Head in the clouds

CORRECTION - I mustn't have been concentrating when I wrote the last line, it should have read "..... - then paint it with a thin coat of 2 part epoxy for good adhesion (i.e. not epoxy-based primer - the epoxy is self-priming so it doesn't require a primer) followed by a top-coat of ACRYLIC (i.e. not polyurethane) for colour and a hard and durable non-chalking surface. Just my opinion based on previous ..." If you've used the epoxy for adhesion you will find that many slipways happily use a quality acrylic exterior paint (like Wattyl Solagard or Dulux Weathershield) over the top of it to protect the surface of the epoxy. These types of exterior paints generally come with a 15 year guarantee on the outside of houses with full weather exposure, so they're flexible and tough, and have good UV stabilisers. They also stick well to the epoxy surface, I've painted several boats that live afloat in harsh marine environments, that way with excellent results, and those exterior paints are about 20% of the price you have to pay for specialised aviation or marine coatings.

It's been a long break since the last update, an international family reunion got in the way ... I did manage to fit in a bit on the plane between other things though. It was time to get the seating sorted out because it affects the positioning of other things like pedals, trim controls, length and shape of the flap handle and so on. The seat base is made from PVC coated polyester tarpaulin material, much like truck tarpaulins. It's supported off the two cabin cross-members and the strut carry-through, and is configured much like a spring-style folding chair. I like that method because it's relatively light and by adjusting the lacing it allows lots of adjustment in height and backrest angle, and it also serves well for my crashworthiness design requirements because the base can 'give' substantially and progressively into the space below which is filled with impact absorbing foam. Additionally, the thickness of the seat cushion and backrest cushion could be varied for taller and shorter people, though that shouldn't be necessary except for very tall or very short people because the rudder pedals also adjust through a range of 250mm. My biggest issue was finding someone who could sew the thick materials for me because I got rid of my sailmaking machine quite a few years ago. That aspect proved to be too hard because there was inevitably going to need to be many trips to and fro for measuring and trimming, to get the fit just right. Consequently I bit the bullet and bought another industrial machine, this time with a walking foot, so even eight layers of heavy tarpaulin is now no hurdle. In fact I found it can sew through 6mm marine ply and polyethylene (kitchen cutting board material) with no hesitation. So - having also bought a beach cat for a bit of fun during the reunion, I'll make a new mainsail for that too - that's what the sewing the polyethylene board is about, to make the new headboard on the sail ... but I digress. I already had a roll of the PVC tarpaulin material so that was just a matter of measuring, cutting out and stitching. The whole base is laced into place to tension it, the straight hems have a 6mm stainless steel rod inserted into them to lace around, and the seat base and back have D rings sewn to them using a light webbing strap in V configuration to spread the load across the fabric. 3.5mm starter cord makes a strong and durable lacing cord. For the seat cushions and upholstery I found a shaped seat back foam billet with headrest and lumbar support at Clark rubber for $50 each and cut them to width and shaped the sides of the headrests with an electric carving knife. The seat bases foam is premium high density grade which should last for many years without softening and breaking down, but quality foam price has certainly jumped at $160 per square metre for 75mm thickness. I needed about $100 worth for the two seat bases. I found some fabric I liked at Spotlight, the colour should complement the intended airframe colour scheme and not show marks too much, yes being brown I'm sure I have an idea what some of the comments might be ... it's a heavy duty faux swede so that also helps to keep it looking reasonable even if it gets a bit roughed up, it's a bush plane after all. 4m of the fabric set me back $60 because it was on sale at 50% discount and 4m of 50mm velcro to hold it securely to the seat base was also $60. The starter cord was another $20 and the light webbing was $30, the D rings were $36, so even DIY seats don't come cheap if you want them comfortable, at a total of over $450 if you include the tarp material. I'm very pleased with the result though, they're exceptionally comfortable, the main reason being the shaped seat back which provides proper support, and of course the headrests are essential to prevent neck injury in event of the unthinkable. The pictures tell the rest of the story - Not including the shopping for materials that's another 34hrs for the log, a total of 1337hrs so far.

Sorry I haven't commented earlier but life's been getting in the way and I've only just found time to read through this thread. I'm very impressed Marty, you're doing a fantastic job! Your metalwork is exemplary, an absolute delight to look at. You demonstrate true craftsmanship, do you have a background in metalwork? And - as others have said, it's a huge undertaking to build from scratch. I'm often just slightly amused by those who say 'I built it' when they actually have assembled it from a very complete, and often mostly pre-assembled kit. But that's not to take away anything from those who have gone that way. In my mind that puts them streets ahead of those who just bought a complete aircraft - I'm talking specifically in terms of their resultant knowledge of the airframe and systems - but it's a far cry from really having 'built it' as you are doing. I'm really looking forward to seeing the rest of it coming together, so thank for posting your log here. Regarding paint protecting the edges and laps, and preventing moisture getting between sheets, it's absolutely essential that you don't think of paint that way, primarily because most paints are not adhesives, and are also quite brittle. When the skins are first painted it may look like the paint has formed some degree of sealing but with the constant movement of the airframe and the vibration, the paint always cracks along the junctions between sheets. The cracks can be so fine that they're not visible to the naked eye but moisture makes its way in very readily. In fact the finer the crack, the more powerful the capillary action is ... As far as I know, there is only one coating that won't crack, and which will provide a good seal, and that's a flexible (rubberised) epoxy coating - the type which is used for sealing the inside of water tanks. I've used that several times, and with remarkably successful results that last decades ... on aluminium and steel boats. Unfortunatley it has several drawbacks which usually makes it unsuitable for planes, except perhaps for floats and floating hulls. It has to be applied thick so it's heavy, it must be applied direct to the clean scuffed metal i.e. no primer or undercoat, and it oxidises with UV exposure and gets a chalky surface, so it needs regular attention with wax polish to keep it glossy. If you really need to seal the laps and butts that epoxy is a good way to go but the downsides listed above would usually preclude using it. Instead it's better to make a really good job of priming and undercoating the edges of each sheet (I've found White Knight etch primer to be among the best in a spray can that's readily available if you want to avoid the Alodine or Zinc Chromate process) before final assembly. Then, after the plane has been painted, liberally apply one of the aviation anti-corrosion thin film treatments, ACF-50, Corrosion X, Fluid-Film or similar, or work lanolin into the joint, or work 3-in-1 white lithium grease into the joint, and then polish the surfaces and joints with a hard bees-wax polish. Repeat the wax polish after 50 or so flight hours once the first paint cracks will have formed, and thereafter at least once a year. If you do the cleaning and waxing well and keep an eye on potentially suspect (ponding) areas, I'd defy corrosion to set in. BTW - folk were talking about polishing the aluminium. Some planes are built using Alclad 2024T3 and others using non-clad 6061T6. The Alclad has a thin coating of pure aluminium on the surface which polishes to a mirror finish and is very resistant to corrosion. The Ryan pictured above is a good example of that. 6061T6 (and other marine grades) can be polished but it takes a fair bit of effort and there is a downside. 6061T6 is formulated to be left unpainted if desired but should only be polished if it will then be kept coated with a wax (or similar) polish. The reason is that the 6061T6 protects itself by oxidising on the surface (which gives it a dull patina), and if you polish that oxide away it's not protected anymore so it oxidises again and then you polish it ... quite soon it's all oxidised away altogether. With 6061T6 you're best to either abrade it when new with Scotchbrite or similar - or leave it to weather for a few months - then paint it with a thin coat of epoxy-based primer (for good adhesion) followed by a top-coat of polyurethane for colour and a hard and durable non-chalking surface. Just my opinion based on previous ... Keep up the great work!

