Jump to content

SDQDI

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,190

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SDQDI

  1. SDQDI
    Well for my ten cents worth if I am departing on downwind I will just keep climbing, as HH said incoming traffic won't be just overhead the downwind leg. (Unless of course they are using the opposing runway because of a calm wind ect in which case you should have just taken off towards your destination.) In reality though I rarely depart on downwind as i generally will takeoff towards my destination as long as the tailwind isn't silly and obviously taking into account other traffic.
  2. SDQDI
    Yes with one door off there isn't a noticeable difference (as in it still has good takeoff performance). Yes I think deflector strips probably would help.
  3. SDQDI
    Well to be really picky tech I think if an instructor didn't teach a student how to fly unbalanced they would be being a bit negligent. Of course teaching them when and when not to is also important. (Which I reckon is what you are getting at.)
  4. SDQDI
    I love flying with my doors off in summer. I have had two accidental in flight openings without incident, the first I we were not too far from home so slowed and put flaps out and came back and landed/shut door/ took off again. The second we were further away so slowed down flaps out sides lipped and shut it. One thing that I think should be mentioned though, when flying with BOTH doors off i get a huge reduction in takeoff performance. Maybe not a doubling in takeoff distance but a very noticeable extra chunk of dirt is needed. Obviously some planes will be different but if you are experimenting make sure you are at a reasonable strip! (Obviously I am not encouraging people with certed planes to be experimenting, what I have said in this paragraph only applies to those aloud to experiment!!!!!!!!!!)
  5. SDQDI
    Can we get rid of the kiwis too:wink: (also tongue in cheek!)
  6. SDQDI
    I can't see how that can be a good thing Ian? If you take the off topic forums for example I rarely go there now, even though I enjoyed some of the topics, just because it is an extra click away. It seems to me if you split us up into country divisions it will just put an extra step there which a fair proportion of us won't jump over which would IMO divide us. I thought the idea of the World Wide Web was to bring us together, splitting us up seems to be a step backwards. I don't mind the idea of an RAA members only area but even with that I think you have good ideas but IMO it would be better off being run by the RAA or an uninvolved person just to remove any (real or perceived) conflicts of interest.
  7. SDQDI
    I hope this isn't a dumb question Ian. Will the forums like general discussion be across all platforms? Or will we be seperate from the likes of phil perry ect? I am guessing that it all still stays similar but just had a worry that we would lose our overseas voices from here.
  8. SDQDI
    I totally agree with your second paragraph Pearo but I think your first is poorly worded inasmuch as I am sure you don't mean use no rudder ie take your feet off the pedals!
  9. SDQDI
    Ian sometimes I have given an innapropriate like by mistake without noticing I have done it. Would it be an option to have an alert (not email) for each like given? The same as what we get when someone gives us a like. I think that would really help us all to keep on top of what likes we are giving to make sure they are appropriate (well intentional at least:wink:)
  10. SDQDI
    We have a local club member with one in a Bristel which has spent a little time grounded BUT from what I have heard the problem was with the constant speed prop and not so much the engine and going on what I have heard a lot of people with the same constant speed prop have had the same problems. From what I have seen I would go the is version especially now since it has been out for a little while. I do remember hearing of some electrical problems early on but I haven't heard anything lately.
  11. SDQDI
    Some aircraft it will be more significant than others but it does make a difference. And obviously some strips will make the difference more noticeable, there is nothing like an approaching treeline and a lack of power to get your attention. I learnt to fly in a beautiful J3 cub (is there a simpler more faultless plane around?), If the carb heat was left on and you had to go around being two up there was basically no climb at all so it made a huge difference.
  12. SDQDI
    Well a bit over 6 to 1 seem to disagree with you Yenn. I think calling those who voted, either yes or no, names is a bit shallow and comes across as either being a sore loser or a snobby winner. Personally I think that now is the time for those who have legitimate concerns to start documenting them and start bringing them to meetings as amendments so that we can all improve this new constitution that we have. As for the spaceship side of things, I am no expert on telling the future so I don't have the definitive answer as to if it is a silly idea or not. I would have probably left that out until a need arose and then amended it into the constitution but I guess having it in there to start with is proactive. Do CASA have a provision for spacecraft in their rec division?
  13. SDQDI
    I think the amount of time that Don and others have been working on this couldn't be described as being a "rush" job, However releasing the first draft for comment to the greater populace was maybe left a little long BUT where do you draw the line? IMO if everything was sent out to us members right at the start to get our thoughts then everything would come to a standstill. We have to let the board do the job that we vote them in for otherwise we will get nowhere yes yes consultation is important but just where should the line be drawn? I think that a lot of work has been done on this new constitution, I don't think we would be as far along as we are if we all got to see a draft a year ago. Does it still have mistakes? I don't know, I'm too lazy to read it all. Should we fix the mistakes now or implement it and then amend? I think the vote will decide that for us, if it passes then we amend out the mistakes as we go forward and if it fails to get up then we need to make the amendments before putting it up again. Simple really. I think from what I see that the majority of those voting NO still agree that we need to update our constitution so I do hope that if it does fail to get up that Don and others who have been working so hard on this don't get disheartened and keep working on it to get it right.
