dsam

I’ve given up on common sense prevailing (within CASA/Airservices Australia) to integrate traffic data from ADSB/AvPlan/OzRunways.I now fly with BOTH OzRunways & AvPlan active on my iPads, and my ADSB Raspberry Pi feeds info into both of my iPads. Aviators with either EFB will see me, and I will see the majority of them. I see it as a significant aid to situational awareness for me, and for most others airborne around me. It’s a shame our aviation authorities don’t facilitate this automatically, but that would be taking safety seriously...I suppose that’s too much to ask!

G’day Alex, and welcome to the forum. I’m a Calgarian now living in Melbourne. I got my PPL at CFB Penhold in the mid 1970’s (long since lapsed), but I’ve maintained a recreational pilot’s certificate here in Australia - it’s great to fly here!I hope you can sort out the ASIC “catch 22”, but bureaucratic bodies can be annoying in all countries. Best of luck with your Aussie travels... you’ll have a great time here regardless.

Latest episode: DHC-3 on floats, Impact with terrain shortly after takeoff, overweight, pre-dawn. Question: Can anyone having familiarity with floats confirm the likelihood of float-underside buckling caused by a “touch & go” takeoff as described by the witness (ie. possibly a premature rotation due to being above MTOW). I would have thought such float buckling would be as a result of normal shoreline mooring damage on submerged rocks, driftwood etc.?

Yes, and I’m sure it would burn nicely once the rocket lights up!

This photo is typical of a cruise on autopilot - ball central, wings level - note wind aloft. I’m suspecting slight vent pressure variations. Tank usage differentials are usually less than 5 litres over 3 hours.

Yes, that explanation makes more sense than “cavitation” (at least in the sense that I understand the word). Having a LAME as an eyewitness should have given the investigators much more confidence in that particular account of the accident. Given how ubiquitous aviation is in the Alaskan community, the investigators there must have more useful accounts from eyewitnesses, than investigators in more urbanised settings. As for L&R tanks draining unevenly, my Eurofox tanks have clear plastic tubes as an extra visual indication of fuel remaining in each. Over a 3+ hour flight with both fuel valves open, invariably one tank drains somewhat more than the other - and not always the same side. I’m mostly on autopilot on such long legs, so the wings are consistently kept level. I’m not especially bothered, as I can easily see and rectify this in flight, but it is a quirk that puzzles me.

....yes, but why would cavitation occur from that?

Ok, the latest episode entertained the possibility of fuel cavitation & subsequent engine faltering following a sudden 45 degree climb and levelling out manoeuvre (occurring in the float chamber, I’m assuming?) I can understand such cavitation from a vibration at just the right frequency, but I’m not sure I understand how low or zero g leads to such cavitation. Can anyone clarify how that happens?

Sorry Ian, I bought my “Claw” at a stand at Ausfly many years ago. I never bothered much keeping note of the distributor. I just did a quick google check for it and copied the first Aussie supplier that came up in that listing. Apologies for not checking Clear Prop. My bad...

I use this: Aircraft Tiedown Kit (The Claw) Aircraft Anchoring System. The harder you pull, the more it grips the earth. The only tie down with a mechanical advantage. [claw] - $224.95 : The Aviator Store: Your Online Pilot Shop for Local Pilot Supplies

My “significant other” is a terrible back seat driver when I’m driving a car, but airborne, she couldn’t be a better passenger, so I’m very fortunate. I’ve suggested she could learn to fly too (from someone else, of course) but she shows no interest in learning. I’m just happy that she is so comfortable being airborne (even when it is quite turbulent), and I can plan joint trips away without hassle.

Regarding Accident #2 - I thought CO warning stickers were mandatory? Knowing the cold weather in Alaska, I understand why they would like to boost-up the heating system, but non-standard modifications are just asking for trouble. Since they still went ahead and did that modification, why wouldn't they have done ground tests after such a significant change!! Both tragic crashes were avoidable - sadly so many are...

Agreed, potreroo. That's why I mentioned having excellent terrain awareness capability. These days, terrain avoidance data is easily displayed on EFB's like OzRunways, AvPlan, and affordable glass panels such as Dynon Skyview. If a commercial pilot operation in Alaska doesn't use some-such technology to help their pilots avoid terrain in the event of sudden & unexpected Wx they aren't doing the right thing by their customers & pilots. I suspect much of the remote-area airstrips of Alaska would be similar to the PNG situation, without approved letdown/approach procedures, so self-reliance is a way of life up in Alaska. That shouldn't be construed to mean I'm advocating VFR ops in IFR conditions - far from it. It is more about recognising the rapid changeability of mountainous Alaskan weather, that just makes terrain data a sensible fallback safety provision - you always retain the option to avoid terrain that you can't always see.

I would agree that Wx info should always be part of any flight plan prior to departure. EFB apps like OzRunways or AvPlan make that easy to do. However in a cross country trip of 3 hours or more, much can change. For example, getting an updated METAR for my destination aerodrome (or an alternate) is a big help to knowing which runway is into wind, QNH, temps etc. As for differing reception with iPad and iPhone, I have made sure I’ve only bought both devices in Oz, keep them current (less than 3 years old) and have Telstra SIM cards in each. I tend to get identical (and quite consistent) reception on each device this way.

Yes, that historic computer is still on display at the Museum of Victoria in Melbourne, along with a short video explaining its operation...quite an elaborate process in fact. Sadly, Australia fails repeatedly to make the most of its world-class innovators.

Yes, I’m keen to watch this series. I’ve flown as a passenger from Juneau RPT, and can attest to the often cloudy & rainy coastal mountain terrain there. The 737 I was to depart in took 2 attempts to land there due to poor conditions, not achieving minimums on first approach. Specifically with the 207 CFIT incident, any charter pilot operating around Juneau should expect IFR conditions at any time, and maintain excellent terrain awareness capability.

No doubt the hyperlink engineering designs have moved on since the initial plans. I can’t pretend to be across all the technicalities, but I understood the transport tube was suggested to be at 1/4 atmosphere to reduce the leading shockwave. Propulsion was to be some form of jet engine aligned down the centre of the passenger compartment! I hope it was designed to be well shrouded!

I proudly have a distant family member (AKA Rocket Scientist) that works for SpaceX. Elon also had him on the team doing the initial technical proposal for the “hyperlink” ultra high speed passenger transporter from LA to San Fran (approx. 90 minutes, I think). One of the major limitations to the hyperlink proposal wasn’t technical, but more about the maximum g force a typical passenger would tolerate as a paying passenger. That lead to a need for wide radius corners covering lots of real estate, so that pushes up costs for either land acquisition, or extensive tunneling. My family member says Elon is both inspiring and terrifying all at the same time, as he isn’t afraid to throw down ambitious engineering challenges at short notice, expect results, but embrace “constructive” failure. He is truly an inspiring entrepreneur from direct evidence.

Asked and answered in post 1

If my engine fails whilst tracking north up the beach on the east coast (albeit CTA transit) most likely I can land safely along that beach. If inconsistent regulations unnecessarily force me to navigate inland staying under CTA steps in cloudy mountainous terrain, that same engine failure will probably have a much less safe outcome. Thus the apparent thread drift.

Let’s be clear on this. Nobody (least of all me) is advocating for CTA in slow, ill equipped aircraft, with cowboys at the stick. (BTW I was raised in Western Canada and some of my best friends were cowboys...real ones... they hate it when I speak poorly of them:thumb down:) I believe the RA-Aus proposal sitting before CASA restricts aircraft type to HP category with suitable radio, Mode S transponder, navaids etc. Further, the endorsement would include PPL standard exams, CFI navex check-flights to a required standard - all of which would weed-out the cowboys. I should be able to do all this in my own properly equipped and LAME maintained aircraft without duplicate licence and training regimes & costs.

Agreed, spacesailor. My flying is purely recreational. But I feel I ought to have reasonable freedom of navigation, and to do so in safety in my own recreational aircraft. Surely that’s not too much to ask? Why have regulation anomalies that send me into Tiger Country, for no good reason?

Jerry, I suspect CASA likes to build “Chinese Walls” GA, RPT, AOPA, RA-Aus, etc. That helps with divide and rule tactics. I trust that RA-Aus have done all they could to move things along on this, but a revolving door of MP’s, Directors of Aviation Safety, and RA-Aus leadership have slowed it all down to glacial progress. Currently, CASA hasn’t said NO, but they are taking their jolly sweet time finding a way to a conditional YES:angry:

Thanks, but that’s really not good enough IMHO. That would involve much unnecessary additional duplicate (and ongoing licensing costs), only to fly my own aircraft at the end of that pointless exercise. Besides, I’m really not keen to waste time & money getting “re-schooled”, checked & approved on some random, primitively equipped VH registered aircraft, only to get back into my own (perfectly capable) aircraft to do a coastal flight to FNQ. Yes, I expect an endorsement process for RA-Aus CTA, but should be able to do it in my own aircraft - currently not permitted!

Jerry, I should also point out that RA-Aus training schools have a CASA exemption to train their pilots (incl. solo flights) out of Class D Aerodromes such as Camden, but as soon as their students are awarded their Pilot’s certificate they are “grounded” and must fly from somewhere else!! Tell me how that makes any sense:doh: