Mazda

Welcome Megavar. I'm not sure about the western side of the country. If you are staying east, I'd suggest anywhere west of the great divide would be the best bet. Somewhere like Bathurst NSW or further affield.

The coastal areas are nicer but the weather is not as reliable.

Darren if you want a program I'm sure the aerobatic club would have one on the website. That will give you an idea of what is on. The sequences should be on the website too.

I've both watched it and competed in it. Personally, I believe it IS worthwhile watching. Look at the more advanced classes for the more spectacular routines, and if you want to learn volunteer to be a penciller for the judges.

Temora is a fantastic place. You can look at the Museum and the people in the town are wonderful.

Thanks!! Keep them coming if you can think of more, this is great!

Maitland airport has a swimming pool and a bar (well, it did last time I was there a few years ago). Obviously the bar is for people who have finished flying!

If anyone is flying into Bathurst drop in to Ward Air and Salli-Ann might make you a cappuccino and give you a home baked biscuit!

Anyone planning an outback trip might want to consider Arkaroola (Flinders Ranges SA). It has a strip, and the owner of the place (Doug Sprigg) has a C207 and an Auster. He loves all aviators and will look after you (including picking you up). Arkaroola has camping to motel type rooms, a pool, good restaurant, and two observatories!

There's an airstrip right at the Dig Tree.

If you fly to the Corner Store (corner country) you have to taxi on to the road and go to the car park!

The Phillip Island airstrip is close the track if anyone is going down for the MotoGP (I probably will - probably via Merimbula).

I'd love to get a list together of good places to go for a cup of coffee, lunch, or with places of interest near the airport. If it needs a taxi to get somewhere, please say so! Does anyone have suggestions?

Places like Wollongong (has a restaurant in the terminal), Moruya (right on the beach) etc.

It wouldn't surprise me as the standard tanks are quite small.

The Pups I know about in Oz are 150s. I looked at buying one of them. It had low time but needed too much work unfortunately. Lovely to fly though, with that crisp light feel lacking in so many types. That one was at Williamtown but I don't know where it was sold. There was another one owned by an English guy and pretty much abandoned in a hangar in Parkes or somewhere similar. I can't remember the other one - Victoria maybe? There was one that was operated from Bankstown and crashed in a corn field. Apparently it was a real mess, but it may have been rebuilt. If you want one maybe search the CASA register and contact the owners (but please, please, please you let me have a fly?!!)

The Maule doesn't have a max demonstrated xwind, it has a published crosswind limit which is very low. I know of incidents where experienced pilots have tested that limit and come to grief.

I've flown the S2A (steerable tailwheel) and S1 (Haigh) and I wouldn't even think about landing with a tailwind!!

In the case of the Maule I don't think it has much to do with the tailwheel, it is due to the lack of aileron. I wouldn't recommend landing a Maule beyond the book xwind figures by the way. A Pitts isn't really worried by crosswind on approach (during taxi it sure is though).

To the best of my knowledge there are 3 Beagle Pups in the country. I wish there were more!

Understood Nev! I'm not trying to be argumentative, as I said I'm happy in high or low wings, but the crosswind generalisation is not true. There are other factors besides how high the wings are - things like the aileron effectiveness/span.

If you've ever flown a Maule you would know that 5 knots of crosswind is significant, and 10 knots means you need to consider landing across the strip or going to an alternate (or make sure you've paid your insurance). The reason for this is that they have a substantial amount of flap and not a great deal of aileron. So a generalisation that high wing = more bank angle = better in a crosswind is simply not true.

The max crosswind of a Beagle Pup on the other hand is something like 25 knots (I don't have the figure in front of me) and the Airtourer is 20 knots. Perhaps this is because the Airtourer has full span flaperons.

There are other factors such as how long the wings are. In my experience, short stubby wings are better in a crosswind.

I seem to recall from the depths of my met training that wind increases with height, so surely this means the disrupted surface wind (from ground friction) that could get under a low wing would not be a strong as the wind likely to get under a high wing.

Anyway, I don't think it is possible to say one is better than the other in a crosswind. I do think pilots need to know the limit of each type that they fly - whether high or low wing.

You'll get used to it! Quite a few nosewheel aircraft are a bit clumsy to steer on the ground, which is something that makes them stable when you are rolling down the runway - they want to stay straight. Tailwheel aircraft are trying to swap ends all the time, so they are nimble to turn when taxiing but much more "exciting" when rolling down the runway.

