Roundsounds

12 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I did my first lot of upset and recovery training yesterday. I ***KNEW*** that if your aircraft is inverted, you don't pull back on the stick. And before the manoeuvre, my instructor said, over and over, that if you are inverted, you roll the aircraft level to the nearest horizon. When I was inverted, I still automatically recovered by pulling back on the stick and doing half a loop so I was upright again.  

 

So, I still hate stalls. I think it is because of the falling sensation and realising/thinking that it will/could be really bad if a wing drops. Next time I go flying I will do, and recover from, an inverted spin, as a warm up to doing stalls. Then, when I stall, I will let a wing *really* drop, wait a while, and then recover the aircraft. That oughta do it. 

 

As a side note I am irritated that one of the FIRST THINGS people are taught that if you pull back on the stick, the aircraft climbs. It usually does, but not when you really need it to. If you are stalled, inverted, spinning, in a spiral dive OR in the area of reverse command, pulling back on the stick does not make you higher or make the trees further away. What you are taught fist sticks most. Instead, people should be taught that the elevator controls angle of attack. This is not an original idea of mine. Bob Tait's books are guilty of the above. 

Hopefully you’re learning a lot of prevention skills? The technical term for UA training now is Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT). The most common upset killers are generally non-recoverable due to a lack of height, hence the desire to prevent an event developing at all. 

On 26/11/2021 at 9:46 AM, flying dog said:

I'm not arguing that.

 

I am just asking/mentioning that I have seen planes leaving their wheels down three times recently.

 

I don't watch every plane taking off.   I do have other things to do.

 

But given I've seen it now three times:  I was just asking.

 

You’d likely find the aeroplanes would have departed with a fault related to the braking system. Typically wheel brakes are automatically applied when landing gear is retracted. If a brake was unserviceable (some are permitted to be U/S) the crew would leave the gear extended to allow the wheels to spin down before retracting them.

On 23/02/2020 at 2:54 PM, CAVU Mark said:

I learned in a Cessna 170A. My mates thought I was nuts to learn in a tailwheel aircraft but that's what they did years ago so.... First suggestion to solo by my CFI as he was stepping out of the plane was for me to give it the gas. I wasn't ready that day.

I’ve never understood this gung-ho approach to first solos. I’ve sent many, many people solo. It’s always been a mutual decision, I’ll let the student know when I think they are near the standard and get them to tell me when they feel ready. The odd person will need a bit of encouragement, but I have found this method works. The human factors impact on simply stepping out and saying go for it is irresponsible at best!

16 hours ago, Ian said:

So from the above, there's no research demonstrating the advantages of either approach, so logically they should have the same baseline requirements.

The fact that they don't would indicate it is most likely to have occurred as part of a sweetheart deal to advantage section of the training community and disadvantaging others. 

 

The structure that I was alluding to was the whole requirement for a "school". The reality is that to fly a plane I need two things, an understanding of the theory and practical instruction. Theory can be imparted using a variety of methods using textbooks, classroom time, videos or other mechanism. A variety of mechanisms can be used to assess this knowledge however examinations are simple and accepted practices. Personally I prefer reading textbooks and journal publications however other learn most effectively using other methods. 

Flying instruction is performed by your instructor (who CASA agree is competent and up to the task) and assessed by a flight test and practical examination by an assessor, there's no requirement for a school per se.

With COVID the concept of what a school is has become far more fluid as more online resources have been used.

 

For instance one piece of knowledge which appears to be poorly understood by a number of pilots is fuel consumption optimization and how it relates to altitude.  I've attached a good paper on the subject, the issues is confused by turbine engines because these engines can't throttle efficiently.

 

 

 

Piston Airplane Cruise Performance.pdf 1.44 MB · 7 downloads

Ian, there are a couple of points worth noting. 
- reduced hours PPL / CPL courses are based on ICAO Annex 6 guidelines. The basis for the reduction of hours being based on a syllabus integrating theory with the practical components of flight training. ICAO guidelines require training organisations delivering the reduced hour courses to hold what we would know as a Part 141/142 certificate.

 
- the requirement to conduct flight training other than the shorter PPL / CPL courses under a Part 141/142 certificate organisation is not an ICAO recommendation. 
 

- ICAO Annex 6 privileges permit the holder of a flight instructor rating to deliver flight training without the need to operate under a Part 141/142 holder. CASA cannot let go of the old AOC big brother model. NZ and USA have embraced the ICAO guidelines. The holder of a flight instructor rating can deliver training, for courses other than the reduced hours courses in their own right. In NZ most small flight schools do not hold an AOC / Part 141 certificate. 
 

