It’s not a very exciting story, I’m afraid. They were looking for donations to keep the program afloat and I sent them some money.
Good info Richard, thanks.
I figured that about the speed brake being SOP, it does not wear out things when used like brakes do so is at least a $$ saving device, Don’t have to repack it like on airplanes that use a drag chute.
I love gizmo’s that have no speed restrictions on them. 
I found me:
You know their motto, & now the FAA isn’t happy…but we are. 
Airworthiness cert just received, which means first flight of a brand new Kubicek later today.
Fun instrument approach video.
I have never done one this scary but I have done a few into a places I have never been before and they always had me sitting up straight and paying close attention.
Would hate to have to do this on a Monday night & never having been there in any manner before. ( sweat bullets )
Please Mr. Custer, I don’t wanna go…":eek:
http://www.chonday.com/Videos/pilotnewzdalnd1
There are worse but that is a lot of clouds. I also wonder about the last part of the rollout. I hope the video speed was set a bit high…
I love to get high…:smack:
up in the sky, that is…
Cool vid; thanks for the link.
The whole thing looks to be at 2 or 3x normal jet speed. The flight seems very smooth, so I suspect the aircraft was a jet. The windshield assembly doesn’t match Boeings. It might be an Airbus. Although overall the structure we can see seems lighter, as appropriate for an unpressurized aircraft. Maybe the camera just has real good vibration isolation.
Regardless of all that mumbling, it’s definitely sped up versus a jet, and would be even moreso if it was actually a prop.
Thanks for the info LSLGuy. I never did enough dog legged approaches enough times in a row to be anything other that sweating bullets on them. :eek:
Not a lot of actual IMC experience compared to most jet jockeys.
:dubious: 
Part of the reason you’re still alive is that you don’t have a lot of IMC time in small and badly maintained airplanes.
In your shoes you were a heck of a lot better off dealing with less-than-good engines, crappy unimproved airstrips, etc., while VMC. When stuff happened, as it was prone to doing, you had a lot more opportunity for your superior skill to save the day.
IMC, especially night IMC, in radar-less, deice-less light twins and big singles has killed far too many young men (and a few young women). Many of whom never had much of a chance once they turned over the joker in the deck.
At the other end of the telescope …
I tried to find the approach plates for that airport online. Apparently the NZ authorities don’t make that stuff freely available as FAA does. But we are seeing more and more complex and dynamic arrival and approach procedures being created. Which in effect assume the use of autopilot to fly safely although it’s not formally required.
Many pundits including myself believe we’re seeing the leading edge of pilots being unable to maintain hand-flying proficiency for lack of opportunity to practice, while still retaining full responsibility for being able to hand-fly well and still have the spare bandwidth to think while everything else is turning to worms. But that’s a different thread.
That is an RNP AR approach. I’m not sure of the best way to get the NZ plates but those approaches are only approved for a couple of airlines and so the plates may not be publicly available even if you have the standard IFR subscription. It is definitely a mid sized jet and if LSLGuy doesn’t think it’s a Boeing 737 then it is an A320 as those are, AFAIK, the only two types flying those approaches into Queenstown. This is probably the approach plate..
BTW, I got my first job in Queenstown doing joy flights in a Pitts Special. Winter days were, more often than not, a low overcast like the one in the video that burnt off by midday revealing a stunning clear sky. As the holes opened up in the cloud through the morning you could VFR your way up above it. Magic!
Back then RNP approaches didn’t exist and the B737s (Air New Zealand) and BAe146s (Ansett New Zealand) of the time would stooge around the mountains finding a hole in the clouds big enough to let down through. Mount Cook Airline’s HS748 aircraft were slow enough to be able to let down in near-by Alexandra and fly up a twisty valley into the Queenstown basin. Some of that stuff would be unthinkable in an airliner today, but they all got away with it. A lot of passengers did end up in Invercargill for the morning instead.
At about 1:55 in the video the jet is pretty much overhead the airfield and pointing towards the Remarkables mountain range, at about 1 o’clock one arm of the lake extends out away from the aircraft. The descending right turn is made at a large bend in the lake. A lot of the scenery is featured in the Lord of the Rings movies.
That Pitts job would have been an awesomely sweet gig in someplace near paradise. Shame about the money. As we’ve both said in several aviation threads.
That’s quite the approach. We have a much milder version of the same basic concept going into San Jose, Costa Rica. Color me skeptical about hand-flying the miss with a surprise engine out to RNP 0.10 tolerances.
Still it’s a heck of a lot safer than noodling around looking for a hole to drop down over the lake then scud-run into town.
Aside: Thanks for mentioning HS748s; I hadn’t thought about them for years. A few commuter or freight carriers operated them in the US back when I was a student and I’d see them from time to time. They always seemed exotic & vaguely cool. And Dart engines just sound great, as well as having a very kerosene-rich exhaust smell. Smells like aviation to me.
Years later when I was a copilot on the 727 I flew a bunch with a more junior pilot then working as flight engineer. He was from England and had what seemed a rather posh accent, at least to 'Merkins. He did have that classic erect posture, stiff lip, and reserved manner.
