Jump to content

aro

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,005

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Everything posted by aro

  1. aro
    If you are relying on the "clear of cloud" provisions below 3000' (rather than the cloud clearances required above 3000') you are required to have a radio and be on the appropriate frequency.
  2. aro
    The Airbus picked up the transponder, but didn't know the height. Without the mode C height information they don't know whether the traffic is at e.g. 3000', 9000' or 30000' (but they can probably guess its not 30000' by the speed.) They probably regularly see traffic which is not transmitting height, but usually they can assume it is 20000+ below them. If you're going to land, you have to come down. The Airbus was on the published instrument approach. There are similar approaches around many airports. Class E provides ATC separation between IFR and other IFR aircraft i.e. aircraft that can't see each other. Separation between VFR and VFR and VFR and IFR works the same in Class E as Class G so it wouldn't have made a difference. (Australia has some Class E bastardizations due to various people who prefer Class G and don't want Class E to work, but separating IFR from IFR is what is supposed to happen.) If you want separation for RPT in a high traffic environment, what you probably need is Class D and a tower. They don't want to do that due to cost, so come up with various justifications not to do it.
  3. aro
    The Airbus had TCAS which was quite capable of detecting the existing transponder, if it was correctly turned to mode C. The main advantage of ADSB is knowing the callsign if you have an ADSB receiver. I don't know whether the Airbus would display the callsign from ADSB. VFR pilots are required to navigate by visual references, and are not required to have IFR training or charts. IFR pilots operating in an environment with VFR aircraft are *supposed* to use visual references in broadcasts intended for VFR aircraft. If they can't give a visual reference e.g. in relation to the airport it suggests their situational awareness is lacking.
  4. aro
    Kind of rude to tell people not to respond to your post. Why do you think you deserve the last word? It's a forum - if you don't want people to reply, don't post.
  5. aro
    "5km is an easier way to judge distance" isn't a sentence that makes sense to me. As I said, maybe I'm not understanding the question. But it is potentially more difficult to judge distance from cloud in poor visibility. I have heard of people flying in poor visibility who flew straight into a cloud they didn't see, because it blended into the background poor visibility. With 5km or 8km visibility you might not have a background to see clouds against.
  6. aro
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question. An easier way to judge what?
  7. aro
    5km visibility is thorough the air, not clearance from cloud. At 5km visibility you can't see the ground, terrain features, mountains etc. 5km away.
  8. aro
    In the beginning instrument flying was done using needle, ball and airspeed. The needle (similar to a turn coordinator) was used to keep straight or do standard rate turns, the ball showed wings level/coordinated and airspeed showed nose up or down. I have seen theories that you could do the same with a compass to keep straight, IF you were flying east or west to avoid the acceleration errors you get flying north or south. Personally I doubt it. A GPS would be much better than a compass to substitute for the needle and maintain a course. Particularly if it has a panel view that can show a standard rate turn. An aviation GPS mounted on the panel would be preferable to something like an ipad.
  9. aro
    5km and 8km is visibility, not distance from cloud. At 3000' distance to the horizon is about 100km, so 5km visibility is very poor. Technically VMC, but it wouldn't feel like it.
  10. aro
    So what would you do if someone bought an old speedway car and drove it around the streets? No use if they are not a member and have no intention of joining.
  11. aro
    I think it was a Sapphire, and you may be combining a few different incidents, but I know the one you are talking about. But seriously, what can RAA do with those management structures and policies? They can't put you in jail, they can't fine you, if you're not a member they can't kick you out or suspend a pilot certificate - what are they supposed to do? CAO 95.55 which underlies the whole RAA existence has exemptions from certain regulations e.g. - the requirement to hold a pilot license - various registration and airworthiness standards for aircraft There are conditions attached, e.g. being a member of RAA, following the RAA operations manual, holding a RAA pilot certificate etc. If you don't comply with those conditions the exemptions don't apply and suddenly you are violating all the regulations that apply to normal aircraft: - flying without a license - flying unregistered aircraft - flying aircraft that haven't been certified or maintained under GA regulations etc. These all put you straight back into the regime of CASA and Australian law - not RAA management and policies.
  12. aro
