turboplanner Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 You get the Hope Trophy for the year Iggy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Wing over? Knife-Edge? Anyone who suggests it has no idea what they are talking about Hyperbole! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 This is my point, some of the rules may seem petty to us, but which ones aren't petty??..which rules do we use to form the backbone of our own personal limitations?.. Which rules is it ok to break??..MTOW?..Weight and balance?..Fuel reserves??..VFR criteria?? Don't turn under 500ft??..what other rules are ok?? ........ Sure we can lobby for rule changes, but whats the point if we all just decide that some of the rules are petty anyway, we dont really need to follow them. .... ie, when someone breaks the rules, be it at your club, in the cct, on a news story, we have to indicate that we don't condone it. In a public forum, we can't afford to sit on the fence. Indeed. Our attitudes and behaviors are often a complex mix of conscious and unconscious motivations. Waking up with the “wrong” person makes this obvious. We easily fool ourselves into all sorts of unsafe behaviors. Sitting still for some moments to determine to what degree the following attitudes apply can be helpful. Below we have a list with both the attitude and antidote for it: Hazardous Attitude & Antidote Anti-authority: Don't tell me! Follow the rules, they are usually right. Impulsivity: Do something quickly! Not so fast, think first. Invulnerability: It won't happen to me! It could happen to me. Macho: I can do it! Taking chances is foolish. Resignation: What's the use? I'm not helpless, I can make a difference. ... Good solid basic training in areas like flightplanning, stalling etc could have made a big difference in recent incidents. ........ Maybe or maybe just a simple change in attitude would have saved them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Litespeed, aerobatic training is not required even for ATPL. Are non aerobatic trained CPL and ATPL pilots a joke?..Is their training a joke?..Substandard? unsafe?When was the last time you saw a commercial pilot with only 25hrs total stick time? And limited ground training? I expect that those flying heavies are blessed by the weight they carry- the same weight a RA plane does not have, and often felt as a less than silky ride even in light airs. The type of flying and mission of the aircraft for your average PAID pilot is far different to a RA pilot and we don't get to fly planes that basically do it for you. Given the total hrs a Paid pilot gets compared to a RA only pilot- Especially sim time and all those hrs sitting next to another pilot. Apples and Oranges. I fail to see how engine failures caused by fuel starvation could have been avoided by aerobatic training. I do agree though, these recent deaths were totally unnecessary. This is my point, some of the rules may seem petty to us, but which ones aren't petty??..which rules do we use to form the backbone of our own personal limitations?.. Which rules is it ok to break??..MTOW?..Weight and balance?..Fuel reserves??..VFR criteria?? Don't turn under 500ft??..what other rules are ok?? Good solid basic training in areas like flightplanning, stalling etc could have made a big difference in recent incidents. If the RAA is to move forward we need to portray (as a whole) an attitude of compliance. Sure we can lobby for rule changes, but whats the point if we all just decide that some of the rules are petty anyway, we dont really need to follow them. But perhaps MORE importantly, we need to be perceived as being compliant, ie, when someone breaks the rules, be it at your club, in the cct, on a news story, we have to indicate that we don't condone it. In a public forum, we can't afford to sit on the fence. cheers At No point have I advocated for full aerobatics and in fact stated that clearly- just a larger envelope for greater skills training. Nor did I say we should just break the rules or that I don't follow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 I think there is a point that's being missed here by some. As much as it was fantastic to see RA Aus being given some spotlight and publicity...the idea behind it is that the RA Aus wants to show the population of Australia, that flying is safe and fun. Even in the basic ultralight aircraft. This footage was not that of normal operations of the RAA. We in RAA are limited to turns of no more than 60 degrees. These rules are put in place for a reason. If RA Aus pilots break the rules by banking at above 60 degrees, which i believe certainly looks well over that in the footage, then they ARE breaking the rules. We may have our own governing body, but we still need to comply with CASA. They are the ones who we set it all out. Im sure everyone here can agree, that the less we give people out there who are anti RAA, or even anti aviation, more fuel to feed the fire, then the longer we will be allowed to operate. Training for unusual attitude recovery is definitely a good thing for any pilot to do....so long as it is in compliance with the standard of licensing, and aircraft that it is being done in. Noone here has said that the news clip was bad....just that it was bad to show a pilot of an RAAus aircraft, performing maneuvers above the licensing allowance for such. The aim of the game is to show that we're safe.......playing the 'watch what i can do in my aeroplane' card, for the news, wont necessarily breed safe pilots...if that's how they perceive RAA pilots can fly, thats what they will follow to do themselves when they are licensed..... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 That makes us a Joke, it basically means RA wants to be the less safe, less well trained end of flying. . I was meerly pointing out that aero training is NOT the norm even for CPL. So the standard of training is not a joke, for either. ;) I have re read evrything I posted and can't see where I said you break the rules. I was stating why i take such a hard line with this sort of thing. It wasn't directed at you, I'm sorry if it came across that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 We in RAA are limited to turns of no more than 60 degrees. Is this for real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Is this for real? Certainly is.