nickduncs84

IFR guys like avplan. I've used both a lot and think OzR is far better for VFR. Enroute is much for muchness but if you go through the process of filing a flight and and doing a weather briefing for a long flight on both, I think you will find OzR a lot quicker and more intuitive

 

 

I get the gripes. Honestly I do. But that's like saying that you don't agree with the government, so you're not going to pay your taxes and you're going to lobby to have no government instead. There aren't enough rec aviators in Auatralia to justify all the whining and infighting. I reckon the SAAA sends out 10 political emails for every 1 that has anything to do with aviation. It's a real shame that everyone can't appreciate each other's views and efforts a little more and make an effort to work together. Part of me thinks that perhaps because aviation attracts such a passionate crowd, that passion carries with it the issues that tend to plague the various sports bodies. But then I look at other countries and don't see the same thing. Either way, I wish the rec aviation scene in Australia was left to focus more on aviation. As for the specific example of discouraging people from other forms of aviation, I don't buy that for a second. How much does Ra Aus or GFA membership cost? And I don't believe you need to be an Ra Aus member for a TIF. Honestly, I don't think you're being serious if your suggesting that the membership fees are preventing people trying different forms of aviation. The annual fee is probably cheaper than an hour of fuel or a night at the pub. If you've wanted to try gliding your whole life, I doubt the fee is stopping you.

 

 

Serious question. Why are some people so hell bent on not being a member of Ra Aus?

 

 

Every now and then we all have a day when everything goes well. And it's said that these things often happen in threes.Well it certainly did for me just recently, and typically they seem to happen just when you've given up hope.

 

Two of my three things aren't relevant to this thread but the third certainly was. I've designed DooMaw to use the Desser 850x6 Aero Classic tyres. They're not quite true Bush Wheels which can probably be described as starting at the 26" Alaskan Bushwheels Airstreak, but they are quite large by LSA standards, and will roll easily over quite rough ground and absorb significant shock.

 

As we all know, anything to do with aeroplane ownership requires a very healthy personal fortune, a friendly bank manager and/or some pretty creditable abilities at finding the best value deals, and the Aero Classics, at US$225 per tyre represent good value. They're a fair step more than the 14" and 15" tyres most LSAs use, for comparison those are around US$60, but they're a lot less than the first of the 'Bushwheels' at well over US$1000 each.

 

So - now it's getting to time to test the gear strut loads and make up the suspension, for the last six months or so I have been trying to get a pair of 850 tyres and tubes over from the US at a reasonable cost. It pretty much looked like the freight was going to double the already significant cost, when taking into account an extra US$80 per tube and the poor exchange rate. In fact, if I bought two pairs of tyres and tubes and could depart at short notice, it was cheaper to buy a discount airfare and go over and bring them back as accompanied baggage, how crazy is that ...?

 

Anyway, I heard that forum member Nick Duncs changed his Bearhawk off 850x6 tyres to the 26" Airstreaks and passed on his 850s to Doug Evans and I found another member who had made a similar 'upgrade'.

 

I sent him a PM and asked if I might buy his 850s to help me avoid this freight problem and I'm still overwhelmed by his response - he said I could have them for the price of a cup of coffee and a chat and a look over DooMaw when he's coming past this way!

 

Well, I've wanted to chat with him anyway, because I've always enjoyed his well considered and interesting posts on the forum, so Thank You again SDQDI, I'm so very grateful - words just aren't enough!

 

Pic below of my fabulous gift - they arrived yesterday by TNT, they look brand new, they don't show any wear on them at all - and they perfectly match the tailwheel I sourced last month. They're certainly a very nice big wheel compared to the 'normal' LSA tyres I already had and which I'd almost resigned myself to having to use for now. The second pic shows the 22" 850x6s, the 'normal' 15"x6 LSA tyres, and the tailwheel for DooMaw with the red hub. Note that the 11" tailwheel is as large as the main wheels were on the very early Drifters -

 

[ATTACH]42046[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]42047[/ATTACH]

Ah well now I feel guilty! Poor Dougy paid me 500 for mine! about half price what it cost me which I thought was a decent deal! For what it's worth, the ABWs sure are a big difference on the bearhawk, but a big part of that was that I was having to run the 850s at 20psi with the weight of the bearhawk. The ABWs run at 8psi and that's what makes them soak up the ground on landing. I'm sure the dessers at low pressure would be awesome. I've flown the same ones on a cub and they were very nice.

