Jump to content

mnewbery

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,287

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by mnewbery

    Gfpt

    in Aviation Enthusiasts

    Posted

    Thanks for the reply Richie. I have considered it carefully. I agree with the comments in general. I note that a PSL activity and a PFL activity overlap at some time if one considers the idea of an engine-out landing from 5000' AGL. In my training I have done more abnormal procedures practice than anything else. No doubt I will do some more as I keep adding more type endorsements.

     

    Also, training types are meant to be only marginally stable in pitch and roll, with no cockpit rudder trim. Also, tiny fuel tanks really test out your cross country trip planning. The issue I had was that we did climb after climb, burning 9gph. Planned consumption at correct leaning was 7.5 gph. Tell me how to do this in your head while doing an exam, knowing that while you are doing it the ATO will get handsy with the avionics and/or engine controls to check your error management:

     

    You have 75 litres of useable fuel. You have just climbed to 3000' AGL while under a cloud. It's taken 7 minutes. You set correct lean and 75% power for a straight and level procedure. The examiner calls the first of three PSL activities, each of which take a different amount of time to climb back up to 1000' AGL. The he calls SSR from 3500' AGL. A pair of steep figure eights are thrown in and we return to the circuit. On the way back you do BIFR and UA, vectoring in a big zigzag to arrive at the correct height. This is done full rich because of the amount of climbing. Metal is coming off the mixture control shaft because it keeps getting overused.

     

    You have been in the air for 1.1 hours and your alternate field is a controlled airspace 40nm away, to the south. Wind is variable SSW at 15G25. You can be there in a minute or two more than 30 minutes if you leave now and accept no delays from the controller

     

    After your first touch an go, at 1.6 hours, another aircraft stops on its roof at the runway intersection. Ambulances arrive, closing the airfield.

     

    What do you do?

     

    Is this fair for a GFPT student to consider?

     

    I have my own opinion

     

     

    Wings Over Illawarra 2012

    in Trips/Events/Seats

    Posted

    Mmkay, I went to WOI and I was glad I did. Looking at the Notam (in colour thanks to OzRunways) and the notam specified only during the pageant. I am still learning to use all the features of OzRunways. Two facts I could not determine easily on the day:

     

    1) Entry was free for anyone who arrived via the active runway

     

    2) Ground Frequency would have been handy to know

     

    Can anyone point me to the location of this information either on or prior to the day?

     

     

    Wings Over Illawarra 2012

    in Trips/Events/Seats

    Posted

    ...if a little cold at first. The notam is a bit ambiguous, Sez that

     

    NO FLIGHT PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

     

    SHOALHAVEN CITY COUNCIL TEL 0411 145 077 OR WOLLONGONG UNICOM 127.3

     

    Which I am totally cool with, but did they mean during the pageant or the whole two day air show?

     

    Anyways, note to self to drop a dime on the listed number while still on the ground at Goulburn just to let them know we are coming!

     

     

    Wings Over Illawarra 2012

    in Trips/Events/Seats

    Posted

    http://woi.org.au/

     

    Caveat: I am not associated in any way with this event or the organisers.

     

    Anyone interested? Looks like flying to Wollongong would be _very_ attractive as the organisers are strongly encouraging people to take the train. Plus flying gets you parking on the airfield (I think).

     

    Err for me, by train would be 4.5 hours each way from Canberra

     

     

    Flying Training

    in Aviation Enthusiasts

    Posted

    My un-informed opinion agrees with cficare.

     

     

     

    You can't count the hours towards your exam or licence qualification(s) unless your logbook is verified by an L1 instructor. L1 instructors are usually either the CFI or a full time instructor for a school. Every L1 instructor I can think of is one or the other plus you and your instructor need to keep a log of your competencies as you pass them. If the instructor isn't L1 or isn't working for someone who is, the training can't be counted by CASA towards minimum hours. Refer CAR 4.64 and CAR 5.76

     

     

     

    More info on CASA flying instructor ratings:

     

    http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90305

     

     

     

    L1: Trains and tests flying instructors and students, recommends students for GFPT and PPL, can teach all things for which the instructor has a qualification. Keeps the training records up to date. Buck stops here.

     

    L2: Can teach Day VFR syllabus and send a student solo including student transit through controlled airspace for Student Pilot Area Limit

     

    L3: Can and does teach ab-initio up to solo

     

     

     

    As an example, say I grew up flying around in my parents' plane. After a while they get bored and I end up flying on a student licence with one or the other as the pilot-not-flying. One of my parents is an instructor ... Unless I am enrolled with a school that has an AOC (yet another certificate) and the instructor is authorised to provide training under that AOC (e.g. they are employed by the school) the hours don't count. Not only that, going cross country or doing local navigation doesn't count unless it is authorised.