A new club has been set up at Heck Field, Jacobs Well, to run alongside the existing Gold Coast Sport Flying Club (GCSFC). They are called the Jacobs Well Sport Flying Club (JWSFC), and are holding their first fly-in with a BBQ lunch for visitors on Sunday 20th November (this Sunday). The fly-in is an invitation event for the Canungra Flying Group but I was told that anyone who would like to fly in and meet up would be most welcome. The new club has a clubhouse on the Eastern side towards the northern end of Runway 36 i.e. the northernmost of the buildings at the airfield. There is aircraft parking near that building and also in the main visitors parking area NW of the runways intersection - in any case there will be people marshalling as needed. VHF 119.00, which covers all local traffic including the helicopters out of Seaworld and Mariners Cove and Southport aero club out of Mason Field.

Yes, three times World Gliding Champion Helmut Reichmann's books are pure gold for anyone wanting to really understand the medium in which we fly. 'Cross-Country Soaring' (ISBN 1-883813-01-8) and 'Flying Sailplanes - a Practical Training Manual' (ASIN B0006E1VSK). I cannot recommend them more highly, both are available on Amazon and elsewhere, a great investment in your pastime. Additionally they'll help you very significantly cut the cost of your flying. When flying your powered plane cross-country, if you employ the methods used by sailplane pilots you can easily reduce your fuel burn by 20% and get there faster ... so the books will more than pay for themselves over time - and you'll enjoy the flights more as well. Cross-Country Soaring was written first and is for more advanced flyers, Flying Sailplanes is aimed more at the beginner. They're both wonderfully written because Prof Dr Reichmann was an accomplished teacher, among several other talents.

Fantastic! Well done Bruce. In my mind there are very few things that are quite as satisfying as flying a plane you built yourself. Wishing you many years of happy flying and enjoyment of the social side of aviation, after the long times you have spent confined to the workshop.

You're quite right. And I wasn't advocating that people should deliberately ignore or change the recommended procedures. What I said originally was that two transposed words in a broadcast wouldn't, in my mind, sufficiently change the meaning to cause a lack of understanding on the part of the listener. More particularly, the transposition of the first two words would, I would think, be more likely to improve understanding for some people, than not. Nonetheless, it having been brought to my attention I'll certainly try and re-train myself and get it the right way around in future - hoping, of course, that it's not due for another reform in the next little while. Saying the location twice first might help some people I guess, it's worth a thought. As for tea and bikkies, I was CP for eleven years and gladly all my lads and girls were word perfect all the time so we managed to avoid that particular unpleasantness. What used to make them go pale more often than not was when I turned up unexpectedly for base inspections, two things they obviously hated and would get slack on unless the whip was wielded - paperwork and cleaning the undersides of the aircraft.

Yes, come on Ian put your actions where your mouth is please ... you're very quick to cite near deaths and 30 odd examples which to me appear a little ad nausea - name just 10 of them to give you some credibility perhaps?

