APenNameAndThatA

The setup of the air brakes was really stupid and meant that no one who knew what they were doing was involved, imho. The air brake was close to the centre of mass, which would have made it very unstable.

Also, the brake would have shielded the elevator and subjected it to unpredictable, turbulent air. There is no way of predicting the angle of incidence of wind onto the rudder and elevator.

Lastly, the ballistic chute opened too late. If the (now former) pilot had gotten into the aircraft and not managed to regain control, and didn’t manage to pull the chute, he would  have been killed.    

A clay pan and a salt lake are different things. 

On 25/4/2022 at 10:10 AM, Thruster88 said:

IMHO knowing how to recover from a spin is only useful for pilots who are going to intentionally spin their aircraft. No one accidentally enters a spin during cruise flight when there might be enough height for recovery. Stall spin accidents happen in agricultural ops, initial climb and circuit ops, following engine failure at low level and manoeuvring near rising terrain. In these cases there is nearly always insufficient altitude for a recovery even by the ace of the base, however not flying the aircraft at less than best climb, best glide speed always works. These two speeds are called best because they give the best performance in each case, no need to ever fly slower than 1.4 time stall speed.

The devil is in the details, so they say. The detail here is the space between the stall and the spin. You would not need to be the ace of the base to recover from an incipient spin in 500 ft. 

15 minutes ago, djpacro said:

Forward of neutral - really?

 

Sure, there are some types which will recover from a fully developed spin with controls neutral however many will not. Not true regarding certification requirements eg FAA AC 23-8C.

I thought that in order to be certified, an aircraft needed to recover using PARE. 

On 25/4/2022 at 10:10 AM, Thruster88 said:

IMHO knowing how to recover from a spin is only useful for pilots who are going to intentionally spin their aircraft. No one accidentally enters a spin during cruise flight when there might be enough height for recovery. Stall spin accidents happen in agricultural ops, initial climb and circuit ops, following engine failure at low level and manoeuvring near rising terrain. In these cases there is nearly always insufficient altitude for a recovery even by the ace of the base, however not flying the aircraft at less than best climb, best glide speed always works. These two speeds are called best because they give the best performance in each case, no need to ever fly slower than 1.4 time stall speed.

Well, the guy in the Bonanza video needed to know how to recover from a spin. Also, if you mess up a flat turn turning on to final, you might get to the incipient spin phase quickly, in which case, you are better off leaving the power off (spin recovery) rather than adding power (stall recovery). It's weird, I couldn't make a Decathlon spin trying to imitate a flat turn onto final, but apparently a C172 can bite fast. Entering a spin at 500 ft would not be good, but if you begin to recover you are going to hit the ground slower. If you are losing 1000 fpm when you hit, the vertical component of your crash will only be 20 kph. 

I'm pretty sure it would be a disaster. The main reason that I bought an aircraft and learnt to fly was to land on clay pans, but I have never done it. I imagine that a 4WD running 14 PSI (a low, sand pressure) would sink, so an aircraft running the same pressures would sink and flip over. Being clay, if you did not sink, you would probably pick up a lot of very sticky mud and the stickiness would stop you gaining enough speed to take off. What I most fear is landing in an apparently-dry clay pan and breaking through the crust. You might be able to check the condition of the surface by flaring, going along with your back wheels on clay pan, taking off again, and thinking about it. Disclaimer: no knowledge of that of which I speak. 

What is your technique? I would *really* love to know. 

How about, you are doing power-off stalls, you stall, you spin, and add power because that is how you recover from a stall, can't recover from the spin, and crash? To me, the obvious connection between power on and a spin (6:23), is not a power-on stall, but a stall followed by power on. Weird how the prop was full coarse, but. 

Im pretty sure there is no requirement to put down a deposit - it’s not like it’s a limited edition that will rapidly sell out. I wouldn’t pay a deposit under any circumstances. 

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

No need for the disclaimer; this applies from your first solo. If you have the type of brain that easily remembers little details like that and retain them its not an issue; if the callsign falls out of your memory you need to write it down on the back of your hand if necessary. This procedurepays off when you are receiving rapid and repeated instructions from a very busy tower.

 

Duly noted.

14 hours ago, Roundsounds said:

How do you remember the call signs for each aircraft if you want to call them?

You can call them with the info you do remember. I would not bother with writing down their callsigns. (Disclaimer: I have 168 hrs.) 

