eaglewing7

Ah, the Douglas A-26 Invader, I'd love to actually have a decent model. rather than a shoddy V7 conversion... And, the detail in that A-4 is superb.

If you want to add a GPS, download the KLN90B from EADT. It is integrated as a popup, rather than a "built in" instrument.

Not a bad idea then. Of course, you will have to ensure that you keep not just current, but proficient at IFR flying. Too many pilots get their IFR, never use it, or use it so infrequently that they become complacent, they either have a rude awakening during their renewal ride, or mother nature takes no prisoners... Good to hear that you are getting a deal, and have contacts in the industry that are willing to help. I assume you are taking the route that I mentioned, doing your training in a single, and then will finish off in the multi. Excellent course of action. Good luck with the training, keep us updated.

I decided to forgo the multi-IFR, for now at least. It all depends on what your career goal is, as to whether or not it will be of use to you. Depending on who you talk to, it is either an asset or a waste of money while you are getting into the industry. Of course, that may explain why I'm still looking for work, and instead am getting my instructor rating... An interesting trick, or a way of saving a significant sum of money, is to go in with as much theory/book knowledge as possible, so that you have a decent understanding of the procedures early on, so that you are not trying to learn on the fly (literally). And, also to do the bulk of the training in a single engine aircraft, then just a few flights before your check ride, get in the multi, polish your multi flying, and finish off the rating. Much cheaper than the standard FTU's everything in the multi or nothing schtick.

I'm not sure what they teach you guys South of the 49th these days. Hell, that lesson was day one in ground school... Good to see you're enjoying your PPL privileges. The other cardinal sin is making her wear an ASA headset, but thats minor compared to the loading error. Serious compromise of, ah, er, safety. Yes, thats right.

Hold everything, you've made a serious error my friend. You always want to load your aircraft for a rear centre of gravity, thus the largest passenger must be seated in the rear. Thus the passenger of the fairer sex sits in front, and the pictures turn out better as well.

It doesn't matter, because as NATO has already shown, no country wants to respond to the current threats to territorial integrity, because it could provoke a further escalation. If say Poland was attacked, odds are all that NATO would do is make a gesture in Russia's general direction, and then withdraw. I'm sure there are plenty of plans out there in the event of a full scale attack, the question is, does anyone really want to try and counterattack against Russia? I disagree wholeheartedly. He appears unpredictable, especially to the Western media/politicians, but his actions are very much planned, and executed with a high degree of accuracy and certainty. An interesting piece was written by the BBC, and it explains quite clearly that the world ignored Vladimir Putin, when he was first sworn into office, but during his swearing in, he outlined his plans for the Russian Federation, plans which are currently being enacted. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481

I have a feeling, that what will occur in Ukraine, will follow this sort of timeline: As the Ukrainian Forces continue to advance in Eastern Ukraine, against the "rebels/separatists", more Russian weapons and support will flow across the border, in an attempt to stem the tide. If the advance continues, and momentum is gained by the Ukrainians, shortly before all rebel held territories are secured, and resistance is mopped up, Russia will invade Eastern Ukraine. Now, this invasion, will be done in the same manner as was done in Crimea, under the guise of a humanitarian operation, whatever you want to call it. In the end it is an invasion of the sovereign territory of an independent nation. Now, unlike in Crimea, Ukraine will likely respond in force to this invasion, which will inevitably lead to a rather significant show of force from Russia. All of the friendly Eastern Ukrainian territory will be taken over, and annexed by Russia. With the country divided, and a visibly weakened government in Kiev, Russia will eventually envelop all of Ukraine, securing once more a puppet state between her and the EU bloc. Now, the question is what response will the EU and NATO take if this is to occur? So far, the EU has been quite reticent, mainly because of the delicate supply of oil and gas, the majority of which is imported from Russia, and as we all know, European winters can be quite harsh... NATO may be willing to put some additional boots on the ground in Poland and around the Baltic, but I don't see there being much of an appetite for war in Europe, yet...