Fair comment Frank, but I for one, wouldn't castigate someone for changing Location Traffic to Traffic Location if they feel so strongly about it and also provide good reason for doing so. Certainly they're wrong, and so am I because I've done it that way for the last 20yrs and will probably continue to do so. Not for belligerence but because I'm an older dog these days, and long ago in my formative years it was that way around and still makes more sense to me, and others, for reasons I described before. During a BFR/heli type-endorse a CFI mentioned it but nothing further than that. When common sense prevails there are far more important issues to take into account - the main issue would be whether my broadcasts are competent. Despite occasional relapses to older procedures my radio work is usually commented upon favourably, people understand what I'm saying and doing, and surely that is the target. Locally we have a few schools teaching overseas students who are absolutely phrase perfect but for the life of many of us we can't understand a single word they say. That provides a magnificent opportunity for practicing the 'see and avoid' aspects of flight but as far as radio work is concerned I'd rather have a fellow flyer telling me clearly what they're up to in the wrong order, than one that's totally impossible to understand - even when you ask them to repeat it. It tends to be a little like the old joke about winking at a girl in the dark - you might know what you're doing but no-one else does ...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people shouldn't try and use the recommended standard phraseology, what I'm saying is that some people are far too anal about the instances where it isn't 'perfect'. Let's just keep in mind that it's also recommended that where a pilot finds difficulty describing a situation they should use whatever phrases allow him/her to get the message across. As far as your comment above is concerned, well I'm sure that if we really try we can all think up instances where people "nearly died" from one thing or another. Did you mean that they were severely injured and on the brink of death? If so which tragedy was this? Or did you mean that something happened which increased risk a little? And if that's the case, of course we want to keep risk minimised but we also need to keep in mind that 'clearance is clearance' and there are many examples of near misses in life. Frankly, assuming your 'nearly killed' story is one of a near miss(es), if they were a result of something as basic and minor as someone transposing just two words in a broadcast and those unfortunates thereby couldn't follow the conversation, well, I'd say they're a statistic waiting to happen and probably best off taking up knitting. BTW, I'm not just a rec pilot, I've nearly 30yrs of commercial ops under my belt too, so I've seen a fair variety of radio oddities and few of them, apart from timid talkers and poor radio transmissions, have caused an issue. People need to keep in mind that if you don't comprehend the broadcast you need to ask for it to be repeated or ask for clarification of specific items where necessary. I don't think we further the cause if we expect everyone to be word perfect, instead we should be encouraging those who find radio work a little difficult - as we all did when we first started. On Sunday I had a couple of typical weekender radio moments. I was inbound and a new pilot was doing circuits. He was a bit stressed and he suggested he just 'go away and come back after I'd landed'. Instead I encouraged him to work through the radio chatter with me and by the time I'd joined circuit he was far more able to make his intentions understood, and was sounding quite confident. We need to not lose sight of the fact that encouragement beats the hell out of criticism. I flew a few hours in several flights and a bit later another flyer, a well seasoned one this time, was also inbound and neglected to provide any meaningful information about his position, alt and circuit time. I politely asked him to 'say again' those items and he then provided them perfectly. In the clubroom he thanked me for not embarrasing him and later we were both airborne again and his broadcasts were very precise - a win-win all round. Incidentally - to the OP, take heart, nearly everyone finds learning the radio work the hardest part of obtaining a licence, but the relaxed patter just comes along bit by bit and before long it falls into place. Just keep listening in on busy frequencies, and practicing, you'll get there.

It's been an interesting discussion about the use of standard phraseology but I think some people are a little too anal about it. I first received my radio licence in the early 1980s and since then there have been far too many changes to the recommended procedures for anyone to be able to keep up with at all times, so the tendency is to use that which makes the most sense and which is most likely to clearly convey the intended meaning. For example, IIRC, when I first started broadcasting, an airborne broadcast to other aircraft in the air or on the ground began "Traffic Location, Callsign, My Location, Alt, Intentions/Request etc ...", not long after that it became "All Stations Location, ...etc", some years later someone decided it was nonsense to broadcast all this to All Stations since movement information was often not relevant to the local clubhouse, for example, so they went back to Traffic, but placed it after the Location. This was probably implemented by some desk jockey who had no practical use of radio because what OK says is very valid ... In general, missing the first word of a transmission has nothing to do with the broadcaster not using the radio properly. You can key the mike for ten seconds before speaking and then speak very clearly, loudly and slowly, and many people will still miss understanding the first word they hear. I'm told this has to do with certain brain 'receptors', whether that's right or wrong I don't know, but I've always suffered that particular problem myself, as have many others I've discussed it with. Consequently, though I'm a staunch supporter of the need for standardising as much as possible and practicable in aviation, and certainly I agree that the current procedures are what should be being taught in the FTFs, I tend to use Traffic Location rather than the other way around. This isn't due to any intention to 'buck the system' because I don't think about my broadcasts before making them, I've been doing them so long I don't generally need to. For example yesterday I broadcast "All Stations Location ... " and later in the clubhouse someone picked me up on it, saying that phrase was changed years ago. What they didn't realise though, was that I was broadcasting to all stations - I was alerting aircraft and people on the ground/in the hangars to a hazard. Other non-standard phrases that come to mind are generally used by 'old hands' who have become quite dyed-in-the-wool and aren't likely to make minor changes to their procedures unless they actually make some difference, and many of the changes I've seen over the years really do nothing at all. I do like the addition of the Location at the end of the broadcast though. Some of those rather IMHO 'irrelevant' changes that, whether used one way or the previous way, make no difference to understanding - 'Feet wet/feet dry' was military originally I think and is still used by many offshore helicopters but these days should be 'over-water/over-land' 'Maintaining five thousand' became 'Cruising five thousand' 'Departs' became 'Departing' Or perhaps the latter two were the other way around, but really, did those 'essential changes' actually make any difference to peoples' understanding of the message being passed? And - I don't fly/pilot international so I don't know the answer, but are the 'current' phrases part of the ICAO Standard? Meaning - are we using, or supposed to be using, exactly the same all over the world yet? I understood that was the intention when the whole standardisation thing 'took-off' in the early 1990s, but if you listen to any busy international airport Tower, Departure and Approach you will hear quite a variety of the old and the new from the pilots which indicates to me that global standards either haven't been implemented or aren't generally adhered to. Ironically, in the 1970s and 80s there was an ageing character on the Gold Coast who was a Commercial 'lifer' and whose broadcasts were more clearly understood by everyone than anyone else's but in my experience he never made broadcasts that contained much standard phrase. Commonplace exchanges between him and the Tower might be - Coolie Tower, XYZ 12 miles north, two thousand, inbound with Echo, request clearance. XYZ Tower, clearance not available before time 06, remain north of Jupiters. Absolutely impossible old chap, late for lunch don't you see? XYZ Tower, clearance available, make visual approach number two to ABC, report visual with the 767, descend to one thousand. Jolly good show Coolie, cleared, one thousand and all that, I can see the big white one ... He gave us so many chuckles that everyone listened carefully when he was broadcasting

