Tales from the South Pacific

Just another test!!!!!!!!

dakota67 — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:17:00 GMT

Just another test post to see if I can gain some control over this monster.

Trying to get the Title legible. This yellow colour is just not working Mav. Help!!!!

By the jolly way, the old DHC-2 Beaver pictured above (AZB_ is flying its last ag. job near Walcha, NSW, today. It will then return to New Zealand.

JUST ANOTHER JOLLY TEST!

dakota67 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:59:00 GMT

Much sorriness about this further test post in the new format. Am trying to get the text much bolder and easier to read. So here goes; start number one, chocks away, goggles down, max. power, bags of right rudder etc etc.

Testing...testing...1 2 3 4 5...5 4 3 2 1..Mary had a little lamb etc.

dakota67 — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:35:00 GMT

Please bear with me troops. Am just playing around with the changes to the site and my remaining brain cell is somewhat challenged. Maverick has been helping me get to grips with how to manage thingys. I mean just take a look at the battered and time-worn face in the picture and you will see a mere shell of of a man; indeed a burnt-out husk of the young 21 year old who soloed in the DHC-2 Beaver, in 1962, the actual aircraft you see aerial topdressing in New Zealand. It is ZK-AZB and is still flying in the Manawatu region, NZ. Even more remarkable, the Beaver I mainly flew back then, ZK-BBX is also still operating in the Hawkes Bay region. I selected that photograph because I began my aviation career in the aerial agricultural industry in New Zealand; and still love it today.

Rightyho chaps...that will do for a first posting onto this new format. Let's see if it works....

At ease men....talk amongst yourselves.

Some changes are being planned for this site.

dakota67 — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:32:00 GMT

Greetings from the loyal, yet humble outpost of the British Empire, New Zealand (south-east of Orstralia...wasn't that so frightfully sad that they lost the Ashes!). I have been somewhat moribund of late with respect to postings to the site. Maverick and I have been discussing ways and means of enhancing its presentation and ease of facilitating the posting of material which has never been seen before. For a start, who needs to see multiple images of my time-worn mug? I suggest nobody; including myself. It is disturbing enough having to inspect it when shaving!

I have made some constructive suggestions to young Mav. and expect to hear back from him shortly. He is a good lad you know! So, in the meantime it is WIP...so carry on chaps, at ease...talk amongst yourselves....

The P-51D Mustang...how did it achieve its remarkable rang-flying efficiency?

dakota67 — Sat, 09 May 2009 21:36:00 GMT

Greetings Global aeronautical persons. I have neglected blogging for some time. Have been chatting in the Forum area though and was also overseas for quite a period. During the earlier months of the year, I expended much research and writing time on a two-part essay in which I examined aspects of the "D" series Mustang. It is far too large to place here, but may well interest those who are are prepared to engage in some contemplative reading. I intentionally put it in Email format and kept the file size to a minimum for those with dial-up or folk who have slow lines in some poorly served countries/regions. The essay was done on a strictly non-commercial basis with the hope it may add something of value to the history of this great aircraft. Feedback so far indicates that it may well have (he says modestly!).

Anyway, if anyone would like me to send the study to them, just send me a simple text message with your email address and it shall be done fairly pronto. Please, may I beseech, do not send any images or video clips as they will just jam up my antiquated dial-up system and I shall have to have them deleted. But, after digesting my analysis of the "D", I will be most happy to chat about your views by further text messages. (am retired now, so have the time for discussion). My email address is:

mikefeeney@actrix.co.nz

Cheers Flightglobal users and contributors.

EREBUS INVESTIGATION. Comment on Darren Straker's letter.

dakota67 — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:21:00 GMT

In the 20-26 January issue of "Flight International", Mr. Straker makes some statements which needs some clarification.

The investigation which the late Ron Chippindale led was conducted by the "NZ Office of Air Accident Investigation". The Civil Aviation Division of the NZMOT did not conduct it. On the contrary; the CAD's pre-accident actions were subject to investigation by Mr. Chippindale. The Air Accidents Office, as we generally referred to it in converstion, was nominally under the MOT; but only for purely admin. purposes. That was the route by which it was funded.

