F10

Definitely, these coats get sent to the panel beaters, not the dry cleaners....

Never listen to a marriage councilor, when buying an aircraft....!

Fun meeting up with mates in the air….north of Lake Wellington, VIC

The AP3456A Royal Air Force Manual of Flying defines the spin as having two phases, incipient and fully developed. The difference is in the fully developed spin (after 3-4 turns) the moments of inertia in pitch roll and yaw, have built up so that as Newton One states, the aircraft wants to keep doing what it’s doing. That’s what makes correct recovery action important. In the incipient phase, recovery is almost instant by power off, centralising the controls, (do not use aileron). Yes the outside wing is in a lesser state of stall granted still flying even, so more lift, than the inner wing. If you imagine the rotating mass of the fuselage, a rotating mass has the properties of a gyroscope, and this gyroscopic precession. Replace (the pitching fuselage with a spinning bicycle wheel to prove this). The delta wing has far more yaw than roll in an autorotation. By banking the mirage into the spin, using aileron (match the yellow stripes on the stick with the yellow stripes on the cockpit sills), and in doing so, the roll force applied to the fuselage “gyro”, and this roll is processed through 80 degrees in the direction or rotation (pure gyroscopic law of precession), and becomes a yaw force, yawing the aircraft out the spin. This is the B/A ratio, a heavier fuselage being anti spin rather than a heavier wing. Easy hey!!

Good news! I still think there would be a market for something like the Skyfox Gazelle, to be built here in Aus again. Especially if you could get a very basic instrument fit to lower purchase price. Looking at “Kitplanes for Africa”, they seem to do very well in South Africa?

As a former helicopter pilot…we all knew what fighter pilots used as a contraceptive… their personality!!

Yes, absolutely, always read your aircrafts spin recovery technique. I was referring to the fact a safe aircraft should recover with controls held neutral. Of course opposite rudder is important but I still say un-stalling the wings is top priority. I was not suggesting ignoring your aircrafts flight manual recovery procedure. Of course fuel loads and CofG position issues can make an aircraft behave very differently in a spin and may make the spin unrecoverable. Yes blanking of the rudder can occur with down elevator, that is why a number of aircraft have “ staggered” empenages, where the fin/rudder is mounted further ahead of the horizontal tailplane, to avoid rudder blanking. Chipmunk, Piston Provost and the Machi jet, are examples. Again most aircraft should recover with the stick getting to slightly forward of neutral. Full forward stick may well be necessary, but I would say not normally required. A consideration of the stick far forward on recovery, can lead to a very low nose on recovery, leading to greater height loss.

The rudder hastens recovery, but it is I think, not the main factor here. Un-stalling the wings, aileron neutral, is vital. Un-stall the wings and the aircraft has no option but to fly again, recovery resulting in a steep dive angle. Damping in roll will stop the rolling, directional stability will stop the yaw in the resulting dive. As I've said, most aircraft should recover when holding controls neutral. The inertia in the yawing plane is large, so opposite rudder hastens the recovery, but I don't think as important as unstalling the wings. One important phenomenon occurs here. The outer wing will un-stall first in a spin recovery. This results in a rapid short term increase in roll into the spin. To some it may appear the spin is getting worse, but it is in fact a sign of recovery.

I don't think this is speculating as such. More like pilots discussing a terrible accident to try make some sense of it. Of course if people comment on the pilots actions or make statements about the accident in a "This is what must have happened", then that would be speculating. Anyhow, some interesting conversations.

Well if it was on take off, they could still have stalled autorotated? occurring power on would aggravate the situation. Power on also masks stall symptoms (no more light buffet). My mistake, ATSB. Disagree with nose up pitch in Autorotation. Pitch up caused by full back stick being held. Relax back pressure in an autorotation or spin. nose will tend to pitch down. Yes, in a fully developed spin, moments of inertia in roll pitch and yaw, may have built up to an extent, so that the aircraft will not recover if "letting go" and can be difficult if not unable to recover, even with correct recovery action. An aircraft that won't recover should not be certified in my opinion. I should have mentioned there are moment of inertia differences in an incipient and fully developed spin. Autorotation always proceeds a fully developed spin. Most aircraft considered in a fully developed (stable rates of yaw, roll and pitch) spin after 3-4 turns. Don't know the Decathlon, but I find it interesting the spin flattens. Should only occur with power on. I have spun plenty in Harvards and the PC9M. Even a Harvard will recover almost instantly from an autorotation, if power off and centralize controls. Making sure if anything, stick is at or slightly fwd of neutral. Any back stick will hold it in the stall/inhibit recovery. No, didn't mean to suggest flight manual says "difficult to control", was referring to what a pilot said after experiencing this.

