dutchroll

You're quite right in those assumptions. Military Air Traffic Controllers and Air Combat Officers speak different languages! Totally different training paths and quite different system capabilities.

"Slight vibration issue" = a fair bit more than normal, I would say! Divert to Sydney would've been an Ops Control decision due to maintenance and replacement aircraft availability there.

Lol.....yeah flying my own plane I just can't bare the thought of them being sick and me spending 2 weeks cleaning it, so I'm extra cautious!

Wow, a spin on the first aerobatic flight? Dunno that I'd push a pax that far even if they looked like they were having a ball. But....you can only call it as you see it at the time. It's great that she really enjoyed it though! For my aircraft, flying from the back seat gives me a good idea from their head movement as to how they're really feeling. "Yeah yeah feeling great let's keep going!"........as I see their heading rolling around and spot them fumbling for the sick bag in the pouch on the cockpit sidewall! Time to head back!

Well in that case, the correct decision to make as V1 approaches is to run away. As V2 approaches, run faster.

It's not just doctors. It's people with money who race out and buy a snazzy new plane and fly it with the bare bones minimum of aviation experience. Having said that, I know a couple of doctors who are by all accounts very competent and experienced pilots - one on multis and one on single engine warbirds.

Oh we haven't even got into the segmented climb yet!

My assumption, when things like "V1" and "V2" are mentioned is that it really refers to heavier certified aircraft. Not twin Cessnas, Barons, etc which don't use this type of performance data. If you have an engine failure at or above V1 in a commercial jet, you will get airborne and you will reach V2, barring any mishandling of the aircraft. The performance data will prohibit you taking off at weights or in environmental conditions which preclude that.

Disclaimer: Yes what Dave says is very true. These V speeds are often not relevant to smaller twins in the GA world.

There is always a difference between the two speeds because V1 is always a speed which is achieved on the runway and V2 is always a speed which is achieved once airborne. That's the nature of the way they're calculated. You will always achieve V2 if you get the plane airborne off the runway available. However, whether you get the plane off the runway depends on whether you made the correct decision when the engine failed! The only two speeds which can, in some circumstances, actually be numerically the same, are V1 and VR (decision speed, and rotate speed). As soon as those wheels leave the ground, V1 is irrelevant. So for example, if V1 and VR were the same speed, all it means is that you've got enough runway to reject the takeoff right up until you pull back on the stick and get airborne. Once you're airborne, you're continuing. We don't try to land back on the runway after an engine failure. If you get into the air with the loss of an engine, you can always fly away. That's how commercial jets are designed.

Well, having read the report above, he has quite a history. - barges through various controlled airspace on multiple occasions without clearance including a military airfield and a major commercial airport. - fails to comply with arrival procedures at busy class D airports. - flies IMC under VFR. - flies with an expired maintenance release (100 hourly). - has radio failure & could've diverted to non controlled airport to fix it but barges into major regional airport without a flight plan. - flies certified aircraft with time expired critical electrical components. - failed multiple ground exams and flight tests. I have no issue at all with CASA going after him. I question whether he should be flying at all, ever.

I guess technically you could be descending through 8,700 ft (with an 8,500 LL) and you are still "inside controlled airspace" but then if there's someone cruising VFR at 8,500 ft, you don't have vertical separation. Typically in my experience ATC do monitor our descent and will not clear us to a lower level until past the step on radar or until they are certain we won't go OCTA, However in practice we have found this to not always be the case, With the wonderful nuances of Maestro occasionally wreaking havoc on our standard descent profiles by issuing "interesting" time requirements at STAR fixes, it's something we have to keep an eye on. Our rate of descent can change quite dramatically with a couple of minutes to make up or lose and this has certainly caught some people out with lower limits of CTA.

You can fly at 8500 ft and be outside controlled airspace. Controlled airspace starts above what is depicted as the "LL". This is why, when we fly commercial and want to guarantee clearance from VFR aircraft outside controlled airspace, we only ever descend to 500' above what is depicted as the "LL". So if it says the LL is 8500', we will limit our descent to 9000' until past the next airspace step, to ensure we don't conflict with any VFR aircraft which might be cruising right on the limit.

Again in pure practical terms for the non commercial pilot , without haggling over definitions: There is no circumstance which would result in a crash provided: 1) If the engine failure happens prior to V1, the takeoff is aborted 2) If the engine failure happens at or after V1, the takeoff is continued on the remaining engine. All of the above assumes the aircraft is competently handled when the engine fails and the correct techniques are followed. The calculation of takeoff performance data guarantees that the aircraft will stop in the remaining runway, or fly away off the remaining runway given these circumstances. V1 - a speed on the runway at which your decision in the event of an engine failure fundamentally changes (stop versus keep going). V2 - a speed in the air at which, with an engine out, you get the best possible initial climb performance without losing control of the plane.