- CASA argue they require training for the issue of a licence or rating to be conducted under Part 141/142 certificate to allow them to effectively conduct surveillance / maintain quality control. The CASA model does not provide this outcome. Most flight testing is performed by employees of the 141/142 holders with very little CASA surveillance. The ICAO / FAA / NZ CAA model has independent Flight Examiners conducting flight tests. This model provides better quality control outcomes than the in-house testing system adopted in Australia.

As Nev says, V1, VR and V2 as defined have zero relevance to Single Engine GA aeroplanes. 
this discussion is more about threat and error management considerations during takeoff. 
a very worthwhile discussion. 

5 minutes ago, 4wire said:

It seems that Part 103 will be delayed due to lack of progress on the MOS.  Some instrument is to be issued to extend the validity of CAO 95 series.......perhaps with the new weight. Anybody heard how this is going?

 

There’s no way the weight increase will happen in any practical way. It’ll soon be easier to go experimental.  

4 hours ago, flying dog said:

Flightrite:   Yes, I over think a lot of things.

 

And I am asking not specifically for GA/Light planes.

 

I am asking in the bigger picture.

Read the material behind the links I’ve shared if you are genuine about understanding these speeds. 
I teach this stuff in my day job. 

33 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Why can’t V1 be greater than Vr? 

 

V1 is “V1 is the maximum speed at which the rejected takeoff maneuver can be initiated and the airplane stopped within the remaining field length under the conditions and procedures defined” said the doc linked to. 

 

My aircraft at Archerfield could probs get to Vx before V1. Would you like me to check for you? 

The stopping distance is predicated on the application of wheel brakes, this can’t be done with the wheels off the ground. 
V1 does not apply to single engine light aircraft. 
 

have a read of this document to understand the application of V1.
CAO 20.7.1B

On 27/10/2021 at 10:34 AM, flying dog said:

I get it that I don't fly those and the "rules" have existed for a long time and the "work".  

But do they?

There are 3 important speeds needed when taking off:  V1, VR and V2.

Before I continue with this I'll digress slightly to when I was doing/trying to do the BAK.

You are flying a plane at an airport and are going to take off.   You need to know these things:
1 - QNH
2 - Temperature
3 - Wind speed and strength
4 - TODA
5 - TODR
6 - TOW

Ok, so QNH and Temperature, fair enough.

TOW - Take Off WEIGHT.   Again:  Fair enough.

TODA - Take Off Distance AVAILABLE

TODR - Take Off Distance REQUIRED

The QNH, wind, temperature and TOW go through a table to give you your TODR.

That has to be less than the TODA, or you will run out of runway.   Kinda obvious.

You can't take off on a 1,000 foot runway if you need more than 1,000 feet to take off.

So, that is fairly self explanatory.

But now things get interesting for me....   V1, VR and V2.

V1 - Above this speed you MUST take off.   (Confusing for reasons to which I shall address soon)

VR - This is the speed at which you "rotate" the plane.  That is:  You take off.

V2 - Minimum climb out speed needed.   If you are slower than this: you are not going to continue flying.

So, let's break this down a bit more:

Your plane weighs... 500Kg.

The wind is still.  (Just to keep things simple)

Your TODR is.... 800M  (Arbitrary/random number)

The runway is 1000M long.

You get to the start of the runway and start your take off roll.

And this is where it all falls apart for me.

Let's say your V1 = 80 and VR = 100.
You set off down the runway and the entire runway is ahead of you - good.
You continue down the runway getting faster and faster... and faster.
You get 800M down the runway but haven't got to VR speed (let alone V1 speed) and slam on the brakes.
Where is your stopping distance required calculated?

You are in a plane doing - say 70 kts - 800M down a 1,000M runway and decide to abort the take off.

The STOPPING DISTANCE REQUIRED (I just made that term up now) is.... 300M.
Guess what is going to happen.

Problem as I see it:
V1 is misleading.

V1 should be replaced by a P1 - Point1 which indicates:  YOU MUST BE FLYING BY NOW OR YOU WILL NOT STOP BY THE END OF THE RUNWAY!

Also the fact that VR > V1 is also weird/strange/confusing.

You have a "gap" between when you can take off and when you must take off.

Surley VR should be LESS THAN V1, or more correctly:   P1
And P1 is a point on the runway where if you reach it and are not flying, you MUST ABORT AND STOP.

So the take off would be more like, you start (at the start) and accelerate down the runway.
If you get to P1 before you get to VR, you abort the take off.  The remaining runway distance is enough for you to stop.

All things being good:  You get to VR well before P1 and you are flying before you get to P1 on the runway.

And - of course - P1 will vary from plane to plane and with different conditions.  Temperature, wind, etc.