Haha so many recent jokes, memes...rather sad really, Boeing, such an iconic name. I still think the Boeing 727 was the greatest airliner. More sweepback than any other Boeing, could be pushed to Mach 0.9....And didn't need airport support equipment with those clever tail airstairs! Three close engines meant the only thing you noticed with an engine failure, is the VSI sagged by about 300Ft/Min. The only noise in the cockpit was the hiss of airflow. Could maneuver like a fighter. I never flew one, but travelled on them often as a schoolboy and have spoken to airline grey hairs! Sadly it was doomed, because despite a great aerodynamic design...engine configuration also meant you could not put a fuel sipping hi bypass fan engine on it.......😔

Mine was in a good old Aunty C172. Looked at the empty set next to me on downwind....gave it a slap and let out a quick whoop! The C172, always have a soft spot for her! Flew two types in the military....for which there were no dual trainers, but they said, like riding a bicycle...😬...😬

All fatal accidents are tragic, but this one I find particularly disturbing in that what could possibly have caught out two experienced pilots? Is there any reported structural/control failure? It does look like a stall/autorotation-spin scenario, judging by the wreck pattern. All the parts are there it seems, so nothing failed or broke off the airframe in flight. I flew a P92 on my last flight review. Nice aircraft, easy to fly and the wing likes to fly! Speed control on a flapless approach tricky and if you come in a bit hot, she will float forever. Some of my thoughts: Was it a sideslip? Cessnas flight manuals warn about side slip with full flap. The flap increases downwash on the tailplane. You counter this by pushing forward and the aircraft tends to pitch nose down with full flap. If you sideslip by booting in a lot of rudder, the yaw can cause the downwash to be displaced, to now miss the tailplane. The flight manual warns this can cause a sudden excessive nose down pitch, difficult to control. Not good if on short final. When you stall the tailplane is not stalled. As the aircraft falls away, in a stall, the tailplane will pitch the nose down, aiding recovery. This will also happen in an autorotation. In an autorotation, if you just let go, the aircraft will recover. Two important provisors here: 1: Keep ailerons neutral and 2: you MUST get the power off. Power on pitch up is not what you want here. But most GA aircraft will recover if you just let go. Most stable aircraft have to be forced to spin, by holding full pro spin control deflections. If you have a rearward CofG, uneven fuel loads in tip tanks, this can radically change aircraft recovery characteristics. Hence the two recent USA light twin asymmetric VMC stall spin incidents, both aircraft having a third person in the back (rearward CofG) and pushing the VMC speed exercise into the stall speed region. Juan Brown gives good advice here. Instructors should restrict student rudder input, to ensure VMC is reached above the stall speed! So if this was a stall spin, this aircraft to me, should have recovered very quickly by just unloading and a shot of opposite rudder? The PC9M would get out of most knots, by just unloading and thereby un-stalling the wings. It has no option but to fly again. So it is baffling to figure out what may have caught these two experienced guys out? Trim runaway, yes, but at low speed, on approach, most trim systems should be designed to be overpowered by the pilot? With trim runaways, priority is to slow down, to reduce the trim force. Nose up runaway, go into a steep turn, to help sort it. Nose down, more challenging, slowing down is key. But yes, trim runaways are a hazard. It is a pity the NTSB will not investigate! Very sad, two people lost and a nice aircraft. Frustrating-tragic.....

This is hardly “bolting anything on”. This is a certified propeller and most would agree is better in many ways, then original wooden props. Yes, I could just go and bolt the old prop back on, but that to me is why I hate mindless bureaucratic process. Again, I don’t mind paying for a MARAP but I think I have a case, that it should have been done when the prop was first fitted, It was also missed in a further two condition reports. I also do think that’s still a lot of money for a certified proven propeller. Anyhow, we will see what they decide.

