Jump to content

dutchroll

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,201

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dutchroll

  1. dutchroll
    I don't agree that they're arguing that, even though it may seem that way to you. You're not getting branded a moron by me. If you're flying in airspace and between airfields which don't require a radio, you're perfectly entitled to do that and I won't try to stop you. I might suggest that there are occasions where a radio would be desirable and sensible even if it's not legally required, like going to a fly-in at an unregistered airfield where a lot of traffic is expected. Sure, your mark 1 eyeball is your primary traffic awareness device, but a listening watch for example, can help build a good mental picture of what to expect before you get there including who is where, and what they're doing. You way well cite examples like microlights in the UK, but according to several microlight training organisations over there, most of them carry radios anyway. They also have way less uncontrolled airspace than us. I just don't think threatening to pack your bat and ball and go home is productive.
  2. dutchroll
    ....... It's not that hard. And the other thing people haven't really made much mention of in all the debate about "why should I have to talk to anyone?" is that a radio can be rather useful for letting others know when you have a problem, instead of you simply "disappearing" and failing to turn up somewhere. If it allows you to alert others that you're in trouble just once in your aviation lifetime, then it's paid for itself in my opinion.
  3. dutchroll
    I mentioned that, and no it's not. No, no, no, and no. There are no plans for any of that for recreational aircraft flying in appropriate uncontrolled airspace. Let us know how it turns out for you.
  4. dutchroll
    I don't know that a "slippery slope" argument in this case is particularly valid. A means of communication when you're up there in the wild blue yonder mixing it with others is a fairly basic safety item, I think. Unless you're only operating on your farm in the boonies, in which case the regs allow you to operate without one anyway. The reverse problem is that if you don't make it mandatory, experience shows some idiot will cause a serious incident by deciding not to have one when they really should have.
  5. dutchroll
    Just because pilots stuff up radio procedures doesn't mean having radios is a bad idea. This is a little like saying that bad drivers means that cars are a bad idea. Well how about teaching people to use them properly and how about those same people take a little bit of care to do so? And like you should keep your car in good working order, how about doing the same for your radio? If you don't like working on your car, find a mechanic. If you don't like working on your radio, find someone who can! If all of the above is beyond your capabilities or too expensive, maybe find another hobby? Basic Radio Procedure: 1) Think. 2) Press button. 3) Say stuff which was carefully considered in step 1).
  6. dutchroll
    So radios at Bankstown during the week should be optional?
  7. dutchroll
    Yeah I'd hope owners (or delegates) were there to keep a watch. You'd be mad to leave your plane totally unattended while the general public run around everywhere. I've seen them try to do all sorts of stupid things at Sun n Fun, including the traditional "I wonder if my finger will poke through this fabric?" test, and large people trying to sit on wheel spats (before being yelled at)!
  8. dutchroll
    I disagree. Those involved with aircraft who are not educated on props should be educated on them by their instructors/supervisors, or they are not doing their job. A person of normal intelligence, especially who has been given adequate guidance and instruction, should be able to distinguish between an orchestrated and posed photo, and normal everyday propeller safety. A layperson who has not received this guidance and knows little about aeroplanes should not be wandering around them unsupervised or again, someone is not doing their job. I see no safety issue here. It's just a photo. I don't expect it will create a rush to lean on propellers on tarmacs everywhere.
  9. dutchroll
    Regarding photos around propellers. Is this a bad safety example or just a great photo? (The newest Red Bull pilot) My opinion: Great photo. No need for a conniption over it. As I said earlier on the topic, it's about risk mitigation and common sense. Cold engine, controlled conditions, no one is turning it through, cockpit switch positions are (we could most likely assume) known, and there's a specific purpose to being in that position on this occasion, rather than it being a habit. Risk = negligible.
  10. dutchroll
    thank god for smilies!
