Happyflyer

Happy flyer, years ago when everyone flew tigers you would rarely see a wheeler done. I trained initially at district park Newcastle. A remarkably small aerodrome where you could easily run out of space to land. the x wind component is only about 9 Knots and if you arrived somewhere like Pt Macquarie you had to cop what was there on the day. If you do a touchdown with the wingtip and tailskid just off the surface you are in a good position to NOT groundloop ( at least at any significant speed).. I was lucky to get the opportunity to instruct in the DH 82 before it disappeared from flying schools.When you instruct you get to see the plane at it's limit now and again as I was getting people who hadn't flown tailwheel who thought the rudder pedals were for resting your feet on sometimes.

I agree that in gusty conditions it may be safer to wheel it on as you are more in control on final approach. I don't know about the Beech 18 but the DC3 wasn't three pointed.

 

I actually consider the 3 point on the Tiger to be much easier to judge. The speed washes off pretty quickly and the stick comes back in a short time, if you aren't carrying excess speed..

 

I've seen people using a lot of runway wheeling it on. Nev

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.

A person close to the pilot has asked you guys to lay off this discussion.

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.

Pic 7. What engine? 6 cyl. Black rocker covers. Prop looks meaty.....

Now they are saying the plane was not registered, again this makes us all look like cowboys flying these death machines, hoons of the sky will be the next headline.If the plane was not registered then we (RA-Aus) need to distance ourselves and have nothing to do with the investigation IMO

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.

The Foxbat has got a tailwheel! - seriously, take a look. It is truly a STOL aircraft though - needs to be with my 230 metre field - 130 metres would be enough though as long as I have a breath of wind on the nose. They just added the nosewheel to level the aeroplane up when it's on the ground:duck for cover:James.

An endorsement on type/feature always counted as the equivalent of a BFR in the old days, I assume it is the same 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.

This is why I suggested completing a review of the aircraft log book as part of the owner's flight review. If RAAus doesn't do random audits of maintenance records CASA will. This has been raised recently by both the Coroners office and CASA. RAAus is better being proactive and keeping CASA out of the picture, this waybit can be a simple and low key affair. As you may / may not know the CASA system is more interested in the paper trail rather than the standard of workmanship when it comes to maintenance.A quick thumb through an aircraft log book and completion of an online form by a suitably trained instructor would not add any cost to the operation. I am confident this would satisfy the requirements of CASA, to the best of my knowledge the only time aircraft log books are now reviewed by RAAus is following an incident.

Is this Bernoulli?

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

• A common explanation using Bernoulli's principle asserts that the air must traverse both the top and bottom in the same amount of time and that this explains the increased speed on the (longer) top side of the wing. But this assertion is false; it is typically the case that the air parcels traveling over the upper surface will reach the trailing edge before those traveling over the bottom.[48]
   
   
  

 

 

Hi Mario! I`ve taken a look at your video clip, 'Why an Airplane Flies' and you are using the Bernoulli principal, to explain why the aircraft flies.

 

I`m not an aeronautical engineer but I did teach the Bernoulli principal when I was instructing, as an AUF CFI, however, there are now those who don`t accept the Bernoulli principal, being the reason the aircraft flies.

 

I can imagine the confusion a student would experience after having learnt that the Bernoulli principal, keeps the AC in the air, only to be told later, that it is not correct.

 

If it is not correct,why is it still taught?

 

Frank.

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 is good for the goose is good for the gander. Since GA pilots and above do not need to be a member of any club or association to fly an aircraft, then neither should pilots wishing to fly an RAA aircraft.

I am not sure he can do that there legally either, probably not!It doesn't take much to learn to do aeros; contrary to popular belief, there is no "rating" - you just have to go practice with an instructor and when they feel you are OK with a particular manoeuvre (loop, barrel roll, etc.) then that gets signed off in your log book and you can go and do them.

 

Though only with a PPL in a VH aircraft, of course...

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

HappyflyerThe answer is in (3) and the definitions of "group" & "type". There will be people who might want to argue, I will not, but read the definitions and decide for yourself. I gained my certificate under the old manual so it doesn't involve me to any great extent.

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.

"Is it financial interest by instructors who want the five hours of training?"---------------

I don't read the requirement for 5 hours training so long as you have a RPL (or higher Lic) and the required flight time in aircraft that fits the definitions of "group" and "type" which are fairly general, then it is only a test/check with an RAA CFI. Similar to the last manual only more words (I suspect to bring it in line with the part 61 wording)

 

So if you are up to speed a check with a CFI is not that onerous and then you have a certificate and then there is no question about legality.

 

If one insists on five hours just ignor them and go to another school.

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!

Thanks for the offer, but the pics have to be digital. Scanning doesn't seem to produce publishable quality. Would love to see your collection of magazines. I am sure there are articles that would be great for RA-Aus historical collection.Cazza