Roundsounds

In this example you’re saying the first you knew of the traffic was when they broadcast their crosswind entry? Wouldn’t you have heard their 10 mile inbound call with an estimate for the circuit!

I’m looking to apply for an ASIC renewal, but note you need to demonstrate an operational need to hold one. As the holder of a pilot licence you should be operating on a regular basis from a security controlled airport. I see the last edition of Sport Pilot an article mentioned there’s going to be closer scrutiny around ASICs. Given I’m not regularly operating from a security controlled aerodrome I was considering an AVID. Has anyone else tried an AVID in lieu of an ASIC and arranging for the ARO to escort them on the occasions they fly into an aerodrome requiring an ASIC?

Do you receive any training on the appropriate use of ADSB devices? When I say training I mean technical and human factors type training? Or do you just work it out as you go?

How do you remember the call signs for each aircraft if you want to call them?

Just curious as to how many people use a note pad and pen to record traffic info’? Also wondering if / how building a mental picture of traffic around airfields is currently being trained and whether traffic information systems are included in any training? In particular how the systems operate and any limitations associated with them.

You cannot do any better than Skyfuel. Their service is second to none, they’ll freight it to you.

What would you consider pro-spin inputs to be?

Maybe I’m misreading Apen’s original post. He seems scared he might stall a non spin certified airplane and end up in a spin unintentionally. I stand by my comments regarding a lack of understanding of the aerodynamics associated with a spin entry. You would need to make deliberate control inputs to enter a spin. Don’t make those control inputs and you won’t spin, if you happen to apply the inputs required to enter a spin, know the inputs required to prevent the spin developing. The concern around stalling / spinning displayed by the majority of pilots is the direct result of poor instruction. I’ve flown with many instructors over the years who are terrified of stalling, let alone spinning. A couple of flying schools who trained instructors sent their instructor candidates to me for the “advanced stalling” sequences because the instructor trainers wouldn’t deliver the training.

If you are scared of stalling it must be through lack of understanding. There is very little to no chance of an aeroplane entering an unintentional spin to a properly trained pilot. Entry to an unintentional spin would be the result of incorrect control inputs during stall recovery, this would not happen to a properly trained / educated pilot. You should see some instruction from a suitably experienced and qualified flight instructor to resolve your issue.

Don’t try that in a Pitts, Victa Airtourer or Beech Bonanza. The rule of thumb I use in these types is to toss a house brick out the window and follow it.

ATC can only “see” certified ADSB equipment output. Sky echo etc are simply toys from the regulators perspective.

This will simply create a lower level of lookout. The Metro crew likely weren’t looking out as they were in CTA and assumed a lookout being not needed. What happens to the aircraft not fitted with ADSB out, they become invisible to the ADSB crowd. Pilots using tech for separation will spend time staring at their screens, EFIS flight instruments and written checklists at the expense of a proper lookout. im not against technology, but am against technology without proper training. The HF implications around this equipment is serious stuff and is simply ignored.

Like a transponder?

How much technology and procedures do people need? If the money had been equipped with Mode C the TCAS might have alerted the crew of the Metro. If the Metro Crew had maintained a lookout they might have avoided the accident. If the Mooney pilot and instructor hadn’t wandered into CTA the accident eg wouldn’t have occurred. If the Air Traffic controller had fulfilled their obligations the accident might have been avoided. Sometime stuff happens.

Hi Nev, you’re spot on Re the lack of attitude reference. I completed the initial test flight in one about 20 years ago, I resorted to glancing at the wings initially. You did get used to it, I wasn’t that keen on the lack of cockpit!

Just use 1/2 flap for the approach when doing touch and goes. When I had a flying school I banned flap retraction on the runway when moving (mitigates the risks associated with inadvertent gear retraction and ground loops) . I had a standard operating procedure to use takeoff flap when conducting touch and goes, but also taught full flap go-arounds including after touch down. The aircraft are certified for full flap go arounds.

The resultant roll from yaw is due mainly to dihedral, not one wing travelling faster than the other. I’m talking typical GA trainer, not airplanes with swept wings.

A proper understanding of the aerodynamics associated with un-coordinated flight would be a good start. The fear you mentioned is related to the lack of understanding. The BS taught as to why an aeroplane rolls when yawed constantly amazes me.

I would estimate at least 70% of pilots I completed tailwheel endorsements with would have completed skidding turns at some point. Most frequently on a marginal glide approach, trying to stretch the glide, minimise bank angle and away they’d go. The offenders were of all levels of experience. Whenever I had the chance we would go to altitude and see how close to a stall / spin they’d been. I hope this may have saved a life or two. unfortunately most current training aircraft do not permit this demonstration. The Citabria would have to be one of the best training aeroplanes produced.

Great advice, the other consideration / red flag being anytime you have aileron input and no corresponding roll. This is absolutely the case in the typical base / final turn spin. Many pilots are unaware of the fact they are holding off bank in these turns as the result of incorrect pro turn rudder input, resulting in a skidding turn.

You’re overthinking this whole thing. Each aeroplane type behave differently, stall and spin entry / recovery procedures will be found in the flight manual. Don’t think about down elevator, think in terms of reducing angle of attack. If you’re in an inverted spin you’ll need “up” elevator to reduce the angle of attack. Again don’t stress, you should seek proper instruction in each aeroplane type.

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.

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.

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!

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.