     

     

     

    CASA will check all of this, periodically. Once you have a PPL, you are on your own again until more training or a BFR or a type rating / feature endorsement starts ... at which time you need the L1 instructor again.

     

     

     

    *sigh*

     

     

     

    I love my instructors by the way. I must do, because I keep giving them $$$.

     

     

     

    So by all means, seek out whatever instruction suits you and fly your best but eventually you are going to have to sludge around the training area and circuit for 20 hours (GA VFR Day requirement pre GFPT), do some solo circuits and some navs, some basic IFR, pass your pre-circuit-solo, pre-area-solo, radio and GFPT exam (not in that order) and then think about your CASA cyber exam. 40 hours (??) are required including solo and basic IFR hours before the CASA practical exam. Your L1 instructor needs to recommend you for your GFPT and PPL practical exams. Some of these hours can be done in gliders or three axis (Group A) RA-Aus aircraft. Dick Smith would rather this last bit wasn't so. Recently (I heard) a CASA testing officer refused to do an exam because a student had 20 hours in a Gazelle, pre CPL. I never heard if it got resolved in the student's favour but please check everything for yourself.

     

     

     

    Refer ATC Manual - Basic Aeronautical Knowledge Chapter 5: Air Law, page 161

     

     

     

    ...Or get a recreational licence

     

     

    Hello, There

    in Just Landed - Welcome

    Posted

    26 years old is old enough to have a career in aviation if it seems too interesting to walk away from. In my opinion, anyone thinking about learning to fly after the age of thirty really should not be planning to make a living out of it.

     

    I've got just over 100 hours of student flying and no licence in anything ... but a lot of great memories. That makes me a good example of how not to learn to fly.

     

     

    Write Your Local...

    in Aviation Enthusiasts

    Posted

    In between ironing and nappy changing duties I managed to send a letter to the ACT chamber of commerce.

     

    A week has passed. If 'they' ever reply I will publish my original correspondence along with the reply in this forum. Today though, I am beginning to lose hope.

     

    A summary of my letter would be that I outlined where and how I spent my ~$xy'000s on flying since 2009 and how it was increasingly difficult to do so in or near Canberra. At the end of the letter I basically asked the ACT CoC if they wanted (me to spend) my money in the ACT and what they were going to do about it.

     

    Recently Canberra Region Aviation Association (CRAA) approached the ACT Government to continue the efforts of the CRAA and individuals in securing a GA airfield at Williamsdale.

     

    CRAA will have a presence at Natfly.

     

    I don't trust the current ACT Government to progress the interests of general aviation even though it was the same Government that coughed up the money for the initial feasibility study. I'd like to think that since RA-Aus has its head office in Canberra it would be of some interest and benefit to have a GA airfield nearby. I have no evidence either way.

     

    By GA airfield I mean not in controlled airspace and not an expensive 24 hour security patrolled access model.

     

    I and others have taken a different track in recent times. Notably, local aviators have taken to writing to the Canberra Times and have had some success in getting their comments published.

     

    As I write this, I can complete MECIR training, do all the exams and live near the airfield with a choice of aircraft to train in - at Redcliffe YRED - for change out of $20K.

     

    I can't do this or get an RA-Aus licence in Canberra, unless I hire or buy a plane and base it at the airfield - which would be so expensive as to make the whole thing not worth my while anymore.

     

    I can, however, do the CASA cyber exams in Canberra.

     

    For a city of nearly 400,000 people, that is ironic.

     

     

    Natfly 2012

    in Governing Bodies

    Posted

    Anyone want to come and get me from Canberra? I'm looking at riding a small motorcycle to Temora and back otherwise. Bah! Its 'only' three hours each way. Last time I arrived in a C182. What a difference that made.

     

     

    Anyone See Anything Wrong With This Yscb Briefing?

    in Aviation Enthusiasts

    Posted

    I copied this rather long briefing from the airservices website this morning. Then I cut out the boring bits.

