Agamemnon

2 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

I believe ozrunways is working on alerted traffic.

AvPlan already has this function, but unless you're running ADSB-in then the data you're getting will be delayed and limited by mobile reception.

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

There's the source of the confusion.

 

Do you agree that the speeds quoted in the POH are "air speeds" - the speed of the air over the wing to produce lift.

 

Does the airspeed indicator tell you anything more than the speed of the air relative to the wing (pitot tube, actually)? Remember that on a windy day, the ASI will give an indication when the aircraft is still tied down.

 

For navigation, we know that you have to power up when flying into wind, but back off with a tail wind to attain a desired ground speed, which is covering ground distance over time.

 

If the windmill has stopped, then to get to a desired airspeed (best glide speed) which will keep you above ground for the longest time, you have to use the relative movement between the wing and the air. With a tailwind you have to convert the potential energy due to altitude to airspeed by descending. On the contrary, flying into wind  allows you to lessen the amount of the same potential energy you have to trade off to produce lift, so you stay up longer.

 

Are you able to show mathematically that an aircraft of 500 kg at 2000' agl  with a wind of 10 kts will hit the deck at the same time headwind or tailwind? Just for interest's sake.

 

According to the FAA Gliding clean, with the engine at idle, you may find the IAS for maximum endurance, precisely where the variometer shows the minimum descent speed. Then multiply that IAS by 1.32 That's the best glide speed. Going back the other way, if you multiply the best glide speed by 0.75, that's the maximum endurance speed. 

I'm genuinely concerned that I have to share the sky with people who think this is correct...

Your IAS and rate of descent will be the same facing into or away from the wind. What will change will be your ground speed and angle of descent relative to a fixed point on the ground.

23 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

There is no real risk except where there is a concentrating factor, like an airfield or an airspace boundary, or these days, by accurately flying between well-used places with an electronic nav system. I once calculated that the risk involved in 30 aircraft flying blindly over Australia's wheatlands will have a near miss or collision once every 20,000 years. Of course, if you look out the window then you will reduce this risk, but by how much was beyond my ability to calculate...

Yes but as you say above aircraft do not fly randomly in most instances. Altitudes and tracks congregate around airspace boundaries, corridors, airfields etc. So all of a sudden once every 20,000 years becomes something much riskier.

This is quoted directly from AvPlan's website.

"Cellular based traffic solutions such as AvPlan Live help to bridge the gap where ADSB-in is not available. These systems rely on an EFB sending position reports to a ground system periodically and that ground system sending back known traffic. The update rate for these system is generally very good, but rely on having cellular coverage in the aircraft and users using the same EFB product. For GA VFR and RA aircraft, these tend to fly at lower levels where cellular coverage is usually better, alleviating some of the issues with cellular coverage.

Cellular systems currently only depict aircraft using the same EFB product. Since the introduction of AvPlan Live in 2015 we have been willing to share traffic data on a reciprocal basis with the other main EFB vendor in Australia, but they do not wish to enter into such an agreement. If this policy were to change, data could start to be exchanged in a matter of days. It is not difficult or expensive to do.

Our cellular based traffic system, AvPlan Live, also includes feeds from ground based ADSB and FLARM receivers. Traffic received by these  ground units is also displayed on AvPlan EFB. If you also have an ADSB-in receiver, the traffic via the attached device will replace that received from the ground."

On 23/03/2022 at 3:22 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

On flying in to Caloundra, the left-hand circuit for your base leg was over a new subdivision, so in the spirit of the reg, I did a RH circuit over swamp and trees.

This caused a "please explain", caused by a formal complaint from  junior instructor who was doing crosswind stuff on the cross-strip! He saw me and I saw him, quite some distance clear, but I was doing a "non-standard" circuit.

Nothing more came from the event.

So you just chose to do a right hand circuit not because it was published, but because you just felt like it made more sense??? Sounds horribly dangerous and not at all "in the spirit of the regs"

On 21/01/2022 at 11:26 AM, skippydiesel said:

The earning of Pilots license/certificate should never be based on hours, always on proficiency.

Some, like myself, took well over 20 hrs to achieve our PPL, others do it in less than half the time (& cost).

Of course the money matters, as it should. Most of us want to feel we have received good value for are hard earned dollars and start to feel there may be some sort of a rort going on, when it is suggested that minimum hrs become the main critter for achieving an endorsement.

The ultimate requirement to receive the RPC & endorsements is of course proficiency, and the minimum hours are a secondary requirement. No matter how many hours you do you will not be given your ticket until you can demonstrate the required criteria. So I'm not sure what your point is here?

Also I can't understand how you think this is an 'elitist statement'? Flying costs considerable money, that's a fact. It's the hard truth but if you can't afford to fly semi-regularly than you won't be able to make the most of having a licence. Safety depends on retaining adequate flying skills. Of course you can take a break, but you will need to pay for an instructor to build proficiency again.

22 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Wow!! "cross country is around another $4k Passenger endorsement maybe another $600-$1k" So that  makes what I would consider to be a useful certificate $12-13K. The basic $8K didn't seem so unreasonable but I cant see how the additional endorsement can cost an additional $5K - how can this be justified??

A cross-country endorsement requires a minimum of 10 hours dual + 2 hours solo + a flight test. So the cost is roughly based on that plus other purchases including maps, flight computer etc.

Passenger endorsement requires 10 hours PIC time + a flight test. If you do any solo flying once you've received your RPC then these hours count towards this total, along with any PIC hours you already obtained getting your RPC/Cross country endorsement.

If you can't afford $12-13k to do the training then there's no point getting a license anyway, how are you going to afford to fly afterwards? Ongoing costs can be significant even just to stay current.

On 08/01/2022 at 12:37 AM, BrendAn said:

Was that including cross country and passenger endorsements.

Nope, cross country is around another $4k. Passenger endorsement maybe another $600-$1k depending on whether you do it before or after cross-country. These costs include all flight hours and required purchases except for an iPad and EFB subscription (which is another $1k plus potentially).

Around $270 per hour for Tecnams in Southern Victoria. Total cost (including everything) for my RPC was around $8k.