Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


poteroo last won the day on December 1

poteroo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,788 Excellent

About poteroo

  • Rank
    Well-Known Member
  • Birthday 09/20/1940

More Information

  • Gender
  • Aircraft
    Mostly my Brumby 610, my RV9A, or several models of VANS RV
  • Location
    Albany, South Coast, WA
  • Country
  1. My greatest concern with this accident is that the aircraft was flown by 3 different crews over the preceding 3 days, and they all experienced trim problems. However, these crews were smart enough to disable the autopilot trim system and hand fly the 737 to a safe conclusion. It's now evident that not all crews were this resourceful. For reasons unknown, they either, 1 - failed to report it via writing in the official system, or 2 - reported it verbally, or 3 - thought no more about it as they had fixed the system, or 4 - they did correctly report it - but it was returned to line with the problem remaining. Which begs the question - how? This reminds me of the 'bad old days' in PNG, where you were unwise to put anything on the MR except a complete engine failure. (assuming you survived!) Companies had unwritten 'rules' that any issues went onto a 'snag-sheet', which I'm sure didn't ever reach the retained paperwork system.
  2. It's not unheard of for pilots to admit to flying just a little closer to the limit when by themselves, and especially so if the flight is to pickup pax who are known to be waiting at a remote location. Publicly, we all deny any 'commercial pressure', but it's part of a charter pilots career. Anyone who has flown charter in the tropic monsoon season, or in mountainous terrain, quickly learns when to turn back. Most of us rode our luck and made it home, but many of my peers didn't. I feel for her family and friends. RIP
  3. We've touched on this 'recurrant training' subject before. It's a senstitive one, because while CASA talk-the-talk about continuing 'training', they baulk at recognising the need to have more training in lower level aircraft operation. This carries through into RAAus, where we cannot train a pilot in any low level operations - unless they are going to use it on their property. Now, I'd have thought that avoiding killing or injuring yourself and passengers, by having some low level skills, would be sufficient reason to have this allowed. But no, within the regulators, there is a quite irrational fear that, because a pilot has been trained in low level ops, they will immediately become a low level flying hoon. My decades of experience say that it's the very opposite. When pilots discover that it is a whole, new, and dynamic flight world below 500ft agl, they cease doing the stupid stuff. I'm not suggesting that we train you to fly at spraying height, or fly under powerlines, or other professional skills: I'm for training to avoid stall/spin accidents, to handle rough air, to avoid collisions, to make safe avoidance manoeuvres, and to escape from low or lost visibility situations. We can train you to make safe inspections of strips or paddock locations, how to better assess surface conditions, how to scan properly and so on. The sooner that RAAus, (and CASA), encourage pilots to undertake post RPC/RPL training in low level operating of aircraft - the better for our industry. The old wives tales/ urban myths about how dangerous it is, and why nobody should operate down low - need to be buried. The next obstacle will be..... 'there are no qualified training instructors.' Well, unless CASA/RAAus make some moves in this area - there will be no experienced LL instructors left in the industry. Now is the time to change things, and have the oldies train up a reasonable number of younger instructors before it's too late. happy days,
  4. A sticking point for CASA seems to be with RAAus pilot abilities. However,the 'recognition' given by CASA to the RPC, when changing over to an RPL, (but not a full PPL), indicates that there should be no issue with RAAus pilots ability to manage in CTA - and there should not need to be any difference in training for a CTA endorsement. The only requirement is for the instructor to also hold CTA endo - which currently, only those holding both a GA & RAAus FIR will have. It's a bit of a stretch to want RAAus, and so, every member, to pay for each RAAus FIR holder to be upgraded at RAAus cost. It's likely there wouldn't be too many holding only an RAAus FIR who would really see enough business resulting from the expense of upgrading their own qualifications. There'll be no rush. I can't see CASA allowing a lower level of CTA endo, (which might allow straight transit of a corner of C or D airspace), so the cost of a comprehensive CTA endo can be substantial for an RAAus pilot wanting to make only the occasional transit. As well, it won't be long before Mode S is required for C CTA, and that's another painful possibility. We may wish that we'd never asked CASA for CTA. You need only look at their past ability to create a camel out of a horse! happy days (in G).
  5. poteroo

    Sideslipping again. . .

