ROCKING CHAIR: Keep it simple, stupid (KISS) Our resident Old Git, Ian Frow, talks of KISS action, moon landings and priorities. Oh and wind (again) There is yet to be a final accident report on the 737 accident in Indonesia last year, however, the current investigation is reported to be looking at a possible mismatch between the operating crew and their aircraft’s automation.* Back in the days when wires moved controls, Boeing built the 707, which had an early powered ‘all flying’ tail plane (they called it the stabiliser). This very powerful control generated much concern about a ‘runaway stabiliser’. Thus, beside the central pedestal, they placed a substantial wheel, mechanically connected to the stabiliser. This rotated whenever the stabiliser moved. The solid wheel had an inset handle that produced an attention-grabbing ‘clack’ each time the wheel moved. With a runaway stabiliser, that clack was frequent and immediately got your attention. The drill involved firmly grabbing the wheel while politely inviting another crew member to deactivate the stabiliser power. There are still palms that display the scars from this device. But it was both a visual and audible warning, with a very simple corrective action. KISS. Not that sort of wind The last issue of The Log carried an interesting interview with Baroness Sugg the Minister of Aviation. Unfortunately, immediately preceding the article – which included a picture of the minister – there was a page of Old Git maunderings under the heading, ‘A serious wind problem’. OG would like it known that he was not responsible for the title or the page sequence. OG commenting on politics? Never! Moon jumbo Landing on the moon is back in fashion. No doubt the Chinese have sophisticated navigation equipment to put their lander on the unseen side of the moon. Back in the 60s, the Apollo ‘Moon Lander’ used just two very basic inertial navigation systems (made by General Motors) to find its bleak and rocky resting place. When the Boeing 747 came into operation, it was initially fitted with three of the same basic devices. Very soon the crew ‘geeks’ discovered that, with a bit of illegal fiddling, the co- ordinates of the lunar-landing sites could still be found in the INS memory. There was idle speculation in bars in far-flung places that, suitably powered, a 747 ‘Fat Albert’ could be launched moonwards. But the realists pointed out that the food and booze would run out, plus half the loos would be blocked before arrival on the Sea of Tranquillity. Priorities In the weeks following the great Gatwick Christmas drone event, the muggers, burglars and various hoodlums operating around Gatwick had a wonderful ‘plod-free’ time. The forces of law and order devoted much of their resources to looking for rogue drone owners. One busy Saturday evening, a dubious choice of priorities led to a number of police vehicles and some 30 suitably suited ‘drone hunters’ raiding a local farmyard. They left muddy, but empty handed. Back in last summer’s Log, there was a grumble from the Rocking Chair about drones and low fuel. Following the drone chaos at Gatwick and Heathrow, the question posed last summer needs repeating: “Which is the greater risk, a drone impact or a deadstick landing?” The ATC records of low-fuel calls during the runway closures might be interesting. Minimum fuel reserves are now the norm – how fortunate that the December weather was benign. When, inevitably, the next drone event occurs and runway closures are proposed, a priority decision will have to be made. What is the relative risk of an aircraft/drone impact compared with the possibility of a low-fuel aircraft actually running dry? *This was written before the recent Ethiopian Airlines incident. OPINION ROCKING CHAIR: ROCKING CHAIR: Keep it simple, stupid (KISS)