kaz3g

...i still didnt know his callsign because of the speed he gave it and it sounded like"Qlink mmummble mmummble..."

The comment about the speed at which some people speak on the radio brought to mind a story I heard while at William Creek a couple of years ago. Told to me by a well-weathered former squatter now park ranger it went like this...

An old pastoralist from way outback had been flying for many years but spent most of his time on the station mustering, checking bores and wells and keeping an eye on his stock to discourage the poddy-dodgers. He went to "town", his local regional centre only occasionally and hadn't been to the big smoke for decades. He decided it was time to go to Brisbane.

As he was approaching the control zone, he gave an inbound call in a slow, laconic, nasal drawl:

"Archerfield Tower , Bonanza X Y Z position / height / intentions request airways clearance"..

The smart young fella in the tower responded

"Qlink mmummble mmummble". At the speed of light he gave the clearance, reporting points, altitudes and joining position in the circuit.

The old fella tried again with the same result. He keyed the mike...

"Archerfield Tower , Bonanza X Y Z can you hear how slow I speak , sonny?"

The tower responded "Affirm".

The old fella keyed his mike again and said:

"Well . That's how slow I think , TOO !"

He reportedly had a GREAT time in Brisbane and had no problems getting his clearance to depart.

kaz

Scary bastard things.. Missed one by a few feet outside Emerald Qld a couple of years ago...

They can be real scary but I think he may have had more to do with the miss than did you.

I shared a thermal with one in an L13 many years ago and he kept on turning his head to look at me in a very unfriendly manner. All of a sudden he cut across the circle and executed a near miss on the canopy above my head before folding his wings and plummeting towards the ground. Moral---- beware cross birds.

Years later, I was doing fire watch duty in a tower at Kangaroo Ground (Vic) as a very healthy thunderstorm approached. Three wedgies were enjoying the frontal lift when they got caught in the serious updraft. Two folded and came down but the third disappeared into the blackness of a very angry CB and nothing more was seen of him.... plucked and frozen poultry, methinks. Moral ---- stay away from thunderstorms!

Cheers

kaz

kaz

Report for story here. Pair

It would be reassuring to know that the investigating police actually had a background assisting them to understand the circumstances of the event rather than just checking for AoD offences and the like.

kaz

"...if fire persists or is not limited to intake or exhaust then switches etc off and exit (an excellent idea as wood and fabric burns very rapidly)"

Absolutely! In the Auster I sit on one tank and have the other over my knees.

kaz

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - DP 1006AS[/url] (reposted the link from the OP for your convenience)John

CASA "prefers" an online response but its form almost seems to leave GA and recreational flyers out of the loop. The questions and possible answers favour those employed to drive heavy stuff around the skies at our expense.

Is there likely to also be an impact on owners and pilots at the recreational end of GA or within RAAus of CASA's determination to barometric navigation for vertical guidance at about 200 aerodromes instead of using WAAS?

Seems like a really good time to bolster AOPA's membership and hence the strength of its voice in Canberra!

kaz

...... and I'm 68.

kaz

Glide ratio about 50:1 to take full advantage of the ridge effect over the hills, dive brakes to spoil the aerodynamics for landing and lots of speed close to the ground to swap for height if he needed it. Good skills but not such good airmanship to unnecessarily fly so close to fixed objects and terra firma.

kaz

"On the SportStar? Have you seen the attitude it takes with full flaps? I think I'll raise the nose to get to best glide speed with no flaps, thank you very much"

I was checked a few years ago in a Sportstar at Parafield but I honestly don't remember any huge attitude change with flaps such as you get in a C172 with 40 degrees.

I guess it might depend on the inertia of your particular aircraft, the L/D ratio, the difference in stall or best glide speeds between flapless and full flap and especially whether there is still some noise going on outfront?

On a light note, I had a look at an old logbook and discovered I have done around 750 deadstick - no noise at all - landings.... in gliders. Only one in power and not a voluntary exercise.

GA currently tends to teach powered approaches and has done for many years now. I did some practice FL in a C172 with an instructor friend a while back and she asked me to abandon my space-shuttle manouvres because she didn't like staring at the ground instead of the horizon. She did admit, however, I would be in a better situation than most if things went s..tful in the circuit.

kaz

Yes, I am an AOPA member, too and have been on and off for 30 years. Sue has given a pretty good outline of the organisation and its work and I think anyone with a current involvement in flying, whether pilot or pilot/owner, would be well served by joining it.

