Ada Elle

According to the CEO, if you called yourself Professor Avius, they would assume that you were male because they assume all pilots are male.

RAAus: run by men for men.

The website assumes that everyone who isn't a Miss, Ms, or Mrs, is male.

but, what do you expect from an organisation that thinks that women aren't actually interested in aviation.

Dieselten your opinion on this shocks me...that somehow people who choose chutes need cognitive behaviour therapy to know when to pull the handle... i take your point that they should pull and pull early, but its a big jump to think they all need CBT to achieve this...

The plural of anecdote is not data, but in this case the data apparently exists.

This very case illustrates that some pilots will want to fly the plane to the site of the crash rather than pulling the chute.

Hitting a bit of cumulus granitus in a spin is likely to cause breakup.

The Cirrus was fitted with a BRS because it could not meet the FAR23 spin recovery requirements. Fairly much analogous with stating that a car can't meet the standard braking requirements, so it has extra airbags fitted so as not to cause - potentially - more injuries to its occupants than a car with an effective braking system.

putting in airbags to pass the moose test would be fine by me, unlikely to ever see a moose, but grateful for extra airbags in case I ever get hit by a truck.

Oh my.

I now have dreams of a RV9 (not 9A) with a 915. If only the USD wasn't so strong...

I've been cleared for HS2 after requesting HS1. I'm told that it depends on the runways in use at YSSY at the time.

Basic conversions: 1m/s = 2 kt = 200fpm.

What sort of gyros do the uncertified AHRS systems use? Casual googling suggests that they're rate gyros which are integrated and EKFed to get rid of drift etc.... how well would they work in an unusual attitude situation?

What happens when the gyros feeding the autopilot tumble?

you can request an exit onto V1 from HS1; it means you don't have to go all the way back to longreef, instead you go to manly and head south.

not that long way around - up the lane to hornsby, turn for the coast, ask for clearance, then south, turn west at stanwell park.

pretty pleasant trip from camden.

Including the part attached to the chute! It could be argued you pull the chute as soon as you start to lose control in cloud. Or even better don't get in there in the first place.

The part attached to the chute is a kevlar cockpit frame.

reached 240 kts (445 km/h) indicated airspeed when the crew began to recover the extreme nose-down inverted attitude.

You've flown 50% past Vne. You can't trust any part of the airframe to still be there.

The wings on that plane are removable, so the BRS cannot be attached to them.

The real question is, why did they not activate the BRS when the ASI hit Vne+20%? You know you're in trouble at that point, you know that you might hit some cumulus granitus at any time... pull the chute before the wings come off!

Also, that report doesn't say if the dive brakes were activated.

(When I flew a Pipistrel with a chute into the oaks a couple of months back I initiated the discussion of: when inadvertently IMC, when do you pull the chute? My answer was: immediately once you are below LSALT or above Vne.)

The point here is that the MTOW limitation is not structural but related to stall speed and therefore has little to do with safety as being implied.Without doubt its the rules we operate under and breaking them is illegal. Thats a different debate to it being unsafe.

The details discussed provides basis for the push for altering stall/MTOW limitation currently in place to something more appropriate.

I'm now very confused about the Jabiru speeds.

Vs1 is 53KCAS; Va is 102KIAS (or 97-98 KCAS according to Jabiru's tables). They mention that stall speed is reduced with aft CoG (supporting Oscar's statement about elevator authority) but not by how much. 97KCAS/sqrt(3.8) is 50KCAS, which sounds pretty reasonable for Vs at full aft CoG.

However, I thought that the reason that Va is related to Vs is so that the aircraft will stall before it breaks. If Vs is not an aerodynamic stall speed in this instance, does this calculation for Va still apply?

Also, we had the discussion that higher weight == higher stall speed == more chance of stall/spin on turn final == less safety.

My guess is that Jabiru management saw the available standards, picked whichever one was easiest and cheapest to get to market in the most markets available, and went for it. The second guess would be that, even if Jabiru could meet the stall speed etc standards of FAR23, that meeting the rest of the standard would have been Too Hard.

I don't know if CASA ever went through with having a full set of CASR Part 26 standards - the CASR are fairly lacking in that section. I've taken the MTOW and stall speed from 21.024 as the Primary Category limits.

