Garfly

PenName, can you expand on this? What 'layer cake' do you mean? The 36 DME Class C step? That won't be on the new WAC. They're talking PRD areas only. So, presumably, Pine Gap will be there - as it is already on Visual Terminal Chart. And as to FIR frequencies, I'd have thought your OzRWYs/AvPlan plus the ERC Low chart had you well covered in that department. If you want WACs to be all things to all people - especially nowadays - they will lose their particular usefulness. It doesn't take much magenta ink to cover useful detail at 1:1,000,000

Well, yes, I guess that's the point. So you wonder, why would they have bothered. In any case, if only PRDs are shown then the new style WACs are hardly of any use regarding all the other types of restricted airspace. In practice it probably won't be much of a problem for anyone on their EFB charts but there are many places where the Hybrid VFR maps give over to the WACs from VNCs. And I think there may be a lot of PRD boundaries - at some level or another - extending out that far. I just hope it doesn't mean a lot of misleading and useless magenta lines cluttering up those areas.

I enquired with ASA's Aero Charting about this news and they were kind enough to send me this sample image. According to ASA: "The PRD boundaries have been added to bring the WAC series closer to ICAO compliance for this chart type." And "We are hoping that with a planned change in software to create these charts we will be able to update them on a more regular basis in the future." As I understand it, the printing of Aeronautical charts and other documents has now been outsourced to https://www.aipshop.canprint.com.au/ where the new WACs can be bought. On first impressions, I'm not all that impressed. It seems like a lot of unnecessary clutter (given that we have VNCs and VTCs ... and EFBs to boot). Anyway, these will be incorporated in OzRWYs in December. I've heard tell that some in the OzRWYs team are not thrilled by the innovation either. CLICK TO EXPAND: This is the feedback I sent to ASA Aero Charting, yesterday. "On first look at this new WAC format, I wonder how it will be generally viewed by the flying community. To me they look pretty cluttered and I would have thought that the beauty of WACs has been that they were unfussed by airspace detail and dealt mainly with ‘existential’ geography. Also, so much magenta might get a bit much when used with EFBs - which, of course, use magenta lines for other things. I’d have thought that we already have all the airspace info we need in VTCs and VNCs as well as real time overlays (on any and every map) of active PRD areas on EFBs. The boundaries of these, of course, can change on an hourly basis so the electronic real time display is very handy. Anyway, I’d be interested in the thinking behind this move and any discussion within ASA. I’m surprised to hear that WACs do have all that airspace info on them in other ICAO regimes. In any case, at first glance, I'm thinking I might miss the old, uncluttered WACs. But maybe when I get used to them I will come to appreciate the upsides. 🙂 "

Agreed ... or as I'd put it: "with all the variables at play in take-off performance, our sense of normal can be confused ..." And, to paraphrase Nev, with P-charts, it's garbage-in/garbage-out. To me that says a backstop rule is handy. True, but I don't think the video really misses that point. Gryder stresses that a sick engine is only one of several possible causes of unexpected poor acceleration and his 50/70 rule of thumb is meant to catch them all. And, as you say (and the video, too), it's only good as a last line of defence. Nobody denies that stopping immediately anything seems wrong is the way to (not) go. And sure, in the real world, like taking off at Mt. Hotham on a hot summer's day (P-calcs duly done), having a backstop rule-of-thumb to counter "inaccurate feelings" might help. Even - turning it the other way - to prevent a dangerous reject situation which was never, in fact, necessary. (Visions of a cliff-hanger ;- ) Also, you might say that this video demonstrated a case where pulling it off the ground may well have improved the situation. According to the pilot's story, the alternative could have been plowing into the school pick-up event unfolding in front of him. Of course, he's the first to agree that an early reject was what was called for - if only he'd learned 50/70 earlier, he reckons. But yes,, as Dan G says in the video, actually living to tell such a tale is not at all common.

I suppose the most available abnormal-acceleration check is our own sense of what normal feels like. But we need to listen to the inner "something's wrong" voice - and be ready to reject in good time. But with all the variables at play in take-off performance, our sense of normal can be confused (assuming all due P-chart compliance) especially operating away from home. I suppose that's why the 50/70 Rule (70% of take-off speed by 50% of runway length) was invented. As a rule of thumb, it accounts for most of those variables (variations in slope and/or surface along the run excluded). Of course, it means the PIC has to mark (mentally, at least) the midway point in advance and have the 70% number in mind. Seems like it'd be worth experimenting with. Anyway, old Gryder swears by it ... and the pilot in the video is a keen, if recent, convert.

Very TRUE (and closer to education than revelation ). Though Gryder and the (800 hour) aviator involved were at pains to explain that such a check had not been part of his (the incident pilot's) education heretofore. Revelatory to him, at least.

Dan Gryder's talk with a pilot whose perfect P-chart calcs let him down due to a sick, underperforming, engine:

Call me easy-to-please but I reckon all RAAus aircraft are 'fun'.