    I've always understood it as: A sideslip is when you are wing down into wind, but with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft aligned with a ground feature, eg a runway, a sheep track, crop stubble lines, or 4WD wheeltracks. You could conceivably use a slight sideslip in place of a crab for tracking in general flight - but it wouldn't be a popular configuration with the pax. A forward slip is achieved by using rudder to maintain a crab angle to the ground feature, and lowering the inwards wing with aileron. It will dramatically increase the R-O-D, but, as discussed, comes the moment to convert it to either a nil wind/wing level landing, or, in cross-wind, a wing down/and rudder controlled fore-aft alignment with the runway. The latter requires a lot more finesse, and hence, loads of practice. Skill in all slipping is fundamental in achieving requirements in emergency situations such as forced landings, short field landings, precautionary S&L, crosswind landings. Do I teach it? Always - and it wouldn't matter if the aircraft had the descent capability of a Stuka. Electric flaps do fail. Crosswinds can be so high that full flap is inadvisable and aggressive slipping may be called for. happy days,
  6. poteroo

    Small Flying Schools

    I think you are missing the point here. We construct our 'own' RAAus flying school SMS based on the template that RAAus have already agreed with CASA. This is submitted to RAAus Ops to ensure it meets compliance with the RAAus SMS. Now, an SMS cannot include every single 'safety' related item that's involved in flying, much less as related to 'learning-to-fly'. Checklists take care of some of the essential items. Other really important decisions are included in the process of the schools teaching of principles. Many of these will be included according to the experience and flying wisdom of the CFI, and will of course be extra to the fundamental stuff as laid down in the RAAus syllabus and the Part 61 M-O-S. Here I'd give as an example - the construction of the pre-takeoff checklist. Mine always have the engine run-ups LAST - and if you have to ask why, then you haven't frightened yourself with carby ice accumulation! I also add in, a few obvious items AFTER this - including 'heels on floor/toes off brakes, check finals traffic, check windsock & your ailerons into wind' as we enter the runway. Now none of this needs to be in an SMS, or it would stretch on forever. But, it significantly contributes to the safety of a flight, and to the sum of knowledge that the student accumulates at your school. RAAus Ops should pickup on this during audits and should be using the useful to educate the less experienced CFIs as they are reviewed. Anyway, our RAAus schools cannot exist without compliance with both RAAus requirements, and with the CASA Regulations. The SMS is just another item that we need to live with in the modern world. We just deal with it, and get on with instructing. happy days,
  7. poteroo

    CPL and Traineeship

    I think you'll find that it is the quality, not the quantity, of hours in your logbook. Stooging around in an RAAus aircraft, or for that matter, an el cheapo GA type, and accumulating hours, is not going to impress any prospective employer. Sounds smart, but you don't learn real commercial flying discipline this way. You need your hours on long distance navigation exercises where you have really had to push your limits. These need to be recorded in your flight plans via NAIPS, and well documented in your pilot logbook. A CPL needs to be very familiar with CTR/CTA procedures and you need a lot more of this than the minimums the schools may tell you. As well, it really does help if your IFR work is seriously good. To achieve this, you need a safety pilot/instructor, plus good instrumentation and avionics. NVFR may not be required, but I think its' an essential. If possible, try to use a retractable + CSU type - the 'heavier' the better in fact. (210 comes to mind, because it enhances your employment prospects post CPL.) Good luck with your career,
  8. poteroo

