u/LightningGeek

Both his licence (given based on meeting basic flying standards) and his type rating (says you can fly that particular aircraft type, but no other) were out of date at the time of the accident.

McRae will always be a legend behind the wheel, but it feels very hard to support his legacy after he killed himself, a family friend and 2 children, by showboating in an aircraft he was not current, or even legal to fly in.

It's been done.

I got to work on an ex-Aussie Air Force PC-9, which the Texan II is developed from.

There is an alternate gear drop which uses an emergency accumulator that provides enough pressure to lower the flaps and gear. It will also trip hydraulic fuses on the 3 gear legs making it impossible for the hydraulics to do anything except lower the gear. The only way to reset them is to release the hydraulic pressure and physically push the fuses back in.

We did have an issue with the original accumulator that meant whenever we tried to add system pressure for testing the gear system it would trip the emergency system as soon as we got to 1,700 psi, well below the usual operating pressure of 3,000 psi.

The Lightning's gear swing is actually extremely simple, but it does use a fancy bot of geometry.

If you scroll down the Lightning T.5 at Newark, they have some very clear pictures of the landing gear bay.

The main bearing at the top of the gear is actually in line with the wing sweep, which means it will retract mostly in line with the wing. To get the required rotation though, the bearing is angled upwards signifcantly. This means that the leg will rotate slightly as it raises, sitting flat compared to the wing. It does mean that the leg is at an angle when extended, with the wheel ahead of the bearing.

The Canberra did not have pneumatically operated brakes, they were purely hydraulic. You can see the basic hydraulic system diagram on page 47 of the pilot notes.

Such a shame the Boulton Paul museum closed down.

There was a fantastic picture of a night fighter Defiant on display in the St Peter's Gardens. The issue being this was in 1940/41 while the radar was still meant to be secret!

An Indicated Air Speed/Mach Meter from an English Electric Lightning.

I've also got a compressor blade from a Rolls Royce Spey, and a piston either from a Cyclone or Twin Wasp radial engine.

It's brake dust from the brakes activating as part of the landing gear retraction sequence. You can see the puff of brake dust in this video of another E-3 taking off.(4:27)

During retraction, almost all large aircraft will automatically apply the brakes to stop the wheels spinning. As I understand it there are two reasons. The first is gyroscopic force caused by the wheels spinning, which will make it harder to retract the gear. The second reason is in case of damage to a tyre. There are a lot off systems that run through the landing gear bays of large aircraft, and chunks of rubber being thrown around by spinning wheel could easily damage multiple systems.

Nose gear wheels generally don't have brakes, so you will not see a puff of dust off of them.

The problem we found with smaller places is that they look fantastic as long as everything goes well.

As soon as an issue arises, the Mum will need to be blue lighted to the nearest large unit where the actual high level medical staff are.

Use a silicone spray rather than WD-40. WD-40 even make their own silicone spray that would be perfect for the job. For the lock, use a dry lubricant like graphite.

While WD-40 has lubricating properties, it is far to thin for most uses and you'll quickly be be back to emtal on metal contact and it will cause more damage in the long run. It is great for a quick blast to get the crap out and get things moving again, but as soon as it is moving you will want to wipe everything down with a degreaser and get some proper lubricant on the moving parts.

The K-8 is an amazing glider to fly, we used to say it would thermal off of a cow's fart! Needing 2 engines to get off the ground really shows how underpowered those engines are.

Modern sustainer engines still use small 2 stroke engines, they do work really well when needed.

We'll get right on that once the US convicts the Nonce in the President's seat.

Almost every general aviation aircraft that has an air-cooled engine does this for cabin heat.

And yes it can be dangerous if you don't regularly check the exhaust for cracks. The old flying school I worked at for a summer would check them at least every 100 hours, but it may have been at every 50 hour check as well. In addition to that, a carbon monoxide must be installed in the cockpit, at least in the UK. Although strangely, that can just mean one of the colour changing dots that only work if you look at them. Our flight school used electronic ones that actively warn the pilots though, much safer.

The p-61 black widow, which had a radar… in WW2

That's not particularly special. The RAF has been carrying

Aircraft Interception (AI) radar was pretty common throughout most of WWII on RAF aircraft, with the first sets being operational in 1940, but become much more common in 1941 when carried on the Beaufighter and Defiant.

Fantastic from the outside, looks like a really fun car.

The inside is another matter though. A lot of respect for Citroen going retro with it, but the pedals look uncomfortable from the start, and the bench seat looks like an air bed, with about the same amount of support. Bench seats are just crap for support in cars.

I think it's understandable for anyone to get a bit annoyed if someone is taking that much time off. Especially if you are a very small department where 1 person being off is going to significantly increase the workload for others.