Asking whether there has been any rain is one thing but asking whether "everything is OK", is quite another thing altogether. I'm quite sure the caretakers would never 'provide advice' in the sense of whether the strip was suitable for the kind of aircraft that the enquirer intended to fly in and out of there - nor for their level of piloting skill and airmanship. No, I don't think they should do that, because if they did, and they then went on to comment, it could later be construed as having given advice and that might leave them open to litigation. As long as they do no more than provide information in response to direct questions then they cannot be held liable since the pilot must operate in accordance with Federal Legislation which puts the onus on him/her to decide whether the operation can be conducted safely. My oath he should have - there's no nanny there to do it for him is there? As others have said, it's time people started to take back the responsibility for their own actions. Otherwise ever-increasing 'safety legislation' will eventually result in a situation where you won't be allowed to do anything at all unless you're supervised by a 'trained specialist'. The rest of that quote is very likely to be the case, and it's probably a good thing that he got a good scare to learn from, you don't learn anything when things go exactly as planned. Well, if you'd told the pilot that 'all was good' what would the pilot be supposed to understand from that? If that was all you told me I'd take it that the airstrip was there and was open, that's all. If I wanted to know the length of the grass I'd ask that specifically, or when it had rained etc. Answering those questions would never bring the owner/operator of the strip into liability. If I asked whether the strip was suitable for my Jabiru with skinny wheels and low wheelpants and my 100 hours of piloting skill to draw upon ... well ... what would you, as the strip caretaker, tell them? The fact is, the novice pilot in the unsuitable aircraft landed quite safely and was probably surprised at how quickly he stopped. Had his off-airport training included all the Esses, one of which is Surface, he should have immediately recognised that the surface wasn't what he expected and had he kept the thinking cap on he might have considered that the take-off might not be what he expects either. If he had taken time to think it through he might have done some practice take-off runs to see whether he could attain flying speed easily enough. If it looked a bit iffy, instead of risking reputations or lives he ought to have abandoned the attempt and gone in search of someone with a slasher, with a $50 note in his hand. Flying isn't for everyone, it's for people who keep thinking ahead, otherwise they'll come unstuck one day. It's a real-time game - you can't just pull over to the side of the road when things go awry. All this is not to say that the pilot under discussion is wholly at fault, it would seem that his training was probably a bit light on off-airport management techniques, and certainly discussion about the types of aircraft that are better suited to unsealed surfaces, and those that aren't. If it isn't bitumen it can change in so many ways - if it's soil it can be very soft after rain, if it's sand it's likely to be very soft if it hasn't rained. Is long grass always a problem? The answer is no, in fact sometimes short grass is far worse. If a sandy strip like Orchid has been very dry for a long while the sand will be very soft but long DRY grass provides a firm surface to operate from. If they always cut the grass quite short and then get no rain the almost bare sand would become too soft for any operations at all. It's only long WET grass that is a problem. And it's all these variables that make it impossible for a strip operator to tell how you and your plane will perform on any particular day. Regarding your 'win' in Court - most people have no idea how arbitrary Court decisions can be. Just because the Law says such and such, doesn't, by any means, guarantee you the decision you might think seems perfectly obvious - to which anyone who has spent sufficient time working with the legal system will attest. So - you might win, but I wouldn't be counting on it. And if you brought a case where the strip operator hadn't provided you with any particular advice you'd have to expect them to counter-sue you for damages to their business while the strip was closed for forensic investigation, their continued loss of business because your crash brought disrepute - and don't forget that whatever your 'excuse' under Rule 92 you failed in your take-off from an ALA where it's YOUR responsibility to do so safely, so you're liable to CASA prosecution also ... AND the airstrip operator will ask to be awarded all their legal and Court costs. You'd better have good insurance and a lazy $250K before you set off down the litigation road. Yes, in the case of some things, but not always - if I have a vacant Lot on which I'm charging people to park their cars, and the surface is quite obviously rough - am I liable for your inability to drive into and out of it safely?

I don't agree with your first answer - the owner doesn't have any idea what kind of aircraft will be flown in, nor what experience the pilot might have. A Bearhawk with 1m(39") diameter Alaskan Bushwheels and an experienced pilot could land and take-off half a dozen times along that strip even if the grass was never mown. A Jabiru with a novice at the controls probably shouldn't ever go near the place even if the grass was 50mm long. I don't know of any reference whatever, in the Regs, CAAPs or Orders which suggests that anyone other than the PIC is ever responsible for any 'circumstance' of the operation of the aircraft, and most particularly that of take-off and landing. I can't agree with this either, it's not up to the 'operator' to provide anything in particular. The fact is - the strip is there, you can use it if you choose to, and if you choose to - then you pay a fee for the privilege. This thread and the one about Ozkosh at Narromine (the part where SIAs were being discussed) show that some rec pilots lack Regulatory knowledge in vital areas. Anyone who isn't quite sure might do well to refresh themselves about the definition of Aircraft Landing Areas (ALAs) and pilot responsibilities in regard of them. Whilst doing so they might like to search for any references to anyone other the PIC being responsible for anything - though that part of it will prove to be a rather fruitless search ... From the CARs, Volume3, Part 9, Division 8, Regulation 92, note the relevant word 'circumstances' - 92 Use of aerodromes (1) A person must not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that does not satisfy one or more of the following requirements: (a) the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations; (b) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a certificate granted, or registration, under Part 139 of CASR; © the place is an aerodrome for which an arrangement under section 20 of the Act is in force and the use of the aerodrome by aircraft engaged in civil air navigation is authorised by CASA under that section; (d) the place (not being a place referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or ©) is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking‑off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take‑off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take‑off from, the place in safety. Penalty: 25 penalty units. (2) CASA may, in relation to an aerodrome, issue directions relating to the safety of air navigation. (3) A person must not contravene a direction. Penalty: 25 penalty units. (4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (3) is an offence of strict liability. Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code. I have attached the relevant CAAP (92-1) which provides the slightly more plain-speak interpretation. Note the Introductory PURPOSE - Civil Aviation Regulation 92 (1) states that: “An aircraft shall not land at, or take-off from, any place unless: ... (d) the place....is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.” Regulation 92 (1) does not specify the method of determining which “circumstances”, other than the prevailing weather conditions, should be considered in any particular case. These matters are the responsibility of the pilot in command and, in some circumstances, are shared with the aircraft operator. These guidelines set out factors that may be used to determine the suitability of a place for the landing and taking-off of aeroplanes. Experience has shown that, in most cases, application of these guidelines will enable a take-off or landing to be completed safely, provided that the pilot in command: (a) has sound piloting skills; and (b) displays sound airmanship. The bold above is my addition - note that the PIC and in some cases also the aircraft operator (usually in Commercial Ops where an Air Service Licence/Air Operator's Certificate is in force i.e. the Company the pilot is flying for) hold the responsibility - there's never any mention of the operator of the airport or airfield having any responsibility regarding the operations of aircraft from that facility. That means that every time you're at the controls, whatever happens is on your head, if you end up in the bunker there's no value in trying to point the finger at the greenkeeper ... so to speak. 92_1.pdf 92_1.pdf 92_1.pdf

A truly sad day for all lovers of aviation, the passing of 'a born natural'. 94 is a good innings though, and what a life he lived! RIP Bob Hoover DFC.

