nong

We use the victor 1 regularly during training, as its one of our advanced navs. Before descending at jibbon point or long reef we have a procedural brief in the event of a ditching. This involves an assessment of wind, along with swell conditions, sydney radar tuned on stby freq, a clear and definite handover drill and a pax brief on the use of the lifejacket and doors.Should an engine failure occur during the 500 ft section time is obviously very limited, and turning is to be avoided, If a turn is nessacary it should be done at a max of 20 deg angle of bank and initiated quickly with a max turn of 90 deg's . Once the turn is complete stick with the new heading and NEVER attempt a turn at low level.

(the above is extracts from the brieinf WE use. Consult your instructor on what best for you in YOUR aircraft)

 

cheers

I see no reason for arbitrary bank angle limits in light aircraft ops and absolutely no reason why an aircraft can't be flown aggressively in the glide, if required, to achieve a desired outcome.

If you need to turn at low level....do it. I say.... do what you have to do, confidently.

The honeymoon might be over for Angel Flight.

Were the passengers given the information they needed to assess the level of risk to which they were being exposed?

Were they with a private pilot operating outside a structure that could impose discipline and guide the operation?

Were the passengers under the impression that Angel Flight provided an equivalent operational standard to that provided by, for example, the RFDS? Does it?

Considering that Angel Flight uses the electronic media to promote and offer what appears to be some sort of air transport service......

- Does it have and is it required to have an an AOC and does it have operational standards equivalent to those required of a charter operator?

If reports are correct, how does Angel Flight explain carrying possibly poorly informed passengers after last light in dodgy weather in a Cherokee 180?

Does Angel Flight take the position that it merely "facilitates" pilots getting together with passengers in the way that a travel agent might claim?

Should be interesting.

Of course thats 60 lit of juice and 5 lit of air. Or you could put in 65 and watch 5 lit piss onto the ground.

You might have have an eight pole stator. These are fine, but later engines use a ten poler.

If your cockpit is stinky/toxic it might be the glue (epoxy?) melting as the windings destroy themselves.

Jab can supply rewound stators at a reasonable price.

Ha Ha The PROHIBITION on aerobatics is suffering mass (well, maybe not quite mass) disobedience.

I recently did a little cattle and sheep spotting using, of all things, a J230. Not swerving through the Mulga, just stooging along above the foliage.

Sitting low and to one side wasn't the best, I thought. More cushions to sit as high as poss, made the best of it. I formed the view that a narrow fuselage and high seating position in relation to any front mounted engine would be good.

The fuel consumption, however, was a revelation. Ten lit/hr at 2000 RPM.

After a night outside in the frost, it aint gunna start.....and that, you CAN rely on. What ya need is the nearest Landcruiser and a length of black poly pipe. Ten minutes of 'cruiser exhaust up the cowling is a wonderful thing.

There were times when I would have liked to have slower loiter speeds than were reasonably possible in this machine.

MEDIVAC. We had a stockman down and hurting about seven kliks from the home strip used by the Jab. A chopper would have been really good in this situation as the pilot could have gone straight to the homestead to access the medical chest for morphene, and then may have been able to comfortably and quickly transport the patient to the homestead or a suitable airstrip for onwards transport. In our case, this process took considerable time by a necessarily slow Landcruiser.

All the while we were looking at where an RFDS aircraft might be able to land but the Jab proved to be the best bet, as the day was fast running out. Initially I thought we could make the patient comfortable reclining behind the seats but as it turned out, he was OK sitting in the front. Of course the Jabby was in its element for the 100NM run into Broken Hill. The Paramedics who met us were pretty amused when the King Air they were expecting....turned out not to be! One of them even sported a hubby who is building a Sonex.

Anyway, I don't think a J230 is your answer.

Well Brett....

A fascinating question. The Citabria (Champion Model 7) along with the Bonanza, were only ever certified to the relatively basic requirements of FAA CAR 3 back in the 1940s. In the case of the Champion... How do you sell a seemingly outdated machine in the mid 1960s? Answer... Paint some stripes on it and declare it to be aerobatic ! Strengthen the wing spars....not likely !

Oh yeah. Beech did this with both the Debonair and Musketeer using "Utility Category", where only a +4.4G limit is needed. How do you get 4.4Gs? Simple, just reduce the allowable AUW when using the machine aerobatically.

