NTSB Accidents & Incidents

[john smith[_2_]]

I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at
AirVenture 2007 is the P-51.
So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics.

:-))

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:57:47 -0400, john smith > wrote:

>I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at
>AirVenture 2007 is the P-51.
>So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics.

Which others met NTSB Part 830 criteria?

Ron Wanttaja

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:57:47 -0400, john smith > wrote:
>
> >I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at
> >AirVenture 2007 is the P-51.
> >So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics.
>
> Which others met NTSB Part 830 criteria?
>
> Ron Wanttaja

N377CT
The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in,
breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT.
The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of
it and reinstall them in new airframe.

[Brian[_1_]]

On Aug 18, 4:36 pm, john smith > wrote:
> In article >,
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:57:47 -0400, john smith > wrote:
>
> > >I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at
> > >AirVenture 2007 is the P-51.
> > >So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics.
>
> > Which others met NTSB Part 830 criteria?
>
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> N377CT
> The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in,
> breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT.
> The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of
> it and reinstall them in new airframe.

Damage to the landing gear is not considered an accident. From what
you describe it appears to only be an incident. Incidents for Part 91
operations do not normally show up on the NTSB Web site.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:36:30 -0400, john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:57:47 -0400, john smith > wrote:
>>
>> >I find it interesting that the only accident/incident reported at
>> >AirVenture 2007 is the P-51.
>> >So much for the NTSB not being influenced by politics.
>>
>> Which others met NTSB Part 830 criteria?
>
>N377CT
>The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in,
>breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT.
>The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of
>it and reinstall them in new airframe.

By your own description, it doesn't meet NTSB criteria for classification as an
accident, and thus is not reportable. See the last sentence of 830.2. How
they're going to *repair* it is immaterial; the reporting criteria is based on
the type and severity of damage and injuries.

In any case, there are others with probably more at stake than the EAA, if this
were to be reported as an accident. If the CT incident were the only other one
at Oshkosh this year, I don't know why the EAA would try to hush it up.

Ron Wanttaja

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:12:14 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote in
>:

>NTSB Part 830 criteria?


http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx/49cfr830.html
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 49, Volume 7]
[Revised as of October 1, 2005]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 49CFR830.2]

[Page 183-184]

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER VIII--NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

PART 830_NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS
AND OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT WRECKAGE, MAIL,
CARGO, AND RECORDS--Table of Contents

Subpart A_General

Sec. 830.2 Definitions.

As used in this part the following words or phrases are defined as
follows:

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the
operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person
boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons
have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious
injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

Civil aircraft means any aircraft other than a public aircraft.
Fatal injury means any injury which results in death within 30
days of the accident.

Incident means an occurrence other than an accident, associated
with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the
safety of operations.

Operator means any person who causes or authorizes the operation
of an aircraft, such as the owner, lessee, or bailee of an aircraft.

Public aircraft means an aircraft used only for the United States
Government, or an aircraft owned and operated (except for commercial
purposes) or exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by a
government other than the United States Government,including a State,
the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United
States, or a political subdivision of that government.
``Public aircraft'' does not include a government-owned aircraft
transporting property for commercial purposes and does not include a
government-owned aircraft transporting passengers other than:
transporting (for other than commercial purposes) crewmembers or other
persons aboard the aircraft whose presence is required to perform, or
is associated with the performance of, a governmental function such as
firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement, aeronautical
research, or biological or geological resource management; or
transporting (for other than commercial purposes) persons aboard the
aircraft if the aircraft is operated by the Armed Forces or an
intelligence agency of the United States. Notwithstanding any
limitation relating to use of the aircraft for commercial purposes, an
aircraft shall be considered to be a public aircraft without regard to
whether it is operated by a unit of government on behalf of another
unit of government pursuant to a cost reimbursement agreement, if the
unit of government on whose behalf the operation is conducted
certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
that the operation was necessary to respond to a significant and
imminent threat to life or property (including natural resources) and
that no service by a private operator was reasonably available to meet
the threat.

Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires
hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from
the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any
bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes
severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any
internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any
burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects
the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the
aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement
of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an
engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or
cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric,
ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing
gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips
are not considered ``substantial damage'' for the purpose of this
part.

[53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995]

[Mike Isaksen]

>> N377CT
>> The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in,
>> breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT.
>> The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of
>> it and reinstall them in new airframe.
>

OK,... I'm having a dejavu moment here. At this summer's AOPA open house I
talked with a Pete K from JabiruUSA about their new LSA, and as part of the
sales pitch he does a little "salesman type trash talking" about the CTSW
next door. Mentions that he's on the ASTM commitee and that some of the EURO
companies may have played a little loose with the numbers when they upped
the GW from Euro-Microlight to US-LSA. He specifically told me to keep an
eye out for landing accidents. Now this is the second CT incident I hear
about this summer, and I personally saw the results of an Evektor prop
strike at KHWV.

Anyone else notice any pattern forming? I really think the LSA is the future
of recreational aviation so I'm hoping not.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article <v5Pxi.1658$6h3.1418@trndny05>,
"Mike Isaksen" > wrote:

> >> N377CT
> >> The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in,
> >> breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT.
> >> The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of
> >> it and reinstall them in new airframe.
> >
>
> OK,... I'm having a dejavu moment here. At this summer's AOPA open house I
> talked with a Pete K from JabiruUSA about their new LSA, and as part of the
> sales pitch he does a little "salesman type trash talking" about the CTSW
> next door. Mentions that he's on the ASTM commitee and that some of the EURO
> companies may have played a little loose with the numbers when they upped
> the GW from Euro-Microlight to US-LSA. He specifically told me to keep an
> eye out for landing accidents. Now this is the second CT incident I hear
> about this summer, and I personally saw the results of an Evektor prop
> strike at KHWV.
>
> Anyone else notice any pattern forming? I really think the LSA is the future
> of recreational aviation so I'm hoping not.

I wouldn't claim any pattern.
The guy stalled it 12 feet off the deck.
Tower had asked him to extend farther down the runway. Instead of adding
power, he pulled back on the stick.

I still think this satisfies the "substantial damage" portion of 830.
What is not substantial when the airframe is disgarded?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:47:17 -0400, john smith > wrote:

>I wouldn't claim any pattern.
>The guy stalled it 12 feet off the deck.
>Tower had asked him to extend farther down the runway. Instead of adding
>power, he pulled back on the stick.
>
>I still think this satisfies the "substantial damage" portion of 830.
>What is not substantial when the airframe is disgarded?

Your original description says only that the landing gear was broken off, and
makes no claim of airframe damage. It may well be that the actual damage went
beyond the landing gear. If so, the pilot, aircraft owner, and manufacturer of
the aircraft are undoubtedly more interested in NOT meeting the criteria for an
accident than anyone else. Why claim that the politics had sometime to do with
this not being reported as an accident?

Ron Wanttaja

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:
> In article <v5Pxi.1658$6h3.1418@trndny05>,
> "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
>
>>>> N377CT
>>>> The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in,
>>>> breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT.
>>>> The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of
>>>> it and reinstall them in new airframe.
>> OK,... I'm having a dejavu moment here. At this summer's AOPA open house I
>> talked with a Pete K from JabiruUSA about their new LSA, and as part of the
>> sales pitch he does a little "salesman type trash talking" about the CTSW
>> next door. Mentions that he's on the ASTM commitee and that some of the EURO
>> companies may have played a little loose with the numbers when they upped
>> the GW from Euro-Microlight to US-LSA. He specifically told me to keep an
>> eye out for landing accidents. Now this is the second CT incident I hear
>> about this summer, and I personally saw the results of an Evektor prop
>> strike at KHWV.
>>
>> Anyone else notice any pattern forming? I really think the LSA is the future
>> of recreational aviation so I'm hoping not.
>
> I wouldn't claim any pattern.
> The guy stalled it 12 feet off the deck.
> Tower had asked him to extend farther down the runway. Instead of adding
> power, he pulled back on the stick.
>
> I still think this satisfies the "substantial damage" portion of 830.
> What is not substantial when the airframe is disgarded?

