Captaincoop

I just don't think we should condemn the pilot before the facts are known. Yes it may well be what we all suspect, but at least give the poor bugger the benefit of the doubt. I don't follow what you are saying re windshear? It occurs at any level as you know, and if one were flying low and slow near the stall then undershoot or a sudden loss of airspeed is going to tip the scales against you? Unless you mean you have to be changing altitude to encounter windshear? Im sure you would have encountered undershoot shear (be it straight and level or even in tightish turn) on a windy day?

Quite right. Temperature affects take off performance (weight and or distance) but once airborne stall IAS remains the same. Engine power is decreased abut at low level like that there would still be plenty of power available.

My point is that ALL possibilities must be considered. Those are just some of the things that need to be looked at rather than making a decision based on just looking at the video (which of course will help) As a qualified air accident investigator, I can say that there are many things to be looked at besides the "apparent" obvious stall. As for low level wind shear in the depicted photo, that is way past the point at which I am referring. I meant that it is one POSSIBLILITY that the aircraft encountered undershoot shear leading to the flight path in the frame you have chosen. Out of the hundreds of approaches I have flown into Perth, (in daylight) it is very rare I have not experienced low level overshoot and undershoot shear. The altitude at which the aircraft appears to stall looks to be 250-300ft if that. Right where the shear is common. The early info is the it was hot and gusty on the day. As any multi engine pilot knows, full (or worse partial) engine failure on the inboard engine is very hard to recognise, particularly if there is strong drift at low level. At that level in a high drag aircraft, identifying the dead engine when already flying slowly in the few seconds he has may simply prove too late, particularly if the aircraft is close to VMCA and so far back on the drag curve. I've have found it difficult to identify the failing engine at 200ft with full flap at approach speed, and that was on a straight in approach, in a turn it's even worse. If , however, you feel you have the whole thing sorted, ring ATSB and see what they say

That's right.........Isn't RJW asking about using them in flight? Cartage of the battery is different. There may be some differences for private flying but I can't find any reference for it. It's all ICAO D.G.'s far as I know, but I'm happy to be enlightened if someone finds a reference in the regs or elsewhere.

There is a legal limit to the size battery you can carry. work out the watt hours of your battery

I want one

Certainly has all the hallmarks of a stall but one thing you never do in accident investigation is jump to conclusions. Left engine failure or partial failure (critical engine), control problem, pilot incapacitation, low level wind shear....so many possibilities to consider and yes a stall in the turn is just one of them. Let's wait for the examination of the wreckage before we jump to the good ol "pilot error" conclusion do you think?

Quite right!

Only six minutes but if you didn't check the RAIM and you were flying in the high country and didn't know how to map read because GPS is so reliable, I'd say six minutes would be a very long time

Yeah that makes sense and 100 is a good figure for quick calculations off the top of ones head. 60nm = 0.6 =36 minutes...perfect!

Fair enough. We all use GPS nowadays. I have 5 for cross country and charts! The beauty of Avmap or Ozrunways is you don't (or shouldn't) need the GPS to be working. You still have the (digital) charts. Of course if the GPS sat system does fail (unlikely or very unlucky) or you are out of RAIM (I'm sure you check that as part of your preflight planning) then 100 GPS devices wouldn't help with positive position fix! That's why map reading skills are still basic airmanship. I guess not planning for winds is ok if you never leave home without full tanks. I would have thought to do it that way would make more sense to plan on a lower TAS (like 90kts) to allow for unexpected winds then update enroute. Trouble is as I see it, with such slow speeds little wind is needed to have a large percentage effect on your ground speed. Like if you encounter a 22 knot headwind, there goes 20% more fuel than you banked on.

Really? What is your TAS?

Don't bother with that, just choose the chart for your flight and its self explanatory

Where is your flight plan from/to and at what level. I'll try it with my OR

When you say the GPS is spot on within seconds, is that from top of climb or enroute, because it constantly updates itself? I'm sure it is accurate at top of climb for a short flight of a couple of hundred miles (in Australia) What winds do you use for planning purposes?

I think we re forgetting that the the original post was for flight "planning", of course once we are in the air we have to make an adjustment for the actual winds aloft. Before we had these wonderful gadgets we still he to flight plan based on the best available info and then once in the air, check track, ground speed HDG etc to work out the actual winds for the flight. The question is which do we PLAN with GRIB or area for planning purposes. It's up to you and I suppose it depends on how far you are flying. GRIB is an interpolation of winds so I use them. When I fly for work we use GRIB and they are surprisingly accurate. Time and fuel burn are very close to plan but that doesn't mean we don't check actual along the way, particularly if a level change is needed for turbulence or to get better winds. If that is required then the new level GRIB winds are used. I don't have sofisicated Dynon when I fly (no panel space) but even the flight management computer in the Boeing uses the actual winds at its present position then blends them with the forecast winds (pilot entered) to 100nm ahead and then only to entered forecast winds after that, to arrive at an estimated time and fuel overhead destination. Also area forecast winds are just that-forecast. GRIB winds are based on forecasts, interpolation, weather balloons and pilot reports, so for PLANNING proposes I prefer them. If you don't plan with something how do you plan? Unless it's a short flight using the actual winds at your precise location and applying that for the rest of your flight could prove to be a bad prospect.

Windytv, wind forecast

GRIB is best but can make sure it's not too old a forecast

You can get anything if you wanna pay for it. Probably cheaper to have a reliable marshaller tho

I mounted my iPad Air on a simple clamp bracket with Velcro. It sits out of the way and in a comfortable reading position easy to use the touch screen while still resting my elbow on the armrest I installed in my Sav. It also keeps it cool and out of the sun

They had a ground marshaller/wing walker. He signaled all was clear during the turn. When they clipped he ran away and could not be found again that day. If you can't trust the ground marshaller why have them there? It's very hard to judge distance off the wingtip way back behind you. It's not usual to crane your neck over your shoulder with your head pushed up against the side window to try to see the wingtip while taxiing around a corner onto a taxiway....you tend to trust the marshaller. Might be a bit of pontificating on this thread me thinks.

Prior to entering the class D airspace one would assume

I applaud what you are trying to do. There is a chunk of Amberley control airspace that needs 2 miles of trimming to stop forcing VFR right against the hills at low level. Not only a problem for engine out, but also for turbulent conditions in moderate winds.

I use the next one up from this on my 912ULS. I did plenty of research beforehand. 700 CCA kicks it off nice. The weight went from 7kg to 1.7kg and improved C of G. I have flown 150 hours with it. They are the only ones I know of that are ok for aircraft.

What caused the smoke?