Yes, it is more complicated to work out and "way back then" it may have been too difficult to calculate.
But now, with computers coming out of every hole in "everything"....  that isn't too difficult to do.

So really looking back at the V1, VR and V2 speeds, and their association that:
V1 < VR < V2 is really problematic.

VR < V1 for starters.

V2 and VR.... well....  I'm not sure.

Thoughts?

Who can help me get my head around why these are called what they are called and why.

 

V1, VR and V2 have specific definitions and are speeds relating to performance criteria applicable to large transport category aeroplanes. You cannot apply theses speeds to small single engine aeroplanes. If you want to apply some TEM strategies to your operations that’s fine, but you’re never going to change the definitions of the above V speeds. 
 

This document explains these speeds. 
 

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/media/takeoff_safety.pdf

Have a read of these definitions. 
 

there lots of other resources online explaining V speeds related to takeoff performance. 
 

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2015/Nov/V_Speed_Review.pdf

Yep

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

You've brought up dust devils a lot over the years. How many have you been caught in?

It only takes one to make you wary of them. The nearest I’ve come to bending an aeroplane have been encounters with 2 thermals, both western NSW in low wing loading aeroplanes. 

The system is flawed, lots of data collected but no apparent analysis. They should be looking at trends and developing a range of methods of correcting these trends. For example, it doesn’t take too much digging to see there are lots of landing incidents. I have not seen any targeted training on stabilised approaches or go-arounds. To me, a go-around is like a safety valve, if things aren’t going well on late final / initial touchdown and the pressure is building up go-around and work out what to do differently on the next approach. Too many instructors correct bad approaches / landings, these are ideal training events.

1 hour ago, KRviator said:

True, but that argument appears to discount using those instruments that remain available in favour of - essentially - guessing your speed. Yes, it can be done, but if you have other sources of valid data, you should use them to confirm your speed/position/actions. Anything else is setting you up to be hung out to dry in the ATSB report..."Although the Pilot had GPS groundspeed data available to him and would have been able to use this to determine airspeed, he chose not to use it in favour of estimating aircraft performance based on power & attitude for which the airframe manufacturer did not provide such data..." or a similar writeup.

 

I went out with an instructor for some additional training a couple weeks ago, and we scrubbed the flight about 15min in after the weather appeared to be worse than forecast, whereupon I promptly entered the departure airport as the DTO waypoint in the GNSS. That seemed to surprise the instructor who asked if I could do it without the GNSS. "Of course" was my reply. "But why would I? Putting the destination in as the waypoint gives exact distance for the 10mile call, lateral guidance and a precise altitude-intercept location." The point being, use the tools you have available to reduce your workload.

Just because we're trained to navigate with paper maps and a stopwatch doesn't mean we should use them to the exclusion of everything else in this day and age - particularly when the AIP now allows VFR pilots to use TSO'd GNSS units for Area Navigation and to push the 'positive-fix' time out to 2 hours.

I agree you could use other sources of information, however I know the power and attitude settings for the aircraft I fly. The comment about estimating performance data doesn’t consider estimating wind component to correct the GS data. I would rather rely on that than GPS GS information.

pilots can make up their own power/attitude table for each aircraft type. Eventually you’ll find a very similar combination across a wide range of types, the airspeed may vary but the combination of power and attitude varies little. 
 

I spend a bit of time thinking through “What if’s” scenarios. What would you do if your IAS looked ok on the takeoff roll, but as you started climbing you noticed the IAS continually decreasing without any change of power / attitude? A scan of the ALT / VSI shows zero RoC and the altitude not increasing, but you see you are climbing buy visual cues. You have your EFB mounted in its normal place. 
This scenario is a likely one and probably the most time critical one a pilot would encounter. 
What would be your initial response / actions?

1 hour ago, KRviator said:

I've taken off with the pitot cover in place once. I did notice it on the takeoff roll, but with only a 600m runway with a 2% downhill gradient and no definitive speed I continued the takeoff rather than try to stop, pegged the VSI at +1000 and flew to the Council airstrip a few minutes away using GPS GS as a guide - bear in mind this was just after sunrise, so before the wind had picked up, and Vy in the RV gives over 1800FPM in the conditions that day.

But what if you do have a significant wind to factor in? GPS GS can't be relied on in those conditions, can it? Wellllll...

In any wind, a two-way run at a fixed power setting will give you your average TAS by adding the GPS GS & dividing by two. From there, you can work out what the approximate wind component is, and use a bit of mental maths to keep your speed in a safe range on final. Ie, 360*M & 120GS & 180*M & 80GS gives you 100KTAS. IF the runway is in the 160*-200* range, I could fly final as slow as 40GS in the RV, giving me 60KTAS. 

