Powerin

True I guess. But if you started from that design parameter you would be behind the eight ball as far as power/weight was concerned wouldn't you? You *usually* don't need rated power at 5000 with carb heat on do you? You would be compromising on power/weight ratio in an attempt to get 100% power in a situation where it is rarely needed. I remember early in my training being shocked to find (coming from a farming background) that the wheel bearings of the plane I was flying were unsealed....until I realised that wheel bearings are one of the least used items on an aircraft. Please note I know very little about aero engines and design and this thread is great for learning despite the black magic that often seems to be invoked

Wouldn't this also warm the air, lowering the density and therefore engine power (in the same way that carby heat does)?

Great post! I know its a joke, but as a farmer I can answer the farm visit thing. Many very nasty animal diseases, some of which we don't have in Oz or in NZ, can hide in the soil. Anthrax is a good example. Its spores can live dormant in the soil for decades. The most likely place for you to find these infected soils is on a farm. A tiny bit of soil left on your shoes after a visit to a farm in another country could cause an epidemic that could decimate agriculture in you own country. We really, really need to know if you might have contaminated soil on your shoes or clothes.

Yes, we all know it's a joke. But step back and look at it from the other side of the airport fence. Next time you go to a major airport flying RPT, strike up a conversation with your fellow passengers about airport security (without telling them you are a pilot). You'll soon find that the average punter is somewhat nervous about airports and flying. They PERCEIVE that airport security and checks on all pilots and staff are a "Good Thing" because they think it will keep them safer in the air. The average politician probably thinks that way too. Until we change those perceptions politicians and the general public are not going to care one bit if it costs a few pilots $160-180 and half an hour's paperwork every two years. That argument is not going to wash with them, nor is signing internet petitions. We need to come up with rational arguments, with reasons why it is a burden for Australia and the economy, and examples of hardship caused. Unfortunately I haven't been able to think of any yet. I wouldn't make too big a deal out of no one bothering to check ASICs either. Once word of that gets to the right ears we will have a directive coming down from above for airport security to be tightened even further. That's the last thing we want...more self-important security nazis roaming airports!

Hi Russ, the longest forecast models are Extended GFS and some of these go out to 16 days. Elders weather will get you some of these for free, but Weatherzone (where Elders get their info) offers more if you pay for the Silver membership. A quick and easy guide to weather out to 14 days can be found here. It is a simple map of expected rainfall in blocks of 1-7 days and 7-14 days. It's good for a simple overview of what may happen. For a very comprehensive (information overload) forecast map try this one from the UK Weather Online. This has rainfall and surface pressure forecasts out to 16 day in 3 hour intervals. Many other parameters are available: wind, temperature, freezing levels, even convection forecasts such as Lifted Indices (Thunderstorms) and Soaring forecasts (I assume for gliders?). You can also choose other forecast models besides GFS. Not all forecasts are out to 16 days. You can animate the maps using the Loop button. As others have said, I have found forecasts past 7 days are a rough guide at best, but GFS models are not too bad at rainfall predictions.

That's where the third party insurance included with your membership comes in. You are covered for up to $250,000 for a claim against you by a passenger (which isn't a lot when you think about it).

No problems. That's completely legal! As long as you equally (or less) share the costs with the pax and you don't use the flight to make money. If you have the warning placards you have satisfied the rules too and RAAus have a photo of them to prove that they are there.

No Bill, nong doesn't advertise his TIFs as scenic rides. As far as I know he does the right thing and makes money within the rules. Most schools do. Those few that do bend/break the rules are just going to make things worse for everybody else. There is far more danger of schools becoming unviable from ever increasing regulations because of a few that are trying to take advantage. Someone has died doing a TIF. Questions will be asked. CASA is already keeping a close eye on RAAus, do we really want to poke the hornets nest? There's a whole lot of rules I could bend or break to make more money too. But I doubt you would like me to be using illegal chemicals on my crops or livestock, that you may eat one day, for example? Deepest apologies to nong if he takes offence at me using him as an example.

It's not that you yourself might get sued. It is the ramifications to you of anyone getting sued. The death has occurred of an overseas tourist whilst on a TIF. (If I were a coroner that would be raising a few question marks for a start) The school involved ADVERTISED "Scenic TIFs". (The plot thickens) A coroner WILL get involved. I'm willing to bet someone will get sued. If a coroner or judge rules that the flight was an illegal joyflight because of the word scenic, or that many flights conducted by the school were not really TIFs, what will happen? Perhaps increased audits on all schools, more onerous maintenance schedules, more instructor training, further restrictions on TIFs and increased red tape? Does any CFI here want that? There have been those here bemoaning all the regulations we have been subjected to. Regulations, especially in aviation, are often introduced as a response to deaths. If you don't want further regulation, you need to at least be seen to be playing by the existing rules. Nong, I once took a TIF with you. In it you walked me through many aspects of flying, you showed me the primary and secondary effects of controls. You let me take control. You even showed me how to find the wind direction from ripples on dams. It was great...I got a lot of joy out of the flight! If that's the way you conduct all your TIFs then you have absolutely nothing to worry about!