So what we see is a very blurred line between aerobatic and non-aerobatic, in terms of the hardware.

The simple truth is that SOME (and only some!!!) non-aerobatic types are just as strong or stronger than some types that are approved for aerobatic flight.

We know that some machines that may be flown under RAAus registration are stated to be suitable for aerobatics (in varying degree) by their manufacturers and at least two types are out and out stunt planes.

Of course, the degree to which any given aerobatic type can be aerobated is a whole other discussion.

The original reason for the prohibition on aerobatic flight (3 axis machines) is no longer valid. It is time to amend the relevent CAO.........RAAus where are you?

Cheers

Nong

Hmm Mr sseeker....

Do you realise that you DONT NEED RAAus approval to teach theory. There is no requirement other than your expressed desire to obtain RAAus approval.

Nong

I reckon the term 'RECREATIONAL' is INACCURATE, LIMITING and POLITICALLY EMBARRASSING.

INACCURATE? It is naive to think that our small aircraft are only being used as toys by hobbyists. Whilst a lot of activity is of a recreational nature, there is also a lot of activity that is more accurately described as business or industrial. A light aircraft can be a tool just as easily as it can be a toy. If I need to make some on-site decisions at a construction site 150nm distant, yet be back home for a 1.00pm appointment, and I use the firms Jabiru for the trip.....is that recreational? If I use the Brumby to train a student who I know is already studying CPL theory and the student has said that he is aiming to be a commercial pilot.....is that recreational? If I conduct photographic survey (espionage!) of my competitors operation from the Lightwing.....is that recreational? This, and much more, is typical of the uses to which these machines are put around this nation, in addition to recreation.

LIMITING? It beggars belief that a useful thing such as a light aircraft should, by government compulsion, be limited to recreational roles only.

POLITICALLY EMBARRASSING? At times when one might be faced with defending access to airspace and facilities, RECREATIONAL doesn't cut it. One needs to be an AIRCRAFT OPERATOR so that one can look the other OPERATORS squarely in the eye and state one's case.

So.....back to the question. I would say that the machines are AEROPLANES or AIRCRAFT. If a distinction based on say, weight, is thought necessary.....then the machine might be a LIGHT AIRCRAFT. A Jabiru is a LIGHT AIRCRAFT. So is a Javelin or a Maxair Hummer.

Time to rename the organisation....again!

And your instructor imagined that a Sonex would be legal to cross-hire for school use? No comment.

Well, there is a Jab LSA55 at Wagga thats had the ROTAX replaced with a JABIRU.

I guess it was a boat anchor on that poor little aeroplane....musta had some lead in the tail.

Any mug can ADD weight to an aeroplane.

Those who know the design and service history of the Piper Pawnee ag plane will be aware that fuel tanks in this location, especially if made of fibreglass, have the worst history of post impact fires.

Many good people were hurt or killed because of that design judgement, including quite a number in Australia and New Zealand.

Pawnee designer Fred Weick stated that he had hoped the simplicity of the fuel system would offset the vulnerable location. He candidly noted that judgement to be wrong, as shown by history.

The Pawnee design was changed in the later D models to wing tanks. Proior to this, wing tanks were a mandatory mod in New Zealand.

Hmm...

The pilot allowed the unruly Jabiru to fly into a wire and it crashed. Bad Jabiru. Then the engine stopped.

The pilot stalled the Jabiru at low level. The pilot didn't recover the situation so the bad Jabiru crashed. Then the engine stopped.

A bad Jabiru was seen to swerve on take-off and crash into a remarkably solid large object. This is unacceptable. To top it off.... Then the engine stopped.

Well, I guess that proves it.

Cropmaster? Yoo goanna put some piccies up? 470 Continental version?

As with many of our machines, Sapphires are not certified (and are not required to be) to a standard that spells out pitch stability characteristics in any detail. I think this is often not understood by many of us....

If curious, look up the certification requirements in relation to the tail number. EG. 10-xx 19-xxxx 25-xx

Popularity is not a basis to assume that a machine will have certain characteristics that might be desirable. It just ain't that easy...sorry! The Sapphire is a "real ultralight" as the term was once understood. Cheap and cheerful was the aim. With this as an overriding priority, it stands to reason that the machines must have been developed on a tight budget. When you buy a sapphire you don't pay for a lot of development and you dont receive it. What you do get is "bang for the buck".

