Garfly

Yeah, it has its own GPS built in which supplies the Track readout at the top.

There's also a magnetic compass add-on which, the company says, at a future date,

will allow Heading/Winds Aloft info to be displayed.

Hi Rank,

Yes, as far as I know it is removable and can go underneath like so:

(In either case it's just my rough photoshopping we're looking at.)

I'm pretty interested in this new mems-based Primary Flight Display, from Kanardia,

designed to fit 80mm round holes. All else being equal, I reckon it'd look nicer in steam-gauge panels

than the usual rectangular alternatives. And the costs is under a thousand euros.

It's called Horis 80.

Kanardia

It's only just gone on sale (there's also a 57mm version seen here (German vid.):

Any thoughts?

Here's my own Photoshop mock-up of how it might look in situ:

Just turned up this 1957 film promoting the "AOPA 180 degrees rating" an emergency technique for 'contact pilots' inadvertently un-horizoned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0-SZJtoNzg

YouTube, as usual, leads on to countless other flicks on the topic showing that cloud interiors remain a trap for young - and old - players.

Some favourites:

Sure, there were many causes including those key-player temperaments. But in the context of this thread the fact that confusion reigned in the cockpit regarding the 'take-off clearance' remains a lesson to us all about the need for read backs and for clarity of radio comms generally.

BTW, I certainly didn't take your valid point about the KLM captain to be anything like an 'opinion of dutchmen'. On that point, though, I can only say I've had the opposite experience in life; many of the dearest, most modest, people I've ever met hail from old Holland. Go figure! No accounting for human factors! ;-)

This recent article:

WHAT EVERY VFR PILOT NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT ARRIVING IFR TRAFFIC

in the US based Airfacts Journal raises issues that apply here in Australia maybe even more crucially since we get mixed traffic at non-towered aerodromes in Class G - a state of affairs which, I believe, is rare in the US.

What every VFR pilot needs to know about arriving IFR traffic - Air Facts Journal

This CASA study on traffic issues at Port Macquarie Airport (NSW) covers some of the same ground:

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100244/aeronautical_study_of_port_macquarie_july_2014.pdf

And it makes the point in this (edited) excerpt that:

"8.1 International Comparison

There are a limited number of aerodromes in the United States (US) that cater for a similar passenger/aircraft movement ratio to Port Macquarie. According to the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data11 for the 2012 calendar year, airports with passenger and/or aircraft movement numbers nearest to the Port Macquarie figures include:

•  La Crosse Municipal; and
   
  
  
   
   
  
•  Waco Regional.
   
  
  
   
   
   La Crosse Municipal has a higher percentage of IFR to VFR traffic than Port Macquarie.
   
  
   La Crosse Municipal is a Class D (i.e. towered) aerodrome encompassed by Class E airspace (See Figure 12).
   
   
  
•  Waco Regional is a Class D (i.e. towered) aerodrome encompassed by Class E airspace (See Figure 13). Class D airspace exists from surface to 3,000 ft AMSL and Class E airspace commences from 700 ft AGL.
   
   
  

Comparing Port Macquarie to aerodromes in the US that support a similar number of passengers and/or aircraft movements indicates that if the US airspace system were adopted Port Macquarie would likely be a Class D aerodrome (i.e. towered)."

Did someone say envy?

Then again, who can dedicate a whole room to toy planes.

And in any case, that 'engine-sound' loop on his fancy system is no less annoyingly short as on my laptop.

But who cares, we can always listen to music instead. (Real pilots do nowadays, anyway. ;-)

But you're right M., a multi-function joystick is a good compromise between big bells-and-whistles jobs and using the trackpad/keyboard, alone. And, I guess, if the joystick has yaw input so much the better - although the required muscle memory might be so different to pedals that it may not be all that useful for training. (Whereas moving fingers in place of hands/arms seems pretty close.)

And, of course, we have lots of aircraft now - large and small - where fly-by-wire sticks are the reality.

You can go to a lot of trouble and expense building a realistic sim hardware set up - and they can be fantastic. But I've found that I can get heaps of aeronautical education - and fun - out of X-Plane using nothing more than the keyboard and trackpad. I have pedals and a yoke and use them sometimes but mostly, just don't bother.