Disgarded???

Matt

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> > I still think this satisfies the "substantial damage" portion of 830.
> > What is not substantial when the airframe is disgarded?

> Disgarded???

Discarded. Hey, it was late when I typed that!

[Jim Stewart]

john smith wrote:
> In article <v5Pxi.1658$6h3.1418@trndny05>,
> "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
>
>>>> N377CT
>>>> The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in,
>>>> breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT.
>>>> The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of
>>>> it and reinstall them in new airframe.
>> OK,... I'm having a dejavu moment here. At this summer's AOPA open house I
>> talked with a Pete K from JabiruUSA about their new LSA, and as part of the
>> sales pitch he does a little "salesman type trash talking" about the CTSW
>> next door. Mentions that he's on the ASTM commitee and that some of the EURO
>> companies may have played a little loose with the numbers when they upped
>> the GW from Euro-Microlight to US-LSA. He specifically told me to keep an
>> eye out for landing accidents. Now this is the second CT incident I hear
>> about this summer, and I personally saw the results of an Evektor prop
>> strike at KHWV.
>>
>> Anyone else notice any pattern forming? I really think the LSA is the future
>> of recreational aviation so I'm hoping not.
>
> I wouldn't claim any pattern.
> The guy stalled it 12 feet off the deck.
> Tower had asked him to extend farther down the runway. Instead of adding
> power, he pulled back on the stick.

I've got 160 CTSW landings and about 60 CTSW
hours in my logbook. I will absolutely agree
that it is not the easiest plane to land,
particularly if the plane is light and it's
hot and gusty.

A CT approach should be flown at between 55
and 60 knots. At 15 feet, you'd start to
feel ground effect and stall would be under
40 knots. That's a plenty safe margin as
far as the design goes. There is no stall
horn on the CT and I was trained to be aware
of lack of control pressure, as well as
airspeed, to warn of an impending stall.

So yeah, stalling it 12 feet off the deck
is a pilot error, not a bad landing.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:47:17 -0400, john smith >
wrote:

>In article <v5Pxi.1658$6h3.1418@trndny05>,
> "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
>
>> >> N377CT
>> >> The pilot stalled it 12 feet above the runway and dropped it in,
>> >> breaking the landing gear off. Monday, July 24, ~ 10:30 AM CDT.
>> >> The folks in the CT told me they were going to strip everything out of
>> >> it and reinstall them in new airframe.
>> >
>>
>> OK,... I'm having a dejavu moment here. At this summer's AOPA open house I
>> talked with a Pete K from JabiruUSA about their new LSA, and as part of the
>> sales pitch he does a little "salesman type trash talking" about the CTSW
>> next door. Mentions that he's on the ASTM commitee and that some of the EURO
>> companies may have played a little loose with the numbers when they upped
>> the GW from Euro-Microlight to US-LSA. He specifically told me to keep an
>> eye out for landing accidents. Now this is the second CT incident I hear
>> about this summer, and I personally saw the results of an Evektor prop
>> strike at KHWV.
>>
>> Anyone else notice any pattern forming? I really think the LSA is the future
>> of recreational aviation so I'm hoping not.
>
>I wouldn't claim any pattern.
>The guy stalled it 12 feet off the deck.
>Tower had asked him to extend farther down the runway. Instead of adding
>power, he pulled back on the stick.
>
>I still think this satisfies the "substantial damage" portion of 830.
>What is not substantial when the airframe is disgarded?