Sorry zenonie, but what others have said is the case. The fabric should be very strong and certainly not damaged by a lump of mud falling on it. I'd go so far as to say you should be able to bowl a cricket ball at it full tilt and it should bounce off. The sun (UV) damages the polyester (Stitts Polyfibre or Ceconite, generally) that is used on modern airframes, unless it is well protected beneath the outer paint layer with silver dope (dope with lots of fine aluminium dust in it). In general, therefore, it will be the top surfaces that are suspect, and that's not uncommon with older planes in the bush that spend a lot of time in the sun. Fabric that's as weak as yours appears to be, and which is already breached, can tear away from the flying surface quite easily. Try doing so and test the adjacent area that way perhaps? But always please keep in mind it's your life that's at risk here, even though that's sometimes a difficult thing to do when there's a lot riding on tomorrow's muster ... I've spent a fair bit of time flying on the land and I know the pressures on the pilot that can be applied, but it's not worth dying for.

Could you explain the 'Caution' please Frank? Following my response to Jill, I received another from her - Hi X Your more detailed response provides a slightly different scenario, further complicated by the addition of having an aircraft joining on base while the other aircraft is established on SIA. I think we are now into the common sense rather than legislative section of flight operations, where airmanship and collision avoidance along with recognition of fiscal imperatives for RPT or commercial operators over the recreational pilot can be considered. Operating at Temora as CFI, there were many occasions where the “bank plane” established on SIA, often contrary to the runway in use, and smart use of the radio and some leeway by either pilot (CPL or RAAus) as required generally ensured minimal disruption to either operation. However, this is not always the case at all airports. Having said that, I understood an aircraft on SIA was not established as being on final unless 500 metres from the runway at 500 AGL, which appears to be what you are saying. From that point on, the aircraft on final has “jumped the queue” and is now number one in the circuit. Until the aircraft is in this position, it is still conducting a SIA and has to give way. We will certainly add this scenario to our proposed training video and look forward to any further interesting suggestions from your experience as a CPL over the years. Regards, Jill Bailey National Operations Manager The comment about "following my more detailed response" kinda indicates to me that none of them ever bothered to read the linked thread, or my original report in detail ... And does anyone actually understand the first paragraph of this response? Aren't we supposed to be trying to help people to understand what to do? I do recall asking for a plain-speak mail-out so that all recreational pilots can safely mix it with the big boys - actually just normal-trained GA would be a start. Too much to ask perhaps? What will it take to convince people that recognised hazards must be addressed immediately at grass-roots level? AND - before I take Jill to task on the second para, can anyone point me at a reference which creates a priority at 500m and 500ft that didn't exist before that? I don't recall one, it'd be mighty short final in a 767, you'd hope they could be confident of priority well before that, wouldn't you?

This just came in from Jill Bailey - Hi X, When interpretative information is required, as I am sure you know, CASA provides Civil Aviation Advisory Publications (CAAP) and for exactly this situation, CAAP 166-1(3) August 2014 is the source of procedural information all pilots should be referring to. Having said that, coincidentally, RAAus is about to commence scoping for a video advisory for members to ensure circuit procedures and appropriate radio calls are understood, and sadly this is required not just for members, but on occasions for Instructors and CFIs. Part of the issue stems from Instructors teaching students preferred local procedures, rather than referencing the legislation and advisory documents. Paragraph 6.7 of the CAAP provides clear guidance regarding straight in approaches. In this paragraph reference to CAR 166 (2)(b) is made, which clearly requires a pilot conducting a straight in approach to give way to any other aircraft established and flying in the circuit pattern (underline emphasis is mine). The difficulty with forums is establishing the experience level, reference to legislation and expertise of the contributors. RAAus recommends members contact RAAus or CASA to receive accurate interpretation of regulations. Regards, Jill Bailey National Operations Manager Serious fun, stay safe I've responded, indicating I see her point but don't quite agree, and pointing out the opposing phrases in the CAAP - Hi Jill, Thanks for your response. Yes, I'm quite aware of the CAAPs and of the para 6.7 you reference and the part of it which refers to aircraft conduct SIAs giving way to all other traffic in the circuit. The question, though, is how that para relates to 6.7.6 which states "An aircraft established on the base or final leg for any runway has right of way over an aircraft carrying out a straight-in approach." indicating to me that an aircraft that was not established on the Base or Final leg when the SIA aircraft established on Final, does not have priority over the SIA aircraft, because he's on Final. I think the point is that the Approach part of a SIA is concluded once that aircraft establishes on the Final leg of the circuit, and it then becomes just the same as any other aircraft on Final i.e. has right of way over all other aircraft in the circuit. There are many references to an aircraft on Finals having absolute priority over all others. AND - what about the circumstances where an aircraft is established on 3Nm final, after conducting an SIA, and someone else joins the circuit on Base, does that new aircraft suddenly get priority over the aircraft on Final, and if he does, how does he know that, if perhaps he wasn't monitoring the frequency before the SIA aircraft reached the 3Nm point? I'm a Commercial pilot of nearly thirty years and it's always been drummed into me, and others I've consulted, that once established on Final approach an aircraft has priority over all others, regardless of how they joined the circuit, and I, and many others, don't see in what way the CAR or the CAAP states otherwise, though they are certainly very ambiguous. Kind regards,

