APenNameAndThatA

I seldom make radio calls at my home field. I know there are pilots there who will not use the required area frequency and others who do use it. So I have to monitor and call on two frequencies, not possible with the Icom I have.We are also right alongside a discrete CTAF, which is another frequency an RPT regularly goes over at less than 5000' on its descent. I also don't want to clog up area frequency with calls and most importantly I can see what is happening.Mandating radio use would be stupid for small strips, such as I fly from.

I forgot to mention: how do you know that you see all the airplanes?

 

 

I seldom make radio calls at my home field. I know there are pilots there who will not use the required area frequency and others who do use it. So I have to monitor and call on two frequencies, not possible with the Icom I have.We are also right alongside a discrete CTAF, which is another frequency an RPT regularly goes over at less than 5000' on its descent. I also don't want to clog up area frequency with calls and most importantly I can see what is happening.Mandating radio use would be stupid for small strips, such as I fly from.

You didn't really make any valid argument. You should use the correct frequency. Just because you can't use two frequencies does not mean that you should not use one. (This is called making the perfect the enemy of the good.) Clog up? Is the radio so busy that it will be clogged up?

 

Re: "and most importantly, I can see what is happening". This is the most laughable of your comments, not the most important. You don't make radio calls because of what you can/cannot see. You make radio calls for other people.

 

 

anyone who thinks everyone should use a radio shouldn't be aloud to fly!

 

 

 

I think radios are a very important and useful tool but I think that there certainly should be allowances made for people to fly without them if they so desire, obviously not at every aerodrome but I think the current rules for radios are sufficient.

As a compromise, I'd settle for mandatory ADS-B and with cockpit traffic display. There! A compromise! All it takes is some communication. That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

 

To quote your recovery technique:- opposite rudder

- stick forward

 

- wait

 

- recover

 

To be fair its commonly taught by poorly trained instructors, as their spin entry is often from straight and level flight with the power off. This entry is completely unrealistic and promotes incorrect recovery techniques. I find a shallow climbing turn with partial power is much more effective, I take control of the rudder whilst the student is directed to maintain a particular pitch attitude and bank angle whilst I'm gradually increasing bottom turn rudder.

 

There are a few essential actions you must perform before opposite rudder etc:

 

- close the throttle

 

- neutralise the ailerons

 

- identify the direction of rotation

 

Also, you progressively apply elevator input to unstall the wings, this may require back stick if you're in an inverted spin. As soon as the rotation ceases you must centre the rudder, if you don't there's a chance of spinning in the opposite direction.

 

These recovery actions are pretty much universal, but you must apply the recovery technique as described by the aircraft manufacturer. The Piper Tomohawk had a particular method of elevator input described in its AFM.

Those are good points.

 

 

You got three agrees, but your comment just seems dumb. Spin. Opposite rudder. Stick forward. Wait. Pull out. I'm pretty sure that you can do that without training.

Good luck with that, in some aircraft you'd find yourself in an inverted spin with control inputs you've described.A docile old C172 will behave very differently with 4 POB and some baggage (ie CofG nearer the aft limit)

Like I've said earlier - proper training required, seems like you've got just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

I said that I planned to get spin training. My comment was in response to your assertion that people (I) would not be able to recover from a spin unless trained. I have no intention to practice spins with no training, or even without an instructor. To interpret my comments otherwise is silly.

 

 

Hi

 

I am about to purchase an Aeroprakt A22LS Foxbat Kelpie. Comes with the 100 hp Rotax and can be optioned with fuel injection. My question is what engine choice to make and what options to get. My main priority is to reduce pilot workload and have high reliability and safety. Having high performance and/or low fuel consumption is not important. Having to use carb heat is an anathema to me (!#$@ it's 2017 $!@#$). The operating conditions will be low humidity and temps -2 to 45 C, but it could move anywhere in Australia, which includes tropics I suppose in the future. I expect it will be VH registered but will have glass cockpit so should not need a vacuum pump, but I might just be ignorant about that.

 

I expect I will get the model without manual carburetor heat. Fuel injection does not seem to be worth it if it weighs 7kg more, and delivers about 7% increase in fuel economy (just carry 7kg fuel in a jerry can). But if it was a 30% increase in fuel economy then that *might* be different.

