Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

poteroo

Members
  • Content Count

    1,593
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

poteroo last won the day on September 20 2019

poteroo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,021 Excellent

About poteroo

  • Rank
    poteroo
  • Birthday 20/09/1940

More Information

  • Aircraft
    Mostly my Brumby 610, my RV9A, or several models of VANS RV
  • Location
    Albany, South Coast, WA
  • Country
    Australia
  • About
    PPL-1963, CPL-1965, PNG 65-70, Ag, LL, FIR-1 with LL t/e, MEA, ME-NVMC, FF. RV transition trainer.
    RAAus CFI/ROC.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Back when I was doing my navexs out of Archerfield, (1963/4), we had to do several over those border ranges and it was with some fear & trepidation that we set off on them in an ancient 172. At the time, all the Sydney - Brisbane RPT traffic used to use a 90DME Brisbane waypoint as their TOD, somewhere about Casino if I'm right. By the time the power came off, everyone, including the cabin crew, would be firmly strapped in for the the usual wild ride into Brissy. FH would probably remember those afternoon arrivals with trembling hands. I read somewhere that the border ranges have one of the highest TS frequencies, and severity, anywhere on the planet? As everyone has posted, we aviators seem to forget the lessons of the past, which have been well and truly taught, but not remembered. History keeps repeating itself. RIP.
  2. When my Brumby 610 was being built in 2014-5, I had the panel setup so that it could be flown as basic analog, (ASI, ALT,BALL,CLOCK,COMPASS - located high on windscreen), or 'full' panel with the Dynon attitude instrumentation in it. I also decided to do away with a mess of small engine instruments and had them included within a Dynon D180. The purpose of this was to allow students to receive better 'attitude' training, and for them to be trained on only the basic analogs in use on many other aircraft. Collating the engine instruments allowed for a full sized radio stack, plus a biiiig gloveb.... oops, sorry, a 'document stowage facility' to be located in front of the instructor.
  3. Always easy to critique these accidents from the comfort of an armchair, but with winds gusting 35kts plus heavy rain, it would not have been a pretty sight on approach to Newman. The obvious lesson for we recreationals is that it's smart to avoid these conditions. Rain on the windscreen makes a world of difference to ones estimations of distance and speed, but cyclonic downpours are something else. I hope the crew are not 'hung out to dry' by both their company and the regulator.
  4. Wow! A shipload of dollars has passed through this organisations accounts. If the 410 students all paid $9896, and not a single one of them required >20 hrs dual + 5 hrs solo: that alone is $4,057,360. If that was the gross take from the students - why did they require $11m in 'loans' of good ol taxpayer monies? In 15 years, I've never had a student pilot pass their RPC in the bare minimums: perhaps SOAR have an effective screening system which only allows budding Top Guns in the front door? The RAAF can't even achieve 100% pass each course: even with their very close selection - there is a substantial washout rate. But 6 passes out of 410?? Is their testing done by an independent ATO/FE, or is it 'in house'? Wonder how many washed out along the way, and quietly faded off the scene to take up some paid activity in the big city? The advertisement refers to the RPL, which is the GA qualification: yet the minimums quoted are for the RPC? Are we talking about the same thing because I'd be highly impressed with a flying school based on a Class D airport, being able to achieve an RPL in these times. Curiouser and curiouser.
  5. Agreed. However, if during your initial planning, you had looked along your intended track, and noted which physical features you would be able to see once climbing away from your departure point, then you can use them to maintain track. It might be a salt lake, or hills, or an easily spotted feature. Then, select the one which will be closest to your planned track. In the knowledge that you can track to a feature by keeping it at a constant point in your windscreen, you can vary your heading to do just that with the feature you have chosen. Have another feature in mind, in case the 1st isn't as obvious. Even if it is a few degrees off track, with practice, you should be able to adopt a heading which will result in a track-made-good that passes the feature on one side or the other, and at the desired distance. In other words, this technique is pro-active because you are making constant corrections to heading as the drift changes. You are not blindly flying off on a heading based on a forecast, (which after all, is only a forecast!), to end up perhaps 30 mins later over country with no landmark you can ID. It doesn't matter how your WAC is presented, (paper, EFB), because you will have drawn your track onto it. Has worked for me over many k of inland VFR flying. happy days,
  6. And this, after he was quoted as saying that we needed to consider no flight crews in a November interview. Do they really think these opposite comments are helping their credibility? happy days,
  7. Which is why many pilots complain that Cessna 100 series aircraft can't be flown on 'BOTH' without tanks draining unevenly. Good indicator to instructors that student isn't in balance. Happy days,
  8. I see in todays' Australian that this gentlemen is quoted as being in favour of creating aircraft which were fully automated, ie without pilot input. 'We are going to have to ultimately almost - almost - make these planes fly on their own' Calhoun was quoted as saying in November 2018. Capt Chesley Sullenberger strongly disagrees with this direction. Sully is a great believer in having well trained, and very current (hand flying) flight crew up front to ensure that we have no repeats of these events of machine overcoming man. I am in complete agreement with him.