You will probably have to use differential braking to make a tight turn in your 150. For gentle turns, try to think a bit in advance because it will lag a bit. If it still doesn't turn enough you could try a little jab of differential braking if required.

I don't have those exams, but maybe you could put the full question on here and the type of piper used for the take off chart?

I started in high wing and don't really mind either way too much, but I do prefer low wing. (I've had both Fords and Holdens too).

Facthunter, I think you should hunt for more facts on crosswind capability in high vs low wing. The lowest crosswind maximum aircraft I've flown was a Maule (high wing), and the highest crosswind capability aircraft I've flown were two different low wing types.

Lift is produced from the bit between the wings. I'm sure Spitfires etc managed to produce sufficient lift.

I know that trickle of fuel down the neck!! I also know that ungainly climb up on the strut to get fuel, trying to haul the fuel hose up there and hang on to it while dipping tanks. It's also hard to clean the top of the wing (where any spilled fuel ends up).

You don't get cooked in warriors, arrows, and I don't think jet airline pax complain about being cooked. The low wings that do get hot are those with canopies - however canopies give fantastic visibility, and of course you can taxi with them open. I've been MUCH hotter taxiing a Partenavia (high wing, angled windscreen) than taxiing a low wing canopy aircraft with the canopy open.

So there are good and bad points, depending on what you want. Yes, canopy aircraft can get hot in the sun. Well ventilated ones are not hot in flight (but you can get sunburnt!) But you can open the canopy during taxi (and in flight in some aircraft), you have great visibility and the sun is lovely at times. You feel more like you are flying, not sitting in a car.

Yes, it is absolutely true that high wing aircraft are better on strips with long grass/uneven terrain (as long as there is prop clearance of course), for taxiing through gates etc. They make great bush aircraft!

Yes, Fords and Holdens. It depends what you want.

If we copied birds our aircraft would flap their wings!!

I've been waiting for the minisat one, it seems to be much smaller than the GME. Ian, I'd love to know when it is certified. Is the 6 week figure correct do you think? Or will it be another 6 weeks after this coming 6 weeks?

Have a look at anything seriously aerobatic. It will have a clear floor. By the way, I can't think of anything seriously aerobatic with high wings. Is there anything?

Whilst it may be true that we don't spend most of our time in the circuit, it IS where we are closest to the ground and where there is the most traffic. I've had time in high wing, low wing and biplanes and I'm happy in all. However the best handling machines I've flown have been either low wing or biplane.

I started in high wings and never really worried about the lack of visibility in a turn (& circuit) until I spent more time in low wings ... then every high wing base & final turn became an irritation!

As someone said, horses for courses. Try both and see which you prefer.

I prefer low wing in the circuit because you can see through the turn. I prefer fuelling low wings. I also think they often look better. If you have short low wings the fact you can't see straight down is lessened as you can easily turn and have a look. Give me low short wings and a canopy any day.

High wings make better bush aircraft - more wing clearance, good view down (although struts can get in the way a bit). You can also throw a tarp over the wing and have an instant tent, or just stand under the wing for shade on a hot day. They may be easier for some people to get into. The high wings I've flown do seem more ungainly in handling.

If you are not sure there is only one solution for you - biplanes. Yes, they are the worst of both worlds!!

Welcome! The airports around are Bankstown (horrible place - think of Archerfield), Hoxton Park (closing in 2008), Camden (my favourite), The Oaks (RA airfield, near Camden), Wedderburn (getting further away now), and if you head north to the Central Coast there is Somersby (RA - trikes?) and Warnervale (which is also closing, not sure when).

Bankstown is a GAAP, parallel runways, unfriendly. Hoxton is a CTAF with one sealed runway. GA, helicopters. The Oaks is a grass RA airfield, CTAF. Camden has one sealed runway and a grass cross strip. GAAP on weekends, CTAF during the week. GA, gliders, lots of interesting aircraft, friendly and a pretty place. Somersby has a pretty awful strip. CTAF.

My suggestion would be to go out and have a look around before making your decision. Look at the airports, talk to people, look at the aircraft. You could easily visit Bankstown (if you want to), Hoxton, Camden and The Oaks in a day. Sometimes I find that talking on the phone is not the same as getting a feel for the place yourself.

