Happyflyer

Agree Nev. Three pointers definitely the go for shortfield, even more so when Tigers all had skids. Wheelers must result in longer landings but some people think a wheeler landing must be done at almost supersonic speeds. I try for tail low wheelers most times and this results in quite short landings.

I always find it interesting when people say a certain type of aircraft should be three pointed or wheeled on. Sometimes it is the case that it is easier one way or the other due to the undercarriage design. Often you will get two camps saying different things for the same aircraft. To me that just shows the aircraft is quite capable of doing either and it is the pilot that is limited. In my opinion the Tiger main gear has a beautifully soft suspention that lends itself to wheel on with ease. The majority of my Tiger landings are wheelers as are those of my friends. Having said that, it is very satisfying doing a perfect three point landing in that aircraft and perhaps it needs a higher level of skill to get the three pointers spot on.

We would never discuss accidents if we did this every time. Just keep the discussion non personal and respectful.

In the RAAus world something like a Skyfox or Lightwing would be a good training aircraft and a good aircraft to build hours on. In the GA world a Piper Cub, Tiger Moth or Citabria types are also great for getting the basic skills. RV aircraft are a little more of a challenge but not that hard and all I have flown handle beautifully. Just remember, a tailwheel aircraft is just waiting for you to be distracted on the ground so it can bite you. Don't relax until you have the chocks in and you will be fine

The only one I've been involved with flew like a dog. Would be reluctant to touch one . I believe later models have had the tail plane area almost doubled. Read the accident reports in the US on the NTSB website. Plenty of comments around saying it needs an "experienced pilot" to handle it. To me that is code for "not very good". They do look good on the ground though.

Yes, it would be interesting to see the weight of this aircraft and stall speeds to see if could have possibly been RAAus registered.

We need to see if the aircraft could have been RAAus registered. Was it built to RAAus or GA rules? Did the pilot have an RAAus certificate or GA licence, or both, or neither? Even so, no matter the answers, it would not hurt to help if asked.

And the alarms have just gone off very loudly in the Canberra offices of ASIO and the AFP!

I think Australian over regulation has given us a popular culture of ignoring the BS. This, along with a strong streak of larrikinism ends up with a lot of the sensible rules being broken or bent as well. We are all told about the dangers of flying in marginal conditions but many, many still push the boundaries. It's in the nature of many Australians and I'm blowed if I know how we can change that in a hurry.

Adding a little dolly wheel on the tail of a nose wheel aircraft to minimize damage if you stuff up the landing (tail strike) does not make it a tailwheel aircraft. Good as the Foxbat is, one thing it is not, is a tailwheel aircraft.

You are taken to have completed a flight review (no longer called BFR in GA) if you have completed a design feature endorsement in that type of aircraft under part 61.

I had a GA registered plane that was changed to RAAus registration. The insurance cost did not change. QBE did not want to know who was maintaining it. Where is the evidence that there is a problem? We have to stop making new regulations and laws every time there is a perceived problem, real or not. In Australia we are drowning in over regulation. Individuals have to accept responsibility for their actions.

I have no idea why the coroner recommended this. Was the maintenance an issue? Anyway, he recommended RAAus get funded for the random audits. Employ someone and bring on the audits, I have nothing to hide. CASA are so bogged down in their own debacle (Part 61) they will never audit individual member maintenance. Nothing will come of the recommendation, RAAus will not do it because it can't afford to, CASA won't fund it because it can't afford to and won't do it themselves because they are too busy wrecking GA. Again, don't over do something that doesn't need d0ing at all.

No thanks! You are giving me more work to do. I have to act as the maintenance policeman and you generously say it won't add to the cost? No liability if I miss something? There is no major problem so why complicate things. Our planes are not falling out of the sky due to maintenance issues.

Is this Bernoulli?

Yes I agree. Refer to https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/bernnew.html

Frank, I believe it is out of favour because it only tells part of the story, most of the lift force is developed because the wing forces the air down, resulting in an equal and opposite force up (Newton's third law). The Benoulli theory has trouble explaining why a wing on an aerobic aeroplane can fly upside down.

Every where I look in the RAA bulletin it says "ADVISORY", nowhere does it say "MANDATORY" which is the usual word in urgent company service bulletins and AD's. This seems a mattter that could have very serious consequences, surely it should be mandatory and very clearly stated so in the notice? Is this mandatory or not?

What you say is true but thank your lucky stars we are not burdened with a regime like the Gliding Federation. They need to remain in the club to fly. They cannot just get their planes out like us and fly whenever and where ever they like. Everything is kept within the club and under the club. Even with motor gliders, independence is very rare.

You might want to check on that. Things have changed under Part 61. Now needs an activity endoresment (aerobatic and spinning) and needs to be on your licence.

Lucky the thing didn't let go in flight. Hope it was a one off. https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Jabiru-Scimitar-hub-inspection-bulletin-06052015.pdf.pdf

Frank. The only reason it bothers me is that it is an unnecessary expence for a competent GA pilot to join us. Para (3) says "recreational aeroplane" of the same group and type. The ops manual has a definition of "recreational aeroplane". If you look at the definition you will see how badly written this section is. Cheers.

The pilot would have been informed of the wind before landing. He may have wanted to land on the longer runway with cross wind rather than the shorter runway into wind. He may have wanted the practice or wanted the co-pilot to have the practice. More likely it was the option that he thought would get him down on the ground earlier and save time, fuel and therefore money. He soon found that either the conditions had deteriorated or he wasn't as good as he thought he was. No harm done, good learning experience. Different aircraft have different crosswind limits. Additionally one company may a lower limit than another. Co pilots may have a lower limit than the Captain.

RAAus Ops Manual Section 2.13-2 5. A person seeking a Pilot Certificate with recognised flight time must: (2) meeting the experience requirements of Section 2.07 Subparagraph 2.a. in an aeroplane other than a recreational aeroplane and undertake a minimum of 5 hours flying training, including a minimum of 1 hour pilot in command, in accordance with competency requirements of the relevant Unit of the RA-Aus Syllabus of Flight Training, prior to being recommended for a flight test; or (3) producing verified logbook entries for flight time in recreational aeroplane(s) of the same group and type (not registered with RA-Aus), that flying may be counted toward meeting the experience requirements of Subparagraph 5.c.(1) or (2) of this Section, prior to being recommended for a flight test; So I read that as unless you can show that you flew a recreational type aircraft (say a VH registered Skyfox or Gazelle) then you are required by the RAAus ops manual to fly for at least 5 hours in a RAAus aircraft, including at least one hour solo before doing a flight test. Ridiculous I know, but I have had this argument HQ, that is the new ops manual!

In case you didn't know digital pics were invented well after the eighties so any digital pictures from then will have to be scanned.