    Small Flying Schools

    Back to the subject of 'small flying schools' in the RAAus system. As far as I know, there is no intent to reduce school numbers. This will rise and fall with the economy - right now it's probably evident as a decline in 'active' flying schools, and a decline in hours flown at those still 'current'. It's most likely been raised due to a throwaway comment from Canberra about the difficulties, and cost, of annually auditing each school. Desktop audits are really of dubious value. It would really benefit most CFIs to have an RAAus Ops manager visit at least every 2 years, with the intermediate year done regionally. Re the SMS situation. yes, CASA wanted each school to have an SMS, and yes, RAAus organised a pro forma template for each school to produce its' own. I changed/added quite a bit of ours, and submitted it last July. Nothing heard to date, so I assume it has been accepted. When I see what has been required in our local Part 141 GA school, we are getting off lightly! Seems to always happen when CASA promise a 'simplification'. Reminds me of one definition of bureaucracy - a committee designing a horse but finishing with a camel!! happy days,
  9. Correct on both points. However, to quote an oldie...... you can lead a horse to water - but it may not drink! I often see logbooks with less than 5-10 hrs flying - over the 2 year interval between BFR/AFR - and in one case, the pilot had a total of 3 renewals on a single logbook page. The instructors 'problem' with these pilots is complicated: if we suggest some retraining, then we are mercenary bastards, or, the pilot then 'shops' around for a less diligent instructor, or, they fly back home and continue to fly 'out-of-sight/out-of-mind for the rest of their days. Now let's be very clear: I'm not 'failing' pilots because they can't recite the latest blurb from RAAus or CASA about,eg, radio frequencies - I'm only asking them to improve their actual flying skills back to where they were at issue. Pilots are not killing themselves because of peripheral stuff - it's generally due to degraded aircraft handling skills, degraded decision making skills, and poor aircraft knowledge. Re the ABC story: Well, it's all very well for an ex RPT pilot to state the bleeding obvious. Annoying actually, when they arte not seeing just how drastically the economy and red tape is reducing the hours flown by most pilots. If pilots fly less - their skills will decline - there's nothing new about this. However, the issue is really, how to convince pilots to obtain recurrant training? Regardless of how it's done - there will be a large dropout of both RAAus and GA pilots - and mostly from the more 'senior' demographic. Is this a problem? On the other hand, it seems to me that it's not necessarily the more elderly pilots who are figuring in the recent accidents. Before CASA or RAAus impose all sorts of training requirements on pilots, I suggest they look carefully into the ages and experience levels in, say, the last 10 years incidents/accidents. The numbers may more accurately inform any future decisions. happy days,
  10. Yup, he's very lucky to still be with us. As for serious 'bush' flying - well, there are many aspects to it. It's not just about flying low & slow: it's about flying the aircraft safely in the low level environment. To do that, get instruction from someone who knows what they're doing. DYO training has no place here.
  11. poteroo

    Lower your MTOW

    Just past 78 yo and still hold a Class 1 medical with no restrictions. About 6 yrs ago, my cholesterol levels and ratios began to concern my DAME, and, as well, my BSL crept past 5.5, and my weight had been moving up (was 72 - up to 83 kg). No history of heart or diabetes in known family. So, I had to take control or my instructing days were over. DAME insisted on statins immediately, and I was on 40mg daily from then on. Then saw the Dr Michael Mosely 'fasting' or 5:2 eating approach story on SBS, and so both bride & I went for it. Helps to have moral support! Thought we'd die with only 600 cals/day for 2 consec days - but it began to have effects within a month or two. I thought - 'can't do this without serious exercise' - so bought a bike and began to grind out the kms early every morning. Try to burn at least 500-800 Cals per day. Reason for bike - bad knees, but no probs on wheels! So far, only 1 low speed accident of my own doing although I cringe when roadtrains pass on one nasty section of port road. Upshot of these efforts has been to wind my cholesterol total & good/bad ratios way back down to happy levels, get my BSL back below 5.0, and my weight down to 73kgs. (Can now wear 32 waist jeans instead of 34!). My knees are a little better too - at least I've gained another 5 years out of them, though a knee replacement looms in next year or so. The interesting thing with the fasting 'diet' is that, although the program states you can eat as much, of whatever you like, on the remaining 5 days............ you actually don't do that. Starvation for these short periods appears to trigger some form of learned response by which your body tells you that you really can survive without rubbish or lots of it. We have cut our wine intake to only 2 days weekly, and then to 1 or 1.5 standard drinks with dinner. Hard, but not impossible! The real problem is how to handle holidays because after only 2 weeks away from the bike, and with 'holiday' level eating & drinking - things begin to slide quickly, especially my cycling fitness. With my medical review falling in mid February each year, keeping the handbrake on all these health indicators has become quite a task over the Christmas/NY period. I know that CASA are 'talking' about allowing instructors to continue on just a Class 2 medical, or even a Basic 2, but it's a point-of-pride that I don't want to drop the Class 1 until it's impossible to maintain. (CASA usually backslide in these matters). I know it's costly, and often inconvenient to be constantly seeing an audiologist, an ophthalmologist, a cardiologist, a blood pathology lab, and my DAME - but I'm going to beat CASA Avmed if it kills me! Might too! And that's my story. Hope it helps lower your BEW too. happy days,
  12. poteroo

