Garfly

Let's give old Rod a go then:

Yeah ... an opportunity for us to do a bit of theory revision. And, of course, it's not just an issue for the wee flying machines. This is part of an email discussion on the subject with an Airbus flying relative: "Here is the Va chart for the A330. I imagine the caution note below was added after the AA587 crash. Fly by wire protects us every day in these aeroplanes, however in the sim when we degrade to Alternate or Direct law one must be very cognisant of those numbers.. as the Airbus becomes, well just a big SkyRanger Swift actually in those configurations. You can see at 5000' any abrupt movement without normal law protections above 265 kts will probably bend the frame, at least! We are trained to stay off the rudders at all times in jet upset manoeuvres and of course swept back wings gives us a naturally stable platform. Having said that, I have encountered wake turbulence on the A320 that almost required an underwear change out, thus it's a very serious issue which requires proper distance and time separation and a situational awareness of the met environment around the airplane. Airmanship."

I think this is the incident you refer to, Stude. A swarm of keyboard kritics were, needless to say, mightily exercised by the spectacle. Only one YouTube commenter came to the guy's defence. Excerpt from YouTube comments: "bayboos 6 months ago It isn't explained here, but I saw this video way before with an information that the pilot suffered some sort of medical problem during the flight and was not fully capable of making controlled landing. I don't remember what medical problem it was, but apparently serious enough to crash the plane yet stay alive. So please don't jump into conclusions when not having all the information."

"Silly people, don't they know you can only fly into places like that with a tailwheel and gigantic tyres?" You tell 'em, Stude ... and the other mob, too, that reckons AoA's for wimps. Here's one more interesting filum from Mr. Back Country (plus some relevant pull-quotes from his YouTube commenters): Tim Kirk 2 weeks ago ... any particular reason for choosing the 182 tricycle gear over say a 180 tail dragged? REPLY Backcountry182 2 weeks ago There were no 180s in [Costa Rica] when I bought my plane, and now I enjoy mine and see all it can do, and don't want a 180 anymore. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rRyan2 2 weeks ago Is it possible for the AOA indicator to go "out of calibration" with vibrations from rough terrain? It seems like if it ever became un-calibrated, by even a little bit, it could be a big problem on short final to a very short landing strip (accidental stall)... by the way, you do an awesome job of using that tool (the AOA) to fly right on the edge, which is why I ask this. Nice videos !! REPLY Backcountry182 2 weeks ago 2000hrs so far with the AoA and has been bulletproof, its a simple system, I cant see how can go out of calibration, only if an air hose breaks but those are protected by a tube and go inside the wing. zrRyan2 2 weeks ago @Backcountry182 that is awesome reliability. Thank you for the clarification.... now I'm thinking I need one !! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another Noddy Car plane that could:

An interesting sidebar to the unfolding story. (The issue is summarised in this YouTube comment): 'Could you comment on the veracity of this report from the Seattle Times: "Fehrm collaborated with a Swedish pilot for a major European airline to do a simulator test that recreated the possible conditions in the Ethiopian cockpit. A chilling video of how that simulator test played out was posted to YouTube and showed exactly the scenario envisaged in the analysis, elevating it from plausible theory to demonstrated possibility. The Swedish pilot is a 737 flight instructor and training captain who hosts a popular YouTube channel called Mentour Pilot, where he communicates the intricate details of flying an airliner. To protect his employment, his name and the name of his airline are not revealed, but he is very clearly an expert 737 pilot. In the test, the two European pilots in the 737 simulator set up a situation reflecting what happens when the pre-software fix MCAS is activated: They moved the stabilizer to push the nose down. They set the indicators to show disagreement over the air speed and followed normal procedures to address that, which increases airspeed. They then followed the instructions Boeing recommended and, as airspeed increases, the forces on the control column and on the stabilizer wheel become increasingly strong. After just a few minutes, with the plane still nose down, the Swedish 737 training pilot is exerting all his might to hold the control column, locking his upper arms around it. Meanwhile, on his right, the first officer tries vainly to turn the stabilizer wheel, barely able to budge it by the end. If this had been a real flight, these two very competent 737 pilots would have been all but lost. The Swedish pilot says at the start of the video that he’s posting it both as a cautionary safety alert but also to undercut the narrative among some pilots, especially Americans, that the Indonesian and Ethiopian flight crews must have been incompetent and couldn’t “just fly the airplane.” Early Wednesday, the Swedish pilot removed the video after a colleague advised that he do so, given that all the facts are not yet in from the ongoing investigation of the crash of Flight 302." '

