djpacro

From this page on the CASA website:

If you operate an aircraft in Australian Territory and you need to hold a licence issued by CASA you must have a current AVID or ASIC or must have applied for an aviation security status check.

You can either apply to CASA for an AVID or ASIC or alternatively you can apply for an ASIC through any other ASIC issuing authority.

RaMpAgE, I suggest that you give them a call and ask about progress on your SPL and medical - I've always found them quite helpful - they won't know you are waiting unless you tell them.

While on that subject, I heard recently that ASICs will soon be required for airside access at Moorabbin.

There is a good description of this on page 150 of

Basic Aerobatics By Geza Szurovy & Mike Goulian

See it on google books if that link doesn't work.

That link didn't work for me so here's a direct link to the book - scroll down to page 150.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=kc3aoLOiGVkC&lpg=PP1&dq=mike%20goulian%20aerobatics&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

The RAA ground school notes on flight envelopes should explain why the J170 has a lower Va.

Neil - Williams was known for his displays in the Zlin and Pitts.

Recognise anyone here?

Barry Tempest is another from the 70s. He's talking about a reunion as this is the 40th anniversary of the RATS founding.

I see that Tim Mills now lives in NSW somewhere.

Welcome Tegan.

Warning - don't get interested in aerobatics - it is addictive!

I recall Geoff visiting me when we lived in the UK in the mid-70s.

Bob Dengate is a legend in the local aircraft industry - he has moved to the coast in NSW.

The Rothmans Team were sensational - after seeing them I decided I just had to get a Pitts! A couple of the lads from the team are on the internet - another online forum. I met Manx at Booker and Neil as he visited Cranfield quite a bit.

Welcome fireproof. I was a student at RMIT during Henry's first few years there.

I also did some flying with him in my Airtourer (not far from Geelong) back in the early '70s.

Just finished judging the Four Minute Freestyle Programme. Only two competitors - Paul and Paul.

I could be wrong but my understanding of JAR 23 (and FAR 23) was that a ground vibration test plus analysis was only acceptable for comparison with a dynamically similar aircraft which had previously been demonstrated to be free from flutter.

Generally, to demonstrate freedom from flutter requires a flight flutter test plus analysis.

I'm sure that you guys would beat me in a take-off contest but when I was flying a Husky regularly I didn't see a need to do anything other than full flap, full power and keep the tail on the ground until it was flying. Not long to wait when its in the air in about 30 m or so at max weight.

The only time that I measured the ground roll myself was at max weight in a slight breeze at 8500 ft density altitude: 82 m (and still a frisky climb performance afterwards - some-one described it as a chandelle).

(with a few exceptions) .... whatever I am flying at the time

The VHF air band can never legally be used for chat.Even 123.45 is limited to ..... "....necessary operational information...."

There is only one channel allocated to Sport Aviation, Australia wide and its 120.850

Powewin - please stay in the discussion.

Well, if we're going round again I will add something new, or at least different from my earlier posts. People could go back and read all the old posts if they like.

Here is an extract from Stick & Rudder that I found interesting:

Page 256 THE POWER DESCENT

…...

 

 

 

The power approach is one extremely practical case in which it is definitely true that the stick is the airplane's speed control and the throttle is it's up-and-down control. If you want to come down more steeply, don't nose the airplane down. Cut the throttle back, and then manipulate the stick so as to keep the air speed constant. As the throttle is cut, the nose must indeed come down a little if the speed is to remain constant. But in a perfectly behaved airplane, the nose will come down all by itself if you merely hold the stick steady! Since most of our airplanes are not perfectly behaved, you may have to take some action with the stick to keep the speed steady. But as a matter of fact, this action may well consist of increasing your back pressure on the stick rather than decreasing it! This is because with decreased power, most airplense become disproportionally nose-heavy and actually want to pick up speed! At any rate, the thing to do is is to free your working of the stick from any idea that the elevator is the airplane's up-and-down control. Work the stick so as to keep your speed steady. A steady air speed is the key to a successful power approach. Work the throttle to regulate your descent.

 

 

 

…....

 

 

 

In talking this over with other pilots, you may sometimes be advised to use a different method: to put the airplane into a certain attitude, probably about level, and then work the throttle to regulate your descent-always keeping the ship in the same attitude. This method results, of course, in constantly varying air speeds and Angles of Attack. But note that in this method, too, you do not make it stay up by pulling the stick back. As a matter of fact, the handling of the stick works out just the opposite way! As you reduce your power to steepen your descent, you must come back on the stick if you want to hold the ship in its level attitude.