  11. dutchroll
    I totally agree. However I hope members here don't confuse "asking a silly question" with "making a silly assertive statement and not being interested in whether or not it's right". The problem with the off-topic forums is that a minority of people get on there and make silly assertive statements, rather than ask silly questions. Silly questions are benign, and easy to answer in an explanatory way which doesn't belittle someone. Silly assertive statements are driven by ignorance (often deliberate) and heavily biased misconceptions, which are much harder to respond to in a moderate, neutral way because the individual frequently isn't interested in having the fundamental flaws in that statement pointed out. It's hard to get around that.....except maybe ignore!
  12. dutchroll
    I have no objections to off-topic forums in principle, but they do spiral out of control sometimes. I admit I'm quite guilty of being suckered into reading them here sometimes and giving into my "dark side". The side of me which reads a post trying to "prove" something using BS statistics or a completely discredited reference dredged from the rotting bowels of an extremist website, or just a silly argument which contradicts itself. I can't help myself in responding and pointing it out rather bluntly. My wife (a highly educated professional herself) often says, while shaking her head in amazement, "Why do you bother? They'll never change their mind no matter what the reality is!" She has a good point! The VAF forums are good aviation forums, except of course it's quite USA-centric. If you can get around that, they're really helpful. The Aeroelectric forums (on the Matronics forum list) used to be a favourite of mine too, but unfortunately Bob Knuckles despite his absolute wealth of aviation experience talks verbosely and in riddles, and getting a straight and understandable (for the layperson) answer to a question from him can be hard. So I gave up on them.
  13. dutchroll
    Not practical or safer on mine, for a number of reasons, not least of which being a taildragger with tall main gear causes the down-going blade to be angled towards your head if you're behind it and standing straight or pulling downwards, and it's cramped space immediately behind the prop. But on some aircraft that could be a better way.
  14. dutchroll
    With a radial you're more concerned over whether there is oil accumulated in the bottom cylinders, so a pull through on the first flight of the day is essential to negate the probability of causing an expensive repair job when you hit the starter switch. Prop safety is largely common sense and due diligence. Methodical pre-flight and post-flight cockpit checks of the position of your engine/fuel controls and switches before touching the propeller coupled with sensible technique will mitigate the risks. As with everything in flying, it's about having a bit of respect for the machine every time you walk out to it and not taking anything for granted.
  15. dutchroll
    The guy who taught me to fly my Pitts was seriously injured a few years back when he pulled the prop through (for the hydraulic lock check) on one, and had accidentally left the mags on. One lousy attention lapse in an otherwise quintessentially professional guy - the most experienced Pitts Model 12 pilot and A&P on the planet. I'm always healthily nervous and obsessive ("Did I check the switches? Yeah I'm pretty certain I did but I'll check them again anyway") when pulling it through.
  16. dutchroll
    Perhaps I should've been more specific: serious front seat injuries in Tiger Moth crashes are not at all uncommon, and this is the nature of that aircraft design. Also I was obviously referring to a crash situation with forward velocity such as EFATO, rather than a spin situation. Apples and oranges there, but as Dave points out, there are plenty of fatal examples. I'm not arguing that it's not stable and slow in a glide. I'm arguing that an EFATO in a Tiger Moth into anything other than a nice flat paddock is not good.
  17. dutchroll
    What you're doing is taking a media statement as if it is the literal accurate truth. I honestly cannot understand how (or why) you would interpret it that way. Yes, and they're welcome to do that. So what? We don't even have the faintest idea what the ATSB findings will be. They can use the report as guidance for their own investigation, but they can't use it as evidence in a Court. You are correct that they will have the magnifying glass hovering over this operation. I didn't deny that. That doesn't mean they're targeting the accident pilot. I've flown the Tiger Moth. The Tiger Moth is a wonderfully docile little biplane. Also, when you have an engine failure at very low level in it, you're pretty much screwed. It is also not a very "crashworthy" airframe, to say the least. Old Tiger Moth joke: when flying a Tiger Moth, carry half a brick. If the engine fails, throw out brick and follow it down. When you land, get out of the way or you might get hit by the brick from above. Too much jumping at shadows here, I'm afraid.