However, there are also a lot of understandable reasons why someone would need more time off than others.

What is more annoying though is those in charge constantly wanting to run teams on a shoestring. If all departments were slightly overmanned, then people taking more time off wouldn't be an issue at all.

I'm pretty sure it's just one of Snapons standard shadow board colour schemes. We have the exact same colours in our company kits.

They also label the part number into each recess so you know exactly what tool is meant to be there, or which one you need to order if it's U/S. Our company went mad and got the kits with the camera's in them though, which are more of a pain than anything else.

Yeah but that £20-40 is being spent now. That looks bad for this quarters finances.

The vehicle that gets destroyed in a couple of years time? That the next guys problem because the genius who saved a little bit of money now has been promoted for saving that money years ago.

The same shit is happening at the airline I work for. Our hangar doors have worked for about 4 months in the 5 years I've been there, the rest of the time we've had to tow them open. All because a succession of geniuses decided a couple of grand a year to maintain the doors was too much and would affect their yearly bonus. Now they're spending the best part of £500k to replace all the motors, wheels bus bars and electronics on them because of this lack of maintenance.

And that's before we get to our brand new ground equipment that we were told must never be left outside, has now been outside longer than it's been inside.

If you've got mechanical experience, jobs BA at the airport have just opened up.

It'll only ever taxi, no Vulcan will ever fly again.

A combination of the previous type holders giving up the rating so there is no engineering support, a lack of flight ready spares and there being no more flight ready engines left to keep a flyable one running.

It's a shame, but these are very old aircraft that have been out of front line service for almost 40 years. Getting XH558 into the air truly was a marvel of engineering, but sadly oen that cannot be repeated.

This is not a case of subsidising parents though.It's removing a draconian tax on parents for sitting with their children.

The only issue is that they should have extended this to groups of adults as well.

By the same token, parents have an option to avoid being charged for seating arrangements. It's called travelling another way.

And you have that exact same option.

This would be a fine argument if income were the operative difference here, but it's not. Minimum-wage singles earning less than those families would be equally expected to cover their costs so income has nothing to do with it.

And high earning singles have more income than 2 parents on minimum wage. If we're starting with different earnings, you can make any argument you want.

Covering the costs is also hardly a deal breaker. It could cost up to £104 for a parent and child to sit next to each other on a return journey. Splitting that between the rest of the passengers is going to mean an extra £1-2 per ticket. Which will be being paid for by the parents as well.

I have absolutely no issue with my money going to those who need it. I do have issues with the cost of my luxuries going up (to the point where I struggle to afford it myself) because somebody else doesn't want to pay for the same one. We aren't talking about housing benefit or the bus to school, we're talking about luxury travel options.

They are paying for the same one. It's the same flight, same seat types. Parents aren't getting a better deal than you, they're just no longer paying extra for sitting next to their children.

And if the £1-2 increase is going to make your luxury travel unaffordable, then you should take the advice parents have been given in this thread and not travel.

That's the decision I've made because even a very generous staff discount and free accommodation, due to staying with family, making an international holiday cheaper than a UK one, I still cannot afford to take my family on holiday.

Could you please identify a single additional cost imposed on a parent that exists because somebody else chose not to be a parent?

Fines for parents who take their children on holiday during term time. The extra cost of travelling in term time meaning holidays cost an average of £900 more than during term time.

Both are additional costs put on to families that either go to a business to subsidise less profitable times of the year, or they go to the local council and government as a form of extra taxation.

As far as I can remember there was just this one.

This was 10 years ago though, so the exact wording is probably wrong.

I agree it should be the same for all groups, and it is ridiculous for any group to have to pay to sit together. But parents take priority over adults because children and teenagers aren't self sufficient.

Meanwhile, I don't even have the option of paying extra for a child-free flight because parents kick off every time it comes up.

You do have that option, it's called a private jet.

Think about it like road vehicles. Commercial aviation is like taking the bus. It's relatively cheap, available to almost everyone, and gets you from A-B relatively efficiently. The downside is, the companies only want to fill seats, which means you could have screaming children one day, or completely silence the next.

But if you want a quieter journey for a small group, then you need to book a taxi. But the privilege of choosing your travel companions costs more.

Maybe I'd be less irritable about it if it weren't so one-sided all the time but man, I just feel like it's always me taking one for the team.

Welcome to society, where the members who are least able to earn money are subsidised by those who can.

You're more than welcome to become a parent though, it really isn't as one sided as you think it is when it comes to costs.

Merc's are just dull.

Even the C class, the best looking of their line up over the last few years, is very dull.