If elevator authority limits the steady state level flight speed of Jabirus, why not re-test them at a higher MTOW and restricted CoG range? (with a loading chart to represent the allowable CoG and weight limits).

Tiniest of squares of masking tape. Easy to remove.

They ran the flight tests - how else do you think they were certified to CS-VLA?

The 160C is certified in the Primary Category, which allows for up to 61kt stall speed, and 1225kg. That Jabiru did not elect to increase the MTOW despite the certification category allowing for it is telling.

(Again, there are reasons for this that I can hazard a guess at.)

Jabiru certified the 160C under CS-VLA which has a 750kg class maximum limit, but the aircraft itself only has 540kg. So, in VH guise, the J160C is still limited to 540kg (under VA515 - I don't know if there is a later certification). This is not a CASA requirement - Jabiru themselves have elected to use the 540kg MTOW, for their own reasons (which I can hazard a guess at).

Also, be wary - CAR 235 prescribes 50 penalty units for flying overweight, but I'm not sure if flying overweight violates CAO 95.55 (in which case it would be up to 2yrs in prison for flying an RAAus rego plane overweight).

Definitely not advice. The only advice I can give is to read Noel Kruse's book series (Fly Better) as a way of broadening your aviation thinking.

On the other hand, I don't think that you need to discuss absolutely everything with an instructor - I tried the dot technique after I had gotten my pilot cert, but before I did my nav training, and then I encountered a plane with the dot in it (and an instructor who had read those books). If you don't have the knowledge and experience to try this technique safely after you've done your RPC flight test, then I think there's potentially something remiss with your training.

yes, it's 20.9.

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011C00687

(I don't know why I wrote 20.4.)

Owning the hangar and all the planes in it is not an excuse under CAO 20.4, although whether 20.4 applies to ALAs (as opposed to ADs) is unclear.

SRFC uses a hand rotary pump for mogas in drums. I don't remember how many litres in the drums.

Try the Noel Kruse dot technique. There is a visual illusion with all planes when you sit in the left seat; Jabs might or might not be worse because of dash and engine/cowling features. Point the aircraft at something in the distance, and on the horizon. Put a dot with a whiteboard marker on the windscreen where that thing is. When landing, make sure the dot is down the end of the runway.

I like wing down, but you should learn all cross wind techniques and decide what works for you. Also, I prefer to go wing down from the start of the turn final, rather than around the time of roundout - then you can have a properly stabilised approach down final.

Well, I started on circuits in the first lesson after the TIF, but doing circuits covers effects of controls, S&L, climbing, descending, climbing and descending turns, all in the one routine.

Going solo without circuit and other emergencies, though, is fraught with danger.

(Emergencies should be: stall, incipient spin, engine failure after takeoff and in the circuit, and fire)

I must have done at least thirty mock engine failure glide approaches in the circuit before going solo.

kasper, I want to operate there (and out of there). I'm trying to convince myself that it's legal.

if you read CASA 292/14 it says that Jabiru-engined aircraft (all, not only 95.55) are banned from bankstown because they cannot glide free. That's the note at the bottom of my quote. It has nothing to do with 95.55

CASA have given a ruling about Jabiru-engined aircraft. (glide free and over 1000' unless takeoff/landing)

CAO 95.55 has a slightly differently worded rule - it says "must not be" rather than "is only permitted".

DrZoos, yourself, and others have given an interpretation of 95.55 that is the same as the Jabiru ruling: (glide free and over 1000' unless takeoff/landing).

My question is, if CASA have said glide free and over 1000' means no bankstown (see 292/14), how does this interpretation of 95.55 allow any 95.55 aircraft to go into bankstown?

or, could I ask anyone who has flown a RAAus aircraft into / out of Bankstown, how they interpret 95.55 7.1?

all I'm after is to convince myself that, armed with an RPL and controlled airspace endorsements, going to Bankstown/Moorabbin and renting a 24-rego Foxbat or Tecnam is legal. that would make the drive to go fly a lot shorter! (and once hired, going through the lane, and asking for clearance for Harbour Scenic One - again, flying over massive stretches of urban tiger country).

(I think it is, but your arguments are making me concerned that my interpretation which permits this, is incorrect.)