Being independant of government approvals and any particular lobby group, it can give a clear and unhindered voice when it articulates policy positions on such issues as ADS-B, and blanket directives without industry consultation.

In respect to ADS-B proposals, the October AOPA Pilot Extra contains a discussion on the FAA approach and warns that dual systems are being implemented by 2010 in the USA. These will rely on both Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) and 1090 Mhz Extended Squitter (1090ES) technology. UAT is regarded as the one for GA below 18,000' because it can transmit weather reports while the other is for the heavy metal stuff. According to the article, new UAT products are appearing but little is happening with the 1090ES equipment and it is the latter that looks likely to be the basis for ADS-B in Australia, primarily because Airservices Australia's existing equipment can utilise it. This leads to two issues straight up: buying an aircraft from the US that is sold "ADS-B equipped" may be a costly exercise if the avionics don't work here; and prices for stuff that will do the job for us are likely to be very high because of the limited market compared to GA in America. I guess price isn't a huge consideraiton if you are updating a 767?

Another issue, as far as I can follow the arguments, is that we will be required to equip with ADS-B IN and OUT even though ground stations will only be able to follow OUT and Traffic Information Services for no IFR will probably not be available. But this is highly technical stuff and I am grateful that the experts in AOPA can advise on the more basic pros and cons.

kaz

...raising the flaps on certain aircraft will extend the glide if you are going to be short of the strip.

Yes... But lower the nose and restablish best glide speed for the new configuration.

kaz

AVWEB Flash November 1

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1760-full.html#203536

MORE ON "SIGNIFICANT RISKS" IMPLEMENTING ADS-B

"Risks" identified by a DOT's Office of Inspector General (IG) report earlier this month "will impact the cost, schedule, and expected benefits of ADS-B" and may feed off of each other until addressed by the FAA. The Inspector General said the greatest risks to successful implementation "are airspace users' reluctance to purchase and install new avionics" and "FAA's ability to define requirements" for the advanced capabilities of that equipment. The FAA has estimated overall costs on the user end could range from $2.5 billion to $6.2 billion overall. And the FAA currently plans to mandate only ADS-B Out by 2020. However, ADS-B Out "essentially replicates existing domestic radar coverage," meaning adopters would bear a cost but see few new benefits. The main benefits of ADS-B rely on in-cockpit ADS-B In. But the IG estimates FAA requirements and equipment costs for that feature "may not be mature for at least two years." According to the IG, so long as that mix of uncertainties remain, "progress with ADS-B will be limited" and delays, cost increases and performance shortfalls "will continue." There are other complications and the FAA has responded. More...

Apparently the version we are likely to get will be different to that used in the USA... what a surprise. We don't seem to have learned from other examples of going it alone, including airpace. The cynic in me says that the new airspace arrangements were planned to help justify the introduction of ADS-B here and an increase in the bureaucratic empire here. The goverment only sees votes in the RPT passenger traffic sector and bends over every time the "safety" stick is wielded without asking "how?" or "why?"

kaz

Hi Bill

Maybe a C150G with a landing light mod? I've got the same light in the left wing of my Auster. The 152 has twin lights in the nacelle.

Corrosion is a bastard and a sneaky one at that because it is more often hidden than visible. It makes you think about what might happen in some of those high-rate steep turns, eh?

kaz

Relfy said: Over the past two years there have been 4 serious crashes out here in SW QLD involving aircraft flying low and slow.

Mustering is an extremely demanding pastime. Constant awareness of airspeed, angle of attack, angle of bank, flap settings and a whole heap of other things including what's on the ground are survival necessities.

I flew as observor for my mustering pilot for a couple of seasons and it was pretty breath-taking stuff. We used both a C150 and a C172 (preferred). The cattle were extremely wild and it sometimes took a lot of work to get them out of river beds or from beneath the trees and starting to run. Some of the older bullocks would go cranky, lie down and refuse to move. while the younger ones wanted to eat you alive.

As I said in a previous post, a very close friend died doing it and left a wife and four young sons behind. It was a hot day; too hot to be doing what he attempted. He was too low while too slow. And he would perhaps have made it if it wasn't for the big ghost gum. The prop is still imbedded in the fork about 30' feet up.

He did it while focusing on the possible loss of some unbranded stock across the adjacent boundary fence instead of on the job at hand. He did it despite being warned of the consequences of just such a set of conditions by another pastoralist who had also mustered and been frightened in the same C150A. It stalled in a steep left bank and flicked over the right wing. And it took about 4 seconds to kill him

Two of his boys were on motorbikes on the ground and saw it happen in 1982.

kaz

Thank you John for your post re CASA's resonse to the White Paper.