39 minutes ago, Geoff_H said:

I thought about the comments about the dreaded thirst of gas turbines. I looked at the power increase required to increase the speed of a Mooney 201.  Let's look at increasing the speed by 50%, to 300mph. Drag increases by the square of the velocity, horsepower is proportional to the product of the speed and the force. Hence to power a 50% increase in speed I must increase the power of the engine by 1.5 raised to the power of 3, around 3.3 times.  The Mooney would need to increase its power from 200hp to 660hp.  Plus whatever drag would increase by owing to increasing main spar strength and up isconsequent weight.  So apart from finding a 660hp piston engine we would probably need to go to a gas turbine.  If it has the same thermal efficiency as the piston engine we are going to burn 3.3 times as much fuel.  For the same range we are going to require increased weight for the extra fuel which will incur more drag  etc etc.  The exercise looks something like a TBM 800, a Mooney designed aircraft.

Speed alone I creases required horse power by dramatic amounts, probably why turbines seem to be very thirsty.

I think turbines have poorer fuel efficiency even when taking power into account.   

I got a Thuraya smartphone. Having different satellites systems AND different phone retailers was confusing.  

On 7/4/2022 at 8:46 PM, onetrack said:

Producing a new small turboprop engine for light aircraft right about now, is the equivalent of producing a new and improved hot air balloon in 1919, as an alternative to powered flight.

 

Now, if it was a 200HP electric motor with a new lightweight battery propelling it to sustained high speeds, then I think the general aviation audience would then have their eyes properly open, and be all ears.

I admire the engineering, but can’t work out why anyone would want one. In a low-inertia aircraft like an LSA, the decrease in safety from the slower throttle response would cause more danger than the increased reliability would provide, IMHO. Disclaimer: I know nothing about turboprop aircraft. 

It would make more sense in a C172, but what’s the point in an exotic C172?  

33 minutes ago, trailer said:

Reading the grant application which is now online it reads to me that if you are an individual with no abn you only qualify for half of the grant, so half of the 50% grant subsidy. It also appears the grant is up for consideration once the device is purchased and installed so wont help with upfront purchase costs. 

Getting an abn takes five minutes, fwiw. 

13 hours ago, Ian said:

The response from ozrunways is fatuous. They don't want to share purely for commercial reasons. Government should simply require that all EFBs share relevant information directly with a Government forwarding service. ie directly from the device in a standard format, not via their processing centres.

• Ozrunways devices gets positioning information from GPS satellites. It comes with a timestamp provided by an atomic clock. So they can send a message with a timestamp, and a vector describing location etc and identification.
• The network delay in a signal being sent back to the provider is less than 50ms (1/20th of a second) assuming that the sender is in Perth and the receiver is in Melbourne or Sydney. ie the worst case network creates a delay of half the time it takes to blink.

It take virtually no time to duplicate and forward messages of this type, it's done all the time in centalised logging systems capable of processing hundreds of thousands of messages a second on commodity hardware which would allow for many years of growth for Australian or US air traffic. It's the processing and sending consolidated updates to users which takes time. This isn't needed by either party, they have their own processing.

The network is unreliable so the messages don't need sent reliably just information like last known location, then a view like the following can be displayed with the last known location.

https://www.lightningmaps.org/#m=oss;t=3;s=0;o=0;b=0.00;ts=0;z=6;y=-37.5968;x=144.0582;d=2;dl=2;dc=0;

 

I like OzRunways, so I didn’t want this to ve true. ☹️

1970’s airbrush art now for big jets. I’m confused about the windscreen. Maybe they cover the whole area and cut out the windscreen after so the vinyl stretches evenly. 

From their news letter. 

"Because a change to the 45-knot stall speed had not been subject to formal public consultation in that paper, we determined that it was appropriate for it to initially remain in place and that a review of the limitation be conducted and consulted with industry."
 

51 minutes ago, onetrack said:

And right there in that statement, is the guaranteed eventual death of OzRunways - just as online newspapers that try to charge you a constant monthly fee just to look at the low-grade, biased, badly edited, reproduced crap they write, will eventually die a slow death.

The newspapers information is largely available for free elsewhere, and no-one likes to pay for "exclusive" information that isn't particularly exclusive at all.

 

Neither Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, Mozilla, or the dozen other leading hosters of internet information and knowledge, keep their information and knowledge secret for the general public.

They found a way to pay for their systems vias ads or voluntary contributions, without charging the users, and accordingly, all these internet giants are worth up to hundreds of billions, and are ubiquitous - and still free for users, and providing those users with information the users desire - and which free information makes the users keep coming back.

I suppose it does suggest a worrying attitude. 