The difference between Siberian 1812, and Malaysian 17, is that MH17 was shot down on purpose, or at least targeted on purpose. Siberian 1812 was hit by an errant missile, which was certainly an unfortunate event. The FAA has nothing to do with civilian airliners travelling on international air routes, their jurisdiction is in the US, only, as it should be. The group that issues warnings, NOTAMs, etc, is ICAO. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The NOTAM issued cautioned that it could be potentially dangerous overflying Eastern Ukraine lower than 32,000 feet, MH17 was at 33,000 feet, which was perfectly legal. The reason that 32,000 feet was picked for the NOTAM was that the aircraft that had been previously shot down over Ukraine were all Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, be it helicopters, SU-25s, IL-76s, and AN-26s. The thought was that these had all been shot down by MANPAD shoulder launched SAMs, which have a maximum range somewhere between 15-20,000 feet. The highest air force target that was hit was at around 21,000 feet. So, ICAO used the data they had been supplied, and added a rather significant buffer, thus why 32,000 feet was used. Of course, no one had taken into account that the rebels had been supplied with a BUK SA-11 SAM launcher, with a maximum target height of over 70,000 feet. As for Iraq, there haven't been any incidents to begin with. Closing down a huge chunk of international airspace is a very difficult thing to do, and is a decision that cannot be taken lightly. Besides that, airlines are masters at risk management, and it is up to each airline to decide what routing they feel is safest. And finally, consider the economy of forcing airlines to divert hundreds, or thousands of miles off course to skirt around a restricted area, huge amounts of fuel are consumed, ticket prices are forced up, etc.

Its not necessarily the regionals, but more the FAA. The changes were made after the Colgan Air Q400 crash. Of course, the irony is that the FO had ~1500 hours, and crew fatigue played a role, but hey whatever works right? The pilot shortage, well the rumours of one, have been around for a hell of a lot of years, and thus far, there have been no indications of it yet. 9/11 helped stave off a retirement blitz for a bunch of years, and the layoffs that occurred meant that high time pilots were looking for work to get them to retirement. Of course, my other opinion of the shortage, is that it is nothing more than a sales pitch used by flight schools to get suckers in the door (along with the idea that you can be flying jets straight out of flight school). Sooner or later, in Canada, there will be a shortage of Canadian CPLs, and that is a well known fact, Transport Canada publishes the licensing statistics every year, and the numbers are on the decline... Frankly, my interest lies with the 702/703 type of flying (aerial work/charters), sort of the "bush" type flying. Be it tailwheel flying, aerial photography, survey work, patrols, floats, that sort of thing. Eventually though, you will run into a wall of sorts, where you cannot advance much further, and the days of career float pilots are on the way out, which is quite sad. But, I have no expectation of getting into any airline environment for many years. I'd certainly like to hear more about your business plan, send me a PM if you want.

The regionals are not a good place to be, and in the US, its become even worse with the increased FO requirements (mainly having 1500 hours/ATPL). The pay is not going up, and the reason for that is the fact that the mainline carriers are unwilling to pay more for the contracts that the regionals sign... In Canada, there are two main regionals, Jazz and Encore, with pay that is on the lower end of acceptable starting out, but gets decent with years of experience. There are smaller regionals/airlines, and some of these are very much hit and miss, you need to be very careful when applying for jobs, to make sure you've done a bit of research on the company. The issue that I see in Canada is that while there are entry level jobs out there, the competition is fierce among low time guys, but even worse is the fact that there are higher time pilots who cannot find work, and thus they end up taking these entry level jobs. There's also the TFWP in Canada, but thats another story, for another thread. Good luck with your business plan, if your ever interested in branching out to the Great White North, let me know.

Yes sir. PPL, then tailwheel training (in Canada there is no tailwheel rating, but insurance companies have set a minimum of 10 hours dual before you can act as PIC), float rating, night rating, multi-engine rating, and finally CPL. So, here I am, with a CPL ~230 hours, and am basically unemployable, or at least thats the impression I've been given when applying for jobs thus far. So, now I'm in the process of getting my Class 4 Instructor Rating, which is going to be another ten thousand dollars...

Congratulations, especially after all of the BS you had to go through to get to this point. Good luck with the CPL as well. It will be more in-depth, at least the written exam should be (it was up here in Canada). Of course the flight test should be similar, just with more stringent standards.

KAL007 was certainly a major incident, but because the Korean airliner strayed into Soviet airspace, and then when intercepted, did not respond to any air to air signals or radio comms, it was shot down. If you are intercepted, you need to make contact with the intercepting aircraft immediately, and follow all orders, failure to do so tends to lead to a very ugly ending.

The reason why aircraft were regularly transiting this area, is that thus far, only Ukrainian Air Force aircraft had been targeted. Low level helicopters and fighters were hit using MANPADS (shoulder launched missiles with 10-15,000 foot target ceilings). The Antonov's that have been hit or shot down recently, were flying in excess of 20,000 feet, so they were definitely hit by missiles launched from BUK launchers, which have a target ceiling of 70,000 feet. Another reason for transiting the area, is that ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, had declared that the risk posed to civilian aircraft was low to non-existent, because the rebels were only targeting military aircraft. Of course, all it takes is one civilian aircraft to be misidentified as a military aircraft, and suddenly that airspace is no longer safe. Anyone who can misidentify a Boeing 777, as being an Antonov AN-26, shouldn't be using a SAM to begin with.

