Nobody

WHY on earth wouldn't you turn off the lights before landing?

 

They might have been off for the landing but were still extremely hot....

I think you have slightly muddled 2 concepts, Weather conditions and VFR minimum conditions.

The USA use 4 levels of weather description. From worst to best they are LIFR>>IFR>>MVFR>>VFR

The definitions are given in the FAA AIM as:

1. LIFR (Low IFR).Ceiling less than 500 feet and/or visibility less than 1 mile.

2. IFR.Ceiling 500 to less than 1,000 feet and/or visibility 1 to less than 3 miles.

3. MVFR (Marginal VFR).Ceiling 1,000 to 3,000 feet and/or visibility 3 to 5 miles inclusive.

4. VFR. Ceiling greater than 3,000 feet and visibility greater than 5 miles; includes sky clear.

If you look at something like sjyvector(https://skyvector.com/) or foreflight (Ozrunways equivilient) then they color code an airports conditions from Pink>>Red>>Blue>> Green. It gives you a very quick overview of the conditions at an area or along your route. It is also useful for setting personal minimum above the legal minimums. While it is legal to fly in MVFR conditions as a VFR pilot many people choose not to. 

A special VFR Clarence is a clearance given by ATC that allows a VFR pilot to fly in conditions that are below the normal VFR minimums of 91.155. For instance in class D airspace the normal VFR minimums are 3 Statute mile visability, and distances from cloud of 500 feet below, 1000 above and 2,000 feet horizontal, In class G airspace below 1'200 feet AGL the requirements are 1 statute mile and clear of cloud.

Now if you wanted to take off from an airport where the ceiling was 1300 feet. If you were at a non-towered airport you could takeoff, climb to 1'000 feet and depart on your way. If the airport had a control tower and was class D you wouldn't be able to climb to 1000 feet and fly off.   A special VFR clearance allows you to operate where the viability is 1 statute mile and you are clear of cloud, essentially the same as the class G airspace requirements. 

The above is all based on the USA rules and regulations. The Australian rules are similar but with some subtle changes.

How many do you need? I bought mine from Cleveland aircraft tools. You can get them in numbers as small as 25 but the shipping might be expensive on a small order.

http://www.cleavelandtool.com/mobile/1_8-Wedge-Loc-Fastener-25_bag/productinfo/CL18-25/#.XibSiJBxXqs

I don't know what spec is required but they are available here :

https://www.cps-parts.com/catalog/rtxpages/912914suspensionframe.php

I think that there is an SB about them. There have been instances on RV-12s of them coming undone...

RAA and CASA (in GA) decided endorsements weren't needed.

 

Their idea is, if you'd like to fly a new aircraft, be it a floatplane, seaplance, CS, RG, andything under 5.7 tonnes  MTOW (GA only), be their guest!

 

Are you reading a different set of rules to me? Here is the list of CASA endorsements:

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/aircraft-design-feature-endorsements

What has been gotten rid of is the type rating... (and quite rightly)

SAAA on Part 149:

 

 

 

MEMBER NOTAM

 

SAAA ends consideration of migrating into a Pt 149 environment

 

 

G'day ,

 

 

Effective 15thJuly 2019, CASA gazetted an important milestone for the Australian sport aviation community – “Sport and recreational rules milestone - Part 149 commences”. The announcement is provided below in full.

 

The question no doubt for many aviators, and especially SAAA members, will be – “So what is SAAA doing about Part 149?“  

 

The simple answer to this question is “Nothing, for the foreseeable future”.

 

This follows a communication to SAAA from CASA on 2ndJuly 2019 “..as Part 149 does not contain any functions that SAAA would administer, it would subsequently not be possible for the SAAA to transition from its current role to becoming an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) under Part 149.“  This is of course in the context of Part 149 and the related Manual of Standards as they presently exist.

 

As most members of the sport aviation community will know, SAAA has been a member of the group of nine Australian Sport Aircraft Organisations (SAOs) engaged with CASA on the Part 149 process. SAAA has long been concerned over the relevance of Pt 149 to its Members who represent only a part of the VH registered Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) fleet and its Part 61 licenced pilots whose medicals are also administered by CASA. SAAA has also been especially concerned over many issues, the most significant of which have been around:

 

• Transfer of regulatory responsibilities from CASA to SAOs with no attendant transfer of funding
   
  
• The imposition of “strict liability provisions”
   
  
• The understanding that SAAA members’ current exemptions would at best be frozen in time if SAAA did not migrate to Part 149, thus hindering opportunities for further development of safety outcome improvements, and
   
  
• The fate of VH EAB aircraft and their pilots was unknown
   
  

 

 

SAAA remains unconvinced of the merits of Part 149 being relevant to or able to offer improved safety outcomes for the Australian VH EAB fleet and its pilots.

 

SAAA had commenced a process in late 2016 to re-build from the ground up a system of governance as a “matter of good business”. At that time, and whilst the advent of Part 149 had been heralded to be imminent after 20 or so years in the making, SAAA elected to keep its options open and worked with CASA to ensure that the development of the new system of governance (policies and procedures covering all technical, administrative and financial functions of the SAAA) was developed in a form that would enable a relatively straight forward migration to a Part 149 environment – should that be SAAA’s decision.  SAAA appreciates CASA’s support and guidance in developing our system of governance – our documentation was reviewed on three occasions over the course of 2017 and 2018. Progress at the time of the publication of SAAA’s Exposition was considered by CASA to be words to effect “on track and 90% of the way to meeting the requirements for the SAAA’s migration to a Part 149” (as it was understood at that time).

 

The recent advice from CASA (that Part 149 does not contain a pathway for the SAAA and its Members with VH registered EAB aircraft and its pilots) does not change SAAA’s commitment to its new system of governance. This is simply good business and will stand SAAA in good stead for many years to come.

 

At the CASA Sport Aviation Safety Forum held in Brisbane in 2017, CASA sought input from SAOs around challenges they faced in improving safety outcomes. SAAA expressed the view that the need for type transition training was becoming increasingly more important with the increasing variety and numbers of aircraft with ever increasing performance coming on to the scene.

 

SAAA since worked with CASA over the last few years to bring SAAA’s new Flight Training and Safety program online – and are grateful for CASA’s support in particular with developing a syllabus for type transition training and a mechanism for experienced SAAA pilots to deliver this specific flight training to SAAA Members. We are confident this program will go a long way towards mitigating accidents that have pilot techniques, which are insufficiently developed or current, as their root cause.

 

SAAA, now continuing its operations outside of the Part 149 environment, looks forward to working with CASA as it has done in the past to deliver further safety outcome improvements to its Members and the VH EAB fleet and pilots generally.

 

In respect of all VH registered EAB aircraft and their pilots - irrespective of membership of the SAAA, the functions of aircraft registration, airworthiness, pilot licensing and pilot medicals are administered by CASA. The SAAA focuses on assisting its members to comply with the Civil Aviation Act and on facilitating learning and actions to improve Member safety outcomes.

 

The SAAA is a group of aviation enthusiasts assisting each other to build, maintain and operate sport aircraft. We educate members to continuously improve safety outcomes.

 

Plan Wise – Build Well – Fly Safe!

 

If looking at a DA62 have a look at a second hand piper meridian from about 2005-2010...... Yes it wont be new but faster, easier to fly and more comfortable for the passengers.

The PAL also activates the T-VASI or PAPI depending on which the airport has....

CASA doesn't say you can, it says you can't unless you are endorsed for IFR or NightVFR, and the aircraft is equipped accordingly.

 

The attachment spells it out

 

The 10 minute deadline for Arrival is a CASA Regulation you have to abide by (you're flying in CASA Airspace, and it's calculated using Airservices charts (Search for AIP General 23 May 2019 Visual Flight Rules.

 

[ATTACH]39443[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks turbo planner, I didn't know about the 10 minute requirement of AIP ENR 1.2... you learn something everyday....

The mandatory latest time of arrival is  10 minutes before last light, which will probably have you landing after sunset in dusk.

 

I haven't seen that in the CASA regulations which only say that a day VFR flight can be done at "night" and  the definition of "night" is:

Night Flying

Flight time which accrues during the period between the end of the evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight.

Is the 10 minutes in the RAAus Ops manual?

I'll probably be there with the camera again. Hopefully the weather will co-operate....

Interesting claim by the pilot against the airfield.

