Jump to content

aro

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,018

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 Content Type 

Everything posted by aro

  1. aro
    Maurice Blackburn saying that's what they're doing might be a clue.
  2. aro
    We don't, although there may be some truth to the idea that CASA wants someone else to blame rather than them. Which is fine, until insurance companies decide they don't want to be CASA's patsy.
  3. aro
    The whole point is that if you remove ANY link in the chain the accident wouldn't happen. But the question is whether RAAus failed, not whether there was something else that would have stopped it. Overconfident pilots are not exactly unheard of.
  4. aro
    I assume you are familiar with the idea that accident's don't have a single cause, they are a chain? The chain here was: 1) he was overconfident 2) he was given a license without the required training 3) the weather was bad 4) he look off into bad weather #2 is the direct responsibility of RAAus. Worse, #2 is supposed to mitigate #1 and reduce the chance of #4. Bad weather happens - i can't be changed.
  5. aro
    Mr 32,000 posts! At least this thread is (was) still on topic
  6. aro
    This is nonsense. An ASIC card won't let you on to "do maintenance". You need company ID etc. The ASIC card is for the secure area of the airport, and it failed completely.
  7. aro
    I have an ASIC, it doesn't mean I can walk up to a Jetstar aircraft, flash the ASIC and get on. He didn't have a boarding pass or company credentials - that was what stopped him, not the ASIC. The ASIC is supposed to stop unauthorized people from accessing the secure area. It obviously failed spectacularly here. Even then it only works if someone is denied the ASIC - there's no evidence that an ASIC would have been rejected if he had applied. Claiming this is an ASIC success is desperation/delusion.
  8. aro
    Great example. I could show you several places where people park their trucks near their homes, the neighbors hate it but it doesn't mean they need to get council approval for a truck park.
  9. aro
    Big difference between building an airstrip and landing your aircraft on your property. Kind of like parking a car in your backyard vs building a carpark.
  10. aro
    Totally dependent on engine design. Look at modern engine design and rpm vs older engines and the comparative efficiency and lifespan.
  11. aro
    Did you learn about best angle of climb, best rate of climb and best glide in your training? All I said was higher speed aircraft often have trouble meeting the 5200 rpm minimum at best angle/rate of climb speeds. You are arguing with that but somehow saying you don't need to fly at those speeds? Yes, "subject to terrain clearance" is the important bit. There have been many accidents that might not have happened if the pilot had flown the correct speed for best performance. The quoted performance figures (takeoff distance, landing distance, rate of climb) are null and void if you don't fly the specified speeds. Flying small aircraft requires accuracy, when you care about performance.
  12. aro
    Maintaining rpm above 5200 by adjusting attitude/angle of attack is not climbing at best angle or best rate airspeed. Faeta best rate seems to be 59 knots (the POH isn't completely clear). 5200 rpm at 59 knots and 120 knots at 5500 is double the speed for only a 6% increase in rpm. Pretty good, if true.
  13. aro
    Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Pilots often have a personality where they don't like being told they can't do something. But the reality is this sort of thing impacts all of us, because it ultimately results in extra restrictions being imposed. We should be aiming to enjoy our hobby as much as possible without making other peoples lives worse. Taking off/landing low over a neighbour's house obviously makes their life worse. Don't do it, unless you have discussed it with them and have permission. A related situation, a person I know built an airstrip on their property. The local flying schools found out, and started using it for practicing precautionary searches. The neighbour was OK with the owner using it, not so much with multiple aircraft making multiple low passes over their house. The flying school's attitude, at least initially was "it's legal you can't stop us, bad luck". Like I said, these attitudes impact us all.
  14. aro
    Don't believe everything you read! People would rarely use best angle, but when you really need it you don't want to be worrying about your engine. I think many Rotax powered aircraft with cruise over 100 knots or so have trouble meeting the 5200 rpm minimum at their true best angle/best rate speeds. I know e.g. the RV-12 recommended below 5200, despite Rotax recommendations. They now use the injected engine, which is a lot more flexible. Evidence? If you operate WOT below 5200 there is a higher risk of detonation and sudden failure, other than that I haven't seen any credible claims.