If this is indeed the case, which is most likely is, this could turn yet another regional conflict/civil war, into a full blown international conflict. As for the separatists/rebels not having the capability to shoot down aircraft, bullshit. A few days ago a Ukrainian Air Force Antonov AN-26 was shot down from an altitude of approximately 21,000 feet. Amazingly enough, the crew somehow managed the force land the aircraft, and survived.

The issue at hand is whether or not the Airbus had been given a taxi clearance to cross the runway the second time, with or without a hold short instruction. If the Airbus was told to hold short, and they did not, the crew will have some explaining to do. If the Airbus was cleared to cross the active runway twice, with no hold short clearance, this is then on ATC. Of course, the be all and end all, is if ATC had issued a crossing clearance with a "please expedite", then everyone is more or less covered. And of course, it is the PICs responsibility, in the end, to make sure what you are doing is safe, if you've accepted a clearance, you are required to carry out that clearance, but if need be you can deviate from it to ensure safety, etc. This happens more frequently than most of the flying public is aware. If you go on Transport Canada's CADORS site (Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System), you can bring up a record of over 5000 go-around reports. Now, some will be GA related go-around events (which is quite common as well), and some will be airliner related, and there are plenty where the narrative will be that an aircraft was slow to cross a runway, or slow to exit, leading to a go-around. Not all that long ago, I had to initiate an overshoot at CYPK when I was approaching the runway on final for a low and over (low pass). I was on final, number three for the runway, I had extended my downwind leg to give additional spacing to the two aircraft ahead of myself. So, I am on final, the first aircraft landed and cleared the runway, the second was an aircraft doing 500' low level circuits, and they were clear. So, I begin accelerating the aircraft in a shallow dive up to 140MPH indicated. At around a mile final, ATC instructed an ultralight, who was holding short for departure, to taxi out and takeoff. Now, I correctly anticipated that this was going to be very tight spacing wise, and knowing that ultralights are slower aircraft, I reduced power somewhat to try and compensate for this. Needless to say, ATC had to then issue an expedite instruction to the ultralight, which was now on the runway. At around 500' I initiated an overshoot, with a tight climbing left hand turn (the circuit was clear enough for me to perform this manoeuvre safely), and levelled off at 500', and was able to perform the low and over a minute or two later. Shit happens.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=97574#p886383 According to that, the distance involved was 3826 feet. Quite far from any "near miss". The telephoto lens involved certainly makes it appear closer than it actually is.

And around $4,000,000.00 new, the same goes for the King Air lineup. Although, you could pickup a C90 for around $500,000-800,000. I wouldn't necessarily suggest purchasing an aircraft before you begin your training, especially since some people very quickly realize that they don't want to, or cannot become pilots (there are a variety of reasons why this happens). For just getting your PPL, you may as well just rent a schools plane, and then when you are done your licence, purchase what ever piston single you are interested in. If you want to get a twin, get your multi-engine rating in a similar twin, or purchase the twin, and get trained in your own aircraft. There's no reason why you couldn't get your PPL, and then move straight into multis. The only challenge going into multi-engine aircraft, and this is really type dependant, is generally learning to deal with turbochargers (most nowadays are automatic waste gates anyway), constant speed/full feathering propellers (which are fairly easy to operate, but are fairly complex to gain a good working understanding of), and retractable landing gear (and not just remembering to raise and lower it, but also knowing how it works, and how to trouble shoot when something breaks). The other issue most people have is getting used to handling an aircraft that has a GTOW upwards of 6,000 pounds (when they've been flying 152s at 1670 pounds GTOW, and 172s at 2400 pounds GTOW), and one that cruises 50+ knots faster, and lands damn near at cruising speed for most training planes. I should also mention that just because you get a multi-engine rating, doesn't mean you are really qualified or capable of handling one as PIC solo. With ten hours of multi time in my logbook, I was more than capable of getting a great mark on the flight test, and completing the exercises/drills in a competent manner, but I wouldn't want to try and go out and fly the aircraft by myself without more time on type.

