Garfly

There are also some pretty good mountain flying videos out of NZ, too.

And then YouTube turns up this terrific sequel:

The Ukrainian airline pilot Denys Davydov used to have a vlog about aviation but now he does one about the daily progress of the war. In this recent video he returns to his old aeroclub at Buzoza where he began his flying career to show the devastation that's been wrought since February: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os6kOKhIpTE And in this pre-war video he visits various nearby airfields including the Aeroprakt base (starts around 14:00) where he scores a ride in an RV12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTE7tzjISPk&t=0s

No one would disagree Glen, least of all Dale Snodgrass. He'd be heartily agreeing today, but for that bit of dodgy design. (Anyway, it was your own [wise] 'HF' awareness that got us started. ;- )

Gone the way of the forgotten 'bumfish', I guess; human errror. But good aviation engineering - especially the making of cockpit interfaces - has always tried to take into account, the inevitable failings of pilots. There's a reason the gear lever has a little wheel on it. And the flap lever doesn't. Anyway, the NTSB report was not impressed with the design of that gust lock, either: Tests and Research: Flight Control Lock Examination of a similar airplane confirmed that, with the control lock engaged, although the ailerons and elevators were completely locked, the rudder and tailwheel could still be moved to near full travel, such that the airplane could be maneuvered almost completely unhindered while taxiing. Although the control lock is painted red, the pilot’s view of the lock in the engaged position is such that the lock is viewed at its narrowest profile, directly down its length. Another 1019 series airplane owner relayed his experience with the flight control lock. He stated that, on one occasion, he had planned a local flight with a passenger in the back seat and became distracted and forgot to remove the flight control lock before flight. He was able to taxi for departure, still unaware that the lock was in place, and became distracted during the pre-takeoff checks because he was talking to the passenger. He stated that he was able to complete the initial stages of takeoff with the control lock engaged, and once he realized, he had to struggle to remove the lock due to the forces on the control stick during takeoff. After a few seconds he was able to free it, and the flight progressed uneventfully. The pilot’s friend, who had delivered the airplane, stated that you could easily get into the airplane with the control lock engaged. He further stated that, like most tailwheel-equipped airplanes, heavy differential braking was required to steer the airplane, and only limited rudder movement was required. Following the accident, he performed a series of checks in a similar airplane with the control lock attached. He determined that the airplane could be taxied uninhibited with the control lock engaged. With the control lock engaged and the airplane parked, he could not remove it with reasonable force if there was any control pressure on the stick, because it appeared to hang up on the lock pin until he released pressure https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Snodgrass-SIAI-Marchetti-SM-1019B-NTSB-Final-Report.pdf

Indeed! It can happen even to the best of us:

https://www.ozrunways.com/au/products/rwy-efb-for-android/ https://www.avplan-efb.com/avplan/announcing-avplan-efb-android/

The trouble is SP, air nav does have its own little traps lying in wait for young players. For example:

I wouldn't be put off. Flight planning and nav is, IMHO, safer and simpler than ever. Hopefully the instructor who takes you for your BFR can get you up to speed on the EFBs etc, if you're interested. Anyway, good luck with getting back in the saddle.

Yes, the wording of the new AC 91-17 circular does seem a bit looser, although it does go on to say that: "If the intent of the device is to display charts and maps, it should be suitably sized to display the image without excessive scrolling. " Whatever that means.

Yes, thanks for the reference to the new advisory circular (attached): But this is what the AVPLAN website has to say about the screen size bit: "Please note that Paragraph 7.2 of the CAAP is clear about screen size requirements for EFBs; In order to function as an approved EFB, an EFB app must be run on a device with a screen size of at least 200mm measured diagonally (i.e. an iPad mini or larger). This effectively precludes the use of phones as in-flight EFB devices, regardless of which app is being used. AvPlan-EFB is nevertheless designed to run on your phone, where it functions perfectly well (and legally) as a planning device." https://www.avplan-efb.com/manuals/avplan-efb-ios-manual/8.x/en/topic/regulatory-information advisory-circular-91-17-electronic-flight-bags.pdf

This is interesting. I'm hoping that Glen and Mark, et al, who know their avionics, will chime in. I'd like to know if these could be legally installed in 19 rego'd aircraft - even though not yet in the LSA cat. - (perhaps together with a basic EFB/ADSB-in device) thereby satisfying transponder carriage within Class E,C and D (especially if and when RAAus >> CTA gets approved). And would the government subsidy still apply? Of course, if you used it together with a SkyEcho2, say, you'd need to disable one or other of your two ADSB-out sources. I suppose there are cheaper ways, still, of achieving the same goal.

Yeah, we're blessed with all the gear we need to make the fear of getting lost - and/or busting airspace - almost a thing of the past. And once you get used to seeing your own ship geolocate onto every conceivable chart (no cross-referencing the GPS to the VNC any more) it's pretty easy to get spoiled. ;- ) In some complicated airspace situations - with narrow lanes for VFR passage - I'd say the new nav tools are pretty much essential.

No, I just mean that if you're doing a fair bit of cross country, over time, the cost of keeping all your charts up to date can rival the cost of running an EFB. (And hey, the paper maps are never going to tell you, directly and exactly, where you're at and where you're headed. ;- )

It only takes a minute to scribble down a paper plan/log from the plan/sheet details made on the EFB. (Always handy, anyway, in case the lights go out.) Yes, you need at least an iPad mini size screen to legally replace paper maps. But then you have every possible chart always up to date (could even be cheaper in the long run).

You mean silly because forecast winds are likely to change? A plan you've made in OzRwys, et al, can be updated (for current W/V >> HDG - GS - ETE etc) in a single click (assuming your tablet has cell connection.) https://docs.ozrunways.com/ozrunways/6_planning.html#plan-sheet

Well there you go ... isn't mathematical science wonderful, vicar?! Never mind that the aeroplane, as we know it, won't even be here in 50 years. (Ditto the atmosphere, in 500 ;- )

I agree that the bureaucratic thinking is still weirdly wrongheaded. But I do think that universal ADSB IN/OUT (equitably achieved) is a good idea. But anyway, isn't ATC rapidly moving in that direction - away from 1940s tech? So with any IN/OUT you'd still be surveillable - by all and sundry. Which has its benefits, though.

I fear you're right, but the reasons they put forward will probably not be based on actual efficacy as established by in-service trials. It will be more about the fact that they're not plugged into ship's power and their sub-normal power output etc. Even though it's been admitted that Mangalore would almost surely have been prevented by either or both aircraft being so equipped.

So I wonder if Electronic Conspicuity (EC) devices - duly registered with CASA - will be deemed 'transponders' for the purposes of these proposals. I think they could be/should be, as most traffic displays used by IFR/RPT flights ought to be able to 'see' them, nowadays. And they were deemed eligible for the government subsidy and thus are part of this overall plan for reducing collision risk. I also wonder if the devices are conspicuous to ATC yet. There was talk, a couple of years back, of ground facilities soon being able to show EC targets (within range, of course, which in practice seems to be up 40nm or so, line of sight). We don't seem to hear much about it, for some reason.

DOT To Audit FAA Oversight Of Boeing 737 And 787 Production By Kate O'Connor - Published:June 30, 2022 https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/dot-to-audit-faa-oversight-of-boeing-737-and-787-production/?MailingID=%CAMPAIGNID%