turboplanner

Not a bad thought Gibbo

You've mentioned that a few time High Plains Drifter.

I was hell bent on buying a BEE Gyrocopter in 1959 (Australian design based on the Bensen), because that was the only thing I could afford on my pocket money.

Built a model, found it rolled over to the left every time I towed it into wind, then read the book by Igor Sikhorsky... but that's another story.

Know where you are coming from in your type of aircraft, but what do you do with a slippery constant prop rectractable undercarriage 150 knot cruiser?

Maybe we should have more distinct steps between classes?

Yes, very very good

Sky Gazer, you've got a good technical point; I was more concerned about the timing given that there was an older person in one of the aircraft, and apparently not PIC at that.

There's some good discussion coming out here, and Facthunter I was almost squirrel gripped by Eugene a couple of months ago for not lifting the left wing of the Jab before a left turn, so you make a good point.

To anyone running the traffic argument, I'd say read the book by the guy who managed the Berlin Airlift or fly into O'Hare - we're not up to max levels yet.

The RAAF doesn't even give young pilots much of a run in the more expensive aircraft, but the USAF certainly let Chuck Yeager and Bob Hoover do what they wanted to do in front line equipment to a ripe old age.

And I remember in Speedway one night when a former speedway Outfit rider was invited to ride one of the top machines. A lot of judgement, skill, and lighning fast reflexes are required to get these units around a slippery track with a concrete safety fence, for the rider it's much like bull riding with the chair guy using an action similar to a monkey scratching its backside.

Everyone expected the 73 year old to potter around and wave to the crowd, but his wrist wound round and he finished the laps only one second outside the current record.

We must maximise safety, but also be objective.

Skygazer, it's dangerous to sterotype people. There has already been a CASA comment on this guy - both positive and confirming he was examined.

On the ABC footage I looked at, if the tracks were accurate this accident cause would appear obvious, and not related to age, HOWEVER the Coroner will be deciding that.

At Elmore Ross was working feverishly to finish his Jabiru. "I've only got 200 frigging metres to fly to the site, but I can't get these wheels balanced" he said to the crowd gathered outside his workshop.

"I've tried sticking wheel weights on with masking tape, super glue and cow dung, but nothing seemed to work.

"I even took a wheel weight off the front wheel of the John Deere.

"That certainly stopped the tyre balance problem, but it didn't look too good, so I persevered and finally found the problem.

"It was the bearing. When I took it out the wheel stopped rotating down to the heaviest point immediately.

"What a relief. that should fix the braking problem as well".

He decided to try a fast taxi...

There's nothing much you CAN say Futura, you can't give us any guarantees that the airport will not be contaminated by subdivision and industrial development, you don't want to take responsibility for any subsequent reduction in safety, you can't explain the reasons for the $25 million investment and you can't provide any examples of development other than subdivisions.

I'd quit while I was ahead.

That leaves the legality of the Council decision, based on Soilmasters information and information supplied to Councillors in the Officers report

It will start with the Instructors explaining this and emphasising it during pre and post flight briefings. In some cases this is non paid work for them, but the payback will be the loss of less students who have an incident then think "this isn't for me"

I'd have to say that the teaching standard of the RAA instructors I've seen is way above GA particularly in airmanship.

Relax BW, they are actually trying to help with your experience

Adam, forget I mentioned the 500' figure, it's from years ago and there was no horizontal visibility requirement. Arguably 5 km horizontal visibility is going to give you more chance of turning around than the old reg. At the moment it's looking as if Ken's right, but I'm just waiting for ATC to confirm their information.

The 2008 document I'm quoting from is from Aviation Theory Centre, so Ken I'll copy your Nov 2008 details and ask them for a comment

BW, you're off the hook with this conflicting reference material apparently available from CASA.

What year is the VFG you are referring to Ken - that looks to me like the GA definition of minimum 500' AGL flight and 500' from cloud = min 1000' cloud base AGL>

What I quoted from is page 134 and 135 from the 2008 VFG

Well Futura I think you have turned the Red Alert lights on for all pilots around Australia along with their Aviation friends.

What's needed before this goes any further is a very detailed Inquiry into how the situation has got this far.

As I understand it there are no guarantees that the Airport will not have industrial subdivision on it. If it did and that were to cause unsafe mechanical turbulence then the Public Liability issues would be someone else's problem. If the perfectly reasonable question of how a City the size of Goulburn would return a profit on a $25 million investment as a country Airport cannot be answered.

