djpacro

Thought that some of you may be interested in this. Seems like a Kangaroo Court to me and not the appropriate way to deal with an issue like this. I've never thought a suspension as a course of action - either a chat, dual check, a more comprehensive "Pilot Proficiency Programme" or "go away".

To Gran-Aire renter pilots and student pilots:

At the end of October a Gran-Aire renter pilot violated our rental rules. Initially I suspended his rental privileges for a minimum of 60 days so I could evaluate the situation and decide if the suspension should be lifted or if a complete termination was in order.

 

This pilot has asked to meet with me now that 60 days has passed. Still undecided on his fate, I asked if he would be open to a “peer review†or “jury of his peersâ€. I asked him to write an article describing the events that led to the suspension and use a similar format to AOPA’s “Never Again†www.aopa.org/pilot/never_again publications for your review and comments. He agreed without hesitation and submitted the article within hours. If you are interested in providing comments, please respond by this Friday January 16th. I will keep your comments anonymous. I intend post them at the same link as the article (without names) on Saturday. My goal in this is twofold, to get closure on this pilot’s state of affairs and for you to learn as well. His article is available below:

As a footnote - a PPL in the USA includes night flying and a night VMC rating is not required.

Which is why the editor MUST be made aware of errors in reporting

In Memoriam Martin Robson

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Richard Ogilvie <[email protected]>

Date: Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Subject: [sPAM] FunFlight News - In Memoriam Martin Robson

[/url]

It was intended that this newsletter would be a recap of 2008 and to belatedly thank you all for your support for FunFlight 2008.

Unfortunately, events have overtaken us and last Sunday, 11th of January, FunFlight Director Martin Robson died in an aircraft accident in Melbourne. Martin was flying a Bushby Mustang which, for reasons unknown, crashed into a back garden on the Mornington Peninsula. Martin was the only person on board and there were no other casualties.

As a founding member and one of the three FunFlight directors, Martin worked tirelessly in preparing for and running our FunFlight days over the last two years. He was instrumental in organising the 2008 Victorian event, using his knowledge and contacts to bring together the Peninsula Aero Club, the Royal Victorian Aero Club, the Latrobe Valley Aero Club and Lilydale Airport for the day. In addition, he worked behind the scenes organising donations and support as well as dealing with Airservices Australia, CASA and insurances.

As well as his FunFlight commitments, Martin was also the Peninsula Aero Club's safety officer, an Angel Flight pilot and general manager of Innovative Construction Products.

Martin’s enthusiasm and drive in everything he participated in is well known and he was an inspiration to those who knew him. Martin is survived by his wife, Virma.

There will be a memorial service to celebrate Martin’s life on Monday, 19th January at 12 noon. It will be held at the Peninsula Aero Club on Stuart Rd in Tyabb and please feel welcome to attend. Virma has requested that no flowers be sent but instead donations can be made to FunFlight (www.funflight.org).

Once things have settled, we willl send an update with other FunFlight news and future events. Despite this enormous loss, the FunFlight team is determined to continue into the future and we will be seeking your support again to help make this happen.

Regards on behalf of the FunFlight team,

Richard Ogilvie & Michel Verheem

FunFlight Directors

"FunFlight Smiles Around The World"

Just some general comments, which may or may not apply to the Jabiru. ie. I claim no knowledge of the Jabiru.

Seats in old GA aeroplanes were designed for an occupant weight of 77kg (aerobatic aeroplanes had a higher figure to allow for a parachute). The current airworthiness regulations for GA aeroplanes has an occupant weight of 97kg.

As I'm closer to 97 than 77 I took a keen interest in seat strength of aerobatic aeroplanes. There have been seat failures, more from fatigue than static overload. I took the view that I should have my own, lower limit based on the product n.W - n being the limit load factor and W being occupant weight.

Seat structural design is based largely on the crash load cases rather than flight load cases so there may be a bit of reserve in flying hard aerobatics but, in my opinion, pilots should never assume that there is reserve anywhere in the structure. Leads to one of my rules - if you're going to crash do it gently.

Rear load on the seat back is simply how hard the pilot pushes on the rudder pedals - many people have the ability to push much harder than the load required by FAR 23.

Of course, few aeroplanes mention a seat load limit in the flight manual so that implies there are more significant issues than the above. I've only flown one aeroplane which had such a statement in the flight manual - it was a pusher with the crew up front - limit was determined by bolt strength of the crew module attachment to the main fuselage. That attracted my attention both from the fatigue and static strength points of view.

Things end up in flight manuals for various reasons - again, my opinion is not to assume that any of them are silly reasons but it can happen that an enthusiastic inexperienced engineer writes something without realizing the ramifications. Somewhere there is a regulation that pilots shall comply with the flight manual - a good thing to bear in mind.

Totally agree with all that you said, SP, go for it.

Re http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/incidents-accidents/21395-plane-crash-mornington-south-melbourne.html#post76654, being old & grumpy I’ve learnt that no-one takes any interest in my views on what is fair or not fair nevertheless I continue to put my views on what is right and what is wrong.