Just life…well again as I said, I didn’t actually put the Bolley on, it was done years ago….and not picked up by RAA I guess, despite condition reports. So why must I pay the full amount? RAA according broadly to it’s charter, has a mission to promote sport aviation aviation safety and to support it’s members. Charging a member $600 to fit a certified and technically superior propeller to an aircraft, should not cost that much.

Well as I said, I have asked them to consider reducing the cost as this mod should have been picked up years before I bought the aircraft. It seems no one looks at condition reports? So we will we. I just think $600 is an outrageous sum.

I find this third person crash reporting strange….”the Cessna flipped over on it’s roof” dang, another one of these naughty Cessnas misbehaving again!

My understanding, after purchasing my Gazelle. You need a condition report done. This confirms the aircraft and maintenance logs are in a satisfactory condition, that the configuration matches the registration certificate. Part of the condition report (done by an L2 level maintainer) requires either the L2 flying the aircraft or witnessing it being flown, to confirm it operates normally.

Well, apart from the fact every year I’ve been a member of RAA, the membership has gone up $25 every year….(you gotta wonder where that will end up), I have thought recently, what does RAA really do for me, after annual membership fees and aircraft registration fees? Well yes, they provide a framework and organisation under which we can operate sport and recreational aircraft, which is great. I love this concept, it has without doubt, allowed me as a retired aviator, to afford to keep flying, for fun, the best kind of flying. However, looking at the RAA charter, recently I have experienced what to me, has not been quite in the spirit of encouraging and promoting recreational aviation. My aircraft came up for it’s annual inspection. I asked someone else to do it, instead of another L1 who I know. I wanted another pair of eyes on it. So, this led to me fitting new seat harnesses, and oh no, forehead slap…there were signs of corrosion on the Bolley prop hub. Now, this Bolly had been fitted around 2007. I have evidence of the prop blades being reconditioned in 2014. There was corrosion, when I tried to undo the hub bolts, in trying to undo the blade root clamp bolts, I just started to shear the bolt heads off…so, after discussion with my ownership partner, we decided to cut out losses, and buy a new Bolley BOS3 3 blade prop. Wanting to do the right thing, I e mailed RAA informing them I wanted to replace the prop with the exact same model of prop. Then..I looked up my aircraft registration certificate, noting it showed a Bolley prop was fitted, all good….! I also thought, when I bought the aircraft, I had a condition report done…which also recorded a Bolley prop was fitted. Lo and behold, RAA wrote back and said I needed to submit a modification request form, and a condition report form…..🙈 Well, ok, not thrilled…but, the mod request was a one page form and hey, this Gazelle is in good shape…so, all good, RAA confirmed Bolley props were certified, all was good. Submitted all forms as required….so far, RAA had played no part except having forms I could print off…It had all cost me a fair bit 💸💸 then horror of horrors… I then received an invoice from RAA, charging me $660 (tax included), for the issue of a modification approval. $660….!! Now I was smarting a little from yet another membership price increase, but to me, this was an outrageous amount of money, very nearly 1/3 of the new prop cost. Not only this, but to me, to me, an administrative error has been made by RAA, because this aircraft had been sold 3 times, (by implication, three condition reports sent in) fitted with a Bolley prop, me being the third buyer. Why must I be saddled with the full MARAP cost? I was expecting around $200…..! I have spoken about this to other aviators…needless to say, signs I noticed were, this is a disincentive to report aircraft modifications. I should have kept quiet! Not the desired outcome RAA wants I’m very sure. Bolley went through an expensive no doubt, certification process…would they be happy RAA was charging this, to fit a Bolley prop? Is this promoting safety and efficiency? I know one mate who would love to fit a Bolley to his Jab, but won’t, because of the “paperwork”. Sad! I just get a very “bureaucracy CASA” type feel over this. Like I said, without lifting a finger in this whole process, I pay them $600? I have no problem paying for a MARAP…but was expecting $200-250. Even $300 I would have reluctantly accepted. Now to be fair, I have written to RAA, stating my case. I am hoping they may consider reducing the MARAP cost. We will see. Is it me? Am I being overly reactionary? I will be interested to see any response to this.