Then there is the question regarding the legality of the Council sale and the Planning Status of the Use, which of course will now come under the microscope of many thousands of Australians.

Futura, you could allay some reservations by explaining how the investment will get a return, and also provide the many aviators whose interest has been aroused with examples of where this developer has enhanced similar facilities (as against residential or industrial subdivision).

It's looking better and better Bigglesworth.

OK guys, who's right and who's wrong about cloud clearance.

In my VFG Class G airspace requires a "minimum separation from cloud of 1000 feet vertically and 1500 metres horizontally; and

a flight visibility of at least 8 km (if you are at an altitude above 10,000 feet) and more than 5000 metres (if you are below 10,000 feet)."

Just take a look at my aircraft Student Pilot.

By the way were you REALLY born in 1903?

“@turboplanner So you believe me now? "

Well yes and no; let’s look at the good part first

You were giving us a lesson spelling dead reckoning weren’t you.

I understand it started as Deduced Reckoning, was abbreviated to Ded. Reckoning and evolved to the current phonetic dead reckoning.

And that’s what you were doing, sort of.

You found the leg from Shepparton to Mt Baw Baw didn’t have anywhere for a landing in case of a malfunction and warned other pilots – good, there are several planes, vehicles, and walkers out there who have never been found. You can pick this up to a degree from a careful study of the WAC Chart.

Next trip to Tocumwal, I’d recommend flight planning via Latrobe Valley Airport, Maryknoll, south west of the Dandenong Ranges to Yan Yean Reservoir, Kilmore Gap, Shepparton, Tocumwal.

Slightly longer but a lot more opportunities weather-wise.

Kilmore Gap is the Victorian Pilot’s bolt hole through the Great Dividing Range to the better weather, and the conditions at the gap are usually publicised, or picked up from other pilots en route.

It is possible to just mooch along looking at this route, then that route, going from town to town bit by bit, but not filing a flight plan has three problems:

(a)It usually means you haven’t studied the route in the calm of the kitchen table.

(b)It often means you run out of fuel or daylight at the wrong time.

©No one has the faintest idea of where to look for you, and a green plane is pretty hard to see.

An Amendment to Flight Plan is just so easy to do on radio, and is a massive benefit if things go wrong.

If you squeak through with 700’ between cloud and terrain, you’re not flying legally, you’re not in VFR.

Many people experience a deterioration in the weather from a single direction, which allows them to turn around.

Some people get caught between two storms and manage to find a bolt hole in time.

Just a few people have the bad luck to find that cloud has dropped all around them; most of them don’t survive.

All these cases are routine weather events.

So the VFR rules try to give you an even chance by ensuring that you have enough visibility to see it coming.

The Tumut – Tocumwal leg seems to have drawn a lot of flack, particularly since you were in sight of one of the most distinctive landmarks in Australia.

I agree the first part of the leg is difficult, and would require more study in the planning stage to pick up land marks a bit further out.

By using 10 minute markers it’s a bit easier to see where you should be and that helps.

Also, if you had to call a Mayday in this area unexpectedly where would you tell people to come to – the 10 minute markers help here too.

One of the main reasons its not legal to fly on GPS is the good chance of a power failure.

If this happens and you don’t have markers you’re back to reading from Map to Visuals instead of visuals to map. Get an instructor (to navigate) one day and fly for half an hour without reference to GPS, map or compass (make sure the instructor is navigating), then take the map and see how long it takes you to establish position, remembering that sometimes five minutes is critical.

You mention you like lots of reference points, and of course that makes dead reckoning more accurate.

So Adelong should have been reasonably easy with power lines to the north and a converging road to the west.

I’ve found in western NSW and other wheat belts that wheat silos are worth flight planning to because its so easy to relate their position to the town.

You should have been able to pick up Henty by the three power lines and silos and then identify that the road was the Olympic way. Oh and of course looking out to the right at The Rock in the medium distance.

Rand was also obvious because of the silos

Its often a good idea to flight plan your track with deviations to suit land marks, rather than straight lines which you are going to waver off anyway.

Ian would have good cause to be concerned about your comments on Tocumwal people, which I assume reflect your frustration at the second rate refueling facility. Some of them are recreational

Flyers, and it doesn’t pay to accuse people of things without evidence.

I do have reservations about people who listen to Dire Straits while they are flying, although to a degree its not much different to two people talking on the intercom. It does reduce your opportunity to pick up small malfunctions early in some cases, such as the hiss of an exhaust pipe which has just cracked and is going to gas you within the next half hour.