This weekend should be a good one - why not pop out and have a look?

I hope you've all been searching. I sure have.

From Avweb.

AVWEB INVITES YOU TO JOIN THE SEARCH FOR STEVE FOSSETT

In case you haven't heard, there's a world-wide effort to find Steve Fossett, and you can help without leaving the comfort of your computer desk. Below is everything you need to know to be part of the largest search ever undertaken, thanks to an amazing system called the Mechanical Turk that was developed by Amazon.com and uses satellite imagery supplied by DigitalGlobe to Google Earth.

Follow the links to review new satellite imagery of the search area and instructions on how to possibly spot Fossett's plane. You can also look for a straight scrape in the ground, or maybe some letters created out of rocks or other material that someone on the ground might try to use as a signal. Use your imagination, and don't be shy about sounding the alert.

Good hunting, and thanks from everyone at AVweb.

[/url]

Go here to help

.

http://www.mturk.com/mturk/preview?groupId=9TSZK4G35XEZJZG21T60&kw=story

Yes Blueshed, you are absolutely right! UNICOMs are just there for a bit of extra advice - think of it as a safety net.

UNICOM = Universal Communications. An operator is just someone on the ground talking on the aerodrome frequency.

CAGRO - Certified Air/Ground Operator. Similar to a UNICOM operator but the person must have an air traffic control licence. So the person is a trained controller, but if there is no local controller available the airport has to pay to get someone to go there.

AFRU - Aerodrome Frequency Response Unit. Equipment on the airport frequency which says the name of the airport (if there has been no aircraft there within a certain period of time) when you make your inbound or taxi call, and just gives a beeping sound if there has been a call on the frequency recently. It confirms that you are on frequency. ERSA shows airports which have one.

CTAF = Common Traffic Advisory Frequency.

NAS - National Airspace System.

ADS-B - Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast. Equipment consisting of a transponder type box which shows the aircraft location/height (with call sign) to ATC, any aircraft with an ADS-B display, and anyone with monitoring equipment on the ground.

TCAS - Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System. A box in aircraft with a screen showing transponder equipped aircraft on the screen and giving an aural warning to the pilot telling them what they need to do to avoid the other aircraft (climb, descent, turn left or right). It doesn't need the other aircraft to have ADS-B, just a normal transponder.

Chris is absolutely right on ADS-B. ADS-B is great for enroute, but realistically here in Oz there is very little enroute risk. In the circuit area ADS-B is completely useless because it does NOT have an audio read out like TCAS, meaning that a single pilot in the circuit will have to look down at the screen - and of course that's when you need to be looking out of the window. |Then of course there is still no resolution about which ADS-B system is going to be used around the world. It's like beta and VHS. I hope we don't end up with beta.

The costings you have for UNICOM operators are unrealistic. Have you considered the world model? UNICOM operators are firies or baggage handlers, and it is part of their job. It is NOT ATC and I can't see why you say if they are not there every second of the day it is not a worthwhile service. Even towered airports have no service at times - does that mean we should close down all towers if they don't operate 24 hours per day?

What "ongoing training"? You are acting as though a UNICOM operator is a highly trained ATC. They are not! They need to know north from south, cloud from sun. Sain, if you were at your home airfield do you think you'd be able to tell a pilot coming in that the weather looked bad to the east? It's not hard.

Have you ever flown to country strips with the farm manager on the radio? "G'day. There's a rut on the cross strip so use the main, and there's no wind." That obviously takes a lot of ongoing training and I doubt that he's paid a cent extra.

As I said in a previous post, at present UNICOM operators cannot provide traffic, but in the next stage of NAS they can give basic information.

You are absolutely right about the Swiss cheese theory with Olympic Dam. And that is why a UNICOM operator can help. The Metro's calls were not heard, so a UNICOM operator would only have to tell the Fokker about the existence of the Metro.

Consider the rest of the world. UNICOM operators are very common. In the USA airline aircraft cannot operate to places without a UNICOM, so obviously they believe it is worthwhile. They really must think we are country hicks over here.

There are known risks at CTAFs which have been identified way back in BASI days. Not long ago I had some turkey calling "entering and rolling" when I was on short final. I called, but just say I'd put the radio on the wrong frequency or it wasn't working. Personally I would have loved a UNICOM operator there that day.

