KRviator

On 17/02/2022 at 1:27 PM, rodgerc said:

Only 78 VH- marks available now. 

75 on Friday...

Makes me think about what Puzzle Palace will do when that number drops to single figures, which could well be by mid-year!

12 hours ago, BirdDog said:

Have to agree with the autopilot comments.  Hit the heading hold mode.  Dial in 180 and sit tight.

 

Spot on. 

I went up with an instructor a few months ago and one of the simulations was "You've just entered cloud, what do you do?", whereupon I promptly held then released the CWS button on the stick and simply said "That!"  - though she seemed surprised as though she expected me to throw it straight into a 180* turn to get out. I explained we're above LSALT, the autopilot can fly the plane better, safer, and more smoothly than I can, and it doesn't suffer from spatial disorientation. In this example, the absolute safest thing to do is engage the autopilot, take a few seconds to think about what you need to do, change modes from ROLL HOLD + VS to ALT HOLD + HDG and then dial in your 180* turn rather than trying to do it yourself with bugger-all IF time and hoping it'll work out.

4 hours ago, onetrack said:

 

They are always "offshore" or a FIFO miner with "very limited communications" - but funnily enough, they can always access that limited communication rapidly when you advertise a major item - and they can reply even faster, when you reply to them.

IF they say they are a FIFO Miner, or on the rigs or something like that, it is 100%, complete and utter bullshit - run away. Or play along, if you want to have fin... 

I work FIFO (when Chairman McClown allows me into McGowanland, that is) and off-site communications are A. Big. Thing. for the miners, because they have realised people (usually) want to talk to their families, or watch RedTube, etc and if they can't get that, they will go somewhere else. And recruiting a replacement costs a few quid... In a lot of cases, the internet speeds I can achieve in the Pilbara - particularly outside the evening peaks - rival what you can get at home.

I'll often tell someone that I might be out of range when they call, but you can always get back to them when you knock off. The (very) few exceptions tend to be the likes of exploration personnel but even then, it's only a few days at a time, if that.

15 hours ago, puggo1 said:

Hi does anyone remember or have details on the amphibian designed by two Sydney university lecturers in the 1980's?  It was a two seater with a full fuselage (Teal style) and a unique engine layout.

Yep, Google tells me it morphed into this one...More photos available if you google VH-XWS or "Smith FSRW"

From the aeropedia website:

Quote

Theoretically it had a take-off run on land of 37 m (120 ft), and a stalling speed of 43 km/h (27 mph).  When first built power was provided by a Rolls Royce/Continental O-240A engine driving two wooden Hawker de Havilland-built propellers by VEE-belt drive, the propellers being mounted on two pylons above the wing.

 

The prototype, known as the FSRW-1, and later registered VH-XWS, was constructed on a property at West Pennant Hills, NSW.  The aircraft made its first flight at Schofields, NSW, on 16 March 1983 and was demonstrated to the public shortly thereafter at the Schofields Airshow with well-known Sydney Victa and GAF test pilot, the late Victor Walton, at the controls.  On 2 December that year, after a considerable amount of development, it made its first water flight from Pittwater near Palm Beach, NSW.

 

Further development took place to improve performance, stability, control, and water operation.  Two major changes were made to the design.  One of these involved the replacement of the all-moving tailplane with a conventional fixed tailplane with elevators mounted high on the fin to give greater water clearance.  The second involved replacement of the engine in the fuselage driving the two propellers on pylons and installation of the engine in a single pylon above the fuselage in a configuration similar to the Lake Buccaneer as there was considered to beto  much power loss to the propellers under the original arrangement.

Image courtesy of Aeropedia.

The biggest limitation IMHO for RWY on Android - for those who have a Dynon setup - is the inability to Wifi the flightplan from OzRunways to the EFIS if you make any changes on-the-fly. That's the only reason I still use an iPad - and probably the reason I'll have to upgrade to a "new" iPad in the not too distant future... 😞

I do most of my flight planning on SkyVector while having a cuppa, then just copy that plan into OzRunways and while warming up, send it to SkyView.

Just to prove it isn't always engine failure that can kill a Jabiru, one speared off the runway and into a hangar at Goolwa today while landing. 2POB enroute to the hospital with moderate injuries. I'm actually fairly impressed he's managed to get it between that other door outrigger &the water tank though!

Images courtesy of the ABC...

VH-WBL, a Jodel D.11.

I think some of the RV's - particularly the -9's will benefit from an increase in value. I'm not sure a -7 or -8 will meet the stall speed at 760Kg - they're 44.5Kts at only 635Kg according to The Mothership, whereas a -9 is 43.5Kts at 790Kg.

Perhaps some of the C150/152 series? 