To me, one of the greatest benefits is doing Navs in the sim. You can practise using paper maps and E6B/whiz-wheel (the terrain in X-Plane is amazingly accurate and recognisable) applying the winds aloft you dial-in or going with random/actual weather. Clouds and other phenomena are getting astonishingly realistic in recent versions (but need pretty fast processors to exploit.) Equally, you can practise using the full functionality of OzRunways (or AVPlan). If your iPad and computer are on the same wifi network you can select OzRunway's Simulator mode and your imaginary flight appears exactly as it would on a real flight. If you use random or real time weather, I think it actually helps develop good aeronautical decision making. You don't necessarily have to hand fly the whole trip. Most available aircraft have autopilots which allows you to do other things while the flight continues as you configure it. But, anyway, it's for scenarios like this that sitting up at a proper sim-station is not that much of an advantage. You may as well do it comfortably on the sofa.

On the other hand, one of the least useful things to practise in minimalist set ups is circuit work. To me it's just too hard to get the views working properly so that you can keep track of the runway. It is possible to 'look-around' - but not easy - so I usually go for straight-in approaches in X-Plane. But if you want to practise circuits strictly by the numbers then it could probably be good in developing flying discipline.

And it's very possible to practice IFR work if you want to. Of course, you don't get the conflicting bodily inputs of the real world but, even so, given some rough weather you discover that it's really not easy (even without somatic miscues) to keep the scan going and stay right side up.

All that's not to say that I reckon simple simulated flying is good to develop actual aircraft handling skills - for example, as an aid to type conversion (by downloading and practising in your 'real world' aircraft). Unless it's a million dollar professional set up I don't think you can rely on basic sims to work for you at that level. But for developing general aeronautical thinking, yes; there are so many ways they can help in training one's flying mind.

The underlying flight modelling of X-Plane is said to be super accurate and it is used in some approved simulators.

Plus, quite a few real world instructors have developed learning tools using the application:

X-PPL - Learn to Fly - X-Plane.Org Forum

X-IFR - IFR Flight School - X-Plane.Org Forum

And again, I wouldn't be put off if you don't have a fancy set up. A lot of useful practice can be done letting your fingers do

the pushin' and the pullin'.

And, besides, if you're an airplane tragic, the pictures are just so pretty!

Yeah, well, it's true, we have had a lot of serious near hits. We've been lucky. (No idea, though, how we compare to the rest of the world on a proper like-to-like basis.) But I guess CASA and AsA would reckon those incidents are caused by not enough procedural compliance rather than too much of it. And a lot do come down to language and (mis) understanding.

Regarding read backs and standard phrases, I'd say that ever since Tenerife (still the world's worst airline disaster; and one caused purely by poor communication) authorities are super-serious about clarity of radio comms. I think I read that it was after Tenerife that the term 'take-off' was declared NEVER to be uttered by any controller, anywhere, other than in the phrase "Cleared for take-off".

Similarly the repetition in "Behind the landing 737, line up. Behind" (re-repeated as read-back) must be meant to prevent some pilot, some one-in-a-million time, hearing a controller say "Lineup ... /screech/over-transmit/ blah blah" and promptly power onto the active as directed - but in front of.

This is an FAA document about the Tenerife disaster:

Lessons Learned

In any case, as has been mentioned here heaps of times, the day one of our lighties brings down an RPT will be the day we kiss goodbye to many of our taken-for-granted freedoms of the air.

Nathan, yeah, a YouTube commenter picked up on that point too (comparing it to the US):

Geoffrey Gallaway

I agree, I'm just used to US controllers being very strict about

the identification in their transmissions. Great video, very educational.

And Jaba, I was surprised by your comment that our ATC system actually has more problems than either the US or Europe (despite our [presumed] close adherence to ICAO rules). Can you tell us what data that's based on?

Anyway, for those interested (single pilot IFR ain't exactly RAAus core material) the vid's dissected in detail here.