Yes, Sapphires can be mildly pitch divergent when loaded within the approved C of G range. This might be a hanging offence in a touring aircraft selling for 150k, but for a cheap buzzabout.....just hold the stick.

I have an old Yeoman agricultural aircraft (certified to a more demanding standard). For what it's worth discussionwise, the maintenance notes emphasise the importance of ensuring that the fore/aft balance point of the entire 'stabilator' assembly coincides with the pivot point. The assembly includes a heavy balance/dampening weight mounted on an arm extending towards the front of the machine from the pivot point.

The stabilator was developed by Miles Aircraft as a fix for pitch control difficulties being encountered at transonic speeds with the M52 project. It was quite successful and widely adopted on jet fighters. Unfortunately some light aircraft designers thought it would be trendy and modern to use stabilators. It was a fashion statement in the fifties and sixties but is difficult to justify in most light aircraft applications in comparison to a conventional set-up.

Fellas.....as I said...I make no speculation re. Horn Island but the incident reminded me of the CASA paper so I mentioned it.

Regarding Jabs.....I always imagined that I would decommission any airframe that got to what I would guess to be time ex. At ,say, 10,000hrs, surely value has been had so one might happily turn it into a boat and buy a new one. The throw away concept is valid.

For the record. I have often informed passengers/students that flying these small aircraft is a significantly dangerous pursuit but that we try to strike the right balance. It's fair to say that I don't rave on about how safe it is. I think that is 'selling the lie'.

Cheers

If the link doesnt work just GOOGLE "The Aero Commander Chronicle"

No comment about Horn Island but anyone considering flying in one of these would do well to inform themselves of the problems with the structure of Aero Commander twins ( all models ). Do yourself a favour.

http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/papers/aerocommander.pdf

Lets hope our fine young airmen never have to fly FA18s or JSFs against SU35s, T50s or J20s.

We now have no air superiority fighters and the government has deliberately trashed our fleet of bomb trucks.

John

I have an Oddysey that did five years in a LSA55-3J commencing in 2002. Since then it has been on deep cycle work driving a FloJet pump on a Silvan spray rig.

These batteries have a notably low self discharge rate during periods of inactivity.

I use a switch mode type charger......CTEK XS3600.

A 300 litre spray job doesnt phase it. I have never managed to flatten it.

So, take it easy. I reckon you'll get ten years out of it.

Cheers

One spot.....one fire.......you loose the lot.....in one go.

I reckon the Commonwealth owns the aircraft.........so let's be glad they haven't scrapped it ! (F111)

Hubert Wilkins (an Aussie) used this machine for polar exploration. At that stage it was a single engine Fokker VII. It was wrecked on the job and then converted to /3M for onsale.

Hullo Joshua

If you pop over to Wagga, I'll be happy to sort out your issues on the piloting side. Bring your log book, your pilot cert and an indication of current membership. If you would like to do this, please send me copies of all written correspondence with RAAus Ops (yours and theirs) so that I can sort it with them. That way, there will be no procedural dramas and we will know what we are to cover/achieve before we start.

Cheers Fred

And the 'wittman' gear legs...... (not tubular)

Sorry Bill , it's a one-fifty. Look at the cowl shape, circa 1966-68.

Er, daldy... Wire swords and deflector cables are, more often than not, factory fitted standard equipment on ag-planes. Have a look at a Pawnee. Now place yourself in the cockpit at application speed. Imagine a wire coming at you. There is not much structure between you and the wire, so that wire is likely going to chop your head off. Wire deflector/cutters are a good thing!

During the working season the hours are long and there can be a fair bit of sleep deprivation. There is an urgency to completing the work, as pestilence (crop attack) waits for no man. Of course ag-pilots work hard to stay alert and they don't need a lecture about maintaining 'situational awareness'!! In fact, despite the environment and circumstances of their operation, they usually achieve long term accident rates equal to or better than the non-professional pilot fraternity can manage.

It seems most unreasonable to propose that working pilots should be denied devices designed to provide secondary protection in the event of an error or misjudgement. This line of reason says that seat belts, overturn structures, rear positioned cockpits, etc. should be done away with. Reminds me of a certain air force that denied its pilots parachutes under the mistaken belief that this would induce cowardice.

Fred