     

    Comments below are totally tongue-in-cheek, if a little cutting

     

    CANBERRA (YSCB)

     

    METAR TTF SPECI YSCB 042200Z 21003KT 9999 FEW005 14/13 Q1016 RMK

     

    RF00.0/009.4 NOSIG

     

    TAF TAF COR YSCB 041638Z 0418/0518 VRB05KT 9999 SCT015 BECMG 0422/0424

     

    30010KT 9999 FEW030 BECMG 0510/0512 09008KT 9999 BKN025 PROB30

     

    0418/0422 0500 FOG RMK T 12 13 19 23 Q 1014 1016 1017 1016

     

    (30% chance of fog at 500 AGL between 5am daylight savings and 9am, oops thats Canberra)

     

    ATIS ATIS YSCB G 042140

     

    + APCH:

     

    RWY: 35

     

    OPR INFO: TWY C AND H WORKS IN PROGRESS, REFER NOTAM. RWY 35

     

    ILS NOT AVBL, DO NOT USE FALSE INDICATIONS POSSIBLE

     

    WIND: VRB 5 KTS, OCNL DW 3

     

    + VIS: GT 10 KM

     

    + WX: FG PATCHES IN AREA

     

    + CLD: FEW004

     

    + TMP: 14

     

    QNH: 1016

     

    (WTF? Its been bucketing rain for the last week, how can we not have ILS? Aren't the airlines complaining or are they using WAAS? I saw a QANTAS 737 bashing through the muck so maybe someone is getting in...)

     

    C0449/11

     

    OBST CRANES 2075FT AMSL

     

    BRG BTN 276 AND 290 MAG BTN 1000M AND 915M FM RWY 30 TKOF THR

     

    BRG 316 AND 331 MAG BTN 881M AND 934M FM RWY 35 LANDING THR

     

    OBST INFRINGES INNER HORIZONTAL SFC TO 2075FT AMSL

     

    CRANES LIT WITH WHITE OBST LGT

     

    FROM 01 082000 TO 04 090700

     

    HJ MON TO SAT

     

    (mmm, cranes. Should be fun during a moment of weather pressure *joke*)

     

    C0450/11

     

    AIP DEP AND APCH (DAP) EAST YSCB AMD

     

    DUE TO VMC ONLY CRANE OPS

     

    ILS-Y OR LOC-Y S-I ILS(5.0 MAP) 2220(350-2.0)

     

    IN IMC CRANES LOWERED USE PUBLISHED DA

     

    FROM 01 082000 TO 04 090700

     

    HJ MON TO SAT

     

    (How considerate, they lower the cranes in IMC. Shame about the localiser radios being cactus FOR THREE FREAKIN' MONTHS! How's that morning fog looking then... Hope the pilots are proficient with other forms of radio navigation. Who tells the crane drivers to lower their masts and do they get pissed off when they are told they can't drive cranes even though nobody can actually fly-into-the-airport?)

     

    C0001/12 REVIEW C0444/11

     

    REGULAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT (RPT) APRON RESTRICTIONS DUE WIP

     

    RPT APRON BAYS 11,12,18,18A,19,19A,20,AND 20A NOT AVBL DUE WIP

     

    RPT APRON BAYS 16 AND 16A AVBL TO J41 AND METRO 2/3 OPERATIONS ONLY

     

    RPT APRON BAY 10 ALT LEAD IN MARKING AND ALT PUSH BACK PROCEDURES IN

     

    PLACE

     

    REF METHOD OF WORKING PLAN 2011/08 AMEND 1 STAGE 4B

     

    FROM 01 090200 TO 03 200700 EST

     

    (Looks as bad as it sounds. Didn't we already do this in 2009?)

     

    C0007/12 REVIEW C0005/12

     

    REGULAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT (RPT) TWY AND APRON RESTRICTIONS DUE WIP

     

    TWY H AVBL FOR ACFT MAX WINGSPAN 18.42M. ACFT WITH WINGSPAN GREATER

     

    THAN 18.42M TO ACCESS RPT APRON BAYS 6-10 VIA TWY B ONTO TWY C.

     

    TWY C BTN TWY H AND RPT APRON BAY 16 AVBL TO CODE A ACFT (MAX WING

     

    SPAN 15M) ONLY.

     

    ACFT WITH WING SPAN GREATER THAN 15M UP TO 24M TO ACCESS THE GA APRON

     

    VIA BACKTRACK RWY 12/30 AND TWY K UNDER ATC CONTROL.

     

    ACFT MAX WING SPAN 18.42M (J41, METRO 3) TO ACCESS RPT APRONS BAYS 16

     

    AND 16B VIA BACKTRACK RWY 12/30, TWY K AND TWY C UNDER ATC CONTROL.

     

    REFER MOWP YSCB 2011/08 AMEND 1 STAGE 4B.

     

    FROM 01 082140 TO 03 200700 EST

     

    C0015/12

     

    OBST 5M AGL ON EXTD RCL 370M N RWY 17 THR

     

    NO CHANGE TO DECLARED DIST.