Flying - Youtube video - DA42 IFR into Frankfurt in heavy weather

Quite a few pros complain, among other things, that the pilot's still negotiating a taxiway turnoff on late final [no doubt, all too conscious of the airliner on his tail] and point to the tower's amusing (non-procedural) advice: "keep your eyes on the runway". But most are pretty impressed by the way he handled a tough situation and appreciate his posting the video for its educational value. To save trawling the thread, here's a typical critique:

what_next

02-Jun-16 14:08

#55 Vref wrote:

Well, its easy to criticize on a video…

Sure. But it was his own decision to show his remarkable flight to all 7 billion people on this planet by posting it on YouTube. Therefore he must expect to attract some criticism…

I join this conversation late because I have been flying around Germany in the last few days in similar weather (which will stay with us for some more days…) with not much internet access. Also I did not watch the full 30x minutes of it (what has become of the art of video editing? 10 minutes would have been more than enough) by skipping over some of it.

Would I have been sitting next to him in either my function as ME/IR instructor or bizjet training captain, those would have been my main points in the debrief:

Good:

- His R/T, navigation skills and mastery of the aeroplane and systems are really good. With one exception, the weather radar (more of that later).

Not so good:

- Maybe it was in one of the parts that I skipped over, but I didn’t see him reading a single checklist. Landing in Frankfurt gear-up during such a busy time of day will cause 7-figure losses to the airport and the dozens of airliners he will force to divert until the runway is cleared of his wreck. Totally unacceptable for me. But again, maybe I simply missed those bits.

- The closer he gets to the runway, the more his hands fly all over the place. Pressing buttons here and there, whatever. Set yourself a “stabilisation gate”, 500ft above field elevation would be a sensible figure for this kind of aircraft, by which the aircraft has to be fully configured for landing and on speed. From then on, one hand stays on the stick/yoke, the other on the throttle and your eyes on the runway (as the controller tells him, the best part of the video by the way!). And keep your hands and eyes exactly there until you have either left the runway or established positive rate of climb in case of a go-around. And use the yellow lines for taxiing off the runway. Getting stuck in the mud with one wheel while taking a shortcut will also shut down the airport long enough to cause a seven-figure financial damage.

- Weather radar: Please Mr. YouTube pilot, get someone to show you how to use a weather radar. I know this is not taught during training (because trainers are usually not equipped with one and training flights are not done in weather which requires one either). And it really cannot be learned from reading books of blogposts. It is an art which needs to be taught on the job. One of the reasons why many hours/years of flying in the right hand seat are required before being given the command in a commercial all-weather flying operation.

The radar in that video is set up in a way which shows a screen full of nasty stuff. Yet the pilot flies right through every bit of it. What’s the point of having a weather radar then? I think it was set-up in a less than optimal way because the actual weather is not as bad as it looks on the screen. Because had it been really as bad, then this little plane would have been torn to pieces.

- Decision making. I have not seen his flight preparation nor the weather charts and forecasts. But if those conditions were actually forecast, then flying into a place like EDDF in a little puddle jumper like this is not a very smart move. Traffic density is such that not every request for a heading change around storm cells can be granted by ATC (as can be seen in the video). When his first request to avoid a cell was denied he would still have had plenty of options for a diversion elsewhere. It looks as if the cloud base and cloud coverage would even have permitted a VFR diversion into a place lilke Egelsbach. Yet he accepted to fly through something his (however setup) weather radar showed him as being potentially dangerous. And from then on he continued regardless of what his radar picture shows. In the commercial world, this kind of decision making would buy him at least one more year in the right hand seat.

Don’t want to sound smart here, but again, showing one’s achievements to the whole world attracts criticism. The video is a good example of what is (just) possible with a light plane, but it could have been different if one of the blobs on his radar screen had in reality been a fully developed thunderstorm with lightning, ice and hail and up- and downdrafts in excess of 5000 ft/min. Lots of stuff to be learned here.

I found this mesmerising - a 36min in-cockpit, single-shot video of a pilot in a Diamond twin (DA42) - making an instrument approach and landing into busy Frankfurt International in stormy weather. He does a great job under pressure, assisted by his Garmin G1000 set-up with weather radar. The controllers (approach, director, tower) also do a great job calmly fitting the light twin in with the heavy-metal especially given that many are calling "unable" to steer assigned headings due CBs etc.