 

 

 

 

 

This constant-attitude method is second best. It is not quite as sure and smooth and foolproof as the constant-speed method outlined above. But it has the advantage that it is easier to teach to beginning students. A student often has no real conception of Angle of Attack and cannot sense it very well nor does he sense speed well. But he is invariably keenly conscious of his ship's attitude, and can handle the job of keeping the attitude constant, when he might fail at keeping speed and Angle of Attack constant. Also, it must be admitted that the constant-speed method outlined above depends rather heavily upon the air-speed indicator—since with power partly on, one's sensing of speed and Angle of Attack is not too keen. Now it may happen that a ship has no reliable air-speed indicator. Finally, many instructors think that the student's eye should be kept outside the cockpit as much as possible. Thus sometimes this constant-attitude method of making a power approach may be the best.

You may find what you want at the aeroelectric connection website.

A good place to start reading is this 1Mb file http://www.aeroelectric.com/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf

I have Version 3, October 2009, in pdf form (11.8Mb) if you are interested.

My recollection of my theory notes from many years ago was that a non-sensitive altimeter did not have the barometric sub-scale to set QNH. Piston engine aircraft don't need an internal vibrator. When refreshing my memory on google just now I see an alternative definition of a non-sensitive altimeter as one having only one needle.

Speaking of specs - there is an FAA TSO on sensitive altimeters which refers to an SAE Standard on the subject of "Altimeters, Pressure Actuated Sensitive Type" - so obviously if an altimeter conforms to that TSO C-10b then it must be a sensitive altimeter. Sorry but I didn't persist to get a summary of the standard. Back to my catalogue and I see a variety of altimeters which do not claim that TSO - doesn't mean that they don't have the attributes required of that TSO however.

My point is that if an altimeter is missing just one, any one, aspect of that standard then it should not be described as a sensitive altimeter i.e. looks like both definitions in my first paragraph would be correct.

Regardless Bubbleboy - I suggest that you look at the specs and the pretty pictures in the catalogue or website vs the prices. Do you need a TSO'd instrument or not? Take your pick and pay your money.

Cue to mention CLEAR PROP here.

I bought a carton of 12 from Shell at Moorabbin recently for $110.32.

Essendon may be closer for you, danstee.

Just adding to flyinghigh's answer.

Some years back some-one in CASA came up with the idea that a pilot should get things 100% right. eg if a pilot passed the exam but happened to get every question related to weight and balance wrong then that suggests a deficiency requiring attention.

My last CASA exam was at the other end of the scale - I passed easily but the KDR mentioned almost every subject in the syllabus.

When your wife does her PPL test, the ATO must check that she knows enough of the KDR items. In my case it took the ATO about 10 seconds. In my other example, with that lack of knowledge of weight and balance one would expect to do example calculations and have a discussion about it.

It as a line item on the PPL Test Form and the ATO will need the KDR for the test.

I used to advise young engineering students/graduates on a similar theme. 50% was their pass mark for the Uni exams but a real engineering job needs to be done pretty much 100% right. I recall a brief discussion with one student who did a small job for me: "Most of the job is good" ... "You made a mistake at the start - the outcome is rubbish."

The information package on the aerobatic contest is online here.

The NOTAM will be fairly vague however this diagram indicates where all the action is.

i.e. right over the airfield from 4000 ft AGL to 330 ft AGL so I suggest keep your circuits wide and don't overfly the field - some-one will talk to you on CTAF to tell you what is going on.

The good news is that Natfly at Temora is on a different radio frequency - it has been painful in recent years with Narromine and Parkes on the same frequency.

Lee,

Lahona near Moorabbin airport will also do a neat one for you but likely more expensive than Di. Friends have got their wife or girlfriend to make one - turned out well too.

(you shouldn't need it inside the hangar anyway)

Looking to be a great contest. Plenty of aeroplanes here already inc Paul's Extra, a Giles 202, Edge 540, couple of DR-107s, Pitts S-2A and three Lasers.

The point is that regulation 5.78 states:

A private pilot (aeroplane) licence authorises the holder of the licence:(a) to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command ... etc

I recall reading about that as a news report but I can't remember where but I believe it is true. My recollection was that it was in the Admimistrative Appeals Tribunal. I did a quick search of their archives and didn't find it.

Hi again Qwerty

A friend of mine paid for his 12 yr old son to take some flying lessons in a GA a/c (Cessna 150 operated by the scouts). Things went well but didn't seem to make sense to me to proceed until much closer to when he could go solo at age 16. I suggested that he start with gliders.