dutchroll

I understand what you're all saying, but I was really discussing the effect of civil aviation regulation in a sort of direct response to Phil's post, and SDQDI you are referring to accidents in years where there was very little of that at all. Mentioning wartime accidents which occurred well before the rise in enforceable civil aviation standards kind of reinforces the point I was making. The Chicago Convention didn't even occur until 1944, wasn't enforced until 1947, and it was much later still before any significant aviation regulations really came into play in the western world. I did also state (with two asterisks no less!) that I wasn't arguing to treat Rec flying the same as Commercial. Honestly....it's there.....go and read the post again. Trust me, you don't want to do four assessed sim rides a year in a Foxbat simulator! The point: there's been plenty of talk on this thread about "we don't need no stinkin' regulation". Ok, I totally understand that and agree that excessive regulation as a consequence of the accident rate could easily see the demise of rec aviation. I don't want that neither does anyone else here. But just don't make the argument that aviation regulatory regimes haven't been effective in reducing accident rates in the face of vastly increased flying rates, or you'll lose comprehensively. That's all I was saying. Maybe focus on the "we solemnly undertake to improve things, and we will show you that we can do this without more civil regulations" side of it? There's a massive chasm of difference between coming out and saying "we don't want your regulations, go away, get stuffed!" and "hey we know there are issues and we'll show you that we can address these without cramming more stuff onto the Commlaw website".

I do too. 50 years ago that statement might've been pretty true, but not anymore. Qantas mainline (ie, excluding Jetstar, Qlink etc) flies 2,400 flights per week or nearly 350 flights per day. Its accident rate is close to zero, and its accident fatality rate actually is zero. How many flights a week do microlights and LSAs fly and what are their accident rates? So just try using the "regulating us like commercial aviation won't change things" argument against someone backed by those stats and see how far you get! **I'm not arguing that you should be regulated like commercial aviation - I'm cautioning you against using the argument you seem to be favouring, and especially don't try pulling that one on the regulators themselves. ;)

Yeah I heard on the grapevine about inspections not being done before the accident report, which was an eye-opener, came out. Fungal decay, major wing components not matching logbook records, incorrect rigging procedures, etc. They said not to do aeros in it, so I never did, being more than happy to just take girls for joyflights to impress them (my young, single, and far more foolish days.......but I have to say it worked!). Apparently there were rumours of others not following my logic though (ie, if the owner or operator doesn't want you to do aeros, then don't do aeros).

I've not flown a Citabria but they certainly seem to be considered very good introductory tailwheel trainers. My first ever taildragger endorsement was on an active duty RAAF Winjeel, which was an interesting learning curve being such a large beast and having a couple of serious vices, but I wouldn't recommend that to anyone with low hours! I flew Tiger Moths and Chipmunks for a while in my spare time, of which I'd certainly add my recommendation of the Chippy as a very pleasant taildragger to fly. Just really enjoyable. The Tiger Moth is quite docile although the one I used to fly was the one which had the wing come off in WA in 1998 and killed the pilot and passenger (VH-TMK). With that hindsight I'd be really fussy about the history of any Tiger Moth before I flew it (I was blissfully unaware of the issues it had, but I never did aeros in it so I guess I was lucky). IMHO you will need spin training if you choose to fly a Chippy as it is quite fussy with spin recovery control inputs, but if you do it properly, it's fine. The Pitts designs are one of the classic advanced aerobatic taildraggers. Don't get me wrong - they do exactly what you tell them to do without hesitation, but that trait can be quite a double-edged sword! I would get some time up and become very comfortable in something more docile and forgiving of your errors before graduating to anything like that.

I was paraphrasing how the media and the general public see it, Nev. And that was also pretty much the literal wording of someone I spoke to who was at Cessnock airport at the time of the accident and saw it take off minutes before it crashed. He had more to say but I'm not going to repeat it here. I've consistently made the point on this thread that "we" or "you" don't see things the same way "they" do when it comes to aviation accidents. This is a point which is seemingly very difficult for many in the aviation community to accept, and is the cause of a lot of angst when the public/media get upset enough to cause regulators to act.