When the accident happenned, I was working in the CAD Head Office under Maurice McGreal who is mentioned in the letter, and thereafter for a few years before returning to active flying. Later in the 1980s, I worked for Ron Chippindale up to the time the new TAIC replaced the old "Office". I knew Ron well, and find it almost laughable to imagine him being "captured", or coerced, or in any way influenced by any political pressure. The very idea is verging on the bizarre. I liked Ron, and we had many quite deep chats about ethics and such-like. But to some, he could seem somewhat austere; even cold. But a kinder man it would be hard to find.

With regard to Maurie McGreal, I still earbash him on a regular basis and am quite sure that when he held a senior position in the Flight Operations section of the old CAD; he was as straight as a die.

This is not the place to endlessly pursue why Jim Collins was led into the situation. He also was an honest aviator. I cannot say the same about some within the ANZ management...as we know.

But there are aspects which continue to puzzle me; as well as the usual "what-ifs" and "If-onlys".

If only the pilots had selected, and considered, INS modes which read the aircraft's actual longitude. Jim knew which meridian took them down the centre of the Sound and knew very well the meridians which intersected Mount Erebus;

If only the flight deck area had been cleared of all chattering non-crew prior to the descent;

If only they had elected to to make station-passage over the NDB at about 18,000 feet prior to doing the scenic thing;

If only they had become much more curious about the broken, and then lack, of VHF comms. Other than a total failure of all airborne and/or ground equipment, what else could it be? Other than "something" between they and the ground station!

If only, when the GPWS sounded, they had rammed the power levers full forward, pitched up to stickshaker speed and rolled left or right. Maybe they might have made it...the impact angle and forces would certainly have been very much less......

But enough for this posting methinks. Both Maurie and myself will welcome Mr. Straker's response.

Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. Did they attempt to return to Rabaul, PNG?

dakota67 — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:39:00 GMT

The Amelia Earhart mystery continues. An ex. Air Nuigini engineer believes that Amelia and Fred tried to make it back to Rabaul in East New Britain, Papua New Guinea.

I have just written an analysis of the possibility. If interested, take a look at a local New Zealand website;

www.aerohub.co.nz

Or you could send me a message with your E-mail address and I will be happy to send you the article.

Cheers,

dakota67

AVIATION SAFETY --Risk Management. (Or how to avoid becoming a statistic!)

dakota67 — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:50:00 GMT

It has been a while now since I wrote a serious post. Seem to have been mainly rambling on (some would say raving) in the Forum section. But, whilst attempting to restore some semblance of order out of my chaotic paper archives and records, I came across an article that I wrote back in 1995 which might well interest some readers.

At that time, I was back from Papua New Guinea for a break in my homeland of New Zealand. I did not realise it at the time, but I was pretty well stressed out from years of high-pressure problems involving serious PNG law-and-order situations (AK47 syndrome), lack of funding for the PNG Dept. of Civil Aviation (of which I was a very senior officer) and from carrying out field investigations into a run of particularly "messy" air accidents in some very remote and rather "challenging" locations. One difficult aspect of my work up there was that one almost always knew the pilots, and often some of the passengers as well. I mention this because it may explain the tone of parts of the following article. To add to my somewhat cynical attitude was that, in my home country, the newish Civil Aviation Authority was still finding its way, was under intense critical scrutiny and had incurred the ire of almost all of the aviation industry; both commercial and recreational. For the first time in our nation's post-war history, the Govt. had appointed a non-aviation Director of Civil Aviation. Actually, a nice enough sort of chap, but lacking the background that almost all of us considered neccessary to perform the range of duties required. It was a bad time both for the CAA regulator and just about everyone else in our tight-knit aviation community. Anyway, here are just one man's thoughts from the mid- 1990s.

But before commencing this, and future Flight Safety items, I wish to sort of dedicate them to a rather nice chap whom I worked for during the 1980s. His name is Ron Chippindale who was in charge of the NZ Office of Air Accident Investigation and then the NZ TAIC for many years. Ron was very kind to me and I learned much from him before taking up the position as boss of Papua New Guinea's Air Safety Investigation Bureau. It was a sad day indeed when, on the news of February 2nd, 2008, we heard of Ron's sudden death. From his home north of Wellington, he was taking his usual morning stroll to buy a newspaper, when a teenage kid lost control of his speeding car, careered onto the footpath and struck Ron who died instantly. May I recommend that you Google his name and have a read about this true and modest Gentleman.