Now that all the legal wrangles over our airstrip of the past few years have been resolved, we're getting back to having fun again - Sausage sizzle at Heck Field, Gold Coast tomorrow Saturday 22.10.16 starting at 9am. Come along and meet a few new friends - everyone welcome. Heck Field airstrip details

I received the following 'reply' from RAAus - Dear Mr X Thank you for your report. Occurrence OCC0788 has been lodged with the details you have provided. This is to confirm the receipt of your hazard report and thank you for providing the information to Recreational Aviation Australia. The process relating to these reports could involve further action, recommendations or follow up. As such, your report in invaluable to us and will be analysed and could affect policy decisions relating to assessment of pilot experience or conditions, aircraft design or training, or simply added to an archive for future analysis. We will contact you if we need further information or clarification of your report. Feedback on the outcome from your report is contained in your members portal on the Recreational Aviation Australia website. Please feel free to contact Safety on 02 6280 4700 or email [email protected] to discuss further. Kind regards Janelle Wayling Safety Co-ordinator Serious fun, stay safe I'd be interested to hear what folks think ... As far as I'm concerned I'd say it reads like a stock reply and they either haven't read, or certainly haven't understood the content of the email I sent. It appears to me to be about as much of a 'non-reply' as it could be. Does anyone think they plan on looking into it any further, or would you think this is intended to be final the brush-off?

Well, whoever is right about this, it's quite clear that there are just as many who aren't. And that means there's a very real and concerning possibility that one day two aircraft are going to come into conflict at the Base/Final point of a circuit, both believing that the other is going to give way. This is clearly a serious safety hazard and some action must therefore be taken to ensure that we're all on the same songsheet, so to speak. Consequently I have emailed the following to the RAAus Ops Manager - Attention: Operations Manager - RAAus - 19th October 2016 Due to peoples' differing interpretation of the Regulations (specifically CAR 166B) it has become apparent that a situation exists where two pilots can both believe they have right-of-way in the circuit. This could very easily result in a mid-air collision. I refer you to a thread on an Australian internet forum where the recent Ozkosh at Narromine is being discussed. Ozkosh%20at%20Narromine']In Post #201[/url] a person who attended the fly-in commented about an aircraft that performed a Straight In Approach (SIA), albeit that the aircraft did not properly satisfy the requirements for it. Since then the matter of SIAs has been extensively discussed and it is evident that people have opposing interpretations of who has priority, and when. On one side of the discussion people understand that once an aircraft is established on final approach that aircraft then has priority over all others in the circuit regardless of whether that aircraft became established on the final approach from a standard circuit entry or from an SIA. On the other side of the discussion people understand that if an aircraft is established on the final leg having performed an SIA then that aircraft must give way to all others in the circuit - Ozkosh%20at%20Narromine']see Post #263.[/url] Consequently, having performed an SIA and become established on final approach while there was no other traffic on Base or Final, some would then understand that they then have priority over an aircraft which is on, for example, late downwind. However, the pilot of the aircraft on downwind might then turn onto Base and understand that he has priority over the aircraft which is already on Final, because that aircraft is on a Final which resulted from having performed an SIA circuit entry rather than a standard circuit entry. The very fact that this discussion is taking place indicates that the matter of SIAs (and probably also that of entry to circuit via the Base leg) is not being adequately addressed in pilot training via our FTFs. I have taken the step of discussing the matter with an instructor in one RAAus FTF and while he is fully conversant with the procedures himself, he said that not much was being taught to students about SIAs because they like to encourage people to use standard circuits. This is not an acceptable approach to the situation because RAAus aircraft and RAAus-trained pilots are increasingly mixing with GA Private- and Commercial-trained pilots, to whom the SIA procedure is taught, and many regularly use it and would expect other aircraft in the circuit to know who has right-of-way, and when. I urge you to address this matter most urgently by email to all FTFs and RAAus members, with a plain-speak explanation of the correct procedure to ensure, at the very least, that all our pilots are aware of their obligations when encountering other aircraft that are performing SIAs. Kind regards, By autoreply I immediately received the following back from [email protected] - Please accept this message as confirmation that your enquiry has been received at Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) and will be attended to as soon as possible.

Yes ... it's fun getting older isn't it? I've always invested in really good sunglasses because most of my flying was low level with it's attendant hazards, and top-end sunglasses with a yellow/brown tint increases contrast and so they help you to see power lines and occasional tree branches that might be obscured against the background. In the early stages of needing near-vision glasses i.e. from about 40 y.o. I was able to solve the problem with Maui Jim sunnies because they brought out a range which have the reader magnifiers in the lower section (like bifocals). So they're high quality non prescription polarised and filtered lenses with a +1, +1.5, +2 or +2.5 lens at the bottom. Incidentally I have an unmarked pair of Mauis with +2 readers which I don't use now, so if anyone wants a discount pair I might be persuaded to part with them. I'm not giving them away - they're $250 on discount - but I could be talked into half price ... PM me if interested. For flying in dull weather I used to use a narrow pair of suitable readers and wore them low on my nose so I could look over them for distance vision. As I got older it became more painful on the wallet because Mauis with a prescription lens for distance vision plus the readers at the bottom were about $900 (and you have to have two pairs to be legal when flying, although the second pair could be cheapies I guess. Then I made the acquaintance of an optical house in China and I'm now able to get Prescription polarised+filtered+anti-glare/reflection and hard coated with tint or not, and/or if not polarised then they can be transitions, and with free-form graduated focus i.e. distance at the top through mid-range and near vision at the bottom. In Australia even the discount specs places want about $850 for similar with titanium frames whereas my Chinese supplier does them for about $240 including EMS delivery. It takes about 2 weeks once you send them your prescription. Incidentally, if you need a prescription you just ask your optician to give it to you after your free biennial eye check-up, because it belongs to you, not them, as your Medicare pays them to do it. If anyone wants an intro to a tried, tested and now trusted specs supplier/manufacturer in China you can PM me for details if you like.