 

 

It's a nice terminal. Most of us could use the walk. The elderly and disabled can get a ride on a cart. I much prefer Melbourne with its longer walks within the terminals than Sydney where you can't walk between international and domestic.

 

 

It's really as simple as Pearo says. It can be confusing as to specific frequicies for entering class c sometimes. Usually ersa has the details about which frequencies to use for approach in various places. But don't stress too much, if you call centre and you need to speak to approach for clearance, they will give you the frequency.

 

on departure from class C, remember the extra step of calling delivery before calling ground to taxi. Delivery will give you you're code and airways clearance

 

 

Opening a can of worms here, but in general, just because it's not a sound business decisions doesn't mean it's not deductible. If that were the case, corporate jets wouldn't exist! If you are using the aircraft for legitimate business purposes, there's no reason why the cost can't be deductible. Best speak to an accountant for your specific situation, but there are certain business purposes that I use my plane for and I always claim the wet hourly rate and have never had my accountant take issue with it. I'm sure you could be more aggressive with the depreciation, especially if it was majority business use.

 

 

Ah, sorry Nick, thought you were talking about Cirrus G3.. (it was late when I wrote that last night) Anyway, further to your comments, there is no correlation between stall speed and safety.. You commented on feeling safer in a carbon cub than something that stalled at 60 plus knots, yet that particular aircraft has been involved in quite a few accidents (fatal) involving what I would describe as arrival stalls. I might add that I just don't fly so called high performance planes, but also enjoy the other end of the spectrum.. for example before I strapped on a Lancair, the only aircraft that I flew during the previous 12 months was the Skyfox.. so regardless of what plane you fly, if you fly it within the design specs, you can really enjoy the experience.

Looks to be some correlation to stall speed to me. I get what you're saying and agree that the vast majority of accidents are caused by pilot error, usually on the ground, but I think stall speed does have an influence. If all other factors remained constant and we looked only at stall speed, something that stalls at 60 knots has 4 times the energy to dissapate in a forced landing compared to something that stalls at 30 knots. Maybe it is irrational, but I wouldn't put my son in a Glasair no matter how much experience I had. I would put him in a cub. Like I said, I know there are many other factors that are much more likely to impact on the safety profile, but to me it's the ones I can't control that really scare me.

 

 

I can only comment on stuff I have first hand experience with and accordingly I'd like to add a few comments further.. this time about the cirrus. I would agree that early on they did have a dubious honour of being over represented in fatal crashes and I would ague that this had a fair bit to do about the attitudes and airmanship of people who where flying them and I would compare this with the over representation of fatals associated with Beech Bonanza and Cessna 210 in their day.. With education comes safety.. so much so that they now have a fatal occurrence ratio of .42/100,000 hours compared to the venerable Cessna 172 of .45/100,000 hours which puts them into being one of the safest.I would also point out that I've never had a problem flying them in or out of Wedderburn or Clifton or Tyagarah. Right now I'm trying to justify getting another one.

Ah, almost forgot Nick, G3/G5 are NOT experimental and your argument about souped up engines is groundless as the Lancairs for instance run stock engines (unless they're racing in Reno). Builders do however put engines in to suit how they want to fly and how much money they want to spend. and the vast majority are certified engines..

Wasn't talking about cirrus. G3 as in glasair III. And I'm aware of all of that re engines in experimentals but my point remains. I wouldn't be comfortable in any single engine that stalls at 60 knots. They just aren't reliable enough. But when you combine that with a typical engine setup in planes like this where people are trying to extract every ounce of power, the risk goes up. Many of them have turbos, experimental ignition systems etc. its not the components that can be unsafe it's the installation and maintenance. Note that my opinion may be different if I was an expert in all those things, but I'm not. My point was that you have a lot of reliance on the engine with this type of plane, much more so than even a quick certified single like a mooney.

 

 

Can't say I ever gave the deck angle much thought. Maybe it was just the conditions of the day? Or maybe how the seat is even? The aoa at touch down should pretty close

 

 

170 and 230 have the same wing. I found that it felt different on landing as well but I think that has more to do with the engine idle. It doesn't want to come down as easy. I didn't like that part too much so I'd slip it in to avoid a massive circuit. Other than that, the 230 is a much nicer plane and the 170 will feel underpowered with 2 on board after you get used to a 230. 6 banger is also a lot smoother to fly behind.