Yes, you are correct, West Sale has had the grass runways closed for extensive periods. As has Yarram airfield, 05/23 grass runway closed, with "X" placed at both ends. Apparently still did not stop one visiting aircraft landing on it! But I think you missed my meaning...the Gippsland weather has been so bad, even the birds are walking! 🙃

Firstly, if done properly, like sanctioned by the NTSB, or RAAus, this would be a bit more than a "team of motorists". Secondly, I'm sure the police would be happy to have the help of people who know about aircraft. The whole point would be to appoint a team who would have "legal" authority, to photograph the wreck, cockpit switch positions, advise of any dangerous aircraft components (ballistic parachutes, carbon fibers) etc, to name but a very few considerations, police may not be familiar with. I would not be surprised if some highly qualified potential investigators are also RAAus members. How "legal" do you need it? Is the NTSB "legal"?

Gippsland weather the last 3 months or so, has been a case of: Drivers beware...unusual number of birds sighted, waddling across roadways recently....

It is not a satisfactory situation, the NTSB won't investigate RA fatal crashes, but possibly understandable. Be that as it may, I am sure that there are enough members of RAAus, who have experience/expertise in flight safety, accident investigation and technical/engineering experience/qualifications, to investigate accidents. After all, we all have a vital interest, in learning about what caused an accident. Clearly if you don't know the why's, you can't come up with the don'ts. I suggest a better approach might be, to build up a team of investigators amongst RAAus members, with maybe applicants to be vetted and approved (legitimized) by the NTSB, to go and conduct professional investigations. Would this approach not be better? Hopefully coupled with this, some form of subsidy or Federal support could possibly provide funding. Because yes, what I want to really avoid is the appointment of an accident investigation team, driving up membership costs. Membership costs and aircraft rego costs, seem to constantly happily increase, without this added incentive. But in summary, I think the ATSB should be approached with the possibility of official support, for the standing up of an RAAus investigation team, to address this unsat' situation of no investigation.

Yes, a good idea. The Rotax uses Mogas, so I bought two fairly large paper cartridge filters from Supercheap Aerospace....they are in nice clear casings and are large, so as not to effect fuel flow I think. Didn't install them, just held them up, had long penetrating looks at them in the hangar! However, after a bit of added research, paper element filters have issues. The paper retains water apparently, bad in aircraft generally and very bad if it gets really cold! Also, I'm not convinced the filter bodies are strong enough with sun and vibration. If a filter fuel pipe attachment broke off, it would be pretty bad, no fuel feed and as an exciting bonus, an over shoulder bad fuel leak in the cockpit!...They sell smaller sintered bronze element ones, but they are small...not sure it will ensure enough fuel flow, particularly if it had picked up some debris? The other issue is, with the Gazelle, I would have to lengthen the rubber section fuel hoses, coming out the fuel tank, to install the filters. The hoses provide the flexibility in the line, when folding the wings. The fuel filters would get in the way of this a bit. so, still having a long careful look at the filter situation. The Gazelles only had content markings on the side of the glass fiber fuel tanks. This was "lit up" by unpainted discs on top of the wings, letting light in to see fuel levels. I dare say a bit opaque when new and gets worse with age! I have carefully cleaned up the clear discs on the wing or tank upper surface, which has improved things. Unfortunately, no sight glass tubes installed in the side of the tanks, a far better system.

Sorry, no pics, but had a fun flight to, West Sale-Yarram-West Sale, this last Sunday. Smooth air except for a few kicks near one lonely small Cu cloud over the southern side of the hills. I flew via a waypoint that allows for some open fields FLWOP options, otherwise going DCT you are over dense forests. Fuel was sufficient, planned landing with almost twice fixed reserve...93 kts GS going there. Had a good chat, laugh and coffee with the Yarram lads, visiting pilots in an RV12, and watched a huge "Dromedar" (spelling?) crop duster land and taxi in. On startup, RH tank lower than left, but total still plenty. Coming home, hit a transparent brick wall...63 kts GS! Anyhow, you like flying don't you!? But then the old Gazelle decided to have some fun with me...and the tanks fed unevenly. Only 1 psi pressure difference will do it...I watched the right tank drain away, like my face colour...to an unreadable quantity level. Then came the question, is it a blocked vent, or fuel line, or her tricks again? over forest, I edged a bit close to those forced landing fields. I kept looking at the fuel pressure light.....trying to force it by sheer willpower to not start flickering! Bit of wing rocking to shake things up a bit, in case... Then relief....I could see the level had started to drop in the left tank, masses of fuel now! I love flying again! 🙂 finished off with a bit of a greaser at West Sale. Never a dull moment in the Gazelle!