"The most difficult and frustrating aspect of aviation safety writing/education is that it is so very difficult to precisely measure its effect - or lack of it! I often ponder whether authors (including myself) are prone to overestimate the attention span and literary ability of the target audience. Participating in formal courses is one thing - absorbing and understanding the literature on one's own is quite another! I have certainly read millions of words relating to aviation safety but even I, one who is intensely interested in the subject, have found my interest and attention flagging at times when studying some learned paper - goodness only knows what the 'average' pilot makes of it all?

Much of the academic material I have studied over the years is, in my opinion, often convuluted and contains excessive "psycho-jargon", which is not clearly or readily understood/digested by the average pilot. What is the point of aviation academics writing and talking principally to each other? The message must be conveyed clearly and lucidly to the primary target - pilots, engineers and management; they are the people at the sharp end of day-to-day and week-by-week risk management.

As an associated theme, we have to constantly try to counter an almost obsessive desire of some management/bean-counters for greater and greater productivity, and their tendency to indulge in commercial expediency. Why do some of the management/bean-counter fraternity almost appear to worship at the alter of the Great God of Cost-Cutting? The desire to take short cuts, to cut turn-around times, to pressure pilots and engineers almost to the blackmail stage by threat of job loss is almost pathological. And don't tell me it doesn't occur - I have listened to too many distressed pilots and engineers for too many years not to know it goes on. Of course, much of the management pressure is cunningly subtle, covert and conveyed by 'hints' and body language. But nevertheless it certainly exists - not widespread perhaps, but is there all the same.

The fear of loss of income, or deterioration of same, is a powerful motivator to 'obey', even when one knows that something is not right and standards are being eroded. So when a crucial concept such as air safety becomes adversely money-affected, we are in real trouble both in the short but, more particularly, in the longer term as more and more pilots and management become infected with the 'affordable safety' virus. I believe that the Government - and its aviation regulatory arm, the CAA - has not helped at all with the problem, due to its foolhardy, dangerous, irresponsible and obsessive pre-occupation with 'cost-recovery'. The whole concept - today a basic tenet of CAA policy - is that of 'affordable safety'. The very idea is, to me, obscene and repulsive. Did anyone ever survey the travelling public as to whether they embraced the the concept of 'affordable safety'? I do not recall any such 'user' poll or research being done!

Personally, I find the fact that the words are even printed and stated by a Minister or Director of Civil Aviation verging on the disgusting. Defence of their 'affordable safety' policies and actions might evaporate somewhat if they ever visited the scene of a serious air accident before it was "sanitised". Such a visit might also assist some of our cost-cutting bean-counters to truly understand the business we are involved with: The business of avoiding violent death and injury while moving human beings from one location to another. If I sound somewhat harsh, remember that parts of my mind are imprinted for all time with such sad and horrific scenes that such memories sometimes over-ride my thoughts when contemplating the seemingly all-important CAA or operator's balance sheet.

But it is time to return to the business of imparting digestable air safety risk-management material and then move on to consider a specific real-life case/scenario. The technique I have used over many years is to 'tell it like it is' - no hedging, no emphemisms, (what is that word? Perhaps I meant euphemisms?) no prevarication: just be direct and very blunt when necessary. There are many fundemental rules or'laws', and 'rules of thumb' that, if routinely and appropriately applied in a potentially hazardous situation, can and will reduce the number and rate of both light and heavy aircraft accidents and incidents. These rules relate to aerodynamics, total energy conversion/exchange and conservation, critical system management, checklist awareness/adherence, performance understanding and achievement - a whole range of 'airmanship' procedures and practices in fact. I shall continue to use the term 'airmanship' even though it does not have an academic ring to it. If the term 'seamanship' still has a real significance, I see no valid reason why its 20th century derivation should not conjure up, in the newer pilot, a 'feeling' or 'sense' of its meaning.

The vast majority of the world's aircraft do not have autopilots - they have to be flown, navigated, managed physically and mentally by human 'airmen' and 'airwomen' in much the same way as our parents and grandparents operated them. Surprisingly little has changed since the 1930s with respect to light aircraft. Please read carefully the following quote from a book I studied line by line when a teenager.

(NOTE: this is going to be a WIP item as Mrs. dakota67 has just demanded that I take a break and have a jolly cup of tea and a bikkie......sorry about that. Back soon troops..carry on...at ease...chat amongst yourselves.

TODAY'S EDITORS BLOG..Re. use of S*X for marketing purposes.

dakota67 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:50:00 GMT

Each morning I look forward to opening the site in order to enjoy the erudite aeronautical material found within. This, combined with a mug of weak cocoa and a digestive bikkie, comprise one of the high points of my day.