The first thing that came to mind as I worked my way down their highly structures questionnaire was where does the majority of GA, especially training and private operations, fit in at all? Other??? I mean, OTHER? If you aren't passenger or freight you don't rate a mention.

What it means if it comes to pass is the exclusion of a great many of us from much of the airspace associated with airports around regional Australia. Either that or an investment of 25% or more of the then depleted values of our aircraft to purchase and install the avionics for the Australian version of the ADS-B system they obviously intend to install irrespective of the "consultation".

kaz

On other threads in this forum there is quite a bit of concern about low slow flying and stalling in the turn to final.

Just a thought... stalls at low altitude aren't good anywhere in the circuit but the one that seems to be the real killer happens during the turn downwind, not onto final.

kaz

Results of some research done on this by the US Naval Academy in a simulator representing a typical GA trainer:Of course the pilots got better the more practice they had but even on their seventh flight when all were told to turn back not everyone survived. /QUOTE]

Hi DJP

 

I do believe 500' is too low to turn back in anything unless it has a very high glide ratio, low stall and dive brakes (like a Nimbus without water). But at some point in our climb we will have sufficient height to turn downwind and even complete the circuit and I think that's something we all need to consider.

 

I am often at <700+ AGL passing over the upwind boundary of my home field and I'd not be keen on tackling a straight ahead on 17 towards the HT power lines and the hill behind them from that height. There isn't much going for you to the south-east or south-west either, now most of the paddocks have been cut up into horse yards or planted to vines. 35 of course gives many more options more or less straight ahead.

 

So my plan is modified to the extent that if I'm on 17 I think carefully about the effect wind conditions will have in the event I have an engine out above my 700' minimum and decide whether plan B, a turn against circuit direction and FL downwind on the farm next door is the better choice.

 

I have a 15:1 glide ratio and a FE stall of 28 knots. So in theory I can travel horizontally about 2 miles before arriving on the ground at walk-away-from-it speed. Not far, is it? And only half that in a flying brick (C172).

 

I practice steep turns at a much safer height but appreciate there is a stark difference between that and doing it in an emergency close to the ground.

 

It's 25 years since I did any gliding but I've always remembered two rules:

 

1. Speed close to the ground is your friend until you hit it; and
    
    
   
2. Do anything (eg ground loop) rather than run into a wire fence if your aircraft nose is at a lesser height than the top strand.
    
    
   

 

 

 

Final comments -- I lost a dear friend to a stall-spin in a C150A while mustering. He was too low, too slow and it was too hot. Another friend lost his former military and airline pilot dad to a wire fence when his Blanik L13 overran the end of the strip and the top strand penetrated the canopy.

 

regards

 

kaz

We fly recreational aircraft, we are no longer climbing by the time we turn downwind!

But what happens if the fan stops at 700' AMSL on departure and there is nothing good to plonk down on save the ground you just left behind?

Do you crash straight ahead and deliberately break your aeroplane or turn back?

What if it happens at 600'... 500'...?

kaz

Without commenting on this very sad event, it has to be said that low level turns downwind at climb speed, have brought a lot of aviators undone.

Jim Davis had a really interesting article in the July-August 2010 edition of Australian Flying titled "Deadly dragons of the downwind turn". He said that while a downwind turn is not dangerous aerodynamically, it creates a dangerous situation for a number of reasons which he explores in the article, but 2 of these gave me particular food for thought:

1. As you turn downwind, the angle of climb gets less because the now tailwind has the aircraft travelling a greater distance across ground for the same gain in altitude per unit time; and

2. Windshear may exacerbate the initial loss of airspeed that occurs due to inertia. It may also mean the uppermost wing is subject to a greater wind velocity than the lower one leading to an increase in angle of bank and hence increased stall speed.

His advice is that "there is no reason to do a (low, climbing) downwind turn in peacetime... but, if you do, don't do it for the wrong reasons, don't overbank, and remember that a gance at the ball and the ASI may save your life"

kaz

And I do understand that a shell can be stabilised in a rifled barrel where the twist gives a gyroscopic effect to the projectile and increases its accuracy (also tends to prevent tumbling)

kaz

Inertia for our purposes is simply defined as the tendency of an object in motion to resist acceleration. Acceleration can be positive or negative.