All I am saying is that if it is a flight for profit then it must be a TIF (or training). You don't call it anything else. You don't represent or promote it as anything else to the potential customer. You take a passenger up in the left seat with the intention of introducing them to flying. You have then fulfilled your legal obligations in order to make a profit from the flight (in RAAus) If a passenger uses it as a joyflight, fine! If the customer figures out for themselves this is a cheap way to get a flight over their house or whatever, fine! The customer is going in with their eyes open and know what they are getting. It is not up to you how your customer is using the TIF, nor is it your responsibility.....as long as you conduct the flight as an introduction to flying. My only issue is using the word "scenic" (or anything else) to promote a TIF.

Because you aren't allowed to take people for paid "joy flights" in RAAus. The ONLY commercial activity allowed is training. All paid flights in RAAus must be instructional, trial or otherwise. And that's where the play on words comes in. TIFs are starting to be called "Scenic TIFS". Can an instructional flight be promoted and advertised as scenic? I think most here thought that was fine and that it was OK for a school to try and make as much money as they could. I'm probably stupid for thinking otherwise. It's all great when things go well. The school makes money and the customer is happy. But my reason for starting this thread was what happens when the proverbial hits the fan and deaths are involved? Will a Coroner and a Judge think a "Scenic TIF" is within the bounds of the law? Perhaps they will. The play on words was my worry. If it's a trial instructional flight then that's what you call it, because that's all you are allowed to do in RAAus. The general public also needs to know that that's exactly they are getting when they sign up for a ride.....sorry, instructional flight. They are NOT getting a joyflight with a properly registered company, in a certified aircraft maintained to commercial standards, with a commercially trained and licensed pilot.

Welcome along to you too Harry. Don't worry about the rough and tumble of forum discussion. We may not always agree, but many of the posters here write with a great deal of experience, research and wisdom (such as the likes of Don and Kaz). Sometimes that may come across as unfriendly, but there is a great deal to be learnt if you keep an open mind. Always feel free to jump in to the discussion and contribute your own wisdom!

Canberra median property price = $588,000 Caboolture median property price = $300,000 Wagga Wagga median property price = $330,000 Griffith median property price = $255,000 (housing)

Is where the members live all that important? How many members have any need to visit RAAus? Having said that, there was mention previously of the symbolic. There is something to be said for having an organisation based in its heartland, a place that members can identify with and can call a home, even if it costs more money. Having RAAus based in an industrial suburb in Canberra is something akin to having Surfing Australia based in Griffith. Even if it makes operational sense to have RAAus in Canberra, perhaps there are less tangible but more important advantages (even if they are perceived ones) in having it based in a more recreational aviation friendly place. If it is important, from memory Caboolture Qld has the biggest concentration of members, followed (surprisingly to me) by Wagga Wagga NSW. With a board that only meets face to face twice a year they wouldn't even need to meet at HQ. They could hold meetings at any number of hotels in any major city with meeting facilities and accommodation on site. Even better I would wager any number of flying clubs around Australia would be happy to organise and host the occasional board meeting. Finally, just a gentle reminder to those that think a shift to a regional area is fraught with staffing difficulties.... nearly 7 million of us live outside capital and major cities in Australia. Despite the terrible disadvantages of this we still manage to find housing, jobs and staff with expertise to run our businesses and even keep ourselves fed and entertained. At the same time we also manage to produce 67% of Australia's exports. So perhaps a small organisation like the RAAus could also be run successfully in a regional area.

Well, I don't know about anybody else, but despite woeful coverage, first order of today was to check the weather and plan around it. Then today I was able to use this science fiction and quickly take advantage of the troubles in the Ukraine and sell the last $15K of wheat I had left to sell for a bit more money. Yep...believe it or not, the Ukraine is a big wheat exporter and a major competitor to Aussie wheat...hence a big spike in wheat prices over the past couple days. Prices were checked, decisions made, contracts signed and wheat sold...quickly, and all on line. Then got a call from my livestock agent and I happened to be feeding the cattle he wanted to talk about. So I was standing next to the cattle and was able to tell him about them. Of course today on my smart phone I was also checking the availability of a tractor tyre that got a steel spike though it yesterday (I'm not making this up ) We have crap Internet and mobile coverage, and we will be the last in Australia to get decent coverage (if ever) but despite that it is a vital part of today's farming business. It's also good for checking METARs, TAFs and NOTAMs

Thanks Motz. Food for thought. And yes, I understand that a spin depends on at least one wing being stalled. I also understand there are very few absolutes in flying...except that a wing will definitely stall at a certain AoA. My take from what you have said is that the consequences, in your experience, of overdoing picking up a wing with rudder can be more violent than doing nothing. That's exactly what I was after...real world experience. Of course, this will vary from plane to plane and from situation to situation (disclaimer for you Motz ).

