Garfly

There you go again with your straw men. What you said about the dangers of IMC to VFR pilots can hardly be ignored by anyone; it's true - all too obviously so. What should be ignored (easier said than done) is your patronising attack on any but the most conventional means of spreading the word.

"Hijacked" huh!!?? And thereby "lost a few", eh? Oh, really?!! Choice language; choice accusations you throw around willy nilly. If you cared to look you'd see I was first to endorse the deadly message of the original video posted by BrendAn above.. That could indicate that I'm not especially needful of your stern lecture on the subject. If you had the discernment to see beyond dogma you'd get it; the issue is about the most effective way to get the message across, not the (obvious) message itself. Which, by the way, nobody is denying. To quote Capt.Thorpe, lead critic (above) of 178 secs "and, yes, VFR into IMC is a big deal. Kills lots of pilots." So time to climb down off your charger, the dangerous straw-men you spied are now scattered to the four winds.

There's been a fair bit of backlash regarding the 178 seconds video over the years, mostly along the lines expressed in this PoA forum: Pilots of America forum "How long can you keep it up" March 27 2018 A couple of excerpts: Everskyward said: Strongly agreed, and that was my reaction the first time I saw it. The last thing we should be doing is inducing panic. Yes, 178 seconds was the average time that a pilot was able to fly blind without instruments. But what they didn't tell you is that this group was the control group...pilots with zero training, zero instruments and zero visibility. Even an IFR trained pilot is likely to crash in that situation. In fact, the study was actually to test whether or not a VFR pilot could be trained to use instruments to make a 180 turn. After "crashing", they taught each pilot the techniques to execute a 180 with reference to instruments and tested them again - every single pilot was able to learn to reverse course and get out of the clouds again. Then someone came up with a scare video based on the control group and how clouds were a deathtrap waiting to snare VFR pilots and lure them to their doom. Now, that is all anyone know of the study and the real lesson has been lost to the drama. Sigh.... And this discussion where the original experiment was returned to its context: 178 seconds -- the facts about the experiment GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM The following is a summary of some key points of the paper itself, entitled "180-degree turn experiment" and in UI's Aeronautics Bulletin 11. I have no axe to grind, and I think the "178 seconds" article does a good job of communicating the hazards of spatial disorientation. However, some issues have become clouded by the "chinese whisper" effect, so this is to set the record straight. * The research was conducted at University of Illinois Institute of Aviation in 1954, principally by Jesse Stonecipher, the CFI. * It was a response to the challenge from AOPA to devise a technique for non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC * The tests were conducted on a Beech Bonanza C-35 in flight (not a "ground trainer" as cited in the 178 Seconds article) * The 20 subjects for the experiment were chosen for being representative of those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not "none since primary training", none at all) * The Bonanza was chosen specifically *because* it would be difficult to fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly. * None of the subjects had soloed a Bonanza. As far as I can tell, only 3 of the subjects had any complex experience at all, with most of them recording time on Aeronca 7AC, Cessna 140 and Tri-Pacers. * Most of the subjects had only about 20 hours dual time, presumably the PPL syllabus in those days. 7 of them had less than 40 hours total. * The aircraft was made to simulate basic VFR instruments, plus a turn indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the entire experiment. * The first period of the experiment was the famed '178 seconds' test, aimed at assessing the students' baseline instrument aptitude. The time was measured between the googles being placed over the students' eyes and an 'incipient dangerous flight condition'. For most cases this was deemed to be an airspeed of 185 mph or an incipient stall. * 19 of the 20 went into a 'graveyard spiral'. One pulled the aircraft into a whip-stall. * Times ranged from 20 seconds to 480 seconds. The average was indeed 178 seconds * There then followed 4 periods of instruction in the 180 degree turn technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study * By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours (mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique. * The subjects were again tested by simulating instrument conditions, and asked to transition from cruise to slow flight, make a 180 degree turn, and establish a controlled descent. Each subject was tested 3 times. * Of the 60 trials, 59 were successfully completed. The unsuccessful one involved the failure to set power to maintain altitude and continued the descent in a way that violated the success definition. It was considered that control was not lost, and that if the aircraft had not become visual below cloud, the impact would have been survivable. The technique: Throughout, center the turn needle using the rudder. 1) Hands off the control column 2) Lower the landing gear 3) Reduce power 4) Set trim to a predetermined position for slow flight (95 mph) 5) Adjust prop and power for approx level flight at 95 mph 6) Note the compass heading 7) Turn using the rudder 😎 Roll out with appropriate lead or lag 9) Center the turn needle 10) Reduce power for a controlled descent It was noticed that step 1 was both the most important and the most difficult psychologically! The usual deduction from the 178 Seconds article is the rather negative one that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex aircraft. Julian Scarfe

The mysterious man behind 777 Partners, the strange private equity firm that owns Bonza - ABC News WWW.ABC.NET.AU Bonza's US private equity backers, 777 Partners, is fighting financial and legal fires around the world with its portfolio of budget airlines and financially struggling football clubs.