This video shows some interesting mods being done on a classic Ranger"

Ross, I don't know if that's an AvPlan/Android version bug but on OzRwys/iOS the SE2 device does not shut out internet access. This is how OzRwys Support explained it to me: "The SkyEcho doesn't advertise itself as a gateway, so your iPad will not try to use this as an internet connection. Instead it'll automatically fall back to other available options, such as your iPad's SIM card (if one is inserted) or Hotspot from phone (has to be connected via bluetooth). So there's no need to disconnect from your SkyEcho to obtain updated weather information or OzRunways cellular traffic. These features and any other cellular services will run in parallel with the SkyEcho connected."

I think few would disagree with you on this, Turbs, but to me your story goes right to the point. Despite your (presumably) having studied and been tested in a pretty good licensing system, it actually took experience down the track for the theory that you knew (or, at least, once knew) to sink in - to become real for you. I doubt, though, that any PPL course could ever cover all contingencies and phenomena in every subject that might come up in one's flying career. But yes, I think we all agree that weather and its perils for small aeroplanes could, and should, be taught, in some fashion, from the get go. But just cramming - once - for a 20 question multiple choice quiz is never going to cut the mustard.

Indeed! That much we can both agree on. ;- )

I'd like some more detail on that survey of yours. Ask around and you'll get the answers you need. To me, the thrust of Nev's argument is that a pilot's having been 'trained' and 'tested' under a (marginally) superior licensing regime is not much guarantee of anything regarding weather wisdom. He keeps stressing that even ATPL met savvy ain't enough to keep you out of trouble. I would add that making use of "Windy" (inter alia) is no indication of meteorological slackness. Quite the opposite in fact.

I agree. For example, I think that in recent years, I've learned more about 'safe' recreational flying on this forum than anywhere else (especially if we include the various aviation videos we share). Actually, I've always thought it a pity that there's so little cross-over between Rec. Flying and RAAus cultures; they seem totally discrete entities, mutually hostile even, at times. I guess there are hard-to-avoid reasons for this but still, it's a bit of a shame, and a bit counter-productive.

Me too. I'm with the devil on this one. I have my own gripes about RAAus safety-messaging (e.g contradictory attitudes to new EC/traffic awareness tech) but when I read here CEO Matt's chatty newsletter piece being torn apart for teeny weeny dogma deviations, or slip-ups in statistical science, I'm loathe to jump on the bandwagon. Sheesh, no need to be more pious than the Pope ;- )

As to whether weather theory offered in basic flight training is or 'should be' sufficient, I can but quote the opening lines of this Air Safety Institute film "Weather Wise: VFR Flight Planning." "Most of the time weather is the biggest variable in flying. But when it comes to figuring out what the weather's actually going to do, and what that means for a potential flight, many of us have relatively little real-world training to rely on. 'The majority of the training experience for most pilots is in the local area focused on manoeuvre based training ... and so for that practical exam you know that what you're working towards is a single cross country flight and that's essentially the extent of it.' " And as to whether Meteorology is a 'weakness' in the RAAus curriculum, this raises the question, just how deep an understanding of the science of weather might be deemed enough; just how much theory is most likely to contribute, in practice, to safer piloting decisions. Being a 'weather-wise' pilot and having an academic understanding of meteorology are not one and the same thing. (Though any knowledge, per se, is unlikely to be a burden.) As in all things aeronautic, practical experience is vital and yet, one could graduate as a pilot without so much as seeing a cloud close up, let alone facing complex grey-area, life-or-death weather decisions. That's the point.

What about it?

Awful news. Mat Farrell had posted on here only a few weeks ago. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-20/mount-beauty-plane-crash-victim-mathew-farrell-mourned/101458134

Bosi72, I am gutted to hear this news. I was following the search yesterday but didn't think to make the connection to the Matt we were chatting with recently on here. So he was your friend. Very sorry. I never had the pleasure of meeting him. gary.

Yes, the whole local aviation mapping integration (or lack thereof) is something else again.

Hi CC, yes, some years ago I imported a Kanardia "Horis" PFD for my Skyranger direct from their factory in Slovenia. (At the time, they were the only ones offering such things in the 80mm round format.) I found them great to deal with; quick to respond, savvy and honest. And I've been very happy with the device.

Hi Glen, I haven't turned up the flight path image yet but I came across this from a Colorado based newspaper: "Both aircraft were about 7,000 feet above sea level when the Cessna 172 made a right turn, and the flight paths of the two planes merged. Both aircraft descended rapidly, said Folkerts. The accident sites were not far from where the collision occurred. Neither aircraft was in contact with an air traffic control, and neither craft was equipped with a collision avoidance system, Folkerts said." Of course, that's probably only a couple of thousand feet AGL at that spot. https://www.coloradohometownweekly.com/2022/09/17/report-three-dead-after-two-planes-crash-in-boulder-county/

Yeah, that's the Cirrus on Metroliner midair near Denver last year, right? In that case, a simultaneous parallel approach problem. https://kdvr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2021/05/Report_CEN21FA215_103073_5_24_2021-3_19_37-PM.pdf

RFguy said "we need a TCAS for light aircraft. having a sky echo and a tablet is one thing , but having a self contained box listening to ADSB broadcasts , with alarm and some indication of where to look is another." Yes, the Qld. based AvTraffic app (with some EFB integration) has made a (low cost) start on this idea. https://avtraffic.com/index.html