Subrogation

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subrogation.asp

  The engines  efficiency is greater when the temp change is maximum. That's provable mathematically and applies to all Carnot cycle engines. The hotter intake air may well improve your vapourisation so you could perhaps lean it out a bit if you could (but usually can't.) Applying carb heat often enrichens the fuel air ratio as it is an extra restriction up stream of the carburetter. It also reduces your volumetric efficiency so for a given HP output you would need more revs and have more pumping  and frictional losses. which all obey the squared law. (Double revs  4 times the friction).  Nev

The attached table is from the Cessna 182S POH, the yellow highlight is mine. This is for 2000 feet pressure altitude. From the table at 2400 RPM and 21 inches of MP the power output is 67% and the fuel flow is 11.8 GPH when the temperature is 20 degrees below standard. If the temperature is 20 degrees above standard and the engine setting remain the same then the power drops to 63% and the fuel flow to 11.1 GPH. If we increase the MP to 22 inches to produce the same power as when the temperature was cooler the fuel flow has dropped to 11.7 GPH.  This table suffers a little from rounding, it is only for a whole inch of MP and so sometimes there is no change (and for one or two instances the pattern isn't born out) but generally this shows that higher temperatures result in less power but more efficiency.

Now 0.1 GPH isn't a lot but for the long distance record breakers that can mean the difference between claiming the record or having to divert and make another attempt.

Must test this.

Run motor on it's two litre's of fuel, on Hot day 40c +.

 

Run motor on same fuel (98 mogas) on the cold day, to see if revs. on tacho change & duration of timed endurance changes.

 

Rain will postpone this test. (raining now )

 

spacesailor

I had never heard this. I know a motorbike runs best with cold air, thought any engine would be the same.

Search for brake specific fuel consumption(BSFC).

I wonder why none of the car manufacturers are adopting this, they all seem to have cold air intakes on EFI engines. Maybe their engineers are not very smart.

You need to make the distinction between maximum power and maximum efficiency. Maximum power is what we need to takeoff to get off the ground quickly and away from the tress at the end of the runway. In that situation cold air to the engine increases the power output.

Once we are in cruise we no longer need maximum power and we throttle back. Now we are concerned with maximum efficiency. Warmer intake air increases the engines efficiency, lowering the the required fuel burn for a given amount of power.  Some of the very long distance flight done in the long Eze's were done with a little bit of carb heat applied in the cruise, not to ward of icing but to improve efficiency.

The FAA have this fairly useful AC on water in Fuel. It does cover both Jet and Avgas so not all of it is applicable to our aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC20-125.pdf

In the USA the usage is affirmative, refer to the FAA Pilot Controller Glossary:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg_basic_chgs 1_2_9-13-18.pdf

In Australia it is Afirm as per the the AIP posted by head in the clouds. 

Footpath or Sidewalk? 

Guys,

This is all about the politics of Controlled Airspace Access and a higher MTOW. Did you note that RAAus are not providing information to any airport operator but only those that are members of the Australian Airports Association. 

CASA has a committee from the "industry" that provide advice to it on new regulations, called the ASAP. RAAus need that committee not to stand in the way of their request for greater privileges.  The AAA won't endorse a regulation change that would result in their members not being able to send invoices to aircraft owners. RAAus's change in position is a quid pro quo for not opposing the CTA and a higher MTOW.

Safety Directive on the ASRA website:

https://www.asra.org.au/application/files/2015/4106/0199/AD_2018.01_TITANIUM_AUTOGYRO_TAG.pdf

Its a good report but does leave a few questions unanswered. We don't know why the engine stopped. Even though there was a fire I would have thought that a disassembly of the engine would tell if it is was seized, or there was a lack of oil flow or anything significantly broken internally. What was to position of the ignition switches, fuel selector?

This quote from the report is chilling, I wonder if as part of the pre takeoff checks out of habit Ross turned the fuel to the engine off?

Mr Millard climbed into the aircraft, secured the harness and discussed matters with Mr Lowry including the position of the fuel selectors which was different from the Lightwing that Mr Millard owned and flew.

there were photos in the thread back in 2015 so it has been flying for awhile.

Miniture high speed turbine engines

CASA has determined that the crash of a KingAir into the DFO complex at Essendon was the result of the rudder trim being set to full left rudder at the time of takeoff. This should have been detected in the preflight checklist. The checklist should also have revealed that the cockpit voice recorder was not functioning.Pilot error at fault in Essendon DFO plane crash, report finds

The difference being the mtow and stall of the aircraft flown?

What beach landing ... get my drift.

Just don't have lots of witnesses and/or photos....