When the airframe is so old the parts are woth more installed on
another.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Jim Stewart >
wrote in >:

>There is no stall horn on the CT

Why?

[Jim Stewart]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Jim Stewart >
> wrote in >:
>
>> There is no stall horn on the CT
>
> Why?

I dunno. Do all planes have stall horns
except the CT?

[Bob Moore]

Jim Stewart wrote

> Larry Dighera wrote:

>> Jim Stewart wrote
>>> There is no stall horn on the CT
>>
>> Why?
>
> I dunno. Do all planes have stall horns
> except the CT?

No...A stall warning system is only required if it is found
that there in insufficient natural stall warning via airframe
buffet or other natural phenomena.

Bob Moore

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Jim Stewart >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>> There is no stall horn on the CT
>>
>> Why?
>
> I dunno. Do all planes have stall horns
> except the CT?
>

No, some have stall lights and some have nothing at all.

Matt

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Jim Stewart > wrote:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Jim Stewart >
> > wrote in >:
> >
> >> There is no stall horn on the CT
> >
> > Why?
>
> I dunno. Do all planes have stall horns
> except the CT?

A 7AC Champ doesn't have any stall warning device.

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Jim Stewart >
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>> There is no stall horn on the CT
>>> Why?
>> I dunno. Do all planes have stall horns
>> except the CT?
>
> A 7AC Champ doesn't have any stall warning device.

Sure it does. It is called a wing.

Matt

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:14:09 -0400, john smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Jim Stewart >
>> > wrote in >:
>> >
>> >> There is no stall horn on the CT
>> >
>> > Why?
>>
>> I dunno. Do all planes have stall horns
>> except the CT?
>
>A 7AC Champ doesn't have any stall warning device.

Its Type Certificate pre-dates the period when stall warning devices were
required.

The ASTM standard that governs LSA certification does not require stall warning
devices.

Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Natalie]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>> A 7AC Champ doesn't have any stall warning device.
>
> Its Type Certificate pre-dates the period when stall warning devices were
> required.
>
Incorrect!

The phrase from CAR 3 under which it was certified is almost identical
to today's passage in Part 23:

3.120(f) A clear and distinctive stall warning shall precede the
stalling of the airplane, with the flaps and landing gear in any
position, both in straight and turning flight.

23.207(a) There must be a clear and distinctive stall warning, with the
flaps and landing gear in any normal position, in straight and turning
flight.

The only difference is 23.207 goes on to say that it can either be
accomplished via aerodynamic qualities or a by a device. A visual
indicator by itself, by the way, doesn't qualify.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:36:51 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote in >:

>A visual indicator by itself, by the way, doesn't qualify.

Where does it say that?

The PA28-235 is equipped with only a red panel light.

[Bob Moore]

Larry Dighera wrote

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:36:51 -0400, Ron Natalie >
> wrote in >:
>
>>A visual indicator by itself, by the way, doesn't qualify.
>
> Where does it say that?
>
> The PA28-235 is equipped with only a red panel light.

(b) The stall warning may be furnished either through the inherent
aerodynamic qualities of the airplane or by a device that will give clearly
distinguishable indications under expected conditions of flight. However, a
visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew within
the cockpit is not acceptable by itself.

Bob Moore

[Larry Dighera]

On 22 Aug 2007 12:56:36 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote in 8>:

>Larry Dighera wrote
>
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:36:51 -0400, Ron Natalie >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>A visual indicator by itself, by the way, doesn't qualify.
>>
>> Where does it say that?
>>
>> The PA28-235 is equipped with only a red panel light.
>
>(b) The stall warning may be furnished either through the inherent
>aerodynamic qualities of the airplane or by a device that will give clearly
>distinguishable indications under expected conditions of flight. However, a
>visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew within
>the cockpit is not acceptable by itself.
>
>Bob Moore

There seems to be a bit of ambiguity in that quote: "a
visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew
within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself."