It is true that there are no fatalities from crashing an RAAus registered craft into a building and I wasn't trying to imply there actually had been. There was the one which crashed into a house in Tyabb last year and seriously injured the 5 year old girl who was a passenger (a 5 year old "accepting the risk" is another topic). There was the one which narrowly missed a jetty in Queensland. But all this is completely dancing around the point I'm making. The perception is that these things are falling out of the sky at an alarming rate in recent times. I'm just saying that the public might latch onto this in a way which has adverse consequences for your RA freedom, particularly if it continues at the current rate, irrespective of whether there are actually any deaths other than the pilot. That's all. You don't have to like it, but I held much the same view about Jabiru engines. Understandably people came out from everywhere to defend their beloved Jabirus, screaming that there was no need for regulatory intervention, they've done "xxx" number of hours without incident, etc etc etc. Jabiru (the company) had their heads stuck up their own **ses thinking "oh there's not really any problem. There's no way they'll come after us. It can't be justified." ......and lo and behold, look what happened. It doesn't matter how many people die in cars, or day to day activities. Things plummeting from the sky scares people. A lot. I know the grim reality of the aviation world when I see it!

So true! Except in the case of a pilot on his first flight in an unregistered recreational aircraft very suddenly crashing into a wooded area next to a cafe, I suspect the perception will be quite different to that. But hey, might get a lucky break. Let's roll the dice......

You've completely misconstrued my point. Perception is everything. It crashed metres away from a swag of people having lunch. That is more than enough for the public, and therefore the authorities, to conclude that it was a significant risk to public safety. If you don't believe me, there's nothing I can do about that. Let's just go about business as usual then.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Regulator intervention comes when the risk to other people from your activities exceeds their comfort level. Aside from direct friends and relatives, nobody else dwells on it too much if you kill just yourself in the informed pursuit of a dangerous activity. However if you crash into a school classroom in the pursuit of your dangerous activity, or you take out 2 or 3 other people, or you even make it look possible that you will do so, then everybody starts caring.....a lot. Grounding would be the most severe action, but it is invariably a temporary measure to allow urgent safety action to be taken before getting things back in the air. I have seen a number of groundings in my aviation career for this reason. But there are no indications that this is going to happen.....yet.

That actually creates more problems than it solves. It never looks good for an organisation to refuse to cooperate with an investigation. Management of how the newsmedia report it is another issue and it's one that just has to be dealt with as best as possible, even when they get it horribly wrong. The RAA people will be only too aware of this.

Sheesh mate.......you're making me blush. I owe you some beers for that one. ;) And you just made me go and look up my instrument (actual) time!

Bugger. I was a member of that club (though my membership has lapsed I still get occasional emails). I was actually planning on flying there today but wasn't really happy with the weather forecast so I've left it until tomorrow. It can't go on like this.

Was it out of YCNK? I'm planning on going flying tomorrow morning. I'll be interested to see if the boys down at my hangar know anything much about it. I just ask people to brace themselves: "fatal ultralight crash" + "10 metres from Cafe in Hunter Valley" + have a glance at recent RA accident record.........well, it's not a bright picture. I'll be surprised if there's not some sort of action making RA quite uncomfortable if this continues too much longer. I feel for the RAA organisers, instructors, mentors, etc. They must be getting despondent.

The moving map display in the IFE does get some limited data from the navigation system, but it's a one way street. You can and do limit what transmits data and what receives data. It's common even with simple setups in amateur built aircraft, such as the connection between GPS units and engine management displays or EFIS screens. However it (the IFE) is still not connected to the thrust management computer either way. I still think he's having a bit of a fantasy.

Perhaps it was, and yes I agree entirely and wholeheartedly on your second para there. However the proposition that I'm trying to make someone "answer to me" though? I mean for me to think I could get any pilots to do that in an aviation/policy debate should be enough to have me committed to a lunatic asylum!

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/airlines-sceptical-commercial-planes-can-be-hacked-20150517-gh3qdf.html I think Mr Roberts is buying publicity for himself, or just deluded. Just for a start, there is not a physical, wireless, or any communications link at all, between an IFE (inflight entertainment) system and a thrust management computer. Why on earth would there be? Secondly, even hacking into a thrust management system cannot "cause a plane to move sideways" as he alleges he did. The FBI is right to investigate, as even an attempt to hack into an IFE system is still interference with an aircraft, though I suspect the only thing he may have been able to do is download the inflight movie database - and he is welcome to it.

I'm not asking you to "answer to me" and I'm not asking you to "play a game". I'm stating the reality as it is, and suggesting that reality needs to be managed by us (the pilots) better. Complain about regulation all you like, but until you stop dropping from the sky, the regulation will continue. Endless whining about the regulatory regime will not change anything. Altering the accident rate will. There is no disrespect intended, but to suggest that I'm trying to do either of those things was pretty ridiculous to say the least (despite others seemingly wanting to have two bob's worth on your behalf).

I would never dare to suggest Frank isn't highly respected or would break laws. That wasn't my point at all. As worded it didn't make much sense. I see this a lot on forums tailored towards experimental aircraft when the discussion comes around to the never-ending debate on "how much regulation is too much?" What is "excessive" is very much in the eye of the beholder (and I'm not arguing over what is or isn't specifically). However people need to realise that the general public are extremely risk-averse and particularly so when it comes to aeroplanes. Or more to the point, aeroplanes falling out of the sky. You can't change that. I've said numerous times: improve the safety record or the regulators will come after you - because the general public demand it and they're the ones who vote. That's a fact of life in any sort of aviation, from RPT to RAA. No amount of lamenting it will change it. We're way past that.

So.......you're sick of laws and are happy for anyone to do whatever they want......as long as they obey the law?

That's a bummer. A roadster which can bypass M1 congestion or pileups at 1000' has been my dream for a number of years!

Boeing flight test all their jets to max crosswind with no de-crab at touchdown. Not sure if Airbus do (I assume they probably would). This was always pointed out to us during crosswind landing training on the B767 as a "confidence" thing. It can be hard to get all the drift out before touchdown depending on the amount of crosswind component. The philosophy was always "if you suddenly realise you've undercooked it and will land with crab still on, don't panic, the plane will handle it just fine".

Deliberate action would be one way it could crash. Another way is a repeat of QF72 where the plane just decides to do its own thing after an unusual failure but there is no-one on the spot to correct it. The QF32 out of Singapore probably also would've crashed had there not been humans in the cockpit to make some sort of sense and apply some lateral thinking to the multiple cascading failures presenting themselves.

....and another tidbit to add to Nev's comment above: flying a crabbed approach is standard airline practice, as explained above. To de-crab a Boeing or virtually any other plane, a smooth rudder input is made as the aircraft is flared, and an opposite aileron input is required to counteract the roll (secondary effect of rudder) and keep the wings level. Not so with Fifi! The flight control laws do change on final approach, however roll remains "Normal Law", ie attitude stabilised if there is zero sidestick input. So to de-crab an Airbus you smoothly input the rudder to yaw it straight, but don't do anything with the roll. Well.....that's the theory. In practice Fifi takes a second or two to stabilise the attitude so you may need a blip of sidestick to get the wings level before the wheels touch. Not easy to do perfectly and not easy to do when you've been correcting for the secondary effect of rudder for your whole life!

Fraught with complications in an Airbus. The Airbus sidestick demands a "rate" from the flight control computers, not a flight control "position". So if you move the sidestick to the right to enter a cross-control situation, you are saying "give me xx degrees per second roll rate". Fifi then gets her abacus out and works out what flight control positions she needs to give you that roll rate and sends the corresponding orders to the flight controls. You can't fly down final approach holding the aircraft out of balance with a constant sidestick input, because you are then constantly telling it to roll to that direction at a particular rate, and that's what Fifi will give you - even if she needs full flight control surface deflection to do it. In fact the whole system is designed to perfectly fly a crabbed approach. If you set the aircraft up tracking the extended centreline, wings level, and take your hands off the sidestick, it should (theoretically) stay wings level as it is attitude-stabilised in Normal Law and it should nicely track the runway centreline. In practice you do need very small corrective inputs though. So the crabbed crosswind approach technique is always used. In a Boeing, you can practically do it either way. However, historically pod scraping due to landing with excessive bank on has been an issue (though less so in later & larger Boeing models) so it has always been taught to fly the crabbed approach and kick it straight. Also it's more comfortable for the passengers, not making them think they're being thrown sideways out of their seats with crossed controls and a grossly out of balance condition all the way down final approach. Think what the out-of-balance situation would be like in 30-40 knots of crosswind!

Take the pilots away and add in a malevolent homicidal ground controller/engineer who is doing the automatic flight path programming. Mass murder by remote control. Wouldn't that be exciting aviation progress!