18 hours ago, peterg said:

 Does anyone know the reason why Ozrunways is against the initiative?

 

Seems sensible to me.

 

I asked OzRunways support. The tl;dr of their reply is the last bold paragraph

The longer version is the following email exchange, which also gives more clues. I asked them the following. 

Hi. You know how AvPlan and OzRunways only display traffic from people on the same system? AvPlan says they would trade information but that OzRunways does not want to. Is that true?

The replied the following

Thanks for contacting Support.
OzRunways traffic is our own in-house system that only displays other OzRunways users who are flying, have an internet connection, and have their traffic system switched on. It's a great situational awareness tool but it does have its limitations.
For this reason, we recommend the use of a portable ADS-B in and out device in VFR aircraft. As expected, the Government is investing heavily in ADS-B for VFR aircraft which suggests they are one the same page as us in that ADS-B is the safest option.
https://business.gov.au/grants-and-programs/automatic-dependent-sur...

What we typically recommend is to get a SkyEcho portable ADS-B IN & OUT device. This device is included in the rebate program above.(https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/skyecho.jsp)
Skyecho 2 hooks up to OzRunways, picks up ADS-B OUT signals from other aircraft and displays them just like the regular OzRunways traffic on your map. All IFR aircraft and a growing number of VFR aircraft are ADS-B OUT equipped so you'll notice a receiver like the SkyEcho will allow you to see a lot more traffic.
If your aircraft isn't already ADS-B OUT equipped, the SkyEcho will give you portable ADS-B OUT functionality which means anyone with an ADS-B IN receiver can pick you up too.
The great thing about using an ADS-B receiver is that it doesn't rely on having an internet connection, it picks up signals directly from other aircraft.

Devices capable of portable ADS-B OUT are called Electronic Conspicuity devices and you can read more about that here: https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/airspace/commu...
For a bit of a shorter summary check out our article here: https://ozrunways.tenderapp.com/kb/frequently-asked-questions/skyec...

If your aircraft is already ADS-B OUT equipped you could get something like the uAvionix Ping which is an ADS-B IN receiver only, and therefore a bit cheaper. (https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/ping.jsp)

Let us know if you need further assistance.
Regards,

I asked them 

Are you not allowed to answer my question? It was as follows....

A different person, maybe a more senior one said the following. 

We believe that ADS-B is the way to go. We run and control our own traffic system and will continue to do so at least until ADS-B is ubiquitous. For a host of reasons – reliability and user data privacy being the big ones – we are not looking to make our traffic data available externally.
For all the reasons [redacted by me, not that it's a secret] mentioned above we typically point people in the direction of ADS-B devices, fixed or portable as appropriate.

So, I asked them

How would sharing your data decrease reliability? 

"Traffic is one of those things where you want the data to be as up-to-date as possible. Looking at a traffic icon that is 20-30 seconds or more behind its actual location is not particularly useful. Sending and receiving data through more servers etc. introduces more latency and the end result is traffic symbols that have some unknown amount of delay in them.
This is just another reason we recommend ADS-B – signals are transmitted & received directly by the hardware in the aircraft meaning it's about as instantaneous as you can get, and it doesn't rely on any internet or cellular connectivity."

My own view is that knowing where someone was a mile ago is better than nothing when out and about and even in the circuit, but could still cause confusion in the circuit. My loyalty to OzRunways is unabated. 

6 hours ago, turboplanner said:

What counts after a crash is what each pilot was required to do. The rest is just 

https://youtu.be/ZNB77IdgLjQ

IMHO, they should keep RPT traffic above 3500 feet if they are not within 10 miles of an airport. Furthermore, if there are VFR corridors printed on VFR maps then there could be IFR corridors printed on VFR maps, too. The corridors could start at 6000, and change pattern at 3000, and people to interpolate to work out where the RPT traffic would be. Of course, greater minds than mine would have thought about this.   

3 hours ago, aro said:

If you are relying on the "clear of cloud" provisions below 3000' (rather than the cloud clearances required above 3000') you are required to have a radio and be on the appropriate frequency.

What about if you are in a tiger moth with no electrical system? (Not a rhetorical question.)   

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

My new jabiru 230 came with a zaon radar anti-collision system, and it appears to work ok. Now it is a really cheap setup, I'm sure that an airline could do a lot better.

Why on earth do they not use something like this? Especially if they were going to operate outside of CTA...   and what about soaring birds? I can imagine a flock of pelicans putting engines out.

 

zaon seems to have stopped trading in 2013