Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Higher Google Checkout amounts
By popular demand.... increased denominations for depositing to your account. Thanks Roy, for the the suggestion!
- Paul
- Paul
Monday, July 26, 2010
SpacShiptwo first crewed flight
16.07.10
VSS Enterprise Makes First Crewed Flight
15th July 2010, Mojave Air and Spaceport CA
15th July was a significant milestone for Scaled Composites as the team march towards the first solo flights of VSS Enterprise (SpaceShipTwo).For the first time VSS Enterprise flew with crew on board. As planned, the spaceship remained attached to VMS Eve (captive) for the duration of the flight and numerous combined vehicle systems tests were conducted. In addition and for the first time, the two crew members on board VSS Enterprise, evaluated all of the spaceship’s systems and functions from end to end in the air. Objectives achieved.
Congratulations to the whole team!
Mission Details:
– WhiteKnightTwo (VMS Eve) flight number 33
– SpaceShipTwo (VSS Enterprise) flight number three in captive carry configuration.
– Flight Time: 6 hours 12 minutes
– VMS Eve crew: Mark Stucky, Peter Kalogiannis, Brian Maisler
– VSS Enterprise crew: Peter Siebold, Michael Alsbury
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
New instrument pilots!
Congratulations to Jonathan and Romain on their instrument ratings! Viva Le France!
Sunday, May 9, 2010
New solo!
Congratulations Secret Agent Joe on your solo today. Sorry, no pic, otherwise he'd have to........ well, congats anyway on your achievement. Every pilot remembers their first solo!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Don't let this be you..... lessons learned
My students know I am always harping on making sure you know how much fuel is actually in the tanks - don't trust the fuel gauges! Fuel starvation is a major cause of preventable accidents. If you are not positive of the fuel amount by full fuel upon visual inspection, calculation, or a calibrated dip stick; Top it off!
Synopses I
An airplane collided with a fence during a forced landing following a loss of engine power. The pilot reported that he flew on the left fuel tank for start-up, taxi, and takeoff. After reaching his cruise altitude of 8,500 feet, he switched to the right fuel tank approximately 45 minutes into the flight. When the right fuel gauge indicated zero, the pilot switched back to the left fuel tank while making stair-step descents to his final destination. About four miles north of the accident location and 18 miles south of his destination, the engine began sputtering and he switched the fuel selector to the right tank and turned on the electric fuel pump. The engine started to run normally, but the fuel indicator on the left tank read over five gallons and the right tank indicated zero gallons. He immediately reversed course toward an airport he had just over flown and planned to land on runway 11. Due to a departing airplane on runway 29, the pilot maneuvered to land on runway 29 and entered the downwind leg of the traffic pattern. As he entered downwind, the engine sputtered again and then lost power. The pilot attempted to land on runway 29 and made s-turns to dissipate the excessive altitude in order to make the runway. Prior to touching down, the pilot extended two notches of flaps. Upon touchdown, he applied the brakes but the airplane overran the runway, went through a fence, and came to rest on a golf course. The airport manager immediately responded to the accident site and found that there was no fuel in the fuel tanks or on the ground. About one ounce of clean fuel was found in the gascolator. Using the fuel flow for 75 percent best power from the performance charts in the aircraft flight manual for the trip elapsed time, including the allowances for takeoff and climb fuel burn, yielded a total fuel consumption of 49.25 gallons. The airplane’s usable fuel was 48 gallons.
The National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: a loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
Synopses II
In a written statement, a pilot stated that he encountered engine failure at 3,000 feet mean sea level. “An emergency landing was attempted on a street. Upon landing, I struck a telephone pole with the left wing.”
Federal Aviation Administration inspectors examined the airplane at the accident site. The airplane was found resting upright, backed up against some trees, in the hollow of a vacant lot, in a residential neighborhood located 1.6 miles
east of the airport. Preceding the airplane, a power pole was found pushed over. There was metal skin from the airplane’s left wing suspended in a power line coming off of the pole.
The airplane’s left wing leading edge was torn out at mid-span. The airplane’s right wing tip was broken off. The nose wheel was broken aft. The engine mounts and firewall were bent up and aft. The airplane’s wing and fuselage skins showed heavy buckling and bending. The propeller showed no damage. Examination of the airplane’s two main fuel tanks, which were found intact, revealed no fuel in either tank. Approximately one pint of fuel was recovered from the accumulator tank and lines to the engine. Flight control continuity was confirmed. Examination of the engine, engine controls and other airplane systems revealed no anomalies.
The National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The pilot’s improper in-flight planning and decisions which led to fuel exhaustion. A factor relating to this accident was the telephone pole.
Synopses I
An airplane collided with a fence during a forced landing following a loss of engine power. The pilot reported that he flew on the left fuel tank for start-up, taxi, and takeoff. After reaching his cruise altitude of 8,500 feet, he switched to the right fuel tank approximately 45 minutes into the flight. When the right fuel gauge indicated zero, the pilot switched back to the left fuel tank while making stair-step descents to his final destination. About four miles north of the accident location and 18 miles south of his destination, the engine began sputtering and he switched the fuel selector to the right tank and turned on the electric fuel pump. The engine started to run normally, but the fuel indicator on the left tank read over five gallons and the right tank indicated zero gallons. He immediately reversed course toward an airport he had just over flown and planned to land on runway 11. Due to a departing airplane on runway 29, the pilot maneuvered to land on runway 29 and entered the downwind leg of the traffic pattern. As he entered downwind, the engine sputtered again and then lost power. The pilot attempted to land on runway 29 and made s-turns to dissipate the excessive altitude in order to make the runway. Prior to touching down, the pilot extended two notches of flaps. Upon touchdown, he applied the brakes but the airplane overran the runway, went through a fence, and came to rest on a golf course. The airport manager immediately responded to the accident site and found that there was no fuel in the fuel tanks or on the ground. About one ounce of clean fuel was found in the gascolator. Using the fuel flow for 75 percent best power from the performance charts in the aircraft flight manual for the trip elapsed time, including the allowances for takeoff and climb fuel burn, yielded a total fuel consumption of 49.25 gallons. The airplane’s usable fuel was 48 gallons.
The National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: a loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.
Synopses II
In a written statement, a pilot stated that he encountered engine failure at 3,000 feet mean sea level. “An emergency landing was attempted on a street. Upon landing, I struck a telephone pole with the left wing.”
Federal Aviation Administration inspectors examined the airplane at the accident site. The airplane was found resting upright, backed up against some trees, in the hollow of a vacant lot, in a residential neighborhood located 1.6 miles
east of the airport. Preceding the airplane, a power pole was found pushed over. There was metal skin from the airplane’s left wing suspended in a power line coming off of the pole.
The airplane’s left wing leading edge was torn out at mid-span. The airplane’s right wing tip was broken off. The nose wheel was broken aft. The engine mounts and firewall were bent up and aft. The airplane’s wing and fuselage skins showed heavy buckling and bending. The propeller showed no damage. Examination of the airplane’s two main fuel tanks, which were found intact, revealed no fuel in either tank. Approximately one pint of fuel was recovered from the accumulator tank and lines to the engine. Flight control continuity was confirmed. Examination of the engine, engine controls and other airplane systems revealed no anomalies.
The National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The pilot’s improper in-flight planning and decisions which led to fuel exhaustion. A factor relating to this accident was the telephone pole.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
West Palm, Stuart
http://picasaweb.google.com/pastagias/2010_03_04?authkey=Gv1sRgCLDgqa2ahY7AzQE&feat=directlink
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