No offence intended, but your not going to get much with that budget. Getting a PPL will cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10,000-15,000 (depending on the hours it takes you to complete the licence). I ended up spending around $12,000 up here in Canada. Your commercial licence is where things start getting really expensive. Depending on the aircraft you intend to fly, you'll want to consider a multi-engine rating (which is ridiculously expensive), but should only take around ten hours (mine ended up costing around $5000 for ten hours). You may want to do your multi-IFR, and if you do decide to take that route, make sure you a prepared well ahead of time, because then you can do that rating in the least amount of hours, otherwise your going to spend an asinine amount of money. An all in amount for a CPL can be upwards of $50,000-$70,000+. Now, if your budget of $250,000 is separate from your training budget, you have a better chance of getting an aircraft with some capability. But, if they are combined, you may end up spending close to half of your budget (especially if your training is done in the US). Your budget realistically limits you to older airframes (which is fine, because brand new airframes are ridiculously overpriced), and you are limited to piston singles and piston twins. Which is again fine, because you've changed your expectations already. Looking on controller.com (a US/Canadian aircraft sale site), with a maximum sale price of $250,000, you can get some pretty damn nice aircraft, and at just below to just over $100,000. Your best bet, especially when/if you get your licence, would be looking in the four to six seat range, piston single or piston twins. Cessna 180/182/185/210/206 for the singles, or the 414 which is a twin, but is a lot of aircraft for a low time pilot. Piper Cherokee 6/Saratoga (although I've heard they can be a real dog with a load on), Senecas (your best bet is a Seneca III, they are generally the best for hauling larger loads, whereas the newer Seneca Vs, are designed more as IFR birds, so the additional avionics make it difficult to haul larger loads). Beech Bonanzas (plenty of beautiful older Bonnies out there), Barons (piston twin, pretty capable). The best advice I've heard is, stay below your maximum budget when buying, that way you've got room to make upgrades as necessary, maintenance, insurance (which will be high for a low time pilot, best bet is to stay away from twins until you've got more hours), hangarage, etc... As for your ideal aircraft if money were no object, the Piaggio, there's a reason why there aren't many around, they are awful aircraft if you are trying to haul any sort of load. If they are light, they are alright...

As I said, there are plenty of six seat aircraft out there, but very few of them will be able to haul full fuel and have all six seats occupied. Your best bet is to get something with a few extra seats, say eight, as in a King Air C90, or the PC-12 which can be up to nine seats, would be best, but turboprops are expensive to get into, versus piston twins. That way you have a better chance of being able to haul six people with plenty of fuel. As for four seat aircraft, the same sort of issues come in, a 172 can haul four people, but generally never at full fuel. The same goes for the Cherokee or Warrior, four seats, but generally never full tanks/people. If you want to carry four people and lots of fuel, a six seat plane would be ideal (as odd as that sounds). If you want to carry six people, eight seats, etc... Of course, this will all depend on the actual aircraft, taking into consideration the weight and balance limitations, aircraft weight, etc. Passenger weights are also very important, if you want to haul around "larger" people, your going to need a bigger plane. Six lightweights, well, you might be able to get away with it. I do have to ask though, what are you looking to do with this information? Are you looking to purchase an aircraft?

What is your definition of a small aircraft? For different people it can mean a lot of different things... I'll throw one suggestion out, as a proof of point... Piper Seneca III, full fuel is 123 US gallons useable. Cruise burn is approximately 20 gallons per hour. Endurance of approximately 6 hours. Range depends on TAS, which can vary, but say around 140KTAS. Range of 840nm. And thats pushing the aircraft. Odds are with six passengers, you will not be able to load full fuel. Your expectations are frankly unrealistic, unless you get into turboprops, and then you can get the range you are looking for, but the acquisition cost is much higher. PC-12, TBMs, King Air C90 would all be options. Interestingly enough, if you were to shrink your passenger expectation down, to say max. four, you could use a 172, which often have max. range upwards of 900nm. But, the same scenario occurs where you cannot haul four people, with full fuel. The range you've specified, and the payload, gets you into turboprop category aircraft.

In all of the historical photos I've seen, bombs were never stacked, but were left in individual rows, or on their transport carts. Smaller bombs, such as incendiaries, would be left in their packing crates until they were fused, at which point they would be put into the dispensers. The P/F-80's look really nice.

Yes, Apple replaced the NVIDIA video card, the Logic Board (which was why the cost was so high), and the aluminum case. No idea if the computer could have run without the card, probably not. It was only a 512mb card, but the computer was only two years old, so it was a lousy time to fail... Now I of course get the Apple Care extended warranty, so I end up with four years of warranty to take care of these issues.

Sounds like exactly what happened when the video card on my old iMac crapped out. Starts out insidiously, then gets progressively worse, and finally, your computer kernel panics, and you are SOL. I had the same thing with screwy graphics in X-Plane, then black lines over all screens, even faint image burn in, and then the computer would kernel panic. Got the computer in for a repair, replaced the card (I believe I had to pay for the first repair), then it crapped out just beyond the repair warranty, but the company repaired it for free. Then it crapped out again, and I was able to get a ticket through Apple, who repaired it, and ended up costing them around $1500 for all the things they ended up replacing...