I know you can land on your feet like a cat, but be careful that others less skilled read what you say and think they can do it too otherwise congratulations for the good bits, and more work needed on the others.

Frank, the fact that they didn't see is the Human Factor, and the question you pose about humans being humans, I believe, was the one of the reasons for CASA introducing the subject.

I'd have to say both they and RAA haven't done a very good job explaining the reasons. Perhaps some Case Studies would have helped.

Yes it's amazing how far we've come, although I was reading CASA's incident reports a while back and they seemed to be dominated by Dash 8 traffic matters.

I'm reading Jimmy Doolittle's autobiography (bought it on Amazon - see thread "Books for reading over the xmas break") and was staggered to read the report he wrote in 1941 after a visit to the UK which had been at war since 1939:

"The British wrote off 30 per cent of their planes every six months. Half of the losses were due to crashes, not combat."

Bigglesworth, I know where you are because I was there once, so I understand your language, but you are a little too close for comfort to the razor's edge.

Futura, mate

As long as the Use is restricted in accordance with the Codicil and the existing Planning provisions to safe Airport activities at economic costs, and Dick Smith could get a cup of coffee, I wouldn't imagine there would be too many objections, although I can't say whether Volksy would be interested in buying a piece of it.

However, if the idea is to make it an "Airpark" with 185 residences etc., or an "Aviation precinct" which includes factories down each side of the runways, then the proponent could be facing a few problems.

If what you say is true Futura, that's great, but you would appreciate that the aviators would like to see a cast iron guarantee that will occur. Once that's done, the smell will cease, and the support will follow.

Yes Bilby, and in speedway tachos also, and even then when you came in after a race and pit crew wanted to know rpm at the end of the straight, some of us gave them a blank look.

Volksy, you may be right and you may have to relocate. I understand how these things wear you down; still haven't finished with a Vic Gov issue affecting our property after 8 years.

I would agree with you that objecting to development once the Council decision is acted on and the land sold gets harder and harder.

Where I was coming from is that Use is a planning matter, and it appears from the posts that the current Use is Airport Use only.

Any departure from that is a Planning matter.

According to Soilmaster there would have to be a default on the Codicil to allow residential/industrial development.

If an intent to change the Use has been made public, then I would think the Codicil could be enforced, and the sale stopped, since the Use could not legally be changed.

I wonder if the Codicil spells out what happens to the land if the Council defaults on the intent?

As you say, the owner could build a fence around it or raise charges to a prohibitive level, but then he isn't getting any interest on his money, and arguably by his actions, both physical and financial is preventing the only permissible use from occurring.

You're pretty well on the money Brett, the Bob Tait book has questions in it.

In your case it will probably take you a couple of hours study and you'll probably get 95%+!

You need to do it in the next few weeks anyway, how about doing it now and letting the reluctants know your experience?

Sorry to hear what happened last night Volksy.

However, from what I read of Soilmaster's post, the decision may have been unlawful unless the Planning use is going to be airport use only.

While I'm not suggesting anything corrupt has occurred here, it is common in Australia for developers to encourage Councillors to do things which are against the interest of the people, and it's common for Council Officers to hide facts from Councillors.

The good guys rarely win if they just rely on their elected Councillors who are just members of the community themselves.

However, its certainly not all over yet.

In Victoria we have VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal) and any member of the public can object to a Planning decision within 60 days of the Council decision.

I'm sure there will be a NSW equivalent so you need to get cracking and find it.

The emotion needs to be taken right out of the matter at this point - from here on the decision will be overturned by hard facts alone. The developer can be as beligerent as he wants - it counts for nothing during a hearing.

I would very strongly recommend that you hire a Planning Consultant to write the objection and run it. Cost depends on how much rsearch needs to be done, but in Vic might be from $1,000 to $4000.

If a decision is handed down that the Use cannot change from Airport Use, then the developer will quickly lose interest.

At this early stage you need to find out who the behind-the- scenes players are, and the four Councillors who voted to sell the airport need to be put under scrutiny. It's often possible to extract secrets by asking questions in open Council - even better if a good Councillor asks them.

In Victoria, VCAT usually gives greater weight to Council Officers, so if the officers were against this decision they will make good witnesses.

In a local planning group here, we've had about a 60% success rate against inappropriate decisions, sometimes against multi million dollar nationals.

Finally, anarchy prevails when good men do nothing, so you need ALL local aviators helping, even if it's a donation.

Good luck guys