Thank you Chipmunker for leading me further on my search for truth. I have spent weary hours examining the plethora of absorbing website data. So much to know; so little time. Thunderbirds was the creation of Sylvia and Gerry Anderson and, with regard to the term F.A.B., Sylvia, author of the definitive book "Yes M'Lady", says that during a scripting session they just made it up to spell out the then popular slang term Fab. (I had always thought that was a brand of laundry powder?) But was Sylvia perhaps engaging in a subterfuge in order to hide the real meaning, or meanings? Her explanation sounds just a little too glib don't you think? I have been wracking my little grey cells day and night over this riddle-puzzle, wrapped in a conundrum and encased in an enigma. This is all I can come up with but it is still very much W.I.P.

"Father, Anticipate Blast-off"..."Flight Ability Boundless"..."Frightened About Baddies"..."Fantastically Alert Brothers"..."Fabulously Able Britishers"..."Fearlessly Anglo Bounder-hunters"..."Fear Amelioration Bolstered" and others which I shall consider further. But there is another matter which bothers me. From whence does the charming Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward obtain funding in order to support her lavish life-style? And what about this Parker fella? Has he really forsaken his previous trade as Master safe-cracker? Is it not possible that he and the good Penelope are in cahoots and Parker has a side-line? Think about it......you must admit they are a curious pair indeed and certainly spend a great deal of time together! Oh, just one last thing that you Brits might know. Why has Lady Penelope's motorcar got the wheel configuratio all the wrong way round....I mean just look at it...it's ridiculous. Must go; Mrs dakota67 has just put the billy on for a brew and says I am to stop boring everbody with my rubbish.

The ghastly vision of that fiery doomed aircraft staggering along at an impossibly low airspeed will forever be etched into our minds. Hindsight can be an unpleasant, even distasteful business, but in aviation it is essential if we are not too fall into the traps of the past. And so we are again about to witness a long-running judicial "Blame Transference" or "Avoidance" procedure. As I cast my mind back over the life of the Concorde project, and subsequent flight operations, certain aspects come to mind. A long history of tyre failures and a debate over using retreads purely to cut costs. A British Airways machine that suffered a tyre failure causing chunks of rubber to smash their way into the fuel tanks leading to fuel gushing out. A Concorde Captain told me a fair bit about that episode. The long BALPA battle to get improvements and modifications done to reduce the hazards of tyre failures. When you stand back and take long thoughtful look at the aircraft's design configuration and consider it was intended to carry paying passengers, one has to wonder a little. Why would you mount two military after-burning engines adjacent to each other in a longitudinal location where it is patently obvious, that should tyre debris penetrate the fuel tanks, fuel would gush out and enter the engine intakes. Or am I missing something? Why would you start using retreaded tyres when even new tyres were operating right up on their rotational speed limits. Why would you even consider permitting max. weight take-offs with a certain amount of tailwind purely to save money and a long fuel-consuming reversal turn to take up a SID? With such a long history of tyre problems, why would you not mandate a runway debris inspection immediately prior to EVERY Concorde take-off? Just compare the cost of a light ute and a couple of chaps to check for no junk. Bits and pieces have always dropped off aircraft, and always will. That omission is particularly hard to fathom given that there were few Concordes flying and their number of sectors flown was miniscule compared with other aircraft. And how on earth can you certify an aircraft that cannot take running over a little strip of light alloy without suffering extremely dangerous fuel tank damage? Those sort of things you might just tolerate in a military machine. But Concorde was like no other civil transport. Just a look at it and one could be forgiven for assuming that its intended role was to be a supersonic nuclear-armed strategic bomber. My personal belief is that to even consider that Continental is to blame for the Concorde's inherent design faults is utterly bizarre. Just as an example; suppose a RR or GE or P &W engine spat out a section of turbine blade onto the runway and the Concorde ran over it and burst a tyre....would the French then place the blame on the engine manufacturer? It is an utter nonsense and I was astonished to learn of this pending case. Perhaps I am way off beam here but it is just one man's view after all.