 

Do I need a bigger oil radiator? Coolant overflow bottle? What about these thermostats people keep adding?

 

Thanks. And Thanks for reading the long post.

 

P.S. duplicate post from Rotax Owners.

 

 

I have started a new thread on this as I think to further the discussion on the thread that it is currently being discussed on is inappropriate. But this is obviously a topic that does require further discussion.I read in several forums here about the need for spin training.

 

Now within RAA are aircraft are neither approved to spin nor probably in most cases tested for it.

 

In the normal day to day flying that we as RAA Certificate holders do why is there a need for spin training.

 

It is unlikely that I would have completed my training if there was a requirement to spin.

 

I do no go on amusement rides that can turn me upside down and as such would not go on a joyflight that could do the same. In fact I have never been in an aircraft that can do aerobatics and am not likely to do so.

 

So is the "perceived" requirement to learn to spin/recover based on the possibility that I may one day inadvertently enter into a spin in an aircraft not suited to it nor tested to it. If that is the case is there some huge hole in my training that could allow me to do something I am not ready for, or is it only likely to happen if I start pushing the envelope.

 

This may seem obvious to some, but to me it seems totally contradictory.

Well, I froze at the controls of a 4WD once, and I don't want that to happen in an airplane. Plus, I'm scared of heights. So I think I HAVE to do spin training, IMHO.

 

 

Spin recovery training is only useful for pilots completing an aerobatic endorsement. Should a non aerobatic pilot inadvertently enter a spin, they will have little chance of recovering. Having said that, spin awareness training is a must - all pilots should learn the likely causes of inadvertent spin entry and taken to that point just prior to entry and taught to recover at that point. The most common stall / spin accidents occur in the circuit and usually below 1000' AGL, a competent aerobatic pilot would be doing well to recover from that height let alone a non aerobatic pilot. Slow flight / stall recovery training is generally very poorly taught in current flight training.

You got three agrees, but your comment just seems dumb. Spin. Opposite rudder. Stick forward. Wait. Pull out. I'm pretty sure that you can do that without spin training, particularly in an aircraft that did not snap into rapid spins but spun more reluctantly, like a C172. Actually, I might even put your theory to the test - see if I can recover from a spin before any training at the start of my spin training.

 

Also, there is training and there is training. You could do a lot of theory and visualisation and mental rehearsal, and even move the aircraft control, and practice on a simulator without ever actually spinning an actual aircraft.

 

 

Well, I have only about 25 hrs in total, but here is my $0.02.

 

The thing to practice is stalling turning from base to final. Except at 4000 ft. Turning from base to final is where the aircraft is closest to stalling and where one is tempted to do extra to get the runway lined up and might even be most tempted to show off. My limited understanding is that practicing stalls doing a 30 to 45 degree bank means that you are practicing spins. The value in doing this would not be recovery from the spin, because you can't. The value in this would recognising when it is happening, and making sure you prevent it from happening.

 

The flipside of this is that aircraft reviewers always bang on about how docile an aircraft's stall is. Who cares? The problem will be if the aircraft stalls when it is not level. They should shut up, because people might think that a stall while turning will also be "docile". That is not a good thing to tell people.

 

 

I understand the need to keep the weight down, but that means your life depends on one or two little bolts.I'm starting to appreciate the one-piece box spar of my Jodel.

Apparently, no 172 has ever broken up in normal flight. ? truth.

 

 

I use an air horn like this when I as spotting for my son using a chainsaw.

 

Amazon.com : SeaSense Large Air Horn, 8oz : Boat Horns : Sports & Outdoors

 

Aeroprakt has a variation of the Foxbat A22LS called the Kelpie. It is fitted with a mustering horn (electric) and a UHF radio. The hundredth Foxbat was delivered in Australia ? a couple of years ago.

 

 

And for the best video.....

 

Like my Dad always used to say, "There's nothing more useless than the sky above you and the tanker deck behind you."

 

 

It comes up pretty quickly if you Google A22LS and look at images, but still.