  15. aro
    The 5200 minimum is full throttle (wide open throttle/WOT). It's related to the propeller not the throttle position. Closing the throttle for lower rpm is no problem. Some say it's better to operate the engine above 5000 rpm but I've seen no convincing evidence. Personally, I don't like hitting the thermals hard and using more fuel just to keep the rpm over 5000.
  16. aro
    True, I left out part of the statement: The static rpm that results in a minimum 5200 rpm WOT in climb will depend on the propeller and aircraft speed. I knew what I meant! With a draggy aircraft, going faster gives up a lot of climb rate. A leisurely climb is fine once you have some altitude, but initially you want something close to best rate so you have options in case of a problem. I do tend to climb less steeply above circuit height for more rpm, but it takes a significant increase in speed for a small rpm increase.
  17. aro
    5200 rpm is the minimum recommended speed for WOT operations to protect against detonation. 5300 is better, 5400 better still. In practice, it's probably the minimum rpm for climb at Vx. The static rpm will depend on the propeller and aircraft speed e.g. I get about 5300 rpm static but only 5200 on climb out. If you have controllable pitch, you might want 5800 for maximum power in takeoff & initial climb, with the ability to set 5500 (maximum continuous) for climb or cruise.
  18. aro
    If you want to set up a flying school or charter business, I would expect that to work, but people who have done it report it's much more difficult than expected e.g. documentation acceptable for an existing business might be rejected for a new business. For a parallel alternative to RAAus - extremely unlikely.
  19. aro
    If members, aircraft, ops manuals, CASA exemptions etc carry across from one organization to the other I wouldn't call them new organizations - just a restructure/rename. A new organization would mean developing manuals from scratch, recruiting members etc. Totally different story.
  20. aro
    SAFA was HGFA, which has been around for how long?
  21. aro
    That doesn't matter. He shouldn't have had a license. Otherwise, what are training and testing for? Why not make training optional? There's a really big difference between weather at 20 knots vs weather at 120 knots. That's one thing that you would expect the training to focus on.
  22. aro
    If he had been properly trained you could say it was the fault of the pilot, but since he didn't receive the required training it's just speculation to say he would have done the same thing. One of the things training is supposed to give you is skills and information to make better decisions. It's the instructors job to assess the safety of the pilot they are training, if they are not safe they shouldn't be signed off to take the test. His girlfriend was training for PPL, so she would have know what training he should have received.
  23. aro
    Are any of the current organizations less than decades old? The rules have been written around the existing organizations, I don't think any new organizations have been created under the SASAO rules. In theory you could create a new organization, in practice you would need to spend millions of dollars, with no guarantee that CASA wouldn't just say no or slow walk until you ran out of money.
  24. aro
    When you say nothing, you mean nothing other than approval by CASA (including rewriting all the exemptions to refer to the new organization) and obtaining insurance coverage. If insurance companies decide they don't want to be in the recreational aviation business, that would be a big problem for new and existing organizations alike. Private aviation is small beer for insurance companies, if it becomes more trouble than it's worth they will just decline to write policies.
  25. aro
    It's partly out of CASA's control, unless CASA indemnify RAAus. If the insurance coverage is denied because of actions of RAAus or a claim exceeds the insurance coverage, or the insurers just decide they don't want to be in that market, RAAus ceases to exist and pilots and aircraft are grounded. Personally, I think some in CASA would like to see the end of RAAus. The various simplified medicals and the ease of conversion of a pilot certificate to RPL undermine the reasons people join RAAus, and appear to be designed to attract people back to GA from RAAus. If RAAus ceased to exist, would CASA just rewrite the existing exemptions with reference to CASA instead of RAAus?
×
×
  • Create New...