     

    REFER METHOD OF WORKING PLAN 2011/07 STAGE 2

     

    FROM 01 222030 TO 03 150600 EST

     

    2030-0600 MON TO SAT

     

    (370 metres north of the runway centreline for Runway 17 threshold? Isn't that like, um, still on the runway or did they mean 370 metres north of the end of runway 35? Either way if you were 5 metres off the ground there you would have a LOT MORE to worry about than this)

     

    C0024/12

     

    ILS 'ICB' 109.5 RWY 35 NOT AVBL

     

    RADIATING INTERMITTENTLY ON TEST

     

    DO NOT USE FALSE INDICATIONS POSSIBLE

     

    FROM 01 222100 TO 03 161000

     

    (e.g. the localiser is broken for February and a good chunk of March. Go the morning fog! For the third time, we get it. Just fix the damn localiser!)

     

    C0039/12

     

    AIP DEP AND APCH (DAP) EAST CANBERRA EFFECTIVE 8 MAR 2012 AMD

     

    DME OR GNSS ARRIVAL PAGE 3 WITH CODE SCBDG03-130 EFFECTIVE DATE TO

     

    READ 8 MAR 2012

     

    FROM 02 010209 TO PERM

     

    (I have no idea what this means because I haven't read the new DAP)

     

    C0048/12

     

    TRIGGER NOTAM - AIP SUP H07/12

     

    CANBERRA RNAV (RNP) RUNWAY 17/35 DEP AND APCH PROCEDURES - REVISED

     

    AVBL FM AIRSERVICES WEBSITE

     

    WWW.AIRSERVICESAUSTRALIA.COM/PUBLICATIONS/AIP.ASP

     

    FROM 03 011600 TO 12 130200 EST

     

    (We got an RNP approach?? We got an RNP approach!! Now lets see who uses it...)

     

    C0049/12 REVIEW C0443/11

     

    TRIGGER NOTAM - AIP SUP H82/10

     

    CANBERRA RNAV (RNP) RUNWAY 17/35 REVISED PROCEDURES

     

    AVBL FM AIRSERVICES WEBSITE

     

    WWW.AIRSERVICESAUSTRALIA.COM/PUBLICATIONS/AIP.ASP

     

    FROM 02 090657 TO 03 071600

     

    (oh crap, they are horsing with the RNP approach already. This one is only for a month. Wonder if it has anything to do with the cranes?)

     

    C0065/12 REVIEW C0061/12

     

    AIP DEP AND APCH (DAP) EAST CANBERRA EFFECTIVE 8 MAR 2012 AMD

     

    ILS-Z OR LOC-Z RWY 35 AND ILS-Y OR LOC-Y RWY 35 PLAN VIEW DIAGRAMS

     

    REPLACE WLE NDB WITH WAYPOINT DALEY S35 33.7 E149 10.7

     

    FROM 02 182241 TO PERM

     

    (Not being an instrument pilot, I can't see how these statements are related. Does the WLE NDB still work or is it broken too? I suppose I could dig out the DAP and a map and learn something ZZZzzzZZZzzz)

     

    C0076/12

     

    MM 'ICB' 75 RWY 35 NOT AVBL

     

    FROM 03 042300 TO 03 050500

     

    (Totally retro ... Middle marker, does anyone still use these? Maybe they turned it off to see if anyone will notice)

     

    C0077/12 REVIEW C0069/12

     

    PILOT ACTIVATED LGT (PAL) NOT AVBL

     

    AD LGT MANUALLY LEFT ON HN

     

    FROM 03 010401 TO 03 160700 EST

     

    (Does anything work the way it should at this "international" airport? Aren't they making enough money any more? Or have Air Services and Steven Byron collectively decided to "sweat the asset"?)

     

    This is just for Canberra. Imagine if you were travelling from Sydney to Albury via Canberra, just for giggles...

     

     

    Barons And Twin Bonanzas Now Have Their Own Ad's

    in Aviation Enthusiasts

    Fat Tax

    in Aviation Enthusiasts

    Posted

    Its an advertising scam. 40 or 50 years ago, the check in counters had weighing pads at the check in counters - but no extra $ charged.

     

    Imagine standing behind some large and tall person emptying their pockets into their checked luggage while checking in at a JetStar counter, then having to fork over another $53.45, which incidentally is now in the wallet of his checked luggage.

     

    Then multiply that by more than 60% of the seats on an A-320.