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Without dragging this all out again. Motz. has to be right. If the rules are there they are for everybody. The aircraft are designed in such a way that aerobatics are not envisaged. the aeroplane is not certified, built strong enough, or subject to an inspection regime appropriate to aerobatics. Would you like your wife or kids to be taken up in a plane that has been overstressed and is therefore not structurally safe. Very good pilots can do a lot with a plane and NOT impose much stress on it, but that is not the point of any of this. Just a little comment. CPL's and ATP's do not have to be proficient in aero's but they should be capable of getting their plane out of an emergency situation ie any UPSET with skill, and a good chance of success, by knowing what to do. That would imply that some amount of practice/training had been done and some recency applicable. No aeroplane can be considered incapable of going out of control. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 CFI, do you condone that action or don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 It appears to be a descending turn so the G's wouldn't be that great ...... And explain turns and limitations to the student... The only things that determines G in a dynamic manoeuvre are the airspeed and the angle of attack (which is directly related to the stick position). i.e. that simple relationship between angle of bank and Gs only applies to a level turn at constant airspeed.Incidentally, I heard of an aerobatic aeroplane which accidentally pulled 7.5g recently so will get a thorough inspection, hopefully no surgery required. It was the type of aeroplane that can be easily inspected for overload - and the pilot reported it - and he knew because he saw the G meter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 G Meter.....G Meter, you mean you can't measure g's from the seat of your pants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 G Meter.....G Meter, you mean you can't measure g's from the seat of your pants? you can if you're wearing a G string. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 you can if you're wearing a G string. That's the Go Meter, or in some cases Gone Meter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Steve Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Why do they still have to call it "Ultralight" we have moved on from that term some 5-7 years ago I thought. Its just like the problem the oldies (and most Qld,rs) have with metrification still after some 45 years,... all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I have to work in metric and Imperial. although I like metric. You know you are really in the country when the answer to the question, "how far is it to XYZ" and the answer is in minutes ( or hours). In classification, We are sub-"light aircraft" regardless; We can have microlights, ultralights, " little planes" Now we are flying " recreational aircraft" Does that have anything to do with size? ( apart from the size of my/ your wallet). . Harrison Ford probably regards his DH Beaver as a Recreational Aircraft. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 This is supposed to be about the aviation aspect of" recreation", not procreation. (Trust You Andy)... Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 It's good to be a pro-active aviator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Cop you later. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryon Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I just had another look at the video That wasnt El Presidentes plane that did the "steep turn" So therefore it must have been the Tas Aero Club plane and pilot Was it a GA pilot who was PIC? Are GA pilots limited to 60 degree angle of bank as well? The rules say "intentional", could the 'steep turn' have been unintentional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 The FAA defines aerobatic flight ... dunno what CASA define it as, but they reference the FAA definition in a CAAP.. raaus arent allowed to fly aerobatics, so therefore 60 degrees is our limit... CAAPs are advisory only, the USA FAA definition of aerobatics is irrelevant. RAA is not allowed aerobatics by CASA - so, you need to know CASA's definition of aerobatics per the regs.Next comment applies to VH registered aeroplanes: normal category aeroplanes generally (depending on certification basis) have a flight manual limitation of 60 deg maximum angle of back - the fact that it coincides with the USA definition of aerobatics reflects the origin of the certification rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Was it a GA pilot who was PIC? Are GA pilots limited to 60 degree angle of bank as well? The rules say "intentional", could the 'steep turn' have been unintentional? Regardless of the pilot holding a GA licence or not, the limitation still applies. (moderated as message quoted has been removed from view - Mod) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pookemon Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 What is with the big nasty bounce and hard rotate at 0.32? Surely they could have done a nice greaser for the camera That looked like a bounce on takeoff - pulled back too hard, too soon. Not a great vid for promoting the skills of RAA pilots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 CAAPs are advisory only, the USA FAA definition of aerobatics is irrelevant. RAA is not allowed aerobatics by CASA - so, you need to know CASA's definition of aerobatics per the regs. Save me the time please.... where would this be found? Seeing as we can't do aeros I've not looked at the regs related to them. Besides looking through CASA publications is like poking through a dogs breakfast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Never poked through a Dog's breakfast, but the following quote is relevant. "We're not happy, till you're not happy). Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts