dutchroll

Bit harsh. I don't know of any standard "diversion" phraseology. I would preface my call to ATC with something "revised flight details when ready" or "diversion details when ready" then when they come back with "go ahead", just a simple, succinct reply. Where you're now going to, what points you're tracking via (if not direct), what altitude you want to go there at. It really doesn't have to be hard. Recently we were enroute to Perth in an Airbus A330 when they slapped fog onto the forecast and we didn't have enough fuel (requires an alternate). We had to divert to Adelaide. I was on the radios, so what phraseology did I use? "Melbourne Centre, (callsign), they've just put fog on Perth and we don't have the alternate fuel so we need to divert to Adelaide from present position." Doesn't get more plain english than that! Centre came back with "Roger, standby" then about 30 seconds later said "turn right track direct Adelaide." Didn't even need an altitude change. Sure we were ADSB identified in controlled airspace so that all helps. But don't make it complicated and make sure the controller is under no doubt as to what you want to do. If they need more info they'll ask for it.

That's correct.....if you use Ozrunways or Avplan for your flight planning like myself and many others, you will by default get NAIPS weather and notams, and the ability to do the flight notification too, if you need to. Plus all your aeronautical data is ASA/CASA approved (proviso of course being that you have updated it).

Interesting discussion. I fly through Richmond CTR quite often and never submit a notification/flight plan. Mind you, it's a 5 minute transit through a very quiet control zone (these days, unlike in my past life where there could regularly be 4 C130s and 2 Caribous simultaneously in the circuit pattern) which has specific VFR transit procedures in the ERSA. The identification and clearance generally comes literally within a few seconds of entering the squawk code and I only ever recall a delay of a couple of minutes once. Also they often just clear me direct, not even by the VFR route. I'm going to have a chat to some in-house ATC contacts there to see whether I'm unintentionally making their life difficult! On these short flights I haven't submitted anything through NAIPS (technically called flight notification) so I'm not covered for SAR. To cover that I effectively leave a "Flight Note". The purest version of a flight note is the form in AIP with all the boxes filled out and left with a responsible person. However my version consists of an sms or phone call immediately before departure to the guys in the hangar at the other end. They all know the aircraft details well, and know that I track direct between Cessnock airport and Wiseman's Ferry - the entry point to the Richmond CTR boundary. For such a simple and short flight between 2 airports where your aircraft is well known and also within full radar coverage, I figure a sensible equivalent to the "textbook" flight note is fine. Flight Note - little bit of paper with a few pertinent details of your VFR flight left with a responsible person who can call authorities if you don't show up. Flight Plan - bigger bit of paper (or an electronic device) with lots of details of your VFR or IFR flight plus spaces to do fuel logs, timing, etc. Flight Notification - the act of getting those details into the ATC system via one of several different means. Depending on what you're doing, this may be required, or not required, or not required but desirable. If in doubt, refer to AIP ENR 1.10.

I've haven't done that for over 20 years. However I can see how it might apply to the old "thumbwheel" style transponders. Modern digital transponders don't normally accept the new code until all 4 digits are entered, so selecting standby to enter it is just wasting your time. This is all in AIP GEN 3.4, Para 4.15-16. "Group form" (grouping the callsign numbers into pairs) is the preferred method. However the "conventional" format of stating individual numbers is not prohibited and is still valid. It does say however, that if ATC addresses you in the group form, like "RV eighty five nineteen" (RV 8519) then you should respond with that form for the remainder of the flight.

Ultimately it comes down to common sense. Setting yourself for the world's most perfect forced landing pattern kinda becomes a waste of time if you stall it in the base turn and crash.

Nothing wrong with selecting a different field if you see a much better option which you hadn't noticed before. Don't get tunnel vision. What I mean by that is that there's this fine line between being "decisive" and sticking with your plan, and realising "oh this choice isn't so good after all, but there's a much better one just over there". It might even be that a simple heading change of 10 or 15 degrees on final approach which costs you nothing in performance takes you to a better place. The added bonus of keeping this sort of awareness of possible options is that if you do end up too low, there may be a suitable alternative a little closer.

Misunderstanding the intent of a garbled massage is fraught with danger.....

Perhaps an amalgamation with Gliding Australia is on the cards soon?

I do have a flapless machine. The only reason I use a very mild sideslip is so I can see out the front because there's no forward visibility over the nose in a normal approach attitude. My sideslip is compensated with power to maintain a normal descent rate. Or if there's crosswind, side-slipping is a valid technique (again compensated with power to maintain a normal descent). Normal technique on final approach in any aircraft to correct the approach path is to use a combination of power and attitude and to do it earlier rather than later.

I guess I'm saying that would it not be better to devote more time to judging the approach better, rather than a last second fix by slipping it in? That's not to say "don't ever teach it as a last resort" but I sometimes get this feeling that people see it as some sort of cure-all. "Yeah got too high on this glide approach, but easy fixed, just slip it in like I normally do when I'm too high on a glide approach!" That's an absurd distraction from addressing the root problem. What about your positioning for the selected landing area? Was there a better option? Did you make your key points? How was your speed maintenance? Did you turn at the right position? Could you have judged your flap selection better? If you're going to slip it close to the ground and get that descent rate right up until the last second, you're setting yourself up to bend it one day anyway. I mean, go ahead and roll the dice. My preference would be to practice it higher, and maybe see it once or twice closer to the ground to know it can be done. If anyone wants to regularly practice it on late approach, ultimately I don't care. Just my opinion based on not liking deliberately generating high sink rates right near the ground.

Except in an emergency situation, in which case all bets are off and you do whatever is necessary, under what circumstances would you have a choice between "bending the airframe" and sideslipping it in?

I don't have a problem with sideslipping in general, but I do have a problem with the way it's sometimes applied. My main issue is that too many pilots use unplanned sideslipping to attempt to correct an unstable approach when they had the opportunity to correct it earlier, and really should just go around and try it again. It can also generate high rates of descent close to the ground under those circumstances. There's a degree of "flippancy", for want of a better term, about side-slipping which it does not warrant. In the Cessna 172, Bill Thompson who was the Manager of Flight Tests and Aerodynamics at Cessna stated in his 1991 book: With the advent of the large slotted flaps in the C-170, C-180, and C-172 we encountered a nose down pitch in forward slips with the wing flaps deflected. In some cases it was severe enough to lift the pilot against his seat belt if he was slow in checking the motion. For this reason a caution note was placed in most of the owner’s manuals under “Landings” reading “Slips should be avoided with flap settings greater than 30 deg. due to a downward pitch encountered under certain combinations of airspeed, side-slip angle, and center of gravity loadings”. There appears to be a fair bit of contempt for this from quite a number of pilots on some of the Cessna forums who've all done better and sideslipped the Cessna with full flap. After all, what would the guy who was a test pilot for 28 years and the flight test and aerodynamics manager at Cessna know, compared to a 200 hour private pilot?

Yeah as soon as I saw the source I knew it was satire. The problem with Sarah Palin however, is that she's just crazy enough to actually say something like that!

I'd love to see what control inputs he made on the first one, because whatever they were, he made an absolute mess of it!

Yes of course that goes without saying.......

If you're not flying the next day, "appropriate" is to the point of either 1) becoming extremely entertaining, or 2) falling asleep .......whichever comes first. If you're flying the next day, keep it to a couple of quiet ones and a good night's sleep!

Was planning on going but the Pitts is sick (well, the engine, not the plane itself). Hopefully those attending for a couple of days will consume an appropriate number of beers on my behalf......

The problem with Dynon is which bits meet CASA's requirements and which bits don't, but I believe in theory at least, you should be able to get a perfectly legal transponder setup which passes all the tests, using the Dynon class 1 transponder (which is TSO'd). However you'd need - a certified altitude encoder (the inbuilt Skyview one isn't) - a certified GPS input if you want ADSB (neither Skyview GPS is certified)

Sorry I should add Robbo, that for normal enroute waypoint names not associated with an airport or navigation aid like "RIVET" or "ARBEY" or "FLAKE" (these are examples of Australian enroute IFR waypoints) you have to type the full name. If there happens to be more than one of the same name, you'll get the database list pop up again and have to choose which one. If you mis-spell an entry it will either tell you it doesn't exist or if you coincidentally mis-spelled it as one that actually exists in the database, it'll happily insert that into the navigation legs. The "EXEC" button illuminates to indicate a pending change and ask you "have you checked this change and do you really want to do it?" and the new track is shown on the navigation display in a different colour (blue for a Boeing, amber for Airbus). Press the execute button and it makes the change active, rather than "pending", turning it magenta. So in theory it is possible to accidentally make the plane exit stage left or right by typing the wrong waypoint in, but it has to be the designator or name which exists in the database and corresponds exactly to what you typed. You'd have to not notice it or not check it on the navigation display in front of you before pressing the execute button.

Neither the EgyptAir 990 pilot suicide, nor the Silk Air 185 pilot suicide, had any history of mental illness. The attempted hijack-suicide of FedEx 705 was by disgruntled off duty crew member Auburn Calloway, and he had no history of mental illness. Pacific Southwest 1771 was hijacked and crashed (loss of all onboard) by a disgruntled employee with no history of insanity. There are others too.

Yeah you can type in quick access waypoints in the fix pages, or just type them in the scratchpad and line-select them into the legs page, or change your destination. But the only syntax a Honeywell FMC (and the Airbus is the same) recognises is ICAO 4 letter identifier, or the navaid identifier. Type in PE and all it will do is pop up the list of identifiers, respective current distances from them, and corresponding navaid frequency, in its database which are "PE", neither of which are Penang or Perth. You then have to choose the one you want, which is 99.99% of the time the closest one. Even I know Penang is WMKP. A Malaysian pilot would certainly know it. If they wanted Penang they'd type (for a Boeing) WMKP into the scratchpad, line select it to 1L, confirm it, then the flying pilot would say "execute", the non flying pilot would press the illuminated EXEC (execute) button and it would load into the navigation legs as the next waypoint.

Not sure I understand what you mean by this. Where are Perth and Penang in close proximity in which menu on a Honeywell (standard Boeing) FMC? To get to a new waypoint or destination you have to type either the ICAO designator in, or the navaid identifier. If you type in a navaid identifier for Penang VOR, you would type VPG. The only list you'll get is any other identifiers around the world which are VPG, and their distance from your current position. Perth VOR is PH. Or if you typed the airfield in, you'd have to type WMKP for Penang, or YPPH for Perth. That won't give you a choice at all because ICAO designators are unique but navaid identifiers are not.

To further blur the issue, CASA have formed a group to look at doing something similar to what is happening in the USA. To encourage the uptake of ADSB-out equipment among the general aviation community they are exploring ways to reduce the cost by allowing GA to connect lesser certified GPS equipment to their mode S transponders and be "compliant" for VFR flight with ADSB-out. But at the speed they work, don't hold your breath.

Both Dynon's transponder and com radio are made by Trig and the TX/RX remote boxes are virtually physically identical to the Trig-branded units, but with slightly different software. The Trig branded versions will only partially interact with Dynon's displays, unlike the Dynon versions which are obviously fully compatible. The end result of the subtle differences was that: - the Dynon transponder is TSO'd - the Dynon 25 kHz radio is not TSO'd - the Dynon 8.33 kHz version is TSO'd - all the equivalent Trig branded units are TSO'd (their original com radio only ever came in an 8.33 kHz TSO version - it was Dynon who asked for it only in a 25 kHz non-TSO version originally, I'm speculating to keep the cost down) So by the letter of the law: - a Dynon Skyview transponder (the higher power one of course) connected to a certified GPS position source (which is not any Dynon branded GPS unfortunately) will or should be considered Australian ADSB compliant - a Dynon Skyview 8.33 kHZ com radio can be used in Australian controlled airspace but the 25 kHZ version cannot. That's my understanding, anyway. In fact I don't know what the Horsham Aviation people are talking about. There's no such thing as a "non TSO'd transponder" as far as I'm aware. They all have to be TSO'd. The stuff connected to them may or may not have to be TSO'd depending on the certification of the aircraft itself.

Well they'd better get cracking on a major runway and taxiway upgrade then. The currents ones at Warnervale are atrocious!