9 hours ago, walrus said:

KRAviator, the C150 POH is mute on the subject of climb with 40(?) degrees of flaps and meets the FA specs in force circa 1960. As for that CAR, who would know and how old is 7.1 regarding climb in landing configuration??

 

In any case 3.2% is marginal and doesn't get you over a gum tree in front of you. The POH calls for ZERO flaps on takeoff and if you don't have zero and sufficient runway you are SOL.

 

Hence my warning: do not practice touch and go on small STOL strips like YCEM. Do a full stop. Backtrack. Reconfigure and go again. Otherwise you are one error from being in the trees.

You're right, of course, about the lack of POH data, but what that means - to me at least - is you need to operate with the data you do have. Eg, the stall speed difference between F40 & F20 is 1KIAS (48 vs 49), & the balked landing procedure is to set F20 immediately after applying full power. So why not approach at F20, ensuring you can climb if you need to? IF you're flying solo and just come back from a XC with minimum fuel, then that's the time you can use F40 and can be assured of being able to climb in the landing configuration after a go-around.

Using F40, two up, on a hot day is asking for trouble - as is trying T&G's on a short or otherwise performance-limiting runway.

I tried to find an old DCA-approved C150 POH in the hope it would have "Australian-ised" performance charts with F40 landing climb weight limits, without success - but the absence of that chart doesn't absolve a PIC of the requirement to be able to comply with that CAO - which has been around for yonks, IIRC. To use the example given, a low-level 180, if you'd stalled & spun in, or hit the windsock pole halfway through the turn, the PIC would have been hanged, drawn & quartered, though the ATSB would likely find the lack of the landing climb weight limit chart as being a contributing factor, it's still the PIC's head on the chopping block.

On 21/12/2021 at 5:06 AM, walrus said:

With full flap a fully loaded C150 WILL NOT climb out of ground effect and we only escaped by a low level (30 feet) 180 turn with stall warning blaring. So when I hear about your problem I am aroused to post this.

Does that not put the PIC in breach of CAO 20.7.4 for trying to land at too high a weight to satisfy the 3.2% climb gradient requirement while in the landing configuration??

Pretty sure anything that is going to be used in C/E must have a [Position] Source Integrity Level of 2 or 3. From memory, the EC devices are usually only 1. 

IIRC, the 787, A380 & A350 handle TCAS RA's with the autopilot now. I'm sure I read that somewhere, but do you think I can find it now? 😛

The whole "hemispherical levels" thing has a great get out of jail free card though:
 

Quote

91.275  Specified VFR cruising levels

             (1)  The pilot in command of an aircraft for a VFR flight contravenes this subregulation if, during the flight on a track, the aircraft is flown at a cruising level that is not a specified VFR cruising level for the track.

             (2)  Subregulation (1) does not apply if the aircraft is in uncontrolled airspace and any of the following apply:

                     (a)  the aircraft is below 3,000 ft above mean sea level;

                     (b)  the aircraft is at or above 3,000 ft above mean sea level but below 1,500 ft AGL;

                     (c)  it is not practicable for the pilot in command to fly the aircraft at a specified VFR cruising level for the track;

                     (d)  the aircraft is a glider in soaring flight.

             (3)  Subregulation (1) does not apply if:

                     (a)  the aircraft is in controlled airspace; and

                     (b)  air traffic control has given the pilot in command an air traffic control instruction, or an air traffic control clearance, to fly the aircraft other than at a specified VFR cruising level for the track.

             (4)  A person commits an offence of strict liability if the person contravenes subregulation (1).

^^That bit...I went from Broken Hill to Cleve, SA via Port Pirie a few days ago, and the highest available VFR level was 8,500. At Port Pirie, I climbed up to 10,000 for the over water portion across the gulf.. That gave me the ability to return to Port Pirie, or turn 90* and make it to Whyalla, or as I lost Whyalla, continue towards the runway at Cowell, ensuring I wouldn't have to go swimming if the noise stopped. I wouldn't have had those options at 8,500, ergo, 8,500 "was not practicable"...

So long as you can justify why a VFR level is "not practicable", you're fine. Which is why I don't think ADS-B will be used for that kind of thing, besides, imagine the Civil Libertarians? "It'll start with aircraft, then they'll mandate it for vehicles, and no more speed cameras, every car will report when it goes over 100km/h!", and CASA would have a tough time proving your choice wasn't practicable in a court of law, IMHO...

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

I was talking about Radar, not ADS-B coverage

I know that. And if you honestly believe ASA has nation-wide radar coverage, I have this beaut bridge with a great view of the Opera House I'll sell you cheap.