    Accident and defect

    That thought did occur to me as well. The accident 'rate' or 'number of' could be lower for many, many reasons. It's quite simplistic, and less than honest, to identify 'increased safety compliance' with lower accidents. RAAus HO need to take a more realistic approach to this matter. As far as I know, there are less total hours being flown, there are less aircraft actually 'serviceable' and in flying condition, and many incidents & accidents are not reported, (probably more so in recent times). As well, there is an ever higher % of our pilots who are not flying at all, due economics, limited access to a hire aircraft, or loss of interest. These, together with other factors, are very likely the reasons behind less 'accidents' being recorded. Our HO needs to be reminded of the great aviation truism : ' Learn from other pilots mistakes because you won't have time to make them all yourself' happy days,
  13. Mick, Welcome to RAAus world. You should be able to convert your RPL for an RPC with the 5 hrs mandated time. Then, you could do your navs in an RAAus aircraft and get the RAAus nav endo. With what you have already done in GA, provided you're not too rough, it should only take you a couple short duals plus a good solo nav and then a test. The RPC nav endo can then be signed onto your RPL licence by a GA instructor because it is 'recognised' by CASA. The advantages of flying with an instructor who is both RAAus and GA qualified makes this all very neat. cheers,
  14. poteroo

    Plane crash near Stawell

    Agree. It especially applies with the 'base-to-final' skidding turn. I'm a believer in training students to fly 'in balance' through each and every phase of flight. An aircraft isn't going to spin, (especially 'under'), if it simply stalls while in balance. As instructors, we are failing our safety duty if we can't produce pilots who fly with both feet and hands. And, (as Nev points out, above),it's much, much higher risk to lose control at low level. On that subject, I don't start any low level training until the pilot can vigorously manoeuvre the aircraft at lower speeds, in all configurations, and recover from incipient stalling with minimal height loss or drama. I'd go further on this, to state that IMHO, the industry problem with accidents due to R-LOC is due in great part to pilot inability to control and manoeuvre the aircraft close to the ground, which is itself in part due to the 'ground-rush' effect as mentioned by Nev (above). happy days,
  15. poteroo

    LSA to get a weight/speed increase

    We need to be very aware of the US 'rules' with LSA type aircraft where, besides the 1320lbs/600kg MTOW, they also have 120 KIAS as the upper limit. For some inexplicable reason, (one of omission by mistake IMHO), CASA didn't include any upper speed limit for LSA - just the 45KIAS stall speed. If there is going to be such a massive lift in both MTOW, and the max allowable TAS in the US is about to be lifted too - good for them. But, the last thing we want is for CASA to 'benevolently' give us the US version. That is a real worry - do we need such high limits on LSA? Why not just remove the numbers and instal 'VH-' on the aircraft? That's where this is heading. Then we won't need any RAA, or RPC - it will all be CASA and an RPL/PPL.