It'd be nice to have comments from our local ATC people as to the differences in style they notice (assuming anyone has the time or inclination to sit through it all - something of a busman's holiday for controllers!)

This runway incursion incident at Taree is a lesson in how the best of radio intentions can fall short:

Investigation: AO-2012-043 - Runway incursion - SAAB 340, VH-ZLH / Vans RV10, VH-PGX, Taree Airport, NSW, 23 March 2012

This is the famous example of what can happen if one gets those sums wrong:

I didn't quote 'actual words'.

I remember reading somewhere that leaving the auxiliary fuel pump on continuously can increase overall fuel consumption. I went a googlin' for a reference but haven't found it. Could've dreamt it.

But I did turn this up:

http://www.askacfi.com/29466/auxiliary-fuel-pump.htm

I believe there was talk at the General Meeting last Saturday of revisiting the whole magazine issue. I think I heard - via a dodgy internet connection - that the reintroduction of hard-copies being sent to all members is under consideration by management.

On the subject of keeping straight with rudder on final (not to be conflated with turning final) there was an exhaustive debate here a couple of years ago; much of it between and among instructors of two schools of thought:

Steering on final with rudder

What about the use of Octane booster fluid used in, say, Rotax 912 engines. I've seen conflicting expert information on this on the web. My question is, if the choice came down to operating with possibly octane depleted fuel or with using some of those additives that you can buy in servos, what would be worse?

Here (attached) is an article on refuelling with more detail and some good tips.

(Put out by the Murray Bridge Gliding Club ;-)

And more useful info on this site e.g:

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/refueling-high-wing-planes.4374/#post-44943

STATIC-ELECTRICITY.pdf

STATIC-ELECTRICITY.pdf

STATIC-ELECTRICITY.pdf

There are some interesting earlier threads on here about this topic and Flight Safety Australia had this article in it last year:

http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2015/09/stopping-the-spark/

Anybody going tomorrow?

I gather this is the second industry rally in Tamworth in recent weeks.

I'm thinking of driving over from the coast.

An important message from AOPA Australia ...

INDUSTRY RALLY

TAMWORTH AIRPORT

1pm - Friday, 6th May 2016

Hangar 6 - Tamworth Regional Airport, NSW, Australia.

To the Australian Aviation Industry,

YOUR INDUSTRY NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT - 6th MAY 2016

I am calling on the support of all pilots, aircraft owners, aviation business owners and operators to attend our industry rally in Tamworth, on Friday 6th May 2016.

This is your opportunity to be seen and to be heard!

The industry’s leading associations, peak-bodies and aviation personalities, will be in attendance. All standing with the pilots, aircraft owners, aviation businesses and operators of our industry - united in the call for change.

We are calling on the government take immediate measures to end the regulatory nightmare that has destroyed our charter, flight training and maintenance industries. Made Australia uncompetitive on the global aviation stage. Eroded essential air services connecting regional Australia, disconnecting townships and isolating communities.

A regulatory nightmare that has forced an entire industry into collapse and thousands of hard working men and women into bankruptcy.

In attendance, representing the government will be;

The Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Barnaby Joyce

The Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester

The Chairman of the Board, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Mr Jeff Boyd.

For too long, the Australian aviation industry has been disenfranchised the right to economic prosperity through failed policy and excess regulation and compliance costs. We are an industry failed by political rhetoric and empty promises by the Labor, Liberal and The Nationals alike.

Our industry has been pushed to the wall, lives destroyed, families broken, retirements ruined and homes lost.

A prosperous future for aviation in this country can only be assured through a regulatory framework that is balanced, fair and representative of the needs and aspirations of industry itself. Most importantly, it must be accountable to industry, the people it is there to serve.

I am calling on each and every aviation participant that cares for this industry to show their support and attend. We can no longer afford to sit back and watch the destruction of our industry. Stand with us as we call on government to take action.

Help send Canberra a clear message

Show your support. Fly in or drive in. Contact your aviation networks, email, sms, phone. Lets send the government a clear message, that enough is enough.

Thank you for your support, and I look forward to seeing you all at the event.

