Gravity

Gravity, I didn't say VMC(a) is blue line speed I said it's above VMC (a) I try to keep stuff here as simple as possible when people are not directly involved in it. I'm only trying to state a principle of CONTROL( basically directional) and "performance" and respond to the fairly widespread belief a twin won't fly on one engine.. Nev

Anyway as I mentioned earlier this subject is beyond the scope of this thread really.

Saying a twin with one out won't get you much further than the accident site is not really true of modern twins. The max take off weight for a particular aerodrome, on a particular day is predicated on making a minimum (specified and very minimal ) climb angle or meeting the gradient needed to clear obstacles on the particular departure flight path.It covers failure right at V1 (decision speed) the worst situation. Getting the plane to be manageable requires it be flown at or above VMC (a) (sometimes known as blue line speed). it's a control speed figure.( Rudder effectiveness). Next you have a severe power deficit, so clean the plane up and get it to climb. It will just do it if you get it spot on if you are on limit weight.

Once you are in cruise and have burned off some fuel, an inflight shut down is not much of a drama. You won't Normally) need full power on the remaining engine though you would prudently sit high on the entire approach profile, (just like you would do on an Ultralight) Your available cruise height will be lower (just like your Thruster with a BIG pax on a hot day).. Twins ARE better over Oceans and Tiger country.. ALL engines CAN fail. and need fuel in them. good hoses for coolant, fuel lines and spark plug leads that stay on.. Maintenance and inspection. Nev

I'm not going to go into the complex perf requirements on twins as I believe it's beyond the scope of this thread.

A well know saying about engine failure in small twin engine aircraft. "The remaining engine will take you to the scene of the accident"

I think everyone is over thinking this too much ( just my opinion no more so keep ur shirt on!) it's all about acceptable risks, no more no less, we each have our own limits. If you chose to fly over tiger country in an "ultralight" type engine powered machine then that's yr choice. There's no guarantees, there never will be regardless of airspace usage or any other feel good rating/certificate, again it's all about risk! You got yr RAA certificate full knowing its limitations, if you now don't like them then you should have gone for a proper full license!

Do what YOU feel is right. I chose to fly only behind reliable certified engines and I avoid tiger country like the plague even in a proper aircraft. If & when I visit the RAA world of flying ( which may come to that some day) then I'll adjust my way of self preservation accordingly. All I can say is know the machine that yr ass is in, the rest is up to fate & destiny!

As a glider pilot, you sometimes have to consider traversing un-landable, or at least, very hostile, country. There's no question of trusting an engine; you have to make your decisions according to a quick mental calculation of the 'minimum' safe flight profile vs what is actually being achieved. If you hit massive sink, then you are rather quickly in trouble unless you have excess height to 'run' through the sink.I have seen no mention in this thread of 'the ground behind you'. IF you have been attentive, you know what areas were reasonable AND you have a pretty good idea of the conditions you have left. It should be a 'known option' in your flight management - whereas what is in front is an unknown. I have several times scooted for the known, and outlanded safely, when the forward option dropped below my threshold of confidence.

surroundings 360 degs especially what he/she has just traversed!

I

I guess like most conversations, this has started on one subject and meandered onto others before it will close.

 

I had a quick look through ICAO annexes 1, 2 and 11; there was no mention that only ICAO standard licensed pilots were to access airspace.. There was mention of the rules under which flight is permitted and the level of ATS provided.. Of course, there may something buried in another annex or docs... but as @kgwilson mentioned, it would mean most European and a good deal number of other countries would fall foul of ICAO. Non ICAO pilots can even cross international flight boundaries where there are agreements in place. As mentioned, I see many RAAus pilots navigating throughout Australia - navigating remote outback regions is not as easy as more populated areas. And with GPS, which admittedly is not infallible, but for me, anyway, has been pretty reliable, it is easier to navigate.

 

I have seen a/c without a transponder get a clearance - they make an orbit or two so the controller can identify their primary return and they are allowed in. If the controller is given reason to believe the pilot or a/c is not capable or there is concern of a conflict, they simply refuse permission. to enter. In the UK, the NPPL (and in EASA land, the LAPL) training requirements are lower than PPL. If you have a single engine piston rating (rather than balloon, etc), you now largely have the same privileges as a PPL holder. I think there is additional training (cut down version of RTF and actual exposure to controlled airspace), but it is optional. I was based at Fairoaks which is in Heathrow's control zone - then class A. There were a handful of LAