octave

:thumb_up:

I am 5'6 no problem fitting either

thanks for the info Greg and XAIRTV

 

cheers

 

 

Cameron , I am attracted to the low cost easy build and low maintenance costs as well as the ability to operate from almost anywhere. I am also interested in a Savannah or Savage Cub. Not really after speed although a touch faster than the Gazelle might be nice.

 

I have some pics from the open day, they are not great I will put them on a disk or something.

 

cheers

 

 

I am wondering what are the pros and cons of these two similar aircraft?

 

 

Glad to hear that pilot and pax are ok but very sorry to hear about the Gazelle

 

 

Happy birthday Cam, perhaps you should celebrate with some Gazelle time (as long as it is not when I want to book it!)

 

 

First of all I will say that I have been taught and used both methods and I see little practical difference. I think I tend to use the method described in the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook.

 

The objective of a good final approach is to descend at

 

an angle and airspeed that will permit the airplane to

 

reach the desired touchdown point at an airspeed

 

which will result in minimum floating just before

 

touchdown; in essence, a semi-stalled condition. To

 

accomplish this, it is essential that both the descent

 

angle and the airspeed be accurately controlled. Since

 

on a normal approach the power setting is not fixed as

 

in a power-off approach, the power and pitch attitude

 

should be adjusted simultaneously as necessary, to

 

control the airspeed, and the descent angle, or to attain

 

the desired altitudes along the approach path. By lowering

 

the nose and reducing power to keep approach

 

airspeed constant, a descent at a higher rate can be

 

made to correct for being too high in the approach.

 

This is one reason for performing approaches with partial

 

power; if the approach is too high, merely lower

 

the nose and reduce the power. When the approach is

 

too low, add power and raise the nose./I]

 

 

 

I think the problem with many of these debates is that we seem to take two legitimate methods and assert that method (A) is the only way to do it, whilst method (B) will result in "blood on the tarmac" if this true would there not be flying schools out there with much higher accident stats?

 

 

 

I would hope that as rational and logical pilots we would not be overstating the dangers of one legitimate method over another, whilst one method may have advantages the fact that both are routinely taught and written about must tell you something.

 

 

From The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook

 

The objective of a good final approach is to descend at

 

an angle and airspeed that will permit the airplane to

 

reach the desired touchdown point at an airspeed

 

which will result in minimum floating just before

 

touchdown; in essence, a semi-stalled condition. To

 

accomplish this, it is essential that both the descent

 

angle and the airspeed be accurately controlled. Since

 

on a normal approach the power setting is not fixed as

 

in a power-off approach, the power and pitch attitude

 

should be adjusted simultaneously as necessary, to

 

control the airspeed, and the descent angle, or to attain

 

the desired altitudes along the approach path. By lowering

 

the nose and reducing power to keep approach

 

airspeed constant, a descent at a higher rate can be

 

made to correct for being too high in the approach.

 

This is one reason for performing approaches with partial

 

power; if the approach is too high, merely lower

 

the nose and reduce the power. When the approach is

 

too low, add power and raise the nose.

 

 

Yep I have found some people seem to be concerned by throttling down on the base leg turn, I now sometime during the flight demonstrate a power off decent. This gets them used to the idea and it means they are less likely to distract me whilst landing.

 

 

"He said the man had deployed the plane's parachute, which helps to hold the aircraft under its canopy for a safe landing. "

 

Much amused by this newspaper quote.

 

Glad the pilot is oK

 

 

My body mass index puts me as Obese - my height says I should be 80kg yet I am 107kg but I have always been "big boned"

Hey Admin, like me, you don't have a weight problem but a height problem. I would be the ideal weight if I was just 1 foot taller.

 

:thumb_up:

 

 

I dont use the third person radio calls but this does not bother me in the slightest, I am much more concerned by the private conversations between aircraft that I occaisionaly hear. Far from being a gen y thing the 3rd party call seems to be an old timer thing like "Stations xxxxxxx"

 

 

A few random thoughts (with no criticism intended towards anyone)

 

I would imagine that if 10 CFIs made such a video that each one would attract

 

some form of criticism.

 

I am not sure "bad influence" on low timers should be such a problem, I consider myself a "low time" (90 hours but 35 of it was 20 years ago). I have read many interesting techniques and ideas on this forum but before I would take them on board, like any information gathered from the net, these ideas must be run through several filters ie the experience and qualifications of the poster, my own research and of course most inportantly my clubs CFI who knows my abilities.

 

Having said that, I found the video intersting but like some others I did not agree with everthing

 

 

lol, might try taking my laptop in the Gazelle!

 

 

I passed an eagle flying in the opposite direction to me, it did not seem to have any understanding that on that heading it should have been at 1500 or 3500 feet!

 

Cameron I hope you left the Gazelle in good condition, I am doing a x country to Goulburn tomorrow if the weather is ok.

 

 

All good advice, it pays to try to see it from their point of view, I can see that the council has this prime real estate which would be worth a fortune is sold off, we have to convince them of the benefits of a thriving aviation sector can bring to the region.

 

Also I think it is important to be very polite and not to push them into "defensive mode".

 

thanks for the well thought out input

 

cheers

 

Graham

 

 

Destiny I think you are right, last night I emailed all of the councilers and recevied 2 replies. I presented it as a rumor and asked if they could clarify, both said they would look into, so I think you are correct that it is most likely the council staff rather than the counciler's themselves.

 

Anyway I will keep the forum informed of developments.

 

Cheers

 

 

It seems that Moruya Aero Club is in a very difficult situation as Eurobodalla Council wants to increase the clubs lease payments by 900%. I am not sure if anyone on this forum has any experience with fighting the council but any ideas would be appreciated.

 

:black_eye:

 

 

Well done Brett, great story and pictures!:thumb_up:

 

 

AUF 1980-1990 and RAAus 2007 - present

 

 

I am yet to decide, but I think the "being on the wrong frequency" argument is frankly lame. In what other area of aviation would we say some people make mistakes so lets forget it.

 

When I am inbound to my local aerodrome how do I see our local skydive aircraft at 13000 feet and 1 minute from drop.

 

If we are going to be scientific in our analysis we can't just compare the number CTAFR accidents with CTAF without factoring in different traffic densities , also it is hard to quantify the number of accidents avoided.

 

I flew in the late 80s (thruster without radio) and now in CTAFR (with radio of course).

 

I think this question is a little vague, if you were to say radio should not be mandatory anywhere (ie no CTAFR) I would strongly disagree but I would have some sympathy with the notion that there are many areas where it may not be required.

 

The "pilots will rely on the radio and not keep a good look out" is also in my view lame, perhaps a pilots will fail to maintain thier airspeed because after all they have a stall warning device.

 

Having said that I am very sympathetic to the keeping our flying costs down but please do not try to convince me with the "radios make people incapable of looking out" or that "an aircraft may be on the wrong frequency" this was stressed to me whilst I was training both in a theoretical sense on one occaison in a practical sense.

 

 

If RA theory does not cut it (and I am yet to make up my mind) how does this manifest itself in practice?

 

 

Why not wait till you have done the x/c endorsement before you take your loved ones for a ride, away from the circuit? Nev.

During my training my instructor encouraged me to leave the circuit, this being essential in order to practise things like stalls, turns circuit departures and entries etc. During my training we covered a lot of the surrounding 25nm. Although I have got 70 hours up now I have not done (for various reasons ie work, money, time) my xcountry yet (although I have done much of the required theory). If I had stayed in the circuit for 70 hours I probably would have quit by now

 

I really can't see that what Brett is proposing is so outragous as long as it is within the regs and the rental agreement and is carried out in a safe manner and with due regard to the weather.

 

 

Went solo in a Thruster in 1988 did about 40 hours then gave it away. Started again 2 years ago in a Gazelle and now have another 37 hours. I have got my PAX but I am having a little trouble getting motivated to study for x country,...... one of these days!