Ha, ha ... just wait till you check out my stick and rudder skills (not). (Love ya wee bonnet, by the way. Suits ya!)

https://www.flyingmag.com/ethiopian-737-max-pilots-followed-procedures?cmpid=ene20190404

https://ipadpilotnews.com/2019/03/first-impressions-after-flying-with-the-new-ipad-mini/?trk_msg=M463ILJHTK44N00FIESCOKHV10&trk_contact=TP0NO766QS9G20UOM7VT2QLI2S&trk_sid=EQ18KQ35FO249ESTU50GNH0QV8&utm_source=Listrak&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=READ+MORE&utm_campaign=I19035A&utm_content=Test+Flight+-+New+iPad+Mini+5

Some interesting improvements in the latest version. The TrackUp view places the aircraft icon near the bottom of the screen which makes more sense. Plus, you can place (variable) Range Rings around any aerodrome or ALA. It occurred to me that a side benefit of this would be as a way to clean up the clutter we get now with the thousands of newly added ALAs and farm strips etc. Whilst it's fantastic to have all those strips included and available in a pinch, en masse, they can make the chart almost unreadable. And if you've wanted, or needed, to display the ALA layer, I don't think there's been a way around that. But now, if you put a Range Ring around any and all the strips that you think may be of interest for a given trip, those locations will remain visible (along with their ring) when you turn that layer off. In this example, I marked a few useful ALAs along a (simulated) route with 5NM red rings. The rest, I was able to give the flick. Makes for a much easier to use map, I think. And, of course, all the others are just a press away if needed.

Okay, good to know. Regarding the OzRunways depiction of Romeo areas as active or not, I'm wondering just how reliable and just how 'official' that information is. From what I can tell, it is updated regularly and accurately - and is a thousand times more effective than hours old Notams if you can find them. But I'd like to know more about how that information is handled across the country; how it actually reaches our glass screens. If we learn to trust it (and/or we're permitted to trust it) then flyers would be less inclined to bother Area (and military) controllers with confirmation requests. Any thoughts?

Bruce, as I understand it, Danger Areas are not forbidden to us - they just give a warning to be careful (about what, in particular, can be found in ERSA). It's the R areas we have to go around or under (whenever active). Especially the ones associated with Amberley and Oakey up there, as well as the Class E and the Brisbane control zone steps. By my reckoning you don't need to go lower than 4,500 on the route JG3 suggests. That is, as long as you steer clear of the 2.5 Amberley step to the east of that track to Watts Bridge that I was asking about. Of course, if you go the other way, via Boonah then you need to slip between Amberley and Brisbane zones but it can be done at 3, 500 if you steer to the west of the 2.5 Brisbane step. Anyway, we can wait for JG3 and/or other Brissie flyers to give us all more authoritative advice. I flew around these areas a bit with an instructor from Redcliffe a few years ago, so I got to see that it was not as difficult as it seems. But, like yourself, I'd be pretty anxious if it was the first time. Anyway, I think your route via Kingaroy, maybe with a dog-leg by way of Dalby, to give R654 (Oakey) a wide berth, would, I think, only add 20 minutes to your trip from Moree. Sounds like a great trip. When do you go?

Just out of interest, JG3, is this something like the route you're recommending from Warwick to Caloundra? Any thoughts on the alternative via Cunningham Gap and Boonah?

As far as I know iFly GPS is not set up to use Australian charts (although the Garmin app. does that now) and apparently iFly is set up to make very limited use of WACs (a very wide view only) which remain very important here. What's more, according to this forum (below) WACs are no longer being updated by them for the USA (because all of the lower 48 states are well covered by sectionals (VNCs). https://www.iflygps.com/Support/Forum/forumid/14/threadid/33937/scope/posts But as to the new Sketch Mode feature, I've been wondering if the new iPad mini (with pencil support) will offer similar functionality with any EFB. If it proves practical, that might be useful, given the limited knee space; hardly room for a notepad and an iThing.)