     

    Not gonna happen

     

     

    Hangar Flying High Winged Turbo Props

    in Aviation Enthusiasts

    Posted

    This thread follows on from CBR-MEL trip report by Carlosmoochous

     

    Below are some relevant links that expand on the comments made by sixtiesrelic (with thanks)

     

    Avweb reports that NTSB want better icing defenses for large turbo props (it never happened, the NPRM wasn't released)

     

    http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/FAAProposesPart25IcingAmendments_202799-1.html (June 29, 2010)

     

    Icing Primer (wikipedia)

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icing_conditions

     

    IN 1994 American Eagle Flight 4104 (an ATR 72) Flight into unexpected icing, crashed in Roselawn Indiana

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184

     

    The thing to remember is that icing can happen anywhere there is a combination of freezing temperature and visible moisture. The high wing turboprop isn't more or less safe because of anti/de-ice equipment.

     

    Note though that ATR operators in the US did get bigger de-icing boots although the Boscombe Downs tests showed that the bigger boots will not get rid of all the ice on the wings. ATR operators in the US just moved their aircraft to places where icing conditions were far less likely. The wikipedia article referenced above suggests that high wing turbo props aren't suffering ice induced crashes because of the 18 airworthiness directives issued in relation to the Roselawn crash, many were directed at revisions to the pilot training.

     

    "Don't fly into known icing conditions" wasn't one of them. It was stuff like fly faster when you have ice, especially on final approach, no autopilot, different upset recovery procedures and...

     

    Get through the ice, out the other side by the shortest, quickest route possible.

     

    My favourite was "Don't fly circling through your own ice PIREP again and again, tell ATC to knock it off and land the plane instead. Any airport will do!"

     

    All comments received with thanks. Also thanks again to CarlosMoochous and SixtiesRelic.

     

     

    Beech Debonaire And Bonanza Aiworthiness Directives (33/48 And 35/74)

    in Aviation Enthusiasts

    Posted

    Friday 13th January 9pm local time - Nine MSN website reports "CASA issues directive on light planes"

     

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8402778/casa-issues-directive-on-light-planes

     

    The aviation watchdog has effectively grounded hundreds of light planes over concerns about their safety.

     

    The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued an airworthiness directive late on Friday requiring the mandatory inspection of flight control cables on the Beechcraft Debonair and Bonanza aircraft.

     

    I suspend my cynicism of the mainstream media (for now)

     

    Also this:

     

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/01/13/your-weekend-beechcraft-bonanza-or-debonair-joy-flight-is-on-hold-pending-a-compulsory-inspection/

     

    "Your weekend Beechcraft Bonanza or Debonair joy flight is on hold pending a compulsory inspection" by Ben Sandilands (a friend of plane crazy down under podcast)

     

    A quick search noted that squillions of news outlets have run variations of the same story.

     

    This Nine MSN article does not name the airworthiness directive. The CASA airworthiness bulletin (NOT the AD) is later referenced in CASA's in house pilot magazine flight noting that an E33 had a cable failure during a 'full,free and correct' pre-takeoff check. This failure occurred during a childrens joyflight programme. After the failure and during the same programme, the pilot of an A36 reached up into the instrument panel and found a similarly frayed or failing cable. The Service difficulty report (below) was registered by CASA 27 November.

     

    No news outlet article I found names the AD by number. Would have been nice, peoples...

     

    The CASA article noted "These aircraft were designed before it was a requirement to have a backup system of elevator control - typically trim." Service difficulty report SDR510013965 refers to part number 33-524000-63 and is the basis for the CASA magazine article. The failed cable was 4,610 hours since new (e.g. really freaking old for an exposed bit of wire)

     

    These documents were issued by CASA on Friday:

     

    AD/BEECH 33/48 http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/airwd/adfiles/under/beech33/beech33-048.pdf

     

    AD/BEECH 35/74

     

    http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/airwd/adfiles/under/beech35/beech35-074.pdf

     

    They (CASA) are serious. What nobody mentioned in the news articles is that if the "scheduled" inspection or replacement of said cables as per Beechraft Maintenance Data or FAA AC 43-13-1B, chapter 7, Section 8, paragraph 7-149(d) has already occured, no problem. The AD's note that cables more than 15 years old shall be replaced. NZ aviation websites have noted their required inspection and replacement intervals closely mirror the FAA requirement, therefore the cables should already have been replaced within 15 years. (no reference provided at this time).

     

    In late October 2011, CASA issued AD 27-001 (all aircraft) issue 2 which states "replace all cables more than 15 years old due to failing stainless terminators". You'd think or hope that the cables would get some look-and-love at the same time.

     

    Maybe not.

     

    The Airworthiness Bulletin 27-001 issue 2 pre-dates the CASA magazine article by two months or more. The CASA magazine article references the Airworthiness Bulletin but is in turn the source of the "Australia only" AD's which came out more than a month later. It was only after the AD's that the "story" appeared in the general media. Because there were children involved.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...