The DH8D

[Ollie Alderson]

 
At the risk of rousing its users, could I suggest that the DH8D is a questionable airframe for our Heavy Fly-Ins. It has funny rotating thingies on the front and flies low and slow. In my humble opinion, it is generally more suited to the GA fraternity.

Perhaps it is a passing fancy and its pilots will return to  more suitable airframes before long.
 

Please note the smileys.

[Andy Parish]

Ooohh... I don't know (because of all the smileys) how tongue in cheek this post is, but I find myself disagreeing with Ollie again - which is probably not a place I want to be too often lest I lose his respect for my opinions.

With the general move to a "pilot's discretion" departure in Heavies fly-ins, does it really matter what aircraft you fly - rotating thingies or not - and this is important - as long as it's able to keep up with the airspeeds required in the approach?

Takes me back to my visits to Auckland and Wellington international airports in my trusty (rented) Piper Warrior - which flew lower and slower than a Dash-8! Both airports required pilots to maintain 90 knots until 300ft AGL where the normal approach speed was closer to 60 knots. Made for an interesting last 300 feet as you tried to slow down to a more usual speed before landing. I never stuck my hand out of the window to try to slow down more, but it was a close run thing.

I'm straying off of the point of course... on all three visits, despite being a lot slower than everything else on its way in, I was expertly interwoven by ATC into the approach pattern, which consisted mainly of 737s and 767s if I remember correctly, and was able to land without causing any go arounds although I did receive an instruction to "vacate right immediately" at Wellington.

I guess the point is - as long as the approach controller knows what's coming he should be able to handle it - although it does of course add to the workload.

[Ollie Alderson]

Indeed as Andy says -

I guess the point is - as long as the approach controller knows what's coming he should be able to handle it - although it does of course add to the workload.

And that is perhaps the main issue with my somewhat contentious  post. Tony Price and I have already discussed the control problems associated with the "Pilot's Choice" format that we have adopted in the Heavies Fly-Ins. The difficulty that we have envisaged is that very few of our regular approach controllers are able to cope with traffic arriving from different directions and the Dash8 certainly does not help with its slower performance.

To digress, I certainly hope that the days of pilots flying DC3s and Argosies have been banished forever.   

Finally, fear not Andy, I will always  respect your opinions no matter what you say.

[Mac@Bath]

An interesting (but I expect, just a tad 'tongue in cheek') thought from our Ollie.
Perhaps (yet another) "new" genre/forum-room could be created ....for what could perhaps be identified as "middlers"? 

It could allow those who can't (or simply don't want to) go straight from the more traditional GAs, even via the (also traditional?) CPL mid-range machines....which could include both the 'whirly-front-bit' and the increasingly popular VLJs and Regional 'feeder-class' machines ...before out-growing their "hands-on" enthusiasm and 'retiring'    to the comfort of the fully FMC-controlled lumps. 
<you missed! Ollie.....I ducked!>

Now, THREE groups....of around 12-fliers each....could prove more handle-able on a Thursday, if we can additionally help to increase our BFSG membership?
(I'd thought of suggesting that another group of 12....trying to out shoot/out bomb one another...could interest a younger membership?   But then I'd rather not!!)

However, we might even contemplate an occasional "triple-joint" event - to give Mike Pike some interesting extra challenges! - (which I am confident he could handle with his customary calmness).

Then, when those very well paid - but possibly over-weight? - uniformed 'captains' actually retire (aged ~50?) they will all finally revert to the 'toy' tiddlers or even personal 'whirly-TOP-bit' steeds or flying lawn-mowers (with 'whirly-BACK-bits') and once again get used to the relaxing FUN that even real-world flight enthusiasts truly enjoy (well, perhaps only when the sun shines)!

Just a thought! 
B

[Duncan]

We could get people to not only decide their departure but also their destination. That way the controllers could have a beer or two and put their feet up.

[hbarkhof]

I prefer Guinness 

[pwaller]

I'm sure Ollie is having a joke but for the benefit of new members who might be confused

From the Guidelines/rules/standing orders 

Aircraft:

7. Pilots may choose any aircraft they wish, provided it is a commercial type that has an avionics fit that enables it to conform to the departure, en-route, and arrival procedures. Additionally, pilots should not plan to warp factor, other than as indicated on the spreadsheet, to achieve their arrival time.

14. Pilots may depart from a different airfield to those briefed provided they file a flight plan in their booking and arrange their departure time so that they arrive at the same time as the main body of pilots at the destination airfield. Tower facilities at this departure airfield will not be available and pilots should first contact ATC on Unicom.

43. Finally, the aim of the Heavies Fly-In is to create an environment that replicates, as far as possible, the real world while retaining a sense of proportion and enabling all pilots, regardless of experience, to have an enjoyable evening. 

[Ollie Alderson]

An interesting (but I expect, just a tad 'tongue in cheek') thought from our Ollie.

Barry's post makes an interesting point but I doubt if it will receive much support from the BFSG membership. We have two quite distinct sub-groups, one the Heavies with their FMCs and the GA folk who, to put it simply, seem to be more interested in looking outside at the scenery,

Additionally, pilots should not plan to warp factor

I am grateful to Phil Waller for quoting the guidelines, especially his reference to not warp factoring to achieve the planned arrival time. I am sure that all interested parties will agree that this has not always been achieved by some pilots, whether flying the Dash8 or  other types.

Provided that members observe the rules, I withdraw my febrile attempts to ban the Dash8. 

[JayBee]

Febrile ?

I had to look it up

"extremely active, or too excited, imaginative, or emotional: "

 

[pwaller]

perhaps he meant futile but the spellchecker got in the way 

[Andy Parish]

Perhaps we should just reclassify our fly-ins from "GA" and "Heavy" to "VFR" and "IFR" respectively.

[Ollie Alderson]

Perhaps we should just reclassify our fly-ins from "GA" and "Heavy" to "VFR" and "IFR" respectively.

What a good idea. Any other suggestions? Certainly, GA and, especially, Heavy are no longer appropriate. 

And yes, JB and Phil, I did mean "febrile". 

[Pee Dee]

What about "General Avaiation" and Commercial Avaiation" ?

The term Heavy came about as we were all flying 747's and 757's in the early days and these aircraft carried the additional term "Heavy" to their ATC comms, due to the size and weight of the aircraft, as weight as the wake turbulance created.
These days many of the guy's are flying A320's, 737's as well as the Dash 400,which do not require them to use the term "heavy".
But, we are still "Commerical pilots" in the way we fly, the systems and procedures we follow as well as the ATC we use.
Just my suggestion...

[Ollie Alderson]

Rather a late response to Phil's post but, when I was flying, the term "Heavy" was reserved for aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 300,000 lbs or more, the B757-200 and the B757-300 do not qualify.

I am aware that some authorities classify the 757 as a Heavy, but I do not. So there! 

[pwaller]

Some time ago I read/watched something which said that the 757 produces very large wing vortices which caused a lot of problems for smaller aircraft following on approach.  I thought the 757 was reclassified for this reason.