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

aro

Members
  • Content Count

    373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

aro last won the day on December 18 2017

aro had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

328 Excellent

About aro

  • Rank
    Well-known member

More Information

  • Aircraft
    C172
  • Location
    Melbourne
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. aro

    Stalls

    The latest video from Flightchops has an interesting look at this subject:
  2. I suspect it really shows how much force can be generated by an impact at the wingtip - much greater than flight loads. One wingtip hits the ground, that wing folds upward and the other wing immediately falls downward. So I suspect the stiffness wasn't in the wing attachment, it was in the carry through which failed when the wing tip hit the ground. It's not really important whether the wings stay attached in a crash - you need the passenger compartment to stay intact. The lack of injuries to the occupants suggest that it did a good job in that respect.
  3. It's not about making you safer, it's about limiting the risk to the people around you. You can make your own decisions and choose your own risks, but limited speed and limited weight limits the kinetic energy available to cause damage. Back in the AUF days, exemptions were negotiated on the basis that the ultra-light weight of the aircraft meant that risk to others was insignificant. On that basis: You can fly without a CASA license You can do your own maintenance You don't need an aviation medical Aircraft don't need to be certified to the normal GA standards as long as the weight and stall speed were below specified limits. In the early AUF days the weight limit was 450kg. Then it was raised to 480kg. Then 544kg. Then 600kg. Now talk about 760kg, and campaigning for higher stall speed as well. When do you get to the point where the ultralight exemptions become unjustifiable? Already exemptions are being wound back, e.g. stricter licensing, stricter maintenance, stricter medical requirements. The CASA RPL is an additional danger for the RAA - at some point the differences with the RPL will become unjustifiable and requirements are likely to be merged. Don't be surprised if e.g. suddenly you need a RPL medical and LAME maintenance in return for higher weight limits. And I doubt that there will be sub-categories based on weight operating under RAA.
  4. You're over thinking it. Speed is how fast you are travelling, not what the instruments say (just ask the police!) A legal reference to speed must be CAS - or probably more accurately TAS at sea level in a standard atmosphere.
  5. There are something like 40 pages of statistical analysis in the report. This information is there. If you want to criticize the statistics, maybe it would be worth opening the report first?
  6. The most dangerous place is final approach when everyone funnels into 1 flight path in line with the runway. The closer you get to the runway the less variation there is in flight paths. The rest of the circuit is designed to allow you to locate other aircraft and plan separation, before you are on final approach. If you don't fly a standard circuit it makes it more dangerous, not less. CASA has decided that radios provide sufficient safety for straight in approaches and joining on base. That might be true, however straight in approaches are hard to slot into regular circuit traffic. In theory the aircraft on the straight in is supposed to give way, in practice the aircraft in the circuit are the only ones with practical ways to adjust the spacing.
  7. More information about how accurately they flew the book figures would be useful. E.g from an online POH the C182 performance calculation is based on an initial climb at 58 KIAS. If you let the speed build past that it will use a lot of extra runway. Allowing the speed to build to 66 KIAS would account for at least 30% extra ground roll compared to 58 KIAS. (66/58 squared, which assumes constant acceleration. Real life is probably worse) Likewise the landing figures specify heavy braking. They said they used moderate braking which could easily account for 30%. Another thing to be aware of with braking - braking early when you are still going fast counts the most. Heavy braking when you have already slowed down doesn't make as much difference - the runway is already behind you. Having said that, the book figures are very short and most of us would be challenged to achieve them. 433 feet is 132 metres. Add 50% and you are still below 200m, which would make you stop and think in a 182 I reckon...
  8. As a rule, the airworthiness standards do not apply to EAB aircraft. No-one is going to certify your EAB aircraft is airworthy or meets any airworthiness standard. That is 100% up to the builder. You can build what you like, and power it with whatever you like. Then it is between you and your AP what restrictions need to be applied in the interests of public safety. For the original question, you definitely need to talk to the SAAA. They have people who are on top of all the details.
  9. For a VH registered EAB aircraft, the details are in CAR 262AP: (4) A person must not operate an experimental aircraft over the built-up area of a city or town unless authorised to do so under subregulation (5). (5) CASA or an authorised person may authorise a particular aircraft to be operated over the built-up area of a city or town subject to the conditions and limitations CASA or the authorised person considers necessary for the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water. As far as I know there are no specific requirements for engines etc. It is all down to the judgement of the Authorised Person whether it is permitted and what conditions and limitations are applied. If you are planning building and want the ability to fly over built up areas, it would be worthwhile to talk to the SAAA and an AP who could issue the authorisation, and see what they would consider disqualifying. Even if you have a certified engine there can be other reasons the authorisation might be denied, e.g. the particular aircraft design, build issues etc. But the earlier you talk to the AP about what they would require, the better.
  10. I don't think that there is any intention is to do an evaluation of quality or to uncover fly-by-night or backyard operators. The intention seems to be solely to ensure that the kit meets the major portion (51%) rule. So it is intended to uncover operators who provide a kit that is too complete i.e. not enough work for the builder to meet the major portion rule for amateur built registration.
  11. I'm fairly sure there isn't a fuel pressure gauge in the injected C172 I have flown. Fuel flow definitely, but not fuel pressure.
  12. The OP is flying in Switzerland, most of the replies relate to Australian procedures. Without being familiar with Swiss procedures it is hard to provide advice. I'm not sure that there is much else that could have been done - it sounds like one of those close encounters that are very rare but hard to avoid. Turning may or may not help - a turning aircraft is easier to see, but banking also creates a much larger profile for a collision.
  13. Serves me right for trying to reply to 2 messages in one post rather than double posting. Only #1 was referring to your message. The rest was in reply to Turboplanner. My argument is with the assertion from Turboplanner that: I doubt that that information is in BAK because it is often not true. (You would know better than I what is in the BAK, I am happy to be corrected.) The full flap balloon over an obstacle is often (wrongly I think) taught as a way to get extra obstacle clearance over the POH/AFM technique. Either way I don't think using full flaps for obstacle clearance is good information to give to a student studying for BAK.
  14. It was me who said that. I wasn't suggesting that you crashed, just that it wasn't a technique that should be taught in BAK. 70 feet is a big balloon. The technique was demonstrated to me when I did my PPL, from memory the typical balloon was 10-20 feet. It was supposedly a way to clear fences, not trees. You can't create energy from nowhere. The energy for a balloon comes from airspeed. Flaps may be useful if your airspeed is low enough that trading it for altitude puts you at risk of stalling. However in that case you only have energy available equivalent to the difference between stall speed with and without flaps, which isn't 70 feet worth in our aircraft. If you started at 100 knots and had 70 feet worth of balloon energy, the elevator should have been sufficient. If the flaps cause extra drag, you will end up with more energy at the top without them. However flaps might change the trim enough that the aircraft pitches up with less elevator input, giving the impression that the flaps produced the climb. Consider the situation in this thread: For maximum performance (recommended for high density altitude), he needed flaps 0 and 59 knots. Instead they had flaps 10 (flaps 10 recommended climb is 56 knots) and 65-70 knots and at the high density altitude they weren't climbing. Do you think dropping full flaps would have helped them over an obstacle? It might have given them 10 feet if they timed it right, but then they would have been sinking rapidly. As I said in that thread, know the configuration that gives best performance and the speed you have to fly to achieve it. You can put that in the BAK.
×
×
  • Create New...