For decades I, and many others, have been tormented by not being able to determine the meaning of an unapproved by ICAO, RT phrase. Out here in the Colony, we have recently been fortunate to have had screened on TV, that superb British aviation training series which, I believe, all budding pilots should both view and be examined on, "THUNDERBIRDS". However, despite exhaustive investigation, I have been quite unable to determine what the brave British lads mean when they acknowledge an order from their Dad, or that charming very rich titled lady, with the expression "FAB". For a while I thought it might be a code word for Roger or perhaps Wilco. And the International Rescue aircraft do not appear to carry any ICAO approved registration markings? How are they cleared to operate throughout the various sovereign airspace domains? There are many questionable aspects to their entire modus operandi. The boys are somewhat cavalier about completing check-lists and often engage in extreme risk-taking. Who carries out the audits on their flight operations? They frequently bust flight and duty time standards. Never-the-less, despite these minor infractions, I believe the stalwart lads are an example to our young airpersons in that they exhibit sound decision-making characteristics and are not afraid of authority. It is quite obvious that they play Cricket. But I, and many of my South and Southwest Pacific compatriots are really desperate to know, before we depart on that last Great Take-off to the Big Hangar in the Sky;  WHAT DOES "FAB" signify????????

Whilst it is most unlikely that the CEO of SWA will ever read these thoughts from a little retired chap in the South Pacific, perhaps one of his staff will. It is one hell of a shock to be leading a proud old 'line and find oneself in the glare of potentially damaging publicity. I actually sympathise and empathise. An hour ago I took the trouble to read, thoughtfully, the words of one of your employees on a company site. This person was very proud of SWA and loves working for you, as I feel sure most of your personnel do. But underlying the text I began to sense that that old demon which I have long termed "Blame Transference" or "Avoidance" was infecting the article. I suspect that the dedicated employee was not even aware of it. During a period of my life I had the unenviable task of carrying out field investigations into aircraft accidents in a very inhospitable environment and conducted many interviews with survivors. There was generally a most human reluctance to admit that a primary causal factor just may have been a misjudgement on the pilot's (or engineer's) part. It is so hard to admit to oneself that perhaps one could have managed things better. I took great care to be very gentle with these traumatised airmen as I had myself broken aircraft when a young agricultural pilot. (I can still feel/sense/hear the impacts now!). However; we all err at some time during our careers and it really does no good to one's reputation to launch into a tirade about how unjustly one is being treated and how it was all somebody else's fault. (unless, of course, there is hard evidence that one is totally blameless).

But moving on. All of us who have been involved in the airline industry are very aware of the complexity of overlapping inspection and maintenance programmes. But that is common to all carriers. Ever since Mr. Junkers began using metal to build aeroplanes, that metal has been cracking along stress paths. I can recall an engineer calling me over and pointing out an airframe crack, and I have found a few myself. Now I do not wish to indulge in over-simplification but the scenario was that a Defect report was raised, a copy sent to CAA and a repair scheme was devised to fix it. (if one did not already exist). We did not just stare at it and hope it would somehow heal itself. At the least it would be drilled with a stop-hole, though cracks may still propagate.

I know I am generalising, but a CEO's primary responsibility as a legal Duty of Care is to dedicate himself to the safety of his customers. He is the Leader and must set the Culture of the company from the top. Cracked metal is not a good look, no matter how fail-safe are the stress paths. What the CEO can do is issue a Directive. "This airline will repair defects as early as is humanly possible."... "We will not wait for deadline dates!".... "What don't you understand about FIX IT NOW?"

Well, enough methinks....perhaps someone will point these well-meant thoughts to the SWA CEO. I feel sure that your great airline will ride this out and be the better for it. I wish you well.

Good grief. Have just spent a couple of hours reading as much as I could find on this bizarre situation. How on earth did such a fine carrier, with one of the best safety records in airline history, find itself so heavily in the proverbial. Facts: SWA operates many aged, high-time, high-cycle 737s. Many were developing fatigue and/or stress airframe cracks in the pressure hull. There was a quite sensible AD issued to inspect and repair cracks which allowed ample time to do the work or pull them out of the air. Neither of these options was followed. The cracking was not addressed and dozens of the affected machines just kept flying on, and on and on..... This was an illegal act, no matter who was to blame. I have not flown in the USA so do not know what is the format or the content of the ship's Tech Log. Were the pilots aware that they were operating aircraft with outstanding ADs? And had they known, would they all have continued to fly them? If a non-urgent AD cannot be met by the time-line, you have two options. Go to the FAA and request an extension, stating your case, or GROUND the aeroplane and fix the problem. Surely that is pretty simple decision making? But to me, I cannot help escape the (interim) conclusion that the arch-enemy, the Devil incarnate of aviation standards and safety, COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, had systemically wormed its evil way into the bowels of this great carrier. What I do recommend is that both SWA and the FAA admit they had/have a joint problem. Scrub the fine and get on with the fix. Perhaps all air carriers can learn from this strange situation...I certainly hope so.

