Garfly

Not much has changed since this 4 Corners report .... (for the summing up start around 37:00) https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/ditched---promo/6334712

Glen, a great story, sounds like a really useful exercise for all VFR pilots. Can you unpack it a bit more? Like why would you go straight to the compass? (given its infamous slowness to react ... maybe it was the card type, not a whiskey one.) Was that part of the planned exercise? Did you have an AH and DI? Did you try to just keep the wings level to start with - before attempting to turn - or was an immediate turn also part of the training? Also, please say more about that 'obvious instrument signature' thing.

I would say so: "AIP GEN 3.4 Universal communications (UNICOM) is a non-ATS communications service to improve the information normally available about a non-controlled aerodrome. The primary function of the frequency used for UNICOM services where the frequency is the CTAF is to give pilots the means to make standard positional broadcasts when operating in the vicinity of the aerodrome. Participation in UNICOM services must not inhibit the transmission of standard positional broadcasts. Participation in UNICOM services relates to the exchange of messages concerning: fuel requirements estimated times of arrival and departure aerodrome information maintenance and servicing of aircraft, including the ordering of parts and materials urgently required passenger requirements unscheduled landings to be made by aircraft general weather reports basic information on traffic. This information is available to all aircraft during the times when the UNICOM  is operating. Weather reports, other than simple factual statements about the weather, may not be provided by UNICOM operators unless they are properly authorised to make weather observations under CAR 120. The UNICOM operator is solely responsible for the accuracy of any information passed to an aircraft, while the use of information obtained from a UNICOM is at the discretion of the pilot in command. Stations providing a UNICOM service must be licensed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Detailed information regarding the licensing and use of equipment may be obtained by contacting ACMA in the appropriate state or territory capital city. UNICOM operators must comply with the requirements of CAR 83 (2). The CAA in NZ spell it out this way (AC139-12) A UNICOM service is a basic aerodrome information service: it is not an Air Traffic Service. Pilots of both IFR and VFR aircraft retain full responsibility for the operation of their aircraft. Pilots need to decide on their acceptance or rejection of the information provided, the use of the information, and for the continuing safety of their aircraft.

Well, I've read several things here that have grabbed me already. Yes, for sure, an autopilot - at least a wing leveler - is the ant's pants when it comes to inadvertent IMC. But few have the option of letting George do it in RAAus. But I'm glad to see that the official advice seems to have drifted away from "do an immediate 180 and go back whence you came" to keep the wings level and if you need to change heading do it in baby steps. This seems to me (with admittedly not much to go on) to make more sense. But it's also very important that stories like kgwilson's (above) get told; people who've found themselves (to their shock and surprise) in sudden white-out and have lived to tell the tale - just by taking things calmly and methodically - even for a 20 minute stretch, if necessary. While an effective deterrent, the '178 Seconds to Live" idea being pounded into pilots' heads (along with "you should never be there in the first place" ) has the problem that it encourages a panic/defeatism response if and when it does happen - inadvertently.

As a VFR only pilot, I've long had doubts about the common advice about chucking an immediate U-ey to escape inadvertent IMC. Of course, every situation's going to be different but I've wondered if the better bet might sometimes be to avoid any ambitious manoeuvring; limiting excursions to a gentle climb or descent [depending] wings-level on the AH - at least until I'd settled the nerves and thought the situation through (or, touch aluminium, regained the natural horizon). It's never happened so I don't really know what it'd be like or what I'd do in the moment. Suffice to say I found this new Avweb article useful for my thinking on the subject. https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/accidents-ntsb/accident-probe-course-reversal-in-imc/ VFR Into IMC: Course Reversals According to the FAA’s Flight Training Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3B), “The first steps necessary for surviving an encounter with IMC by a VFR pilot are as follows: Recognition and acceptance of the seriousness of the situation and the need for immediate remedial action; Maintaining control of the airplane; and Obtaining the appropriate assistance in getting the airplane safely on the ground. When performing a turn after inadvertently encountering IMC, the IFH tells us, “A shallow bank takes very little vertical lift from the wings resulting in little if any deviation in altitude. It may be helpful to turn a few degrees and then return to level flight if a large change in heading must be made. Repeat the process until the desired heading is reached. This process may relieve the progressive overbanking that often results from prolonged turns.”

Okay, fair enough ... but I have never heard of a person being "in charge" of operations at an uncontrolled airport in Australia; whose job includes checking pilots for runway choice against W/V and the like. It would be a practical and legal nonsense. To be 'responsible' is not necessarily to be 'in charge'. I'd hazard a guess that a council's runways had a comparable legal status to its public roads. No flag folks (or white crosses) needed until or unless a particular hazard exists. The Old Bar ferris-wheel accident - 10 years ago already - was a very special case (and not only legally). The report - attached - is a fascinating read. By the way, it was mentioned above as involving a 'downwind landing'; the tailwind component at the time of that accident was no more than 3Kt and was not noted as a contributing factor by the ATSB. Old Bar Ferris Wheel.pdf

Before embarking on deep legal research that I'm ill-suited to interpret I'd prefer to find an answer to my simple layman's question. A supplementary one is this: what does it mean to be a person "in charge" of a publicly available, council owned non-controlled airport? And why is that person liable for anything a pilot does?