But Ye-Gods, this morning my senses reeled and my brain turned into jelly as it slowly took on-board the staggering sight of g**ls clad only in b***ni swimming costumes! What is happening, my befuddled mind attempted to comprehend? Am I on the wrong site? Is my "Geriatric Protection" computer system going berserk? Mrs. dakota67 must have heard my cry of horror from the kitchen where she was on her knees scrubbing the floor with the delight that she exhibits when I set her character-building tasks. "Are you alright my dear kind considerate husband...not having a stroke are we dear?" I heard her mutter with a merrie chuckle. I hastily clicked everything in sight to rid my fevered sight of the images that were becoming engraved into my synapses. Anyway, I have been reading "Flight" and Son-of-Flight since 1952 and never can I recall any photograph (as we used to call them) of the female gender showing so much l*g. In my airline flying years I was not even aware that our 'hosties had such limbs...I mean in the sense that my entire being was solely focused on the task of keeping the strange flying machines we used under some semblance of control. Bizarre machines that few of you would ever have heard of; Vickers Viscounts et al. So I am in somewhat of a dilemma. As a Moderator and a one-time Editor and journo, should I attempt to somehow tunnel into our Editor's blog and eradicate this astounding material? I mean to say chaps.....we don't want the young pilots out there in the great blue yonder getting any funny ideas about their Airline's management's marketing practices do we? And Ryanair of all people!!! (Did I mention that I have a very large % of Irish DNA within this ancient airframe?). May I ask you my kind Editor; is this the way of the next 100 years? If so, I shall delay my journey to the Great Hangar in the Sky for as long as possible.........

Seeking "hands-on" feedback about operational and engineering aspects of the the Xian MA-60.

dakota67 — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:54:00 GMT

Greetings to Flightglobal members and visitors from dakota67.

I am acting as an advisor/consultant to a projected "start-up" part 121 airline that intends to operate in an equatorial nation that has several quite high density altitude airstrips. So was wondering if there might be some engineers and pilots who have "hands-on" experience with the Xian MA-60?? Of course we know a great deal about the An-24 and An-26 which have a very long history. Whilst the MA-60 is already operating in several African and SE Asian states, it would be a first-of-type in the country(s) we are dealing with. I and my associate team leader have had considerable experience with the Fokker F-27-200 which worked very well in the equatorial environment; albeit with some manageable take-off weight restrictions at hot-and-high locations. We are of course interested in the realistic values of single-engine service ceiling and drift-down rates of descent with one feathered. As you will know, there is nothing quite as valuable as listening to people who have flown or maintained an aircraft type in the field to garner a picture of a machine's good or not-so-good characteristics....thank you should you be able to comment.

Drought-breaking rains create safety hazard for New Zealand pilots.

dakota67 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 05:10:00 GMT

First rain for five months creates runway hazard at Hamilton, New Zealand. (NZ is 1,900 km south-east of Australia). NZ pilots are reporting that they are experiencing difficulty in taxiing their aircraft and maintaining directional control during take-off and landing and that wheel braking co-efficient of friction has been reduced to 0.0738. At dawn this morning, Captain Peter (Biggles) Screed, a senior B-1900D Training Captain with the Hamilton-based carrier, Vulture Air, thought his co-pilot was playing a jape on him when he reported that the runway appeared to be moving in a rippling manner. When Capt. "Screedo", as he is known to his chums, looked outside, he was astounded to observe waves of green frogs invading the airstrip to a depth of 25 cm. The frogs have been awakened from their dry weather hibernation phase and were intent on mating which they proceeded to vigourously carry out in full view of the pilots and passengers; some of whom drew down their window blinds to shield their children's eyes from the disturbing spectacle. Frog experts from the nearby Ruakura Research Centre's Amphibian division have identified the lusty creatures as the "Greater-spotted, green-warted, macro-bolled Froggus Kermitus" which thrive in the adjacent bogland and in the dank, turgid and odoriferous Waikato River. The NZ Civil Aviation Authority has issued an urgent "Frog Alert" instructing pilots to adjust their aquaplaning speed calculations thus:

Frog-Planing Ground-speed (FPGS) = 11 X square root tyre pressure (psi) = FPGS in Knots. Flight operations are continuing though engine-wash procedures have been increased and city-dwellers, unused to viewing nature-in-the-raw, are being briefed to avert their eyes by reading their safety cards during the taxi and line-up phase.

dakota67 on standby for more info from Vulture Air.