When you chop the throttle in a drifter or a lightwing or a powered parachute, it tends to deaccelerate very quickly due to its low inertia which is unable to resist the friction forces that make up drag. That's why you are taught to lower the nose quickly if the noise stops.

When you pull the throttles on a 767 in your dreams, it will keep on going along much as before for quite some time and only slow down gradually due to its high inertia unless you do something else. The 767 pilot chucks out spoilers to increase drag and allow the aircraft to slow down on initial approach. Then uses flaps to increase both lift (lower stall speed) and drag (continues slowing down the aircraft) at the lower speed in the circuit. A few jet aircraft can also deploy reverse thust to slow them in flight but this is not common.

If you improve the aerodynamics for a given mass density, you improve the inertia. Consider a cannon ball weighing 10 kilos and a cannon shell weighing the same and both made from the same lump of iron. If both are propelled by the same charge of propellant, the shell will travel further because its better aerodynamics reduce the drag friction as it passes through the atmosphere compared to the ball. The consequence is we no longer go to war with guns firing cannon balls.

kaz

I suggest that you ask Dick Gower at RVAC Coldstream about that chart etc. Perhaps if we make enough noise in this thread Dick will join in the discussion.

If you decide to fly in remember to phone RVAC ph 9739 1406 first for a briefing on local procedures.

kaz

Dear Rob

Lawyers are like the rest of society... there are the good, the bad and the ugly. I hope I'll be judged in the first tranch and I'm sorry you had such bad experiences.

In my view, the management of aviation policies in this country has gone sadly and badly astray and successive governments are squarely to blame. Yes, CASA has underwhelmed us with its many volumes of largely indecipherable legislation. Yes, it has acted more as a vigororous and relentless enforcer than an educator and leader in the ways of safe aviating. And yes, it continues to follow the same path under the new leadership -- some might say it has returned to its former path since Byron's departure.

Certainly, the latest report from AOPA does little to instill confidence that Government is in charge and CASA is pursuing a more consultative approach to its duties. According to AOPA Vice President Andrew Anderson, CASA spent the best part of the last year preparing a report for government on potential (user pays) new services and radar coverage. Although both Government and CASA had access to the entire industry's expertise in one place - ASTRA - they both chose to ignore it. This while ink on the much heralded White Paper was still wet.

Remember how "The Government welcomes the establishment earlier this year of an independent industry chair and new charter for ASTRA and encourages senior industry representation in the performance of its activities. Industry through ASTRA is now well placed to work cooperatively with aviation agencies to identify ways to improve systems or take advantage of new technologies and in coordinating planning for their implementation."

Now we have to wait and see just how badly they muck up the introduction of whatever version of ADS-B they hit on and hope that the world's avionics manufacturers are prepared to supply equipment at something less than the Airbus price.

Peace

kaz

Ouch!!! That hurt...

Lawyers, the first to be up against the wall and shot come the revolution.. same goes for the lack of adventure thread..

I work for a community legal centre, I do around 50 hours per week involving very damaged clients in a highly stressful court environment. And I do it for less than 60 grand per year rather than collect the old age pension I qualified for 4 years ago.

It's not the collective lawyers' fault that things are crook in aviation. The responsibility starts with the voters and finishes with the government they elect. The government controls (or ought to control) the bureaucracy and appoints the people who occupy positions of power within it.

If the appointed people can't fix the problem then an effective government would replace them. The last Government had 10 years to do this and failed (who sold off the arports and everything else?) and the present one needs a bloody good hurry-up if it is to do any better.

Keep changing them until they get it right and leave the bloody lawyers alone!

kaz

Some quite amazing women managed to achieve absolutely amazing things in an era when most women were still expected to spend their lives breeding, cooking and sewing.

Sexism in aviation was the norm in Australia not so long ago:

1. While the English and US Governments jumped at the opportunity to utilise their women pilots in non-combat roles (eg ferry), only one out of a great many capable women pilots in Australia ever got to perform that role here;

2. It took Deborah Wardley a number of court actions and even more years to finally get a job as an airline captain in the face of Uncle Reg's blind obstinacy; and

3. Our Nancy established flying clinics in outback areas where women and children often died for want of basic medical attention.

Now the world has women Shuttle commanders but Australia's airports are closing one by one...

One day (sigh)

kaz

It's quite strange, I find, the attitude of those life insurers that are ok with minimal hours of say less than 100 pa.

We all know that our reactions and skill are at their peak when we are very current and that they are at their worst after a lay-off.

kaz