runway is proposed and they want to get small jets (717s or BAE146s) in to service Tasi, SA and Regional Vic more.

I don;t think that MBB can compete with the services operated by Essendon.

PaulDamian

If you think it was illegal, report it. I would suggest though that as you have said it was a occurring on quite a few cloudy days, they were probably doing a circling approach and some people don’t know the difference between 670 ft agl and 250 ft agl or depending on where the houses are they were descending from the circling minima in the course of landing and staying within the circling area.

Without wanting to tell you to suck eggs as they say, if the aircraft is 500ft or less, the rego numbers should be readable by the naked or vision corrected human eye or thereabouts. If you can't read it, it's probably legal, unless of course you live under the final approach of 35 Left and 35 right.

1. The King Air is NOT Air Ambulance B200 with red and white livery, its from a training organisation... a C90 that lives at MBB.
I've never seen the Air Ambulance fly too low - it is pretty good in the air. It climbs out steep and quick usually.

After seeing the other King Air (C90) fly over about 5 times, waaaay to low, I rang the school out of courtesy and spoke to the (apparenntly) chief pilot, who didn't seem to give a sh1t...

2. I don't need a 'Fat Rats Clacker'... but imagine it would be hairy.

3. I accept that you doubt pilots are flying too low and too often, but I can tell you they are. Its probably a matter of opinion as to what is acceptable, but I can read the rego on many, and I have normal vision.

4. The 'd!ckhead' neighbours are constituents, vote to members on local councils, state parliament and federal parliament, some even make complaints which, while not acted on, are recorded. At the end of the day, I'm afraid that these "d!cs..." might have more influence that you think. With the property developers, they might be enough to tip the balance. Its all about politics and money.

5. 250 agl. On downwind.... Yes, I am good at judging distances, including altitude.

6. Complaints go usually nowhere. People that complain are regarded or labelled as serial pests and most people or gov. departments make the appropriate note and don't take any action, untill... something bad happens or there is a government review of the future of MBB.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see MBB continue (perhaps even get a job there one day) but I just think that we might be a bit too cavalier about the local impact. Have a look at Tyabb.

My comments really are that

(i) I think pilots at MBB need to be a bit more attentive to height, and

(ii) Don't under-estimate the locals, you might regard them as 'd!ckheads' but they might end up having more influence that you think.

Sorry to offend anyone or get anyone off side, I'm only trying to be constructive... I just think we should be more careful. I'm not a local on the bandwagon, but I can see a battle brewing and as a pilot I don't think we are in the best position. PD.

PaulDamian

If you honestly think politicians do what the electorate want then you are living a delusional life. Big business and to a lesser extent unions dictate policy to government. Politicians simply play lip service to the electorate to keep them quiet. The airline industry not just in Australia but also in Asia has made it very clear to governments in this country how important these aerodromes are in pilot training for the entire region.

GAAP’s are predominantly training aerodromes. As such training flights are a very large component of their daily movements. Circling approaches are a required component of all IFR training and most checking. As it would appear that these events you have highlighted have occurred during daylight hours in Cat B aircraft, decent below circling MDA of 670 ft agl to 300 ft agl within the circling area is perfectly legal as long as a visual contact can be maintained with obstacles in this circling area. It is a requirement that this is taught and it is a legal requirement that it is regularly checked. If you and your neighbours live under this flight path because you and/or they decided to live there then I’m sorry you have no one to blame but yourselves. As they say “Caveat Emptor”. Take some responsibility for your own actions rather that blame others for both you and your neighbour’s obvious shortcomings in deciding where to live.

Couple of things, YMBB is a Helicopter landing site YMMB is Melbourne, Moorabbin. I dont think you're wrong but if you're so sure and you havnt already, log the times that they do fly at these heights and use the webtrack software to prove it. If you witness the call sign and have evidence of an aircraft doing a circling approach well below MDA take it to casa.

It logs the aircraft types, there is a PA31 on its way in now. Why dont you compare his height with the recorded height and see how well your judgement is. Just for your own reference sake.

I doubt the locals or developers have much say at all, they can winge to modify the flight paths or operating hours but thats about it. The government played with closing Essendon a number of years back and came to the quick conclusion that Melbourne required Moorabbin and Essendon airport in addition to Tulla and Avalon. Any mixing of the airports operations if one closed would cause chaos. The only real option would be to build a new airport in a favourable location for both locals and tennants. All the other airports close to Melbourne have problems with local groups and can not be expanded without strong opposition.

eocvictim
There is nothing illegal about an IFR aircraft, in this case a Cat B aircraft descending below the circling MDA to 300 ft agl during daylight hours in VMC if they can maintain visual clearance from obstacles within the circling area and maintain visual contact with the runway and/or runway environment. It’s clearly laid out in the AIP.

Its not VMC its visual; 250ft is not 300ft and if you were familiar with MB circling it is an issue in VMC.

I get the distinct impression that Paul is a VFR weekend warrior that has no concept of what he is talking about...

eocvictim

VMC was a slip of the tongue. You knew what I meant.

Regarding the 250ft v 300ft. Are you kidding me? If you can tell the difference between an aircraft at these two heights in just a few seconds because that is all the time you would see them then you are better than me. PaulDamian has made a statement that these aircraft he saw were at 200 – 250 ft agl. I have put it to him that they were most likely at 300 ft agl conducting circling approach training during daylight hours and maintaining visual separation from obstacles in the circling area. It is a requirement that it is taught and it is a requirement that it is checked.

As for knowing YMMB and the problems associated with doing circling approaches when it is VMC, it isn’t any more of a problem then any other GAAP/class C or D aerodrome when it is busy. If you were referring to terrain and obstacles, for any pilot that is familiar with the airport, i.e. industrial areas to the south and east, rising terrain to the east, etc etc it shouldn’t be an issue either.

I live under the western circuit at YMMB, and frequently observe the traffic inbound on the 070 radial. These guys pass almost overhead my home usually at 600-700 feet. Nothing unusual about that.

Apart from that, I have only rarely seen any fixed-wing below circuit height, and it was always due to low cloud base.

So I find it amazing that PaulDamian has seen someone at 250 ft on downwind !! More likely they had engine problem and were on final !!

And I can usually read the rego under the wing from 1000ft below, so to use reading the reg as evidence of low flying is utter crap.

You choose where you live. Personally I'd avoid living near schools, hospitals, fire stations, train lines, major roads, dump sites and sewerage farms. You can probably add to that list.

Airports ? I love airports ! :ok:

Not really, most of those that complain can't see the forrest for the trees so they sure as he'll won't be able to read a rego!

No fixed wing aircraft should be below 1000ft tracking into MB by day in VMC. It takes 30 seconds to read the plate before posting.

Yes its a requirement to do a circ approach for CIR but you cant do it by day in VMC at MB. If his claims of 200-250ft are true then its a very different story to 300 ft above the highest obstacle which isn't 300ftAGL.

Its worth noting that you have paraphrased my quote. I did say that he should take them to casa if he witnessed the rego and If hehad substantiated proof of height using the webtrack software.

I'm not condoning idiots who buy homes near airports only to complain. A genuine, substantiated claim of aircraft below MDA or their min circ height, depending on conditions, however is one of serious concern. I dont think this is the case this time, I think more realistically its a case of gung ho idiots ignoring max speeds which gives the illusion of being lower. Circling at 300ftAGL let alone 200 or 250ft is and feels very low in a PA31-C90; MB tower and MEL would be well aware that they are that low. If the weather is that bad and I were instructing in a C90 I'd be teaching good airmanship and conducting a runway aligned instrument approach.