Well it's good to see that this discussion has helped some with understanding the rights-of-way rules in the circuit. But - given your statement "but prior to that point he must give way...." you still seem to have some confusion about the way the SIA works. It's ridiculous to say that he should give way prior to being on final ... because to whom would he be giving way when he's more than 3Nm downwind? Let me run through a couple of examples again, to illustrate the possible scenarios. In our following examples we have me flying a Twin Beech, Kaz in her Auster, KG Wilson in his Cougar and Zoo in an Alpi Pioneer - In this first example I'm arriving at Ozkosh Narromine, I've been listening to the other traffic on the VHF for the last 20 minutes while inbound so I know the wind direction and the runway being used and most of the traffic is likely to be a bit slower than me and in any case I'm approaching the duty runway from downwind, so I decide to manoeuvre for an SIA. Consequently, 20NM out I change heading slightly to intercept a point on the runway approach line five miles out. I keep monitoring traffic and ten miles out I make my inbound broadcast and announce my intention to make an SIA. Note that I don't ask anyone anything and I don't announce that I know the wind and runway, which I have ascertained but neither/none of things are required to be requested/announced. Also note that even though the circuit is quite busy I don't have to give way to circuit traffic at this stage because I'm nowhere near the circuit ... Just before 3Nm out I note that I'm nicely lined up on the runway centreline and I have three aircraft in circuit. Kaz has just taken off in the Auster, is at 50kts and has just turned crosswind. KG has just arrived in the Narromine circuit and is at 75kts on early downwind, and he's following Zoo who is at 100kts on late downwind. So at that stage Zoo is number one, KG number two and Kaz number three in circuit. Nobody needs to worry about 'right-of-way' because no-one knows what any of them intend to do - they may be going to land or they may be going to depart the circuit. In fact the only one whose intentions are known to all, is me, because I broadcast it while inbound. Now I broadcast "Traffic Narromine, Twin Beech XYZ is 3 miles NW, two thousand three hundred (or whatever - depending on airfield elevation), inbound runway one one, straight-in approach, established long final. Have 3 traffic in circuit, traffic Narromine". From the moment I said the words "established on final", I jumped to number one in the circuit and the other three move back a place. That means that Zoo must now locate me visually if possible and extend his downwind leg so that he turns Base late enough to allow me to pass ahead of him and be able to clear the runway before he touches down. If he doesn't see me, he must continue his downwind leg until he's certain he's given me enough room to pass ahead of him before he turns Base. No drama, no disruption, no conflict, just a slight change to the flightpath of one aircraft who spends a few moments more in the air than if I hadn't joined the circuit on final. Just like the traffic flow around a roundabout/traffic circle when another car joins and then leaves the flow. OK, example number two starts identical to the previous one - I'm arriving at Ozkosh Narromine, I've been listening to the other traffic on the VHF for the last 20 minutes while inbound so I know the wind direction and the runway being used and most of the traffic is likely to be a lot slower than me and I'm approaching the duty runway from downwind anyway, so I decide to manoeuvre for an SIA. Consequently, 20NM out I change heading slightly to intercept a point on the runway approach line five miles out. I keep monitoring traffic and ten miles out I make my inbound broadcast and announce my intention to make an SIA. Note that I don't ask anyone anything and I don't announce that I know the wind and runway, which I have ascertained but neither/none of things are required to be requested/announced. Also note that even though the circuit is quite busy I don't have to give way to circuit traffic at this stage because I'm nowhere near the circuit ... Just before 3Nm out I note that I'm nicely lined up on the runway centreline and I have three aircraft in circuit. And this is where things are slightly different from the previous example - Kaz is at 50kt 1000' AGL on early downwind, KG has just turned Base and has slowed right down to 55kt just in case Zoo doesn't clear the runway quickly because he's a bit closer behind Zoo than he would prefer to be, and Zoo is at 65kt performing a last visual check for traffic on final, before turning on to final himself. I broadcast almost exactly the same as before "Traffic Narromine, Twin Beech XYZ is 3 miles NW, two thousand three hundred (or whatever - depending on airfield elevation), inbound runway one one, straight-in approach. Established on long final number three to the Pioneer and Cougar (or just 'number three'), traffic Narromine". Once again, I really don't have to 'Give Way' to anyone, I just take my place in the queue as number three and make sure that I don't impede Zoo or KG who is following him. If it does get too crowded and I'm likely to land before KG has cleared the runway I just move to the dead side of the circuit and and broadcast my new intention of going-around and joining the circuit on upwind, while climbing back to circuit height. Once again, no drama, no disruption, no conflict. You do seem to have a bit of a 'thing' where it comes to professional pilots carrying out their duties, and on more than one occasion you've expressed your grievances on this forum, even to the extent of calling them morons. I'd suggest you might keep in mind that they're probably fifty or a hundred times more experienced than the average weekend warrior and far more likely to know the procedures to the letter. If you ever get the opportunity to fly with them you'll also see that they're generally exceptionally calm and collected, even when under extreme pressure - times when the hobby pilot would be a mess of sweat and lather. Your 'moment' with the bushfire helicopters was probably a good example of that. When they're on essential services emergency work, what was probably a matter of everyday ops to them was enough to send you off the rails. As for bullying - I rather doubt it, you might have seen one runway used in one direction ten minutes ago, but that doesn't make it the 'duty runway'. It's only the duty runway if traffic are actually in circuit at the time. Otherwise, if they call in for a runway when there's no circuit direction actually established at that moment, then there's nothing to stop them establishing their own circuit direction. Note CAR 116B (2) The rules are the following: (a) before starting the approach, the pilot must determine: (i) the wind direction at the aerodrome; and (ii) the runways in use at the aerodrome; So - they'd know the wind direction and if no runway is actually in use then they can choose which one they would like to use. > > OK - back to giving way when joining circuit (by the way, 'real pilots' talk about who has priority, not who should be 'giving way') - so, what if I decide to join the circuit on Base instead of long final? How about if someone's on downwind, can I join on Base and thereby join the circuit ahead of them? Before anyone shoots me down by saying I can't, from the VFRG - Joining on base leg – Pilots should be mindful that the following types of incidents are more common when joining on the base leg: landing downwind in direct conflict with other traffic using the into-wind runway having to go around from late final due to other aircraft or vehicles on the runway landing on a closed runway or at a closed aerodrome. Joining on the base leg is not a standard procedure. CASA recommends that pilots join the circuit on either the crosswind (midfield) or downwind leg. However, pilots who choose to join on base leg should only do so if they: have determined the: wind direction and speed runway in use circuit direction presence of obstructions on the runway and serviceability of the aerodrome and runway [*]give way to other circuit traffic and ensure the aircraft can safely (no traffic conflict likely) join the base leg applicable to the circuit direction in use at the standard height and [*]broadcast their intentions. Note Base leg joins must be conducted in accordance with the circuit directions as published in the ERSA. If joining base cannot be conducted to meet the above criteria, pilots should descend on the non-active side of the circuit.