If a pilot cannot fly an aeroplane without reference to their flight instruments by day in VMC they shouldn’t be flying. These pilots are playing Russian roulette with their own and any passengers lives.

These pilots are also displaying the fact they have been poorly trained. All phases of flight should be established by setting a known power and attitude combination, the flight instruments are then reviewed to fine tune the phase.

Over the years I have flown a number of aeroplanes where within a short period of time it has become obvious the airspeed indicator was in error, yet these aircraft were in regular flight training use with people blindly following the ASI. The subtle errors can be killers too. With an ageing GA fleet pitot / static systems can develop leaks as the result of corrosion in aluminium lines. My quick test is to open / close vents in flight while monitoring ASI / VSI for any rapid changes. These may be an indication of a leak within the cabin, it will not show up any outside of the cabin. These faults can then be referred for maintenance action.  

A fairly standard military arrival manoeuvre I am told. Hit the airfield fast, roll on bank and pull some G to decrease speed. Minimises exposure to any ground threats. 

Round everyone who’s found to have COVID and send the off to Woomera (Camp Rapier) for a month or two. 
IF they’ve contracted COVID, they or someone close hasn’t followed COVID protocols. A couple of weeks rest will give them time to contemplate the error of their ways.  

Never had a flap, electrical system or gyro instrument issue in my 1939 J3 Cub. 

On 13/07/2021 at 11:25 PM, Garfly said:

I'd have said that all paper navigating calls for more eyes-down than an EFB does.

Ditto ADSB traffic alerts. New school attitude, I'm afraid.

 

“Paper Navigation” requires very little head down if it’s done properly. All navigation is primarily performed using DR, charts and nav aids simply support DR. 

12 hours ago, RFguy said:

WelI, I got my first misty flying (J230D) on Friday in OAT=12, misty, drizzle, intermittant sparse raindrops,  ceiling = 750 AGL, slightly fogged windscreen on taxi/TO. The wet, foggy windscreen certainly affects visibility around the airport, and seems to change depth perception  and attitude perception on TO.  - IE so that's another thing that gets affected flying in most weather, depth perception and general visibility. Even though I had sufficient horizontal vis to meet VMC if my head was OUT of the aircraft, inside, the water on the windscreen makes for quite a difference in judgement and what you can see., and would likely affect ability to get nav fixes . I'd say that if flying above BKN looking for holes and ground nav fixes, that WITH the mess on the windscreen, that would probably be drawing a long bow, and in that condix, perhaps flying over FEW would be the limit.

 

windscreen material compatible anti raindrop etc coating might assist in these cases.
(now 12 hours on type , since engine rebuild) 

 

 

I’m thinking you need to revise the rules if you think you can use visual fixes to navigate above BKN cloud. If you’re flying under RAAus rule set you cannot use navaids for position fixing. 

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Rightly or wrongly I was taught that passing through rain is "technically" entering cloud - its pedantic I know however if the intention, of the clear of cloud rule for VFR pilots, is about being safe from all aspects of cloud flying (not jus a loss of visibility) then avoiding rain becomes part of the intent.

 

I have (in the UK) experienced freezing rain (sleet freezing on contact with a car windscreen) conditions but never heard of it in Australia

Hmmm, not sure why you’d be led to believe rain was technically cloud. 
cloud is cloud, rain is rain, snow is snow, etc. 
It’s a matter of understanding the hazards associated with various types of weather. Sometimes rules of thumb become law in people’s minds. It’s healthy to question why we do things and study appropriate material to develop an understanding of the subject. Weather and aviation are one of the topics pilots should understand. 

4 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

A more Australian targeted advice would be the probability chart put out by CASA 

 

See https://www.casa.gov.au/files/carburettor-icing-probability-chart

I think you’ll find the post was more related to airframe ice, which the AOPA USA article addresses aside from the Australian specific climate issues. 

AOPA USA Article on icing

You’re unlikely to suffer from carb ice when operating in air temperatures below freezing. Cold air won’t hold much moisture, you’re at a much greater risk with high humidity around 15-20 degrees C. 

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

The ASI replaced wind in the wires.

Nope, power and attitude set, then cross referenced with ASI. Too many pilots fly based on the ASI / VSI and couldn’t describe the power and attitude for certain phases of flight. It starts with basic training. Too many instructors point out high / low IAS on approach instead of an incorrect power / attitude combination?

Flight training standards have declined greatly over the years. Too much reliance on technology and not enough stick and rudder skills and basic airmanship. I would not send a pilot solo if they cannot fly a circuit with the ASI, VSI and ALT covered. These are basic skills.