Aaron Stephenson - CEO

email: [email protected]

RALLY COMMENCES AT 1PM, 6TH MAY 2016

HANGAR 6, TAMWORTH AIRPORT

EVENT SCHEDULE

1pm - Arrival

1pm-2pm - FREE BBQ lunch and drinks - Sponsored by Aviation Advertiser

& AOPA

2pm - Government representatives arrive

2pm-2:30pm - Closed door meeting between Government

and Industry Associations

2:30pm-3pm - Short presentation to rally from industry representatives

2:30pm-4pm - Open Q&A between rally attendees and government

4pm-6pm - Tamworth AeroClub Post Event Drinks

There's been some discussion of the Cheetah XLS here before:

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/skyranger-swift-nynja-vs-bushcat-cheetah-xls.120396/

I suppose you've seen The Last African Flying Boat, then, Oscar. Sounds like an adventure for you.

(By the way, I met Dick Kingsland [his daughter is a friend]. He had many other amazing flying boat stories. He flew bombing missions over Japanese held Rabaul in Cats. They flew all night from Port Moresby. As they got close they had to go down to wave top level before climbing again over the target using the Catalina as a kind of dive bomber! Then there was the amazing story where he and his Sunderland crew were captured in Vichy controlled North Africa on a special diplomatic mission out of Britain that went wrong. They overpowered a guard, shot their way out of jail, highjacked a launch and returned to their aircraft at anchor in the harbour and hastily took-off pursued by the enemy. I think he said they knocked off one of their wing floats during that getaway but amazingly they managed it. What a war he had. )

Perhaps the quote above (#57) is not such a good fit to this case (which, in its bizarre detail, is a statistical outlier anyway) but it does bear on the general drift of the thread towards the philosophy of Crime and Punishment in the aviation sphere; what, if any, kinds of accidents or transgressions should be regarded as 'criminal'.

The writer of that quote would probably have had the PelAir debacle in mind. And what a debacle.

Thanks to a vigilant media and a Senate Enquiry it became clear that there was far more perfidy than philosophy that had that 'crime' sheeted home to an individual pilot, precisely as a way of exculpating 'the system' that (at least partly) put him in that position.

And yet, even in the strange case that started this thread, the writer's analysis might be seen to hold: "If one part has failed, more parts have failed; in fact, the whole system has failed."

Anticipating the obvious objections he hastens to add:

"I am definitely not advocating some criminal reform agenda that would see ... personal responsibility disappear."

I've just come across this thoughtful post - parts of which are relevant here - by Peetwo on the Auntypru forum (03/10/15).

http://auntypru.com/forum/-The-search-for-investigative-probity

In which he quotes this "excellent blog opinion piece courtesy of Dan Parsons (Mid 2013)"

PARTIAL QUOTE:

"It’s a hard thing to let go of but, I think, we have to let go of the criminal view of personal responsibility when we are dealing with accidents in complex socio-technical systems, such as aviation. I’m just going to come out and say it:

No one, who participates in the aviation system, should ever go to jail, be fined or sanctioned as a criminal. Ever. Regardless of the error, violation, failing, mistake, slip, lapse, omission, commission, faux-pas, foul-up, whatever.

If we accept that aviation is indeed a system – a complex set of individuals, machines, procedures, tools, organisations – all working to achieve the objective of moving stuff from A to B – then no single part of that system can be singled out as having “failed”.

As a system there are, or should be, feedback loops. Sub-systems for checking and re-checking. There should be self-correction. If one part has failed, more parts have failed; in fact, the whole system has failed.

If you are going to blame one, you need to blame all. Jail one, jail all. Fine one, fine all.

Whoa Warden, Don’t Open that Door Yet

I am definitely not advocating some criminal reform agenda that would see society’s jails shut-down and personal responsibility disappear. I am arguing for a clear distinction between how we view undesirable events within the aviation endeavour and in society at large. I don’t think it is appropriate to look at the aviation industry as a sub-set of society and apply the same thinking.

The big differences between aviation and society are choice and intent. Pilots, ATC’ers, LAMEs, AROs and many others choose to be part of the aviation with the intent on achieving the industry’s objective of moving stuff from here to there safely."