Here is the CASA ADS-B coverage map during the rollout of ADS-B in Australia, circa 2017. Green is ADS-B, blue is SSR. Get outside the J-Curve, Perth or the Tindal/Darwin area and there is no coverage! Which is why ASA+CASA mandated ADS-B in the NW region of WA years before the rest of the country - because they have heavy jets flying into multiple airports only 30NM apart, which absolutely zero visibility of where they are in relation to a potential conflict...

This kind of coverage is precisely why ADS-B is great for those of us that fly beyond radar coverage. Not only does it show other aircraft where you are - but your missus or kids can track you to your destination using FA/FR24.

15 minutes ago, Garfly said:

Anyway, apropos your recent outback flight; what about aircraft to aircraft ADSB comms?  Presumably that works fine anywhere, right?  So even if you can't get flight following you can still keep track of all ADSB/ECD traffic in your vicinity, right? 

 

Yep, spot on. And that's the benefit of ADS-B over SSR-based traffic systems as, barring a relative few, "traditional" traffic systems used in GA required the intruder to be interrogated by SSR before generating an alert. No radar coverage? No traffic alerts....

ADS-B (and the glider version, FLARM) continuously tell the world "I am here, at X-thousand feet" - it doesn't care if anyone - or no one - is listening, it just keeps on keeping on. And, AIUI, the more advanced ADS-B systems can downlink your autopilot/FMS settings so ATC can confirm you have selected FL330 when he's cleared you to FL330. 

However, like the "ADS-B In" quandary of focusing on the screen, these are safety-of-flight messages and the GPS position must be accurate. That isn't a huge issue in and of itself with modern receivers, but certifying them as such is what costs lotsa $$ and why, traditionally, ADS-B has required high-end GNSS units. It's only fairly recently that the more enlightened NAA's have accepted that the likes of Dynon's GPS-2020 receiver are "good enough" and take Dynon's word of that, thus making them affordable for those of us with Dynon/AFS/G3X type systems. And let's face it, short of buying a 10(30?) year old mode-C unit, any transponder you buy these days is going to be Mode-S capable, so why not jut get a position source and be done with it? IF only for that once-a-year trip to the Birdsville races where you can have the security blanket of flight following keeping you out of trouble...

On 20/12/2021 at 11:03 AM, turboplanner said:

Not correct, ATC have radar data on every aircraft flying anywhere in Australia if they want to use it.

Absolute rubbish. 👎

There are very few Secondary radar's in Australia and even fewer Primary Radar's. Even ADS-B doesn't provide nation-wide coverage at GA altitudes. Hell, just today I flew from out west of Spencer Gulf, SA to the Hunter Valley (730NM) with Flight Following, at 9,500' and with a full ADS-B out setup - not a low-power EC device - around the SA/NSW border was told "Due surveillance coverage, identification terminated", and it wasn't until I was near Ivanhoe that I got "ABC, identified, verify level" and resumed flight following. You can confirm that yourself by checking the ASA ADS-B coverage maps. Nationwide radar coverage? Pull the other one...

Now, FWIW, if you have a TSO'd GPS and a decent flightplan, I'm all for ADS-B, however, it will give an opportunity to ping you if you fly into a P/R area while on an evening jolly. The downside to ADS-B is, unless you have an aural traffic system, you can be drawn to the magic screen and spend more time looking for traffic on that than looking out the window. IT's a great tool, but like all tools, needs to be used appropriately.

50 minutes ago, Student Pilot said:

Correct in whose eyes?

UUhh...Airservices Australia & CASA?

The AIP [ENR 1.1-51.9.1.13] says:

Quote

The standard broadcast format is:

a. [Location] Traffic

b. [Aircraft Type]

c. Callsign]

d. Position/Level/Intentions

e. [Location]

And the CASA VFG says:

Quote

Broadcast – must include:
Location ‘traffic’
Aircraft type
Callsign
Position/intentions
Location

If you want to argue they're wrong, fill yer boots! I'll watch....

Paraphrasing from a PPrune post: The one plane you don't want to fly in due to their engine reliability is a Jabiru...However, the one plane you DO want to fly in, should you have to crash is a Jabiru! 

Depends on what the school is asking though. A J160 for around $30K or so isn't a bad "first plane". I'd certainly consider one as a "commuter" should I get a new job that's a 3H drive or 1H flight away.

2 hours ago, Ian said:

The problem is that some local councils have implemented security policies under the guise of the ATSI regulations and believe that any breach of them is a Federal issue.

True - but remember, they are typically only security guards. They do not have powers of arrest beyond what you or I do, under s.100 of LEPRA, so if they do want to get belligerent, call their bluff. "Yeah, righto mate, arrest me then...No? Not going to? Then what are we doing having this discussion...? I'm going to take a piss, refuel and be on my way, TTFN."