  9. Quite a number of RVs have been built here, and I've done quite a few of the initial flights and test programs. In order to get a good fuel tank calibration it's been my practice to run one tank dry in flight, then refill it from the bowser and run the Dynon, (or other EFIS), calibration. Once you recognise the loss of power, tanks can be switched even without electric pump being used. Picks up in 5-6 secs. happy days,
  10. A sensible procedure is to join your CTAF circuit overhead 500ft above the highest circuit altitude, (which could be 1500' agl for fast traffic). This way you don't get mixed up with non-standard circuit joins at low level, which emergency services aircraft are able to legally make. Happy days,
  11. I think this is a pic from 1969, a Talair C185 bingle somewhere in the PNG Highlands
  12. Another explanation is doing a relatively, (read too), fast 'wheeler' which lead into a small bounce, which the pilot then tried to recover by pushing forward on the elevators. The result of this is usually a larger bounce, from which you must recover by either (1) going round, or (2) converting the landing into a 3 pointer by allowing it to float and assume the 3 pt attitude as the speed washes off. The only reliable way to wheel a 185 is to set slightly nose down trim, then as you make the very abbreviated flare, and as the mains touch you relax the back pressure and the 185 will pin itself on. This I learnt from my aggie training pilot at Max Hazeltons in 1971 where we were using c180s for supering. Trying to 'pin' a 180 or 185 on using elevators more often than not causes a massive PIO. I'll bet it's not the 1st rebuild in its' logbook! happy days,
  13. There are powerlines, and there are BIG powerlines. It's the spur lines which seem to be most dangerous as they are often hidden behind headlands of bush and trees. A loaded AT-802 with 1350 P&W up front, and doing 110-120 KIAS is going to pull wires off several poles before arriving for the unplanned landing - often safely. But its' built for this. A lightweight aircraft, throttled back for landing, and making 45-50KIAS does not have a lot of energy to dissipate and comes to a rapid halt, often 'hung up'. The light aircraft doing an illegal beatup is faster, has less time to spot wires, and the impact is harder - more often fatal. I've found that making a 360 over the intended landing area, at 300 ft and configured for flap and with low-medium power, is always a good way to spot wires which may only be 'visible' for about 60* of the orbit due to sunlight/shadow. This before any descending to make the 'strip inspection'. Most pilots that I review tend to 'inspect' far too low, and far too fast, to actually observe important features and measure the distance. Flying the inspection at 30 ft more often than not requires 101% of the concentration of a non trained low level pilot: you will observe more, and more safely, at above tree top height - perhaps 150 ft agl. Without fail, the pilot under review never adjusts power to maintain both height agl, and IAS, because they level off for the inspection run by adjusting attitude. This results in a steady decrease in IAS as they try to maintain the ridiculously low height of fly thru. Then, at completion of this 'inspection' they require bags of power to recover IAS + climb to a safe circuit height agl. What you can't determine from 150+ ft agl isn't worth seeing! I'm seriously concerned about where training is heading. We have to improve our pilots handling skills so they don't lose control close to the ground. (RLOC). We have to impart some basic flying skills which make them safer at lower levels. I also can't see why we are not exposing all RAAus pilots to a couple hours of instrument flight - full or limited panel according to their aircraft. And that's my vent for the week! Happy days.
  14. Loads of inconsistency in both CASA and RAAus 'policy' on low flying training. Recent articles pleading with pilots not to fly into IMC, and to do IF training, yet the same principles are not being applied to low level. Were both bodies to adopt a realistic look at pilot training, they would understand that correct training not only instils a healthy regard for IMC or LL, but does better equip the pilot to cope with emergency requirements. Yes Nev, all pilots actually 'need' some basic training in both LL and IF. The current RAAus policy on LL is simply 'in denial' happy days,
  15. The condition here is 'learn how to fly it'. That's a big ask these days as there are fewer instructors about with Cessna t/w experience - real time, not a pretend endo in the circuit of a major airport. Unless you can really handle the C180/185 in crosswinds, and short fields - you're heading for some scary arrivals. Low timers beware! The corrosion proofing was available in only the later models of C180 - I think from 1975 onwards for the last 4 years of production. As Nev says, these were usually for the seaplane market : they were distinguishable by the cross bar struts from the instrument panel up to the spar. They are not cheap to run, and I tend to agree with some of the earlier posters about the PA-28 series. Cessna SIDS have really made inroads on the C172 numbers. Corrosion inspections are a must on any of the older GA types, regardless of make & model. Own a 2 seater but rent a 4 seater = good advice. In the 29 years that we owned a C170, C180, and C182 - we flew 95% of the time with the rear seats out and 2 up. Your kids grow up, they find other more exciting things to do, and then they disallow the grandies from flying because the 'old man' doesn't look capable of flying safely!! Be practical - be 'selfish'! happy days,
×
×
  • Create New...