 

Aircraft HZ-ASA1 (2011 Aeroprakt A22LS Foxbat C/N 051) Photo by Odai Ayyad (Photo ID: AC967937)

 

Tried uploading but got an error.

 

 

A big block of training brings a lot of people unstuck down the track.It's quite possible that you will go through without any crosswinds or without any gusts, or without any unpredictable weather patterns and so on.

That is a good point.

 

 

Hi, hoping to pick your collective wisdom, please. I intend to train full time (hopefully for only a few weeks) to at least get a basic RA-Aus certificate or RPL. I intend to get pretty much all of the theory out of the way first, and maybe also the exams. If I do that, how many hours will I be able to safely/productively fly (solo/dual) a day? That question cannot be answered. So, instead I wonder, how many hours per day would the average person be able to manage? How many hours would 90% of people be able to manage?

 

Also, how many days/weeks would it take for the average person to get each of the qualifications? How many days/weeks would be enough for 90% of people to get a basic qualifications?

 

Thank you in anticipation of your answers. I have looked on the web and could find no answers. Naturally, it is an important question for planning.

 

 

People go for the cheapest air fares too. it's ONLY your life so don't let that worry you. Pretend they are all as safe as each other, but don't make a fuss if you are wrong. Likewise if a flying school does the right thing it has to cost a bit more or they go out of business. Of course it doesn't mean the dearest is the best but it would be odd if the cheapest was. Same with red wine. Nev

Economists have a term for goods where the purchaser is unable to tell the quality of the goods. An example would be getting your car serviced. You have no way of knowing if the dealer did ANY of the things they say they did. You can only infer from indirect things like cleanliness and politeness, and cost. Apparently economists have another term, for where if something is more expensive it is perceived as better. So, if you raise the price of Scotch you are selling, you might actually sell more. That is a reason not to lower prices to try and increase turnover. In the light of those two things, which may, and may not apply here, is there evidence that cheaper flying schools are less safe? I am not saying that there is not, BTW.

 

 

You could, or you could broadcast from the ground, but I don't think people who will haul up a paraglider with a quad bike would really be compliantThe other aspect of this is whether the line was more than 500 ft long, or what height the aircraft was cruising at.

Both excellent points. If fear is what drives compliance, you could pretty much guarantee "noncompliance".

 

 

It looks like the aircraft is quite a way below him, so the pilot may only have had the cable in the screen apertureAs for the paraglider rising; it looks like he was tethered, so may have been up there viewing the scenery for hours.

Here's the Youtube video:

 

Can't you carry a hand-held radio to let people know what you are doing?

 

 

Can somebody just put the mechatronics in a C150, and call it a 1:1 C152 RC aircraft, and just be done with it. Or, make a really big C150 four metres high and call it a 2:1 C152 RC aircraft.

 

 

Without dissing what has already been said, nobody should be allowed to fly without a radio and/or without using the radio.

 

 

Doesn't it depend on what the rules are for that airspace? Maybe they should get a radio and use it. Otherwise, comfort yourself that you died and it was not your fault.

 

 

When I was paying $120.00 an hour to rent the club Archer II the cost with an instructor was $140. Flight briefing and debriefing was part of the cost and only hours from the Hobbs meter were charged. This was GA not RA. If schools are going to keep attracting new people to get into aviation then charging over $300 an hour for RA is not going to cut it. I did my RA conversion 18 months ago with some at $150 an hour & the balance at $200 an hour. I don't have a problem of someone wanting a ROI but if they price themselves out of the market the ROI will disappear.

You are not self-employed, are you?

 

 

Any instructor who is charging $100.00 an hour for his time has a vastly over inflated opinion of his real worth in the world & anyone who pays this is nuts.

-1.

 

 

Hire and fly for a Jabiru 170 at Gawler is $150 an hour.And Ian007, are you saying that the non-Jabiru aircraft come with a reliability guarantee? Wow.

Please keep the straw men away. I am prone to hay fever.

 

 

Luckily the airframe on a jabiru is actually quite good and capable of handling a rough landing better than an Abrams tank

I don't think that even a Jabiru would be able to handle an Abrams tank.