  14. SDQDI
    In My reading of those two reports I think that it is just one incident that has had a duplicate report. On the second supposed report the LAME states that there was no record of the springs ever being changed which is identical to the report from the day before, if the LAME had done it the day before then he would have definitely had a different story the day after! And as for Bunnings aero, the report states that the owner was concerned about l2s (wording seems to suggest a worry about a general trend across the board rather than a specific part in the related incident) sourcing their replacements from Bunnings repo ect. IMO this is a prime example of where we could improve our reports with an update column to be filled out maybe a month after the incident (maybe as simple as a quick phone call to the person who reported it originally for a up to date version which could be much more accurate) which would have more info rather than the guesstimates that happen in the heat of the moment.
  15. SDQDI
    Do you have a link to the reports for that Shafs64? They don't make a lot of sense, first one says test flight was fine and the next one says it failed on a check flight? Not to mention the "owners"
  16. SDQDI
    It is hardly the seventh version Turbs. The email is labelled as the seventh update BUT it is just an email explaining a few minor points of the constitution which hasn't changed since the final draft. So more bringing half interested parties up to date rather than a new update.
  17. SDQDI
    I wasn't able to hang around for the 1 o'clock big event but I got there at 10:30 for the raaus forum which I enjoyed. I was happy with all that was discussed with a lot of time being spent on the new constitution which was enough to placate any concerns of mine. I was also very happy with the willingness of Jarod and Micheal to explain things 1 on 1 in between the two meetings. As far as I can see the team we have at the moment seems very capable and more than willing to explain and work through things if we are civil about it.
  18. SDQDI
    Garfly I am hoping to be there and I think Old Koreela is going as well. Not sure of anyone else.
  19. SDQDI
    Spot on. I think as Rhysmcc has said, a low level frequency seperate to area makes a lot of sense and imo certainly makes more sense than the current "oft ignored" requirements.
  20. SDQDI
    I would say B I would think A would be a little shielded by the elevator and therefore not as effective. But I am not a physicist so don't rely solely on my reasoning and definitely seek someone else's opinion.
  21. SDQDI
    IMO someone with a little know how could easily make this sort of thing into a beautiful flying machine with the use of some basic gyroscope tech. Unstable vehicles can have benefits (for example manoeuvrability) and with some simple electrics good results are definitely possible. For example look at a Segway, on its own it would have to be the most unstable design possible but is a very successful product because of a few electrics. Also look at the model aircraft that use gyroscopes to keep them stable very successfully. IMO it will be a long time before we have a certificated aerial vehicle like this as the process to get it to that stage is prohibitive but I think a homebuilder with some time and a little nouse could do it relatively safely and easily.
  22. SDQDI
    I can only speak from my limited flying from tamworth when doing my RAA navs. From the south (the actual bearings are in the chart) duri Gap is the only approach but from my understanding the northern side you can come from any angle BUT my experience is limited to coming in from Gunnedah and each time we went over lake keepit to get above the required bearing (which basically gets you out of the road of gate west departures) and we were told to fly over somerton or bective. I think the main reason for limiting access from the south is to ensure a safe separation between their arrivals and departures remembering that tamworth does NOT have radar under 4-5 thousand feet and to the south the topography limits safe access at 3000ft to the south to 3 narrowish points (1=gate west, 2=duri gap, 3=gate south) so instead of having conflicting traffic squeezed together they have adopted a sensible procedure to basically have one way traffic at each of those three points which also has the benefit of giving the controllers a definite point to spot incoming traffic (remembering no radar)
  23. SDQDI
    That all looks pretty good to me Ian BUT I would still like to see an "export airport" option to send a simple waypoint to Ozrunways. That IMO would be the difference between using the app or not because I wouldn't mind using the app in the preflight stage (actually IMO that is what it would be perfect for) but once flying I will have Ozrunways up and running and I don't see myself flicking back and forth between apps in the air.
  24. SDQDI
    You and me both Russ.
  25. SDQDI
    I agree with scre80 It seems to me that the airfields link on this site doesn't get used as much as it could. But if it was a direct copy of what was on "the app" and if it was easy to add and edit through the app then IMO it would become a heaps better resource. Of course it would still need to be able to be added/edited through this site with a pc as well. Also I wonder how hard it would be to have each airfield sendable to ozrunways or avplan. By that I mean if we touched and held on a certain airfield it would come up with the option to send to our ozrunways app (or avplan) it obviously wouldn't need all the info to be sent just the location and a name so it could be added as a waypoint in those particular apps. I think this option would be priceless as otherwise it might just stagnate and not be utilised as much as it could be.
×
×
  • Create New...