I don’t think that CASA has left that definition incomplete – that advisory circular seems very comprehensive to me.

Anyway, on to: " Police will investigate whether low-flying ultralight planes are a safety issue in the area". I have no views on whether they should do this nor how they should do it – I am a member of at least three organizations which should take an interest in it and maybe provide some evidence to their investigation.

Two people I know who have built Mustang IIs and still very happy with them many years later. An earlier generation of instrumentation and systems. All those I know with the RVs are also very happy. I've flown both and I won't make any recommendations as to which is better as my choice is also the Laser.

As for the laser z-200, its still my dream plane

- vertical line, at the speed where you'd normally hit the rudder for a stall turn, ease the stick forward and point it horizontal then hold the stick all the way back to hold it there, way below the stall speed , sit and wait until it accelerates, unstalls and continues to fly away S&L

I've observed various combinations of groups and partnerships and two people sharing the effort in building two aeroplanes. Rarely seen success - as is often the case when more than one person is involved - differing opinions on how to do stuff, different availability, different levels of motivation, different levels of effort & money put in - over a period of time just results in arguments and friends no more. Worth a try as there are benefits all round, just make allowances for when/if things go wrong.

[/url]

[/url]THE pilot of an ultra light plane ....."

 

Ultralight = 45knts stall

If a plane has a VH rego on it, it cannot be an ultralight

In Australia, an ultralight is currently considered to be a single-engined aircraft with a MTOW not

There are currently a number of different classes of ultralight aircraft in Australia, and they

are governed by different standards e.g. CAO 101.55, “Aircraft Certification Requirements -

10.3

Some ultralight aircraft may operate as normally registered civil aircraft, or under the

umbrella of a relevant sport aviation organisation.

Ultralight aircraft per se are not reflected as a category in either standard or special CoA.

However, depending on their registration status, design standards and modes of construction,

or kit-built (experimental), primary or intermediate categories."

... nothing major but after a recent flight I commented to the CFI that the particular aircraft I had just flown needed Oil (never noted in any maint release but at the exact minimum maybe just below) ..

... and the turn coordinator was not functioning to which the reply I got was we are selling that plane so not too concerned ..

So thankyou I will certainly take a flight with another school and see how I go

Design dept at that time - then on to Wamira with the Australian Aircraft Consortium. Spent a few years at Avalon in the '90s.

Ralph Murphy worked there for a while.

Mark, I worked at GAF then too, altho at the Bend I knew many who were at Avalon. eg flight test.

I know another old GAFFER who has a Savannah too.

They are replaced several times a year so you should be able to find some-one who'll let you have a recently superseded set for info.

That looks useful, Michael.

I've been going thru the Ops Manual recently to get up to speed on a few things. So, I have no immediate need but an online version could be handy.

I'd be happy to put it on my website, on a password protected page as I see there is copyright on the Manuals. http://community.ozaeros.net/

I wasn't defending the behaiviour of the Tiger flying I was saying what he did could have been quite legal .....

it's also legal to spin to 500 foot if the pilot is so endorsed

alf jessup, even if not complaining, it would've been worth a chat to the local CFI.

Thanks for the reminder, brentc; somewhere in my memory cells is some information on the difference between pressure altitude and geometric height - temperature variation from ISA was a significant factor as I recall.

I've only had mine for a short while and they seem good, thanks Michael.

I stuck on my Restricted PPL for years for the same reason.

Will we see you at any aerobatic contests in '09?

Info in PM for you, Adrian.

Strikemasters & Hunters. Bill Riley's hangar is some distance off the airport.

PS - we were there by invitation of the owner.

PPS - if I told you what I know about the P-51s I'd have to shoot you

Its been a while since I've flown that route, Adrian, but my recollection is that Mt Alexander is fairly prominent - I wonder if that would have worked as a reference for your nav checks? i.e. it would always be right of the nose.

One of my students put the deviation in but the wrong direction so imagine how hard it was for him to work out why he was off track. A wind which is significantly different than forecast will have the same effect and I recommend that you brush up on the section in your notes which deals with that. Reminds me of another error (which I've suffered from) - reading from the wrong column of the flight plan (usually the GS number) so I now highlight that column.

Flying dual with my student I didn't check his plan is as much detail as I would've if he'd been solo so we had an interesting discussion on the first leg of the flight. Can't be too many reasons to be 20deg off track.

I suggest that you have a very close look at the total £ that you'll spend and the value in $ when you sell. For example, I see an apparently nice Pitts S-2A for sale on pilotweb for £49,500. That's $104,000 before you start dismantling for shipping. See that other thread for costs of shipping etc etc. Doubt whether anyone would pay more than $100K for it after all of that. i.e. it could cost you a lot of money as well as the pain of doing it.

Managed to get flying today with a headset that is normally unusable in the front seat. Worked 100% with the ferrite core. For info, a simple story on the subject at http://www.mglavionics.co.za/Docs/EMI%20suppressor%20for%20VHF%20frequencies.pdf