Unconfirmed reports indicate huge death toll in Queensland take-off accident.

Mr. Paddy (dingo-breath) O'Pheeney, chief bouncer and bar-poet of the far-west Queensland Ettamogga Hotel, has reported to the "Ettamogga Elucidator" that a departing cropdusting pilot lost directional control of his CAC Wombat Mk IV agricultural aircraft on the hotel's adjacent airstrip at 22.55 last night following a business meeting with a large gathering of local graziers. The aircraft veered 90 degrees, demolished the establishment's outhouse (fortunately not occupied) and impacted against a three metre high anthill. A large quantity of fuel escaped from a ruptured tank, dousing the anthill. Mr. O'Pheeney, in a highly emotive state, told the duty reporter, between broken sobs, that the death toll was estimated to be over five million, and was likely to rise further once the sun rose enabling a better examination of the ghastly scene. Australian Civil Aviation investigators are en-route to Ettamogga and are particularly keen to interview the veteran 67 year old cropdusting pilot known to generations of the locals as "Flyblown".

(Interim crash report ends.)

Given that many of us are pondering deeply over the 'Greatest 100', it struck me that, as a light-hearted relief from this self-imposed mental task, it just might interest quite a number of you to consider just which were the most horrible, utterly useless, ineffective aircraft ever to go into production and enter either military or civil service? I believe there are many candidates for this accolade and I hasten to say that one intends no disrespect to their designers for, as we well know, Govt. interference and the rigid setting of impractical specifications, has often led to rather poor, or even bizarre results! There have been many aircraft that suffered badly as a result of having been "designed by a committee". I also should stress that these abominations have occurred in all aircraft producing nations so it is no shame to look back at one's own homeland and smile at some of the simply 'orrible creations that have (un) graced our skies. Anyway, aviation enthusiasts, it is just an idea and may well wither on the metaphorical vine. What think ye? 

The tiny South Pacific British colony of New Zealand (2,000 km south-east of Tasmania), appears to be establishing a reputation as the world leader in the battle against Air-Terror. A chum of mine, who operates Airbus A-340 Marvel-Jets to Auckland, NZ, USA and Europe from a largish South American nation (let's just call him Capitano "Pedro") reports that Auckland is the only port in his network that confiscates and tests pilots personal tubes of toothpaste and shaving cream. Capt. Pedro, a normally calm and most pleasant gentleman of the old school, is somewhat bemused as to why the NZ airport security service believe that a 22,000 hour pilot may be plotting to down his own aircraft with toothpaste. This reporter intends to put the question to the NZ Director of Civil Aviation as there must be a quite sensible reason for this ultra-cautious regime now in place in this peaceful aviation backwater. One must ask whether this may be a trend-setting programme which will spread world-wide to further harass aircrew who are already under increasing pressure to reduce their emissions. BALPA please note. dakota67 will report further when the NZ Director of CAA responds. In the interim, pilots flying to Auckland International are advised to clear their toilet bags of all encapsulated personal hygiene aids. Small tubes of toothpaste will now be made available at the duty-free outlets. 

Just a few thoughts whilst conceding I am not having to write out the cheques.

Cabin PA system: Frankly, many have had such systems and I am somewhat surprised that this was not done years ago. Many good systems are available and surely the UK CAA could facilitate the wiring approval in a spirit of co-operation?

WX Radar: Request an exemption and restrict operations to VFR and/or IFR only in conditions of no forecast icing. Not so easy in Europe I admit. (I don't know whether UK machines have airframe de-icing boots?) Otherwise examine the types of WX radar that are fitted to many lighter types. It does not have to be in nose.

PAX escape slide: Well that is just plain silly and for the sake of a few cms, an exemption would surely not be unreasonable. In any case the old Dak is likely to be on its belly. However, a solution might be to construct a simple slide which lies flat on floor and sort of rolls out and down. Would not have to be very large. But I guess it would have to be approved...more money.

Performance: Am out of touch re. current EU required single-engine take-off segment situation, but if you keep the weight down to about 25,000 lbs, the DC-3 should have no problem in the first and second segment; particularly in the low density altitudes that usually prevail in UK.