 

 

There is an element of it that is related to pilot ability, but as others have said, there is another part that is pure physics. There are issues to do with pilot ability, but I would think that someone of a decent skill level, who flies often enough and has an AoA fitted isn't going to spin it in turning base on a regular flight. The reason why a G3 or Lancair IV aren't my cup of tea relate purely to the things you have no control over. At the end of the day, we're talking about a plane that stalls at 60+ knots, usually with piston engines that have been tuned up to all buggery to get every possible HP out of them. Those two things don't go together in MY opinion. I would also explain these basic principals to any friends of family that were thinking of flying in one. That is, there is experimental and then there is experimental. Flying a carbon cub over a farm paddock is totally different in risk profile when compared to flying a G3 out of Wedderburn.

 

This was my whole issue with the Jabiru saga. There is no effort at all to educate passengers about the specific risk of different aircraft or even airports or flight conditions, yet because one engine fails 6 times every 10000 hours compared with another which only fails 4 times every 10000 hours, we need to get passengers to sign release forms? I would think that a lawyer would have a field day now that this precedent has been set. You mean to tell me that you warned these passengers, but not these ones (who are now dead) even though the risks were well documented.

 

Note that I am not arguing that there should be mandatory passenger disclosure around every type of aviation, rather the opposite. It's up to the pilot to consider all aspects of a flights risk profile and make sure that the passengers are comfortable accepting it.

 

 

http://m.aircraftspruce.com/menus/to/oilfiltertools.html

 

Spruce ship to oz but expensive. Maybe check with oz distributor to see if any of these in stock

 

 

The numbers in the scenario and the conclusion "probably resulted in an accelerated aerodynamic stall" come from the ATSB.In level flight I think the analysis is solid. I am not so sure about the application in a high rate descending turn.

I read this report and it's the first thing I thought of too. Makes the whole report seem like amateur hour in my opinion.

 

 

Done a lot of flights in and out of most of the metro C and D as well as Albury in the last year. This thread is making something that is rather simple sound quite complex. Sure there are some differences but if you read ERSA you should pick up the important ones. Fly to that little diamond looking thing on the chart, call the tower and do as you're told. The first time I go in somewhere I let them know I'm unfamiliar which probably helps as well. Sometimes I reckon the more regulations you read, the more complicated it seems, especially with CASA. I've yet to be to a place where the common sense approach I mentioned hasn't worked.

 

 

Does the RPL equate to anything overseas in the way a PPL is international?

No. But if you can get a medical and have an RPL, you have 99% of a PPL anyway so wouldn't take much to upgrade

 

 

If you have a valid RAA certificate and a current RPL with CTA endorsement, you can fly an RAAus 24 reg aircraft into CTA (CAO 95.55 para 7.3.d) provided the altimeter and transponder have been checked within limits in the past 12 months as per the RAAus Tech Manual. Don't quite understand the question about a 100 hr service. Any aircraft must always have a current annual or 100 hr service.

Current annual OR 100 hour service. CASA registered aircraft in the private category don't require 100 hourly inspections.

 

 

Not in my experience. Certainly not a problem as one can request / require a different runway and often asked if it is acceptable but up to 5kts downwind and +15kts Xwind is not unusual for effective traffic flow.

Yep totally agree. Quite often the duty runway is not the most favourable from a wind perspective, especially if you go into class C airports. What is a serious xwind or tailwind component for us isn't a big deal for jets. The most challenging landings I've had from a wind perspective have been at Adelaide when there has been either a stiff xwind or a decent tailwind.

 

 

These are pretty cool and surprisingly affordable. One gets you 180 degree vision and two back to back gets full 360 vision

 

http://kodakpixpro.com/Americas/

 

 

Just browsing through Face book and a skydiver I know has just done his first solo in a C172 at Cowra this morning. Posted a photo of himself with his instructor both standing within the arc of the propeller and him hanging onto a blade. EEEEK my real pet hate.I have been seeing quite a few photos of this practice being uploaded lately. Caught up in the excitement of achievement it is easy to forget the obvious dangers.

I have seen the results of propeller handling gone wrong. One death and several injuries including a severely fractured skull. One other recent example was when a pilot posted a photo of his kids after their first flight. Bright happy little face hanging off the Warriors prop. Point out that hey really don't do this and received the expected response ' switches were off no chance of starting blah blah blah.' Obvious offense was taken. "I'm a pilot don't tell me about 'planes". Well the engine does not have to start to knock you into next Wednesday. Just a flick off compression will do it and really can you guarantee that a mag is not live. Plenty of people out there have had near misses so maybe a time now to bring this subject up and for instructors to think about prop safety and start to reinforce it every time a student does a preflight.