The stall warning light mounted in the center of the left hand panel
in the PA28-235 doesn't require the crew's attention; it gets it. So
I guess it's approved.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:27:52 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
>There seems to be a bit of ambiguity in that quote: "a
>visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew
>within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself."
>
>The stall warning light mounted in the center of the left hand panel
>in the PA28-235 doesn't require the crew's attention; it gets it. So
>I guess it's approved.

Probably the light in association with airframe buffet is what gets it
approved.

[Bob Moore]

Larry Dighera wrote
> The stall warning light mounted in the center of the left hand panel
> in the PA28-235 doesn't require the crew's attention; it gets it. So
> I guess it's approved.

There's a good chance that in the case of the PA28-235 that the light
is not required at all due to natural stall warning and Piper just
put the light there just for good measure.

Bob Moore

[Larry Dighera]

On 22 Aug 2007 18:10:28 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote in 8>:

>Larry Dighera wrote
>> The stall warning light mounted in the center of the left hand panel
>> in the PA28-235 doesn't require the crew's attention; it gets it. So
>> I guess it's approved.
>
>There's a good chance that in the case of the PA28-235 that the light
>is not required at all due to natural stall warning and Piper just
>put the light there just for good measure.
>
>Bob Moore

My experience is that the PA28 doesn't provide much aerodynamic
warning of a stall. It'll just smoothly mush along for a long time
before the nose finally drops.

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> My experience is that the PA28 doesn't provide much aerodynamic warning of
> a stall. It'll just smoothly mush along for a long time before the nose
> finally drops.


I counted two.


Paul-Mont

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:33:10 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>:

>("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>> My experience is that the PA28 doesn't provide much aerodynamic warning of
>> a stall. It'll just smoothly mush along for a long time before the nose
>> finally drops.
>
>
>I counted two.
>
Two what?

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>>> My experience is that the PA28 doesn't provide much aerodynamic warning
>>> of a stall. It'll just smoothly mush along for a long time before the
>>> nose finally drops.

>>I counted two.

> Two what?


Two aerodynamic warnings of a stall, in your post.


Paul-Mont

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> My experience is that the PA28 doesn't provide much aerodynamic
> warning of a stall. It'll just smoothly mush along for a long time
> before the nose finally drops.
>

The six PA28 examples I've flown had an obvious pre-stall buffet.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:11:01 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote in
>:

>("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>>>> My experience is that the PA28 doesn't provide much aerodynamic warning
>>>> of a stall. It'll just smoothly mush along for a long time before the
>>>> nose finally drops.
>
>>>I counted two.
>
>> Two what?
>
>
>Two aerodynamic warnings of a stall, in your post.
>

Oh. I thought for a minute there that you were seeing double again.
:-)

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

B A R R Y wrote:
>> My experience is that the PA28 doesn't provide much aerodynamic
>> warning of a stall. It'll just smoothly mush along for a long time
>> before the nose finally drops.
>
>The six PA28 examples I've flown had an obvious pre-stall buffet.

Gotta agree there. Besides mine, I've flown a number of other examples,
both tapered and Hershey Bar winged. All of them had a buffet.

Mine has a light-only indicator, but I don't pay much attention to it. The
stall buffet is more reliable, since it's most likely that I'll have my eyes
outside the cockpit(VFR).

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200708/1

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

B A R R Y wrote:
>> My experience is that the PA28 doesn't provide much aerodynamic
>> warning of a stall. It'll just smoothly mush along for a long time
>> before the nose finally drops.
>
>The six PA28 examples I've flown had an obvious pre-stall buffet.

Gotta agree there. Besides mine, I've flown a number of other examples,
both tapered and Hershey Bar winged. All of them had a buffet.

Mine has a light-only indicator, but I don't pay much attention to it. The
stall buffet is more reliable, since it's most likely that I'll have my eyes
outside the cockpit(VFR).

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200708/1