  18. dutchroll
    I'm still struggling to understand what people appear to be getting paranoid about here. The media statement is clearly confused, so much that I personally would've shaken my head and then totally disregarded it if I'd read it in the newspaper. As I said earlier, my wife's a former DAME and she's reading this shaking her head wondering what all the fuss is about. To her (having read the news reports about his injuries) it is blindingly obvious that CASA are going to assess his future "fitness to fly". Though the media statement confuses this issue, as that decision is nothing to do with the ATSB or its investigation.
  19. dutchroll
    That media quote is not actually how the system works. CASA cannot use ATSB findings as evidence when they see a copy of the report. They have to do their own investigation and gather their own evidence. This is very strictly controlled under the Transport Safety Investigation Act. CASA cannot cancel your licence unless you've been found by a Court to have breached the regs. In other words, they can't do it on a whim after simply reading a report. It's actually more effort for CASA to cancel your licence than you might think. CASA can medically ground you very easily. In which case your licence is worthless until such point as you get your medical back. This happens in our company quite often, usually temporarily but occasionally permanently.
  20. dutchroll
    It has a lot to do with your licence, in that you cannot exercise the privileges of your licence without a valid medical. In other words, your licence is not worth the paper it is written on if you don't have the medical (in GA and the commercial world). It becomes meaningless. A wall ornament, perhaps. In common vernacular, the loss of medical category is sometimes also called "loss of licence", which may not be true in an exact literal sense, but is for all practical purposes. Our own company insurance policy even calls it "loss of licence", but in reality it refers to the "loss of ability to use your licence" (permanently due to loss of medical). The term "fitness" when used by CASA generally refers to medical fitness. When they say ".....decide whether the pilot is fit enough to keep his licence" this to me says "decide whether the pilot is medically fit enough to exercise the privileges of his licence". Especially as he was seriously injured and there is no hint of illegal activity on his part so far. That ultimate decision, whether anyone likes it or not, rests with CASA Medical section. We deal with this stuff all the time in my day job.
  21. dutchroll
    Do you not think this might be related to his injuries? I mean, he was taken to ICU from the accident site and he was described as suffering from serious spinal injuries. As my wife (a former Air Force DAME) just said.......you don't get taken to ICU with serious spinal injuries for no reason, and you can expect to have a significant question mark over your future fitness to fly!
  22. dutchroll
    Perhaps it was, subconsciously.
  23. dutchroll
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/flight-from-hell-21-air-canada-passengers-in-hospital-after-severe-turbulence-forced-landing-20151231-glxdyf.html Well her father Mr Wang needs to be taken around the back of the terminal and smacked around the head. As do all the others not wearing seatbelts despite being warned by the crew. How many times do we need to repeat this crap?
  24. dutchroll
    The media is nothing if not entirely predictable. However it takes two to tango. He could've said "sod off you insensitive b*stards I don't want to talk about it, how dare you call me?". Yet he sat down and had a chat with them. Hard to blame them for that. There was clearly some sort of mutual agreement there......
  25. dutchroll
    Not a particularly good technique to use as a standard procedure. If you're doing a short-field landing well yeah you are probably going to have to get on the brakes fairly quickly but there is a technique to high speed brake application in planes without anti-skid protection, and risks associated with doing it which you need to think about. As a rule it's always best to let some of those V-squareds wash off first. I'm extremely reluctant to use them until the plane has decelerated somewhat. However using them to make a taxiway is no problem as long as I don't need to stomp on them. Mine has very effective brakes. They need to be, as 436HP driving a 2.6m diameter prop produces a whole bunch of thrust during an engine runup. That's always a good idea in a small plane with no backup braking system (i.e. virtually all of them). You should not need to rely on the brakes to slow you to taxi speed by the end of the strip. If you do, you should probably be questioning whether it's really suitable for your plane!
×
×
  • Create New...