The point that many of us took issue with wasn't the issue of propeller safety it was the issue of how a well intentioned photo turned into another aviation pi$$ing match. Also the practice of passing judgment based on photo when you can't possibly know all the facts of the scenario. This post is a further example of why some people got annoyed. You say the kids were hanging off the prop? That's not even close to accurate and now people that haven't seen the photo assume it to be true.

 

The point is, if you see something and feel it's a safety issue, then approach things the right way. The way you would approach them if you saw it in person. Pull them aside, ask for clarification and make sure they understand the risk. That doesn't tend to happen on the Internet for some reason.

 

No with that off my chest, thank you for the post. A post on a forum like this about an important safety issue like this is a good thing. On this specific topic, I'm not sure what others have experienced in training, but there sure seems to be some variation. With lycoming engines I was taught about the risk of the engine firing and to assume it will fire if the mag clicks, but it certainly wasn't drilled into me to never touch the prop or stand within its arc.

 

It would also be useful to talk about the variations in engines and engine systems and how it impacts the likelihood of the engine firing.

 

So for example, carb vs fuel injection, hot vs cold, mags off vs on. I guess the key is, many of us would assume that if the mags were off or if there was no fuel in the engine then it wouldn't be possible for it to fire, but maybe there are surprising situations that we should be aware of?

 

Anyway, like I said, a good topic and a valid point. The only thing that annoys many of us is how quickly the conversation can take the tone of an arrogant yelling match rather than a hangar conversation amongst friends.

 

 

Guys,I have a problem keeping my iPad charged on longer day trips. The cig lighter charger plugged in sometimes gives a note to the iPad " not compatible with this device" although works faultlessly in the car.

I will try turning off the transponder or one radio and see if that fixes the problem next time up.

 

Noted in a previous post that someone mentioned a battery back up. Any info on these would be helpful, brand, cost etc.

 

Phil.

iPad needs 2.1 amps. Is the adapter / fuse appropriate? Any electrical store will have the battery packs. Easy to use but in panel charging is much better and given you already have it set up, should be fairly easy to troubleshoot

 

 

Had an air. Sold it and got a mini. Much better for the cockpit.

 

 

Awesome!!! Love the paint job!

 

 

When I was flying Caribous many moons ago and well before iPads or smartphones came onto the scene, I lost two WAC charts in row through being sucked out the cockpit side window. On both occasions the chart was simply on my lap. We were seriously running short of WACs on that trip.I have to say we have something like 2500 operational iPad based EFBs in our company and I've never heard of a total screen failure. That's not to say it hasn't happened, but those things usually get publicised internally at least. There are always exceptions, but I think they've been proven to be very reliable when they're charged properly, setup and looked after properly, and updated properly.

Mine was an iPad mini 2. The only way I works out what was going on was after the flight and doing the unlock sequence, I could hear the sound of it working. I suspect some may have not got that far and taken it in not knowing what was wrong with it. Either way it was pretty much brand new and like I said, from speaking to the guy at the Apple Store, it was clearly a common issue at the time. I'm a big fan of Apple Products but don't have the blind faith I used to. There is no way I'd go on a long trip now without a backup. For most people, they will be able to get some sort of efb on their phone which I think is a smart move. I'd also caution people about updating both the iOS software and the efb software prematurely. Many people on this forum have run in to issues caused by updates. If it's working as you expect and there is a software update released, it's best to wait a week. That way you will find that others are the ones that find the bugs.

 

 

I have had an iPad fail during flight. I thought a restart would fix it but no luck. Turned out the screen had failed. When I took it in to be replaced (was only a few months old) they weren't surprised so it must happen often enough. Luckily for me at the time I had RWY installed on my android phone and was able to get what I needed from that but it certainly made me realise that devices can fail. I now have an iPhone and iPad with all required maps and ersa pages downloaded. You'd have to be having a bad day if they both failed. I've also got a GPS in the aircraft. All in all enough for me to not worry about paper. I've had the argument with someone before about always carrying paper charts. Their argument was that paper is the only way to be safe. I say bollocks and if you're worried about 2 devices failing, buy a 3rd. It will still be cheaper than paying to keep paper charts etc updated.