Thanks Motz. But theoretical or not, I'm not going to blindly do what any instructor says without researching the rationale or science behind it. Many instructors seem to invoke a fair bit of black magic in flying. The idea of stopping an asymmetric stall with rudder appears correct to me from what I have read and my meagre knowledge of aerodynamics, but I have little flying experience to back it up. And I'm not about to explore spins from stalls on my own. So my questions still stand and you can answer them from your experience....but I know you hate to make definitive statements in a forum What happens if you don't correct a wing drop in a stall but just recover normally (stick forward and power)? Have you ever experienced auto-rotation from an uncorrected wing drop in a stall? Have you ever experienced an opposite auto-rotation from trying to correct a wing drop with rudder? I'm all for risk management and weighing up the odds. I guess what I'm trying to find out is if the risks of picking up the wing with rudder are greater than risks of doing nothing with the rudder in a stall.

OK...would anyone else care to comment on this statement? I was certainly taught to "pick up" a dropping wing in a stall with the rudder. The rationale being that you are in an asymmetric stall and to allow the wing drop to continue could lead to a spin. You can't use ailerons because that will increase the AoA of the low wing and deepen the stall. So you use rudder to stop the yaw while simultaneously getting the stick forward and power on. I have read the same procedure in books that I consider authoritative...including Noel Kruse's books mentioned above, so I have no reason to doubt what my instructor taught me. If I were to follow Dafydd's advice and not try to arrest an asymmetric stall and wing drop with rudder, but simply recover with stick forward, what would happen? A wing drop is the pre-cursor to an incipient spin is it not?

I wonder what the record is for the maximum time taken to resurrect old threads here? And I'm with Oscar...I nearly sprayed red wine and Stilton all over my keyboard when The Rat claimed unintelligentsia status

I not sure of the answer, but when out in the sticks don't forget the aggies, fireys, surveyors, powerline inspectors etc that might be flying around and using bush strips. They'll usually be below 500ft, but I'd be making a call on the area frequency when using a strip outside a CTAF, just in case.

Far be it from me to defend the media....but let's take another esoteric subject that perhaps only a few of you know about. Let's say a farmer gets killed by getting caught up in the machinery of a grain harvester. The media reports it as a red CaseIH harvester. Be honest....how many of you would know, or even care, if the file footage they showed was a red Massey Ferguson harvester? To me I know what each brand of harvester looks like. To most of you, and the general public, a harvester is a harvester and you probably wouldn't know if a cotton picker was shown instead. To the general public a plane is a plane except if it's a big one that makes a roaring sound or a littler one that makes a droning sound.

Off topic, and I've said it before....but this just doesn't work. Nothing would ever get done or issues would not be discussed properly if board members were afraid that everything they said would become public. In a board meeting matters need to be fleshed out, things get said in the heat of the moment, sometimes libelous things may be said to make a point, personal matters are raised, people play devils advocate to examine both sides of the argument, all of which needs to happen to reach an informed decision, but could be misinterpreted if it became public. If our board needed to discuss a matter about difficulties with a certain member and his/her name was DrZoos, would you really want all those discussions to become public? Who is to say what is confidential and what is not? When board members of any organisation shoot off at the mouth with their own versions of what happened in a board meeting it nearly always ends badly. As much as we would like to know the gory details, and as much as we might think it is our right to know, it is just a bad idea.

Yes, I knew where to find it and read it several times before posting anything here. But who can tell how old the document is? Has it been revised since this alleged decision was made? I totally agree with everything else you said. But the problem is as Motz has said....it all doesn't add up. In this case it probably doesn't matter, but one would like to hope that if an issue that does seriously affect members comes up that we are informed of it in less than two months. Proper policies and procedures would ensure this and I hope RAAus is working towards towards putting some in place.

I understand your sentiments here Kev, but I think this thread is an example of the NEED for board confidentiality. The channels of communication from any organisation need to be managed carefully to avoid confusing and potentially damaging information being spread. The breakdown in communication is entirely the fault of the GM in this case. It is not the job of a board member to communicate operational things like this to the membership and things often go badly if they do. It is, however, the job of the Board to keep an eye on the actions of a GM, and also his official communications, to make sure what he is doing is in line with the board's intentions. In this case the board should censure the GM for the lack of timeliness of his letter and make sure it doesn't happen again. And with the greatest of respect to Maj, Board members need to get their facts straight before making information public. This takes time and work so it is perhaps understandable that board members don't communicate often using forums like this.

Maj, you really need to get your story straight, for your own sake. You or the GM have the wrong end of the stick. It is very clearly stated in the GMs letter that FTFs were covered but no longer are covered, dating back to October, due to a decision by the board. You have said here two conflicting things...that FTFs were never covered, and previously that the decision to end cover was never made by the Board. If Motz is unsuccessful in seeing the minutes perhaps you better have a look at them and see exactly what decisions were made and whether the GM is acting in line with those decisions. Either way, changing an insurance policy to delete some RAAus stakeholders and exposing them to liability (if indeed that is what has happened) without telling them for two months is very poor form. The GM's argument that nobody knew about the cover anyway is no excuse. A claim against any FTF who believed they were covered when they were not could have ruined them for life.