Air New Zealand not windy when it comes to managing its gas emissions.

dakota67 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:43:00 GMT

State-owned Air New Zealand's CEO, Rob Fyfe, today announced that the carrier will be permitting passengers to purchase carbon credits to offset their greenhouse gas emissions during their travel. Fyfe said that for a return trip Auckland, Los Angeles, Auckland, the passenger will emit 2.6 tonnes of CO2 which he/she can offset by handing over an additional US$70.85c. On tonight's TV news the NZ Prime Minister made a statement to the effect that the Air New Zealand initiative will reduce the CO2 emissions by the carrier's aircraft. CEO Fyfe said that the credits have been purchased from a Wind-Farm...most appropriate!

But I am confused, and used to know a little about operating airline aeroplanes. Now let's try and figure this technical matter out. The wind roars across the Tasman Sea and turns the wind generator's big blades. The electricity is pumped into the National Grid. This should save importing some fuel oil. That's good. Air NZ gives some money to the bloke who owns the big fan thingy. So he is happy. Then the passenger gives extra money to CEO Fyfe. So he is very happy as the deal has cost him nothing. Then the passenger gets onboard weighing the same as he did prior to paying over his CO2 offset. The aircraft flies to Los Angeles but, surprise surprise, its fuel burn is exactly the same as it always is. So Prime Minister Helen is perhaps a little off track here. Maybe she was misquoted? But to get to my point at last; I am having some difficulty in believing that it is all quite as "neat' as it sounds.....but then I am one of those Neanderthal aviators from the distant past when almost none of us had "Bachelor of Aviation" degrees. So please shoot me down in a flaming heap somebody.

A somewhat bemused dakota67 handing over.....

The great P-51D / F4U-4 debate continues...64 years on!

dakota67 — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:12:00 GMT

Which was the greatest production WWII single-engined piston fighter. The P-51D Mustang or the F4U-4 Corsair?One of the problems with this good-natured debate is that they were both remarkable combat aircraft. I am biased because I grew up with the Corsair. They were overhead my home town during the war. Then most of the 440 surviving lend-lease aircraft that the RNZAF used in the South-West Pacific, were flown into my home aerodrome of Rukahia, near Hamilton, New Zealand. Most were melted down for use in kitchen-ware and the like. I spent much time climbing all over them and sitting in the cockpit dreaming of being a fighter pilot. One of those surviving RNZAF aircraft is still active in NZ today. And we also have a pristine flying P-51D as well. I have known many chaps who flew the F4U, and still E-chat to one WWII veteran. A chap said to me recently that it was not a fair comparison as the Corsair had much greater BHP. But the current Flightglobal debate is not about which was the better aircraft between those which had the same power; it is about which was the better product...isn't it?

The F4U-4's max. level speed at 26,000 feet is 446 mph. (387 knots). That is 25 knots faster than the P-51D, and even if the Corsair came down to the Mustang's best speed altitude, it is still about 10 knots faster. The F4U-4 could climb at 4,170 feet/minute; 20% better than the Mustang. In level flight, the Corsair accelerates better. 2.4 mph/second as against 2.2. Both types had very high critical Mach numbers. One NZ Corsair pilot claimed to have exceeded Mach one in a very high altitude dive; but it was never proven. Operating from land, the F4U-4 could haul up to a staggering 6,000 lbs of external ordnance. That is near to half of a Lancaster's standard bombload!

The Corsair's standard combat radius was about that of the P-47 Thunderbolt. Of course the Mustang could range out much further, but bear in mind it had that large rear fuselage tank which, until it was lightened and the centre-of-gravity moved forward, made the aircraft longitudinally unstable and in no state to engage in serious air combat. A good chum of mine who was with the NZ 485 Squadron in the UK, and who had flown the P-51D, described to me how, at max. take-off weight, the Mustang's rate of climb was abysmal. But to be fair, the aircraft was really "tankering fuel" to get range. Had it been decided to allocate the F4U-4 to undertake long-haul escort duties in Europe, it could have been configured to carry vastly more fuel in drop-tanks and ranged out to huge distances. The Stromberg pressure-injection carburettor was a masterpiece of design and was very efficient at fuel metering when in the Lean mode. At cruise power settings I think, from memory, the P&W R-2800's SFC was only about 0.43 pounds/bhp/hour. So if you cruise the Corsair at, say, 40%, its hourly fuel burn is around 55 imp. gallons per hour.