I don't see that there's a connection with the Old Bar accident and normal ops at an uncontrolled field. If there was no fair and no ferris wheel but an accident in the same place happened would the same kind of judgement be applied? That is, would the council be liable for simply having an airstrip? (Otherwise approved for those kind of ops) How does that make sense - even legal sense?

Thexder, I was interested in your thinking behind adding the tailwind component to your normal rotation airspeed. I guess the ASI (in the normal course of things) is 'feeling' the wind just the same as the wings are. But maybe there are other reasons for doing that.

True-ish.. In straight and level flight, thrust = drag at that angle of attack. At normal angles of attack, when you raise the nose, you will have an increase angle of attack and thanks to inertia, the airspeed will hold for a bit ....... //// EXPAND QUOTE TO READ IT All true and good, Jerry. (But your quoting of my post might be a bit misconstrue-ish ;- ) Here's some context lest anyone take me wrong on the subject of 'pulling back' - and what it does. APen had said (in part): On which I commented: And just the other day, in a different thread, I opined: "It tells me that it could happen to me. It warns me that I MUST heed Crisis Checklist items: #1: Don't Panic ... and, oh, yeah, #2: Fly the Plane ... and maybe #3: Pulling back doesn't make the ground go away." To remove all doubt, I will post this video here for the third time (for anyone interested). It's one I like to review, myself, at least once a year in the hope I will overcome the panic reflex if ever I need to. There aren't many second chances. I don't think it's further instruction in aerodynamics that we need. If we must take wing, we must learn to think - or feel - more like birds and less like apes.

Jack, the SE2 transmits (pressure) altitude data from its built-in barometric altimeter. Most ADSB-IN devices display the target level in hundreds of feet above or below (and if climbing or descending). Meanwhile, the GPS sends out ground-speed info.

What the 'regulators' actually say: CASA advisory-circular-91-23 2.1.7 ..... Logically, ADS-B OUT is the ideal way for VFR aircraft to signal their presence directly to other aircraft. In effect, ADS-B turns the ‘see and avoid’ concept into ‘see, BE SEEN, and avoid.’ 2.1.8 The technical standards for ADS-B OUT now include a range of equipment options primarily aimed at VFR aircraft. These include transponder-based systems and self-contained systems called Electronic Conspicuity (EC) devices and integrated Traffic Awareness Beacon System (TABS). 2.1.9 The standards also allow technically capable, but non-TSO4 ADS-B OUT equipment to be installed in a range of sport aviation, experimental and certain other aircraft. 2.1.10 In summary, we want to improve the ability of airspace users to see you. https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/advisory-circular-91-23-ads-b-enhancing-situational-awareness.pdf 29/09/2021 VFR and visible | Flight Safety Australia 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. uAvionix website: CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL REZ:

Yeah, some were asking that same question when TCAS was being promoted: Juan Browne (Blancolirio on YT) puts it this way "If you think the old FAA regulation of 'See and Avoid' in visual flight conditions is adequate to avoid mid-air collisions, you're sadly mistaken. And the accident record proves this." He goes on to relate an anecdote of his own. "Me and a handful of others fought hard to get TCAS equipment into the air-tanker industry. And the industry fought that tooth and nail as that's very much an 'eyes outside the cockpit' sort of flying program." Source:

Anybody seen any more details on how the new ADS-B rebate scheme is supposed to work? Meanwhile, a new video about an old disaster serves as another reminder of why it's needed.

http://www.adf-serials.com.au/bombay.htm https://www.dingeraviation.net/bristol/bombay.html

Notwithstanding certain landing gear issues 😉

Yes, when he speculated that it was not a stall/spin, I'm guessing that "Flywire" hadn't seen the "What You Haven't Seen" vid. (original post).

And this one from the Shell Film Unit post-war:

And when too much nostalgia is never enough ....

Bumpy field = bouncy arrivals ...

This is Scott Perdue's analysis of the Bonanza accident (above).

Yet another one: Loss-Of-Control - this time after an engine failure (carb ice) at take-off. It's because these accidents are so common that they had to come up with the acronym. https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/general-aviation/flying-safely/loss-of-control Loss of Control (LOC-I) Downloads How to Stay Safe? Stay safe and enjoy flying! This section addresses important safety risks in General Aviation. Several risks will be addressed starting with Loss of Control In-flight (LOC-I).

And taking off ....