V1 is the speed below which, after an engine failure, the takeoff can be rejected and the aircraft will stop on the remaining runway. It takes into account the partial loss of stopping systems (reverse thrust, etc) when an engine fails. Above V1, the takeoff must be continued. V1 speeds are based on environmental data, runway available, takeoff weight, etc. V1 speed is slightly conservative. Eg, the loss of an engine results in reverse thrust only being available from one engine, so in the V1 calculation, no reverse thrust is used. There is no significance of the region between V1 and V2, except that somewhere between those speeds the aircraft will reach VR (rotate speed) on its remaining engine/s and takeoff from the remaining runway. V2 is the speed at which the aircraft is initially established in the climb after an engine failure, with the landing gear retracted. It is the speed designed to achieve a margin above stall and minimum control speeds while achieving the initial obstacle clearance/climb gradient with an engine failure. It is flown to a very tight tolerance until the aircraft reaches its "acceleration altitude", which for us is 1,500ft above the runway elevation. At acceleration altitude, pitch angle is reduced to attain a level segment or a very shallow climb and the aircraft is accelerated through its flap retraction speeds and completely cleaned up. The most critical time to have an engine failure is right at V1. There is no longer sufficient runway to stop, but you have just lost half your thrust and so acceleration to rotate speed is slow. Plus you need to maintain directional control with one engine failed and one engine going flat out. There is not much runway left when those main wheels finally leave the ground after what seems like an eternity! At heavy weights at least. At lighter weights, acceleration after losing an engine at V1 is better and runway remaining to get off the ground is not quite so much a problem. The aircraft is pitched appropriately to achieve V2 speed while climbing out and the gear is retracting (that's about 10 degrees nose up for my aircraft, whereas normal pitch after takeoff is at least 15 degrees). At no point are you supposed to die during this phase, but there's not much room for error.

Pay particular attention to this one and don't be afraid to practice it at a later date at a safe altitude once you get your head around it and your instructor is happy. Even practice it with an instructor if you need more confidence. Making your recognition and actions instinctive could save your skin one day. Good luck with your training!

Yikes. Whereas a little bubby bounce may only need a trickle of power and holding the flare attitude to set it back down nicely, moderate to heavy bounces are always hard to recover a decent landing from. It was only late last year that I firmly bounced the Pitts due to a poor approach path and misjudgment. That was on a long, wide runway too. Power on, fly away, let's try to get this right. Observers on the ground: "What happened with that landing and go round mate?" Me: "I stuffed it up."

It indicates you arrived at the same spot you started. It doesn't say much about how you got there.

I can only hope so. It was only a few weeks back that yet another Indian girl (18 years old) had acid thrown in her face causing 95% burns and permanent damage to her eyes because she rejected a marriage proposal from a boy. It's very sad when a country has to have a specific criminal offence titled "causing grievous hurt by use of acid".

The methodology matters a lot if there is a need to work backwards to change the outcome. Unless someone doesn't give a crap about the outcome......in which case they can arrive at it however they like. Anyway......whatever. I agree Saudi is an abomination. What they need is not law changes, but a fundamental shift in societal attitudes. Scrapping or modernising the odd law here and there will do absolutely diddly squat for Saudi women. Classic example is rural India. They actually have fairly modern laws. Makes stuff-all difference to the severe oppression and appalling treatment of rural women there.

Who is the self important defender of Saudi dignity? I think it's an atrocious society - a terrible example of outdated religious extremism in so many respects. However it's pretty bloody fundamental to distinguish between a country's legal or constitutional framework, and pure religious oppression. They're not the same thing and I would've thought it's rather basic and important to know which of those two is the prime cause of the problems. That's not *picking flys**t out of pepper". It's just having an understanding of what you're talking about.

Windsor is correct, as much as that will irritate some people. In fact women driving in Saudi Atabia is tolerated in rural areas out of necessity. There's no actual Saudi law against it, but it is generally forbidden by extreme religious custom (unlike most other Islamic countries where women can drive quite freely) especially in urban areas. Women who drive there, and there have been many examples, risk being detained. The usual punishment is to sign a pledge (sometimes their husbands must sign it) that they will not drive again. Sure, they may as well for all practical purposes have a law against it, but I'm just pointing out that what is allowed and what isn't in Saudi depends on where you are and, to some extent, who you are.

......white Aussies demonstrating how to be a complete tosser. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/muslim-woman-in-sydney-asked-about-terrorism-takes-a-stand/news-story/6ee55565c0b660aab0ebfe66f6b5e4fc

Well actually in the examples of both the Serbs and the Nazis, it was exported to other countries. Granted, they were mostly neighbouring countries because that was as far as they got. Had they gone any further, the systemic murder would've spread further too. The point is, for many people the murder and slaughtering of literally thousands of innocent people thousands of miles from their home country is actually far less worthy of expressing any sort of outrage than the murder of one or two or a dozen people by terrorists in their home country. It's amazing how our judgement and reaction changes when it's close to home. If it's far away from home and many times worse, many people couldn't give a crap.

Radovan Karadzic, an ethnic Serbian, was just convicted of war crimes yesterday. He authorised the slaughter of 8000 Bosnian Muslims. His aim at Srebrenica was to murder every single able bodied male. He wanted to exterminate the Muslim community in that whole region. I should be absolutely terrified of Serbians. Of course in the view of some other people, he was just doing the right thing, or his actions are relatively unimportant in the context of several dozen getting killed in an Islamic terror attack. I am eagerly awaiting the deluge of social media commentary and Facebook news feed items congratulating the authorities on this conviction and expressing disgust at the horrors of what happened. I won't be holding my breath. At what point did we humans completely lose our perspective?