Mike, so you'd prefer to fly blindly into an airfield with absolutely no service, than to have someone on the ground? :confused: No radio confirmation. No wind information. No actual local weather. No basic traffic. No one to call services if there's an accident. That's absolutely crazy.

Let's be realistic. You will not get a CAGRO at many airports. Now THAT is expensive. AFRUS are good but they have many limitations and they are not at every field.

So, to your questions.

1. The UNICOM operator is on the toilet. I've been cleared to land from the toilet of a GAAP tower in the past, so what's the difference? Just say that he/she can't see the runway and is not available. So the aircraft returns to the normal CTAF that you love so much. I'm sure the AFRU would be on if there is one at the field. So why not have the extra safety of the UNICOM operator when they ARE available? Say when RPT flights are coming in?

2. You stuff up. You have just as much chance stuffing up when flying into a normal CTAF when you think you are on frequency and no one can hear you. The difference now is that other airport users can be told about you coming in without making calls.

3. The UNICOM operator cannot "tell" you to do anything. All they can do is to say there are aircraft using a certain runway, or the wind is from a certain direction. The runway choice is entirely yours. It's the same as if you make an inbound call and someone says they are using runway 23, but they are actually using the reciprocal (it happens). Personally, I'd tend to take the word of a resident like a UNICOM operator than an itinerant pilot. Of course they can make a mistake, just like ATC (who also get runway numbers wrong from time to time). Surely you don't blindly follow ATC instructions that are clearly wrong? Of course not. And good luck sueing the groundsman. It doesn't even happen in the USA.

All you have to do is look at the huge number of incident reports in CTAFS. Like the one at Olympic Dam where a Metro and an Fokker F50 nearly ran into each other. The result of that is that the airport operator has closed the airport around the times when RPT operate.

Why do you think a UNICOM operator would be expensive? It would be a local person, perhaps someone already based on the field - not like getting an air traffic controller from interstate as is done for Narromine. From your own point of view as a pilot, do you think you could look out and say there is an aircraft doing circuits on runway 23? Well, you could be a UNICOM operator at the field. It isn't rocket science.

Darren, one advantage is if someone doesn't know the frequency, the UNICOM operator could at least advise other aircraft coming in that an aircraft has flown in with no radio.

David, if you make an inbound call and get no response, there may be no one there, there may be someone there with no radio, or your radio may not be working. So again, a UNICOM operator could help!

Darren the big problem is that as much as people study the frequency, even airline crews get that wrong at times, and on aircraft with multiple radios & switches it is very easy to transmit or receive on the wrong radio. If there's no third party to talk to, the pilot may not even know. That's one way that an UNICOM operator can help.

Mike I can't understand how you could possibly fail to see the benefit. Let me think of the options.

Option 1. Nothing, which is what we have now in most places. All the problems above - people using incorrect runways, people on the wrong frequency or not knowing if the radio mic/transmit is selected correctly, flying in without having a clue really about any traffic that is at the airport, the wind direction, runway in use, without knowing that the weather may be clear in a certain direction, and without even really knowing if your own radio is working.

Option 2. CAGRO. The original plan was for this to be a UNICOM operator, with some basic training - say a CFI at the local school. Well that didn't happen and they now need a full ATC or flight service licence ... which means if there isn't someone local, an ex-ATCer has to be relocated and paid enough money to make that worthwhile. So this isn't going to happen at every local airport, leaving most airports back at Option 1. Nothing.

Option 3. UNICOM. This can be someone on the field so you don't have to move an ex-ATCer. It could be a groundsman, airline rep, flight instructor, etc. It doesn't take much training for someone to say "The wind is from the south" or "there are 2 aircraft in the circuit using runway 12" or "there's low cloud to the north" or "a Rex aircraft just departed to the west" or "there's an aircraft in the circuit not making any radio calls" or "I can't see your landing gear". If you make the call and no one answers, you'd check your frequency, volume etc, and realise that perhaps no one knows you are coming in because your radio may have failed.

Now under the current AIP, UNICOM operators are not supposed to give traffic, but it was never supposed to be this way, and under the next stage of NAS they CAN give traffic. If people stopped trying to oppose the airspace changes we would already have UNICOM operators giving basic traffic. They can't give clearances or provide separation (but even GAAP controllers are not responsible for separation in the air anyway).

UNICOM operators give advice which you can take or leave, but it is advice I'd rather have.