    Yes, SAAA is not a self administering organization as I understand it. But even if it were, what can they do? What can RAA do if someone is not a member of RAA but flies a RAA registered aircraft? Underneath it all are the rules enforced by CASA. That's not a function of the ATSB. I'm not sure it's really true though - most people believe that small aircraft are dangerous, so a crash isn't hard to understand. Pilots like ATSB reports, but usually so they can find some reason to rationalize why "It wouldn't happen to me."
  13. aro
    Licensing and maintenance are CASA functions - not something SAAA can enforce. ATSB discontinuing investigations where there doesn't appear to be anything to be learned is probably a good thing - hopefully it helps concentrate resources where there might be something to learn. They sometimes seem to spend a lot of time investigating the obvious.
  14. aro
    This isn't how CTAFs work. If the traffic is students under the supervision of the CFI, this sounds OK. Otherwise it's basically unauthorised air traffic control.
  15. aro
    I don't know the rules in NZ, but in Australia you can't practice emergency procedures with a passenger on board. I have also done a check at MTOW in a 172, but it's not required for the PPL. Technically you can do your PPL in a 152 or even a GA reg Jabiru and then fly a 172 with 4 people on board. Checkout flights and all up weight checks are generally a policy of the aircraft owner or the insurance company - they are a good idea, but not the law. The passenger endorsement in RAA seems to be a hangover from the early AUF days when most aircraft were single seat and training was minimal. 2 seat aircraft for training or carrying passengers would have been unusual at one point. I think when I first flew with AUF you also needed a medical to carry passengers, which wasn't required for solo flight. RAA do love their endorsements though - last I checked there were several RAA endorsements that don't exist in GA.
  16. aro
    As long as you find the right specifications. Engine oil pressure is not relevant - the Rotax specification is negative 500mb (7.25 PSI) at 150C without collapse.
  17. aro
    The fittings supplied with my oil cooler were push-lok, so I make sure that the hose I use specifies that it is compatible. Maybe any hose is compatible with those fittings - I don't know.
  18. aro
    The problem with the oil hoses is that they attach to parts that are not necessarily Rotax provided e.g. the oil cooler. Are the Rotax hoses compatible with all oil cooler fittings?
  19. aro
    The Rotax installation manual specifies capable of withstanding a negative pressure of 7.25 psi at 150C. Thats about 15 in.hg so the GTH-08 meets it at 18 in.hg but I would prefer the margin in the G3H-08. The G3H hose seems to maintain 28 in.hg (i.e. 1 atmosphere) up to 3/4 inch, where the GTH only specifies 28 in.hg up to 3/8 inch. So the G3H looks better for suction applications.
  20. aro
    Rotax oil pressure is all inside the engine. The hoses see suction not pressure - so you need to be looking at the negative pressure ratings. It also makes it important to respect minimum bend radius, to minimize the possibility the hose will collapse.
  21. aro
    On the other hand, for our aircraft, grass strips where virtually the only thing they do is mow can be the nicest airfields to use. As long as they don't get so much use that the grass wears away.
  22. aro
    I'm not saying they're all the same - just that they should meet the standard as a minimum. E.g. I don't think there is a separate standard for 98 octane, but 98 octane should meet the 95 octane standard. I tried BP/Shell 98 octane in my Rotax, but it runs much better (smoother) on 95 octane. I asked Bert Floods about it, they said if it runs better on 95 just use it - it meets the requirements. I suspect it is borderline too rich, and the higher density of the 98 octane fuels exacerbates that.
  23. aro
    There is a standard for unleaded petrol in Australia, it is reasonable to assume that petrol sold meets that standard. While there are always rumours that petrol is adulterated, it seems unlikely. You would need thousands of litres - literally tanker loads - to make it worthwhile at one servo. Millions of litres at a distributor. It just seems impractical. Most people run their Rotax engines on mogas, if there was a problem we should hear about it.
  24. aro
    Unlikely. If there is a leak in the fuel line before the engine driven pump in a low wing aircraft, it will suck air and the engine will lose power/stop. At which point the first action is turn the pump on... If there is a leak after the engine driven pump e.g. carb float valve, it probably doesn't make much difference if the aux pump is on or not because the engine driven pump is supplying fuel pressure. You quoted the actual reason from the POH in your post. What they are taught isn't always correct - it seems like there are as many myths in GA as any other level of aviation.
  25. aro
    At the end it's just "Edenhope" not "Edenhope Traffic". Lots of people do it, it doesn't matter, but if you're going to nitpick final vs finals... The format is: - who is this transmission intended for: "Edenhope traffic" (used to be "All stations Edenhope") - Your type & call sign "Jabiru 1234" - details i.e. position/height/intentions etc "Turning base runway 36 full stop" - location "Edenhope" I think the location was added to the end when the format was changed from "All stations...." because the location became the first word and was likely to be clipped by people who start talking before they push the button.
×
×
  • Create New...