16+ Years: Qantas’ Oldest Airbus A380 Returns To Service https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIH1ABddgSE

Oh, thank you. When you put it that way, even I can understand it.

To me they did all they could have done. They were very unlucky to have that cabal of public servants throw a spanner in their works at the last hurdle. In fact, the 'main issue' of this thread extends to the region. From the Original Post

Yeah, I'd say Forums definitely have their place, for a few reasons. Anyway, could it be that you'd still be better off with a SkyEcho2 ('entry level' ADSB IN-OUT ) while the rebate is still available and then getting your transponder back (if not your deposit - which'd pay for a subsidised SE2) so that you could still operate in controlled airspace as per normal?

That Williamsdale proposal was devised and defeated over a decade ago. It very much involved the ACT Government. It was a very bitter experience for the aviation enthusiasts who worked up the proposal very professionally only to be tripped at the last hurdle. Posting this link again - a detailed telling of the story from their POV Home | Canberra's Second Airport WWW.CANBERRASECONDAIRPORT.COM

Man, 71, dies when his experimental aircraft crashes in Groveland WWW.DAILYCOMMERCIAL.COM An unregistered experimental aircraft crashed at the Groveland airport at 1:30 p.m. April 19, killing the pilot, according to the FAA. Bobby Bailey's own Dragonfly in this video appears to have a ballistic parachute installed. Presumably the new build that got him hadn't yet.

Nice one, Nev. I wasn't expecting back-up from you on that one ... so all the more chuffed! LOL

I did notice that. What I haven't noticed is a great deal of difference in that regard locally. Poor benighted, ignorant pilots. They must be protected them from all and any information that might confuse them.

Aware or not, in his words, it's stuff "they don't teach you in the FAA written or private pilot licence."

If you're referring to Juan Browne's little big-push demo ... yeah, basic and obvious; still, you sense some exasperation in his voice: "Look at that, Zero G! ... You cannot stall an aircraft at zero G!". It's as if he's fed up that so basic a fact seems far from obvious to many who fly aeroplanes or even instruct in them.

TKS?

No, I'm quoting 10.5's post:

Yeah, I think there are a couple of issues mixed up here, Mark. 'Compliance' as to proper full ADSB-out systems is one thing and, as you say, requires, among other things, a certified GPS source. But the other question is one we've been asking for years: does ATC yet have the ability to 'see' EC devices - if only as a "situational awareness" tool within their limited range. That's what the authorities have long been suggesting will happen but I've never heard that it is the case anywhere in the country. (See the article I quoted above, for example) Do you have any more info on that?

Yeah, interesting but puzzling; what ATC (Canberra Approach and/or Tower?) are telling you. Maybe the tech has not trickled down yet or maybe they choose not to deal with any additional "situational awareness" capacity. As to the Garmin quote, as far as I understand it, that wouldn't bear on the issue of whether or not ATC have commissioned the gear that lets them "see" EC devices (as foreshadowed in the Flight Safety Australia article [above]).

I don't think Thruster misses the point - or even disputes conventional wisdom about straight ahead being best. To me he's just putting the emphasis back where it belongs: if you don't get flying speed NOW, you won't be landing anywhere (in the conventional sense). Juan Browne makes the same point in this 2 minute quickie on the subject.

I got the impression that a buy-back isn't even on the cards. The hope being that the "pre-existing covenant" (that YGLB remains) will be honoured into the future.

I agree. FlightChops too, emphatically:

A new contribution by FlightChops:

It'd be strange if this remains the case (that ATC can't see SE2 transmissions). (And even more strange that we don't have clarity on it by now, one way or the other.) This was written back in 2021 in Flight Safety Australia in an article called "VFR and Visible" Can ATC ‘see’ my SkyEcho2? The prime objective of SkyEcho2 is air-to-air traffic awareness – the device is not certified to the performance standards needed for ATC separation services. Nevertheless, CASA envisages the device being used for situational awareness by ATC. By early this year, the Airservices Australia ATC system had not been modified to display SkyEcho2; however, it is expected that with a new ATC system on the way, SkyEcho2 transmissions will be displayed to controllers, for situational awareness only, using distinctive symbology which will prevent the application of surveillance separation standards to those aircraft. Given the COVID crisis, there is uncertainty about when this capability may be delivered by Airservices Australia. VFR and visible _ Flight Safety Australia copy.pdf