Was there something else? Am working straight off top-of-head down here in New Zealand where the NZ CAA have approved a C-47 and a PBY-5A Catalina for Air Transport ops.

Cheers from dakota67.

When one has been active in the aviation scene for 53 years (good grief!), one is bound to have flown many types. I still get asked by the younger chaps what types I have flown and what were one's favourites. Some one worked in, but most are aircraft that one flew for fun, or trying out a new type on the field or, in my case, odd types that I wrote a pilot report on for a magazine article. Back during the 1950s to '70s some of we really keen chaps used to sort of "collect" types. You might only do a few circuits and a bit of airwork in a type and never fly it again. Some I got to hand-fly when dead-heading (positioning) in other company aircraft, or when employed by a Civil Aviation agency, on the jump-seat and with fellows you knew. Bear in mind that the industry was much smaller then and far more relaxed about such protocols. But it was nice to be able to hop into the right seat (and even the left if the skipper needed a pee), and be hands-on from perhaps FL120 until a fair way along the cruise segment. Of course I was in the 5,000 to 10,000 hour bracket back then and very current on Vickers Viscount and then Fokker F-27 (like yesterday or that morning!) I have annotated those aircraft accordingly. This is still just a WIP as I reflect back over aeroplanes, people and places. Just for fun, I have given each type a rough purely personal grading using a number from 1 - 5. 1 indicates that I thought the machine was truly 'orrible and 5 means that I just loved that particular aircraft. Here and there I have added a + sign if I was particularly fond of a type.  Some of these may interest readers of an earlier era. Have never flown a hang-glider but, oddly enough, am getting interested lately as they are advanced enough to do some thermalling. I don't know what Mrs dakota67 will think of that idea! Been in a hot-air balloon but as a pax.

This is still WIP as my memory is a tad hazy. Not of interest to most readers but I am finding it somewhat nostalgic casting my mind back.

Many of the Austers and a couple of its parent Taylorcraft (3) and the post-war Taylorcraft Topper (2). DH-82 Tiger Moth (3). DH-83 Fox Moth (4). Miles M-14 Magister (4). Whitney Strait (2). Miles Messenger (2). Miles Gemini (2). Percival Proctor (2). Piper Pacer (3), Tripacer (4), Colt (2), PA-18 (4), J2 (1), J3 (2), PA-28 (4), Arrow (4), PA-32 (4), 24,23.38. Callair A-9 (3), Aeronca Champs (3). Cessna 120 (3), 150/152 (2), 170 (3),180 (4), 182 (4), 185 (5), 205 & 206 (4), 210 (4), 336/7 (4), 402 (4+), 188 (4+), 177 (4). Beech Baron (5), Queenair (4), Kingair (5). Fletcher FU-24 (various engines), PAC Cresco. Avro Avian. DHC-1, DHC-3, DHC-3, DHC-4, DHC-6, DHC-7 (cruise only) DHC-8. DC-3/C-47 (5+), Vickers Viscount. Fokker F-27. ATL Carvair/C-54E (climb/cruise). Lockheed 18 Lodestar. Bristol 170 Freighter. Douglas DC-6B. Lockheed L-188 Electra. BN-2 Islander. Transavia PL-12 Airtruck/Skyfarmer. Grumman Traveller, Tiger and Cougar. Beech Musketeer. Tipsy Belfair. Meta-Sokol. Mooney M-20. Victa Airtrainer. Chrislea Ace. Rallye. CAC Ceres. Diamond DA-42. Gippsland GA-8 Airvan. Yak52. Antonov AN-2. Emeraude.  

A whole lot of gliders from early Rhonlerche. Favourite single-seat was Libelle and, amongst the older two-seaters, I have an affection for the K-13. Did a lot of towing also; mainly in South Australia, a wonderful gliding environment.

Various homebuilts and microlights from early Druine Turbulent on...

Spent many hours battling my way towards an Instrument Rating in a range of those dreaded torture machines; the Link Trainer. But also many happy, if somewhat busy, hours in a Redifon Lockheed 1049 Constellation simulator. No motion and no visual capacity, but rather challenging for a lad who was upgrading from the DC-3 onto the Vickers Viscount (it was used a generic four-engine trainer; particularly for instrument approaches and zero-vis. take-offs).

Never got to crew the jets due periodic eye problems but rode extensive jump-seat on many from B-727 and DC-9 onwards. Good grief, how boring. Still WIP as memory banks clear...............