Prior to coming to my carrier he had flown BAE ATPs (an updated HS748 derivative) for United Express which operated a relatively big fleet of them out of Chicago for a few years in the late 80’s / early 90s.
One day in Chicago as we’re taxiing out behind one I asked him about them: “So Niles, how was flying the ATP?” With withering contempt in his precisely enunciated voice: “Oh, you mean the Advanced Technical Problem? Lucas Electronics throughout; need I say more?”
That was twenty years ago and I can still hear his voice. Funny the things you remember.
The Pitts job was pretty good though the pay and a lack of maturity on my part made it an ultimately unhappy experience that I wish I had handled differently. My next Pitts job in Wanaka was a whole lot better. A living wage regardless of hours flown, a more relaxed town, and a boss who understood where I was in life and who became a good friend. I almost had to be forced to leave after spending over 4 years just loving it.
On the RNP approach. I wouldn’t have thought they’d hand fly the missed with an engine out, or with two engines for that matter. “Going around, flap up, gear up, engage autopilot” would be the go wouldn’t it?
I’ve found the official NZ charts here. It seems that the one flown in the video is outdated and the new version has them flying a longer final leg up the other arm of the lake. The approach for RWY23 actually looks more sporting and pretty much duplicates the last part of what the HS748 pilots used to do, except they did it below the cloud base and started up the valley from Lake Dunstan.
Niles is a good British name. BA pilots are often referred to as "Nigel"s around here. The New Zealand Air Force operated the military variant of the 748, the Andover, at the time. An interesting aircraft with significant dihedral on the tail plane, a rear loading ramp, and “kneeling” main gear that bought the tail lower to the ground.
You can tell how much “character” an aircraft has by the list of nicknames it carries. This site mentions the “Advanced Technical Problem” and shows the BAe146 as the clear nickname winner. I’m partial to “Quadrapuff” personally.
“Qaudrapuff indeed”. I like “Fisher Price 747”. I don’t know now world-wide Fisher Price’s distribution is, but in the US they’re famous for their brightly colored pudgy toys for toddlers. A 146 alongside a 747 is a just about the right scale difference.
As to go-arounds … Our procedures for RNPs are leave the AP connected to 100 AGL then hand-fly the flare & touchdown. If a go-around is necessary leave the AP engaged, or as you say, re-engage after flaps at go-around setting and gear up, with flight path stabilized upwards.
Where it falls apart, and this is IMO a gap in our procedures is that many of our aircraft can’t fly an AP single engine go-around. Procedures call to hand fly up to ~800 AGL, then under go-around power accelerate and clean up in level or slightly climbing flight depending on excess power available. Once clean at clean climb speed, then switch to climb power, trim rudder as needed, *then *engage AP for the rest of the pattern or divert.
For the typical airport in flat country where you can safely proceed 5 miles straight off the end of the runway at 500-1000 feet without undue risk that’s a fine procedure. For airports with serious terrain problems that’s a recipe for a semi-controlled CFIT.
To be sure there are cautions and special ground track and altitude procedures for engine-out go-arounds at terrain challenged airports. In some cases we need to switch to an alternate route in the FMC. I just question how many people will do that one flawlessly when needed.
ISTM that for approaches or misses that include aggressive maneuvering for terrain clearance, full 3-axis integrated autopilots ought to be a certification requirement. Or at least a system with significant engine-out auto-rudder should be required. Which AFAIK the A320 family and 777 / 787 have while I know the 737 / 757 / 767 do not.
Yeah I’m familiar with Fisher Price. Brisbane Ground told another aircraft to “pass behind the Fisher Price Starlifter” a few years back. I hadn’t heard that one before and was looking around for this “Starlifter” when I realised they were referring to us.
I find that surprising. Not even the latest versions of the B737? The Avro RJ variant of the 146 will fly an engine out departure or go-around on autopilot and I’d assumed that was standard for anything manufactured in the last 15 years or so.
Fisher Price Starlifter is even better, although not a name as well-known to civil aviation.
You got me questioning, so I dug through the manual for our 737-800s. No auto-sideslip control at all; it’s a two-axis autopilot, period.
I also was surprised to see that triggering go-around mode causes an autopilot disconnect. So all go-arounds, 1- or 2-engine, are hand-flown at least back up to 1000 feet.
Southwest Airlines had a very large and totally backward-facing input into each of the 737 generations after the original -100/-200. So now they have 600 primitive airplanes after they saved on differences training for the 100 airplanes-worth of crews they used to have.
I have heard that Boeing told them in no uncertain terms that the next time around they won’t be listened to when they try to hold back progress in the name of near-term cost savings.
Here’s a very mundane post. After nearly 20 years, I’m back in the airline business! thumbs up
Hooray for you!! Welcome back.
That’s great news! What will you be doing and what prompted you to get back in to it?
Hey Richard Pearse! Thought you might appreciate this local BAe-146 action…
What a great picture.