Yes, but I think you're not appreciating the difference between what a 'straight-in approach' is, and what a 'final approach' is. By the time the aircraft is on final approach it has concluded the straight-in approach procedure, and is then simply on a long final approach, just the same as any other aircraft on a final approach, whether it be a long final, 'normal' final or short final - and regardless of whether they joined the circuit on the upwind leg, crosswind, downwind, base or, in this case, the final leg. Once he's on final it doesn't matter how he came to be there, he's on final, he now has right of way, and the straight-in approach aspects of it have been satisfied and are behind him. In other words, once he's on final it can be considered that he's no longer on a straight-in approach, he's just quite simply on final approach.

I've given your post a 'caution' because your final statement in bold is incorrect and it might mislead others reading it, so they should treat it with caution - please don't take it personally. Nonetheless, statements like your last one do, unfortunately, bring into question the accuracy and depth of training being provided by some of our FTFs. It really is concerning if people are being 'let loose' when they don't know, or aren't absolutely certain, where they have to give way in the circuit, and worse still, when they firmly believe they don't have to give way, when in fact they do. That sort of thing can lead to people thinking others are 'morons' when in fact they might be the 'goose' themselves ... I can quite see why, if you take in isolation the CAAP paragraphs you've posted, that you might consider that the phrase in 6.7.1 which you highlighted and underlined might be the pivotal part of this regulation, but while it is indeed pertinent it doesn't over-ride or contradict the final sentence. The final sentence states 'An aircraft established on the base or final leg for any runway has right of way over an aircraft carrying out a straight-in approach', therefore, by extension, it means that 'An aircraft NOT established on the base or final leg for any runway DOES NOT have right of way over an aircraft carrying out a straight-in approach - and the reason is that once the aircraft carrying out the SIA has established on final he then doesn't have to give way to anyone except someone /thing obstructing the runway or, in emergency, to avoid an impending collision. We have to remember that the procedure for someone 'carrying out an SIA' involves all the time they are inbound and 'on approach' as well as the final approach, so 'carrying out a SIA' does not necessarily mean they have reached the stage where they are in the traffic circuit yet. But once they have correctly established on final they are then at the front (i.e. ahead) of all other traffic that are in the circuit. So what that last sentence is saying is that aircraft on base or final are ahead of someone inbound who is intending to make a SIA, therefore they don't have to give way to him. But once the inbound aircraft completes his SIA manoeuvring and before three miles out establishes on the final leg of the circuit, which he does while there aren't, at that time, any other aircraft already on base or final, he is then at the head of the queue and other aircraft must not turn base too soon, in a way which would cause a conflict with him, instead they should extend their downwind leg so as to turn base and final behind him. Copied from my previous post, 2nd para - (pilots on the base leg and before entering the final leg should be vigilant that no traffic is on long final for landing) the reason that sentence is included, and similarly included at the end of para 6.7.1 in the CAAP you quoted above, is that traffic on base must always give way to traffic on final approach - and that's regardless of where the traffic on final joined the circuit. Think about it this way - you never have to give way to aircraft in the circuit that are behind you, but you must always give way to traffic in the circuit that are ahead of you. So if an aircraft is on Base leg and another is on Final leg, the one on final is ahead in the circuit and therefore has right of way regardless of which leg he joined the circuit. And if he joined on the final leg i.e. a SIA, he had to have done so when no-one else was on Base or Final, regardless that others might have been on upwind, crosswind or downwind. You need to carefully consider the lines you emboldened and underlined because you appear to be suggesting that someone joining circuit on final for SIA when someone else is on downwind, for example, is 'disrupting or conflicting with the flow of traffic in the circuit' but they are not - even it means that others may have to extend their downwind leg to space the traffic properly - because that is the normal means of dealing with aircraft that are faster or slower in the circuit, and it cannot be said that having to extend or shorten your downwind leg is a disruption or conflict with the traffic flow. A few examples - You are in a slow aircraft on downwind and a faster aircraft is behind you and catching up fast. Do you have to give way? Of course not, you probably cannot see the other aircraft anyway. You are the faster aircraft on downwind, and you are catching up to the one in front. Do you have to give way? Yes, you do. How do you give way if you cannot fly as slow as they are? You must widen your circuit and continue on downwind until they turn base, then you must judge when to turn base so that you don't end up catching up with them again on final because if you don't give them sufficient time to clear the runway you will have to go around by moving to the dead side. You are on base and before you turn final what is the last check you are required to perform? You must check for aircraft on a longer final approach which you might be about to turn ahead of by mistake. In that situation who must give way? You must, and it's not a pretty place to be because simply following the Rules for Prevention of Collisions i.e. turning right, might not, in a left hand circuit, be sufficient to prevent the collision. Which is why in the exceptional circumstance that someone isn't able to, or doesn't manoeuvre correctly to prevent the collision, the onus to give way then passes to the craft which previously had the right of way - and that is the ONLY time that an aircraft which is already established on final approach might have to give way to another aircraft in the circuit - to prevent an impending collision. So as I indicated above, when reading the often complex Aviation Regulations and Advisory Publications, statements about one aspect of circuit procedure - in this case about SIAs - should not be taken in isolation but should be considered in conjunction with all those documents' other statements about circuit procedures, otherwise one paragraph's meaning will frequently appear to conflict with that of another.

They do, it's in the Visual Flight Rules Guide ... Radio Telephony Procedures starts on this page.