Carbon Canary

There’s currently 6 1/2 aircraft for sale on Farcebook - mostly GA.

In 2014 there were 116 for sale.  
Any theories, anyone ?

I can't understand why those ingrained things failed him but they did and I am sure it could happen to any of us. I guess we only find out how we react when it happens to us for real.

UPRT explains clearly why this can happen to anyone, regardless of hours.

Simply remarkable, particularly when one is described as an infant.

I’m a big fan of the ‘Alone’ series on SBS where many adults struggle in the wilderness after just a few days - what a testament to these kids resilience and resourcefulness.

Still interested in any feedback on this unit good or bad as seen in SportPilot.

https://www.flightstore.com.au/design4pilots-pilot-co-charger

The quality of lubricants has changed as well.

BRS is another option to have when you have run out of options.

Similarly,  a 4 point harness and/or an airbag in the seatbelt  would also be good options to have when you have run out of options.

Maybe I should even throw in UPRT as an option to have when you have run out of options.

Of course we all know of the Takata faulty airbag thing killing quite a few people, but we are not now ripping airbags out of all cars because they are dangerous.

I still see passengers in cars with their feet up on the dash basically resting on the airbag, so there is an ongoing education element required as well

Well, I was actually thinking more broadly.

4 point harnesses

ADS-B

maybe even seatbelt airbags aka Cirrus

BRS

None of which would be mandated, and to pick up on Nev’s point, a fact sheet providing advice both positive and negative, or at least guidance on where further info may be found to assist aircraft owners considering this stuff.

I have never considered airliners and RA-Aus together - that’s an interesting concept !!

Skip,

i chose not to participate in that part of the debate other than posing the original question on BRS. With 20:20 hindsight, I should have re-phrased the question.

Should RAAus as an association (not an individual) actively promote enhanced safety features for aircraft, but not mandate them ?

Maybe that is an easier question to answer.

Skip, no argument from me at all about quality of instruction. My comment was that over the past 50 odd years, hours experience behind the wheel before being awarded a drivers licence has changed from negligible to significant.  I think today you can get ‘bonus’ experience hours if you use a professional driving instructor, up to a limit, but the 120 hours total remains.

By the way, mum and dad delivering 120 hours driving instruction can take a year or more. There is only so many trips to the shops you can do each week, and that is usually only about 20mins anyhow, unless you live in the bush. Spread over a year, this provides opportunities for night driving, driving on wet roads, etc. At least, even if the instruction was crap, the learner is getting road experience, good or bad.

And of course, each State is different.

Learner drivers require 120 hours of driving experience before they qualify for a test. I think the experience must also include night driving. Sure mum and dad may be atrocious drivers doing the teaching, and the hours logged can be fudged, but still it’s quite a lot of hours.  On paper, you can successfully get a RPC or an RPL with probably two thirds less hands on experience.

My very, very vague recollections of getting my car and truck licence was driving around the block with the country cop, no documented prior experience necessary.

I got my motorbike licence on a borrowed bike that had a broken clutch and no indicators. I think the country cop said something like ‘ if you can make it around the block, I know you can ride’!……but that was a long time ago !

At least the car and motorcycle learner experience hour requirements are now substantial (no mention of quality of training), more so than a PPL, and there is both an online test and a driving test......which anecdotally may have a higher initial failure rate than expected. 

That has dramatically changed since I did my car, HR and motorcycle tests in a country town eons ago.

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

You can say that Piper and Cessna added a fairly big fudge factor in establishing the CofG envelope. Maybe they put Human Factors above aeronautical demands in their design specification.

 

It's probably true that you would bend an aircraft on the ramp by overloading before you felt the effects out on the runway, IF the aircraft was a certified type, or a commonly built experimental. However, it's the one-off homebuilt that could give a nasty bite it loading was not correct.

What sort of crazy numbers did you use, and where did you place the weights?

 

Here's a thought: See how the manufacturer has given the Moments at several station locations for various loading options.  Looking at the cargo carrying options, the Moment aft of the crew seats is given at a single station. In physics calculations,  of which W&B's are a type,  it is assumed that the weight of an object acts through its centre of mass. That's OK for a regularly-shaped object, but what if you were carrying something highly irregular in shape with very scattered localised weights?  I think that the answer to that question lies in having faith in the designer's fudge factors. As long as you remain within the weight limitations for a load area, and the total W&B values put you in the envelope, she's sweet to go!

 

Here's the crazy numbers - a seriously malnourished pilot that carries an extremely large lunch box right at the very back of the aircraft.....and lots of fuel for a very long flight.

Type C172   Registration             Start   First Row 40 kgs Second Row 40 kgs Fuel 200 litres Baggage 54.4 kgs Rear baggage 22.7 kgs Fuel consumption 38 Litres/hr Endurance less taxi 309 minutes Flight time 400 minutes Margin excluding reserve -136 minutes       Balance Actual   Takeoff 108.3 (lbs/in) Landing 88.9 (lbs/in)       Weight Actual Max Ramp 2345 2558 Takeoff 2341 2550 Landing 1939 2550

1 hour ago, aro said:

It is fairly common. C210 obviously based on this example. It's well known for Bonanzas. Probably most aircraft where the CG can approach the limits.

 

I'm curious, I will have to work a sample for a C172 and PA28 and see whether you can load it so it goes out of balance as you use fuel.

I plugged in some crazy numbers and for a C172 I don’t think you can push it out of balance based solely on fuel burn, if it started in balance. The change in arm with falling fuel load simply slides down the side of the envelope without crossing the boundary. A PA28 may be different but I don’t have a POH with me.

On 20/9/2021 at 6:21 PM, Old Koreelah said:

That’s disappointing, Jackc. Our association/company should pull out all stops to help members trying to improve safety.

Looks like you have 19 on the side of your plane; that should make it easier to modify. I totally agree with the posts supporting a BRS. I wouldn’t like to bale out of our little planes at low altitude -where most of our emergencies happen.

 

There is more than one manufacturer of whole-plane parachutes. My BRS came with strict instructions on how to mount it. They insist the aeroplane arrives at the ground at a pronounced nose-down attitude, so the undercarriage absorbs most of the impact.

Just reviving an old thread here for a sec……

I too had a casual conversation recently with our association/company and was also told to think very hard and long before installing a BRS. The argument was based on too expensive, too heavy, too much maintenance……and essentially, don’t go there.

Yes, they are expensive and heavy etc, but if the aircraft owner perceives a safety benefit and is prepared to install one anyway, should our association actively support the decision,  not undermine it ?

I know from previous discussion on here, that BRS seems to be quite a polarising topic, and that’s fine - everyone is entitled to their opinion. I was simply surprised that a senior member of our association was so outwardly negative toward a safety feature that is mandatory in a number of countries.

Everyone should be aware of the pro and cons of BRS and there are many of both. My question is, our association is supposedly pushing safety, should they be supporting the installation of this safety feature rather than discouraging……or simply remain silent on it ?

I was part of a 6 ship safari to White Cliffs a few years ago, with one of the aircraft being a C172B.  The safari was in October and temps were around the high 30's for most of the trip.

We planned a lunch stopover in Louth on our way from Bourke to White Cliffs. The bitumen strip at Louth is long enough, but it was recognised the climb performance of the fully loaded C172B on a hot day would be a critical risk in getting back out.  The command decision was taken by the PIC to forget the stopover, overfly Louth and continue on to White Cliffs.

Well, I was meant to fly a C172 with 4 adults yesterday, but the XW at the planned destination exceeded my personal mins so the flight was cancelled. The flight would have been at MTOW with fuel load being restricted. I have an excel spreadsheet that plots the initial and final arms based on the A/C loading and positions and a printout goes with the flight plan in case of ramp check. Yep, I still use paper charts too !!

Fortunately with a C172, if you stay below max weight and load from the front, you would have to try pretty hard to get outside of the envelope.

Anyhow, to answer the question, I sincerely hope W&B is both taught AND routinely practiced in both GA and RA.  I recall seeing a photo on this site from a few years ago of an aircraft loaded to the gunnels with camping gear and the owner apparently skiting  that everything is fine if the aircraft can actually still takeoff.  I don’t know if that owner is still with us.

As with fuel calcs and in flight monitoring, since CASA introduced the new Mayday fuel regs, fuel management and inflight logging is even more important than it ever was……..again a ramp check would reveal all.  The risk in flying C172s is that you never need to change tanks and fuel management can get sloppy. I wonder if that is how some people forget to change tanks in a Piper and then gravity comes into play.

18 hours ago, old man emu said:

Why wait?  Come up anytime. The aerodrome is all weather. The pub opens for lunch at midday, and has rooms to let.

Fair point ! But by this time next year I will be focussed on spending rather than earning.

OME, the wind in the Sydney basin on Sunday would blow a dog off a chain, so I think you were mighty fortunate to get the job done yesterday. Well done, and I’m determined to be there next year !

10 hours ago, old man emu said:

To be really honest, is there any reason to spend time trying to get an answer to this question? For an aeronautical engineer the question to be answered is how to obtain maximum lift and minimum drag. One can start with a mathematical model, but that only directs you to a design to test. Therefore,  the design of a wing is an empirical process. One doesn't need to know how the desired lift is created, just that the design produces the desired result.

 

Next we have the poor wingnut trying to utilise the aeronautical engineer's design to the best effect. The wingnut doesn't need to know the How of the situation, merely the how  to use the tool the aeronautical engineer has provided. 

 

That said, it creates a great argument for dispensing with all the guff 'n' stuff we are fed about How Lift is produced, and replacing it with study of how to use the tool. We practice how to use the other tools that have been provided for efficient flight, so why not practice using the wing? I wonder how many people who spend ages arguing the two common theories of Lift generation ever spend time washing and polishing their aircraft's wings to reduce the drag associated with unevenness of the wing's surface? Reduce drag, improve the L/D ratio.

Yep ! Just ask a roofer, who’s tried to lay corrugated iron on a windy day. They’ll readily give you a theory of lift, complete with adjectives as coefficients.

That is fantastic news OME ! Look forward to getting a full report.

If you had a safe and fun day, that is great outcome.

4 hours ago, Garfly said:

Unfortunately, I've never had cause to think that one through.

Do you have both an AP and BRS, CC? 

What are your current strategies?

 

 

I will have. Still another 6 month wait for my new ship to arrive.

I haven’t thought it through, but would probably advise to kill the engine and pull the chute, unless the pax had more than a little familiarity with the aircraft.

The intention is my most common pax will be my wife, and she will be briefed and trained on possible scenarios, but ultimately the safest is to simply pull the chute.

If you had autopilot as well as BRS, would you add anything to the pre-brief, or keep it the same (KISS) ?

An open question……

What would your passenger do if you as pilot had a ‘medical episode’ and became incapacitated……and do you include anything about that possibility in your pre-takeoff brief?

I wonder if the pumps listed for diesel/kerosene meet the intrinsically safe requirements versus those listed for petrol ? 

The 12V pumps advertised for petrol seem to be almost twice the price for an equivalent 12V pump listed for diesel. 

Diesel is regarded as combustible rather than flammable.  (Flash point above ~60C.)

Also, is this one powered through an Anderson plug ? The photo looks very much like alligator clips.