Though I've just had a thought about that whole Traffic Period thing... -2H ETA to +2 ATD, what if it's going to layover overnight? Is 0100 the next day within the Traffic Period?!? And who's to say that Qlink 1535 from Syd-Dbo flown by a Dash-8-300 really is going to fly QLink 1536 from Dbo-Syd when it could be by a Q400 that's been on the stand overnight? That's an awfully big assumption...

Meh, Option 4 is always to ask forgiveness. Always easier than asking permission! 😉

"I am not required to hold an ASIC as I do not regularly fly into security controlled airports" closely followed by "As it is outside the Traffic Period defined in the Regulations, I am not required to display an ASIC" [ATSI Regulations 3.03] (The Traffic Period is -2 Hours of an RPT scheduled arrival to +2 hours from its' scheduled departure). 

Just because it is "Security Controlled" means diddly if there's no scheduled RPT (at all) or that day. No RPT? No ASIC.

3 hours ago, SGM said:

BTW still haven't worked out which public websites receive our NAIPS flight plan information ie RAAus scheduled arrivals/departures at regional airfields.

 

FlightAware certainly does - but I was squawking Mode-S

Ozrunways users can be tracked at TX.ozrunways.com

If you lodge a flightplan and use flight following you should be visible using MLAT to and FA/FR24 recievers nearby, with a standard Mode A/C transponder, IIRC.

Deleted. Hence the Google cache link above.

And now he's been charged with murder. Wonder if there'll be any questions directed at the DAME who did his last Class 1??

57 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Personally, I was surprised that he was an airline pilot cos I sort of assumed that they had to be basically sane.

Well he did fly for JetStar...And if you believe the commentary on Pprune, that's after leaving Qantas.

For those looking for the "other" thread, Google currently has a cached version available HERE. No idea how long it'll stay live for.

We have the whole "Right to silence" in Oz as well - unless you are dealing with CAsA, then under some circumstances you do not have the right to silence in answering questions from their "investigators". They have powers of entry, search & seizure that Australian police officers could only dream of. 

Remember, you are innocent of everything until proven guilty. No need to give anyone any ammo to use against you.

Quote

This is a Recreational Aviation site.

 

FAR Part 103 Pilot and Aircraft

We’ve established that FAR Part 103 aircraft can’t fly over LAX

So far you're the only person to bring up 103 fliers over LAX. They were two separate - and quite widely separated - points that I'd made about how aviation in Oz is being hamstrung by Government inaction.
 

Quote

HOWEVER, Class E is Controlled Airspace, as is Australia’s Class C

E is controlled airspace for IFR operations 'only'. For VFR you do not need a clearance. I've lost count of the number of times I've flown in E with an RAAus registered aircraft and only spoken to CTR when they've called me.

Quote

so by my reading a PPL could request an Airways Clearance to fly over the top of Melbourne Airport on the same basis as a US pilot would fly over the top of LAX, but you wouldn’t bother because the VFR lanes are easier and faster.

You're wrong. To fly over the top of LAX Class B, you're in Class E, and so long as you have a transponder (to comply with the Mode C veil over there) you don't have to talk to anybody. To do so in Melbourne you can request clearance and it can - and usually will be denied. Beyond Victor 1 and the Brisbane Stradbroke Is routes there are no routes "through" major Class C's in Australia that don't require clearance - and both of those will require carriage of lifejackets...

As an example - have a look at the Oakey Brisbane VTC and consider Oakey & Amberley PRD areas are active and unavailable for transit. Your only option to get past this area in cruising flight is a clearance through the BN Class C, or descending into D630A+B and flying below 4,500 with terrain that comes up to 3,000.

Quote

Class D is not a direct comparison with an International Airport.

Spot on but I wasn't referencing international airports but using LAX/SFO as a size comparison LAX is probably double the size of Sydney and you can fly over it without talking to anybody if you're above 10,000'. Or through the transition corridor at 3,500/4,500. However look at that image you provided. E over D in the US & E = available to RAAus/GA VFR traffic without a clearance. There's only a few places in Oz where there is E or G over D here, Camden being one & Karratha the only other I'm aware of. Every other Tower-controlled airport in Australia has A over C or C over D, requiring a clearance - no matter the traffic volume or physical airspace layout. Even Katoomba requires you to have clearance in the Sydney Class C if you want to be higher than 3,500AGL.

The point being, if you're in the cruise (for example, as -DJU was up at Coffs), you shouldn't have to descend to <1000' just to get past a Class D tower because its' overlaid by Class C. You should either be able to get (not just request - there's a flamin' huge difference) clearance, or be able to go up-and-over as you can sensibly do in the US - and that's just one example of how Government in Australia is knobbling GA in this country. There's probably dozens of other examples, but lack of airspace flexibility being but one.

You're right, they don't have to promote it, but neither do they have to hamstring it at every available opportunity.