All the official "experts" agree that the Corsair is the superior handling aeroplane and has ample pre-stall buffet in high angle-of-attack and/or high G accelerated situations. Whilst it may drop a wing, it is easily corrected unlike the Mustang which is prone to roll inverted very rapidly, particularly if a large power increase is made. Very nasty in the hands of some kid with maybe 300 hours total.... Various pilots who have flown comparitive tests between many WWII types, rate the F4U-4 as the best in a combat situation. Some think the Yak-3 in expert hands would have given the Corsair a run for its money; but only at lower altitudes. I suspect that the La-7 would also have done well pitted against the Corsair. But both these Russian types were light, short-range machines. I have long been convinced that the oft-touted claim that the in-line liquid-cooled engines were more suitable for fighters, is a myth. The Fw-190 was Germany's best production single-engine fighter and it had a twin-row radial. The USAAF/Navy and Marine Corps rated the Corsair as top when it came to taking battle damage and keeping airborne. The R-2800 can keep running with a couple of cylinders shot away. The aircraft's vulnerable area is its oil cooling plumbing of course, but there is not much you can do about that except sheild vulnerable lines against shrapnel. Of note is that even MiG 15 pilots in Korea were very wary of the Corsair and would have had no hope against it if their airspeed fell below 300 knots. Oh yes; I almost forgot to mention, The Corsair could also operate from those big floating flat-decked thingys...try that in your P-51D! In conclusion I shall iterate that both types are magnificent...it is just that the F4U-4 is a tad betterer!

Radials Rule...dakota67 out.

British Colony solves Heathrow's runway capacity crisis.

dakota67 — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:06:00 GMT

It was with great pride that I watched, on BBC, our Monarch open your new passenger shed this morning. And a jolly nice shed it is too! But your Mayor seems quite unable to solve the third runway dilemma on his own so I, a humble New Zealander from Latitude 37 S and Long. 175 E, have an inspired solution for the undoubted centre of the Galaxy; perhaps even the entire Universe, be it closed or infinitely open. We realise that your tiny landmass is not only being engulfed by rising sea levels, but is also tilting. East coast going down, west coast rising. (do you find yourselves tending to lean to the west whilst strolling the Strand?) Anyway; you have a desperate requirement for another runway to not only cope with more aeroplanes, but which will still be able to operate when storm surges threaten to create a serious aquaplaning hazard. My solution will not only ameliorate that impending peril, but will DOUBLE your capacity. You must cease thinking in Flat-lander concepts and elevate your minds from the dreary rain-sodden wastes you inhabit. You should construct TWO new "EARLS". (Elevated Aeroplane Runway Landing Sites). These should be positioned directly above the existing airstrips using tall reinforced concrete poles which could be designed to resemble some particulary British feature; perhaps Stonehenge? There will be sceptics of course. The dismal Jimmys are forever with us! However I have thought out the safety implications. On the EARLS edges will be safety nets into which an aircraft will be safely enmeshed should it suffer an excursion. (perhaps increasingly likely now that the new breed of pilots are losing the use of their rudder pedal activators..feet.) A new system of layered Precision Approach profiles will be designed using ADS-B. Lower Class runways will use a 2.0 degree profile and the Upper Class runways 3.5 degrees. I anticipate that British Airways will institute a new Upper Class only service and will be able to taxi directly up ramps, fringed with British flags, to the new EARLS. As far as possible, the Lower Class strips will be used by the no-frills type of cheap package-tour operator thus preserving the well-proven British class system which has served our Motherland so well for centuries. Some American carriers may be able to use the Upper Class EARLS as traffic permits. It is important that you maintain cosy relationships with the folk from your former Colony. It is just possible that ICAO may raise some objections to the scheme, But they are a purely advisory body and many nations already ignore their recommendations. Well, there is the solution to your problem. We may be an insignificant island colony located in the storm-wracked Southern Ocean, but we like to believe we can still be loyal and of assistance to Mother Britain. (I shall have to sign of now as I am quite overcome with emotional and patriotic fervour as I am one of the dwindling few who lived during the great days of the Empire.)

THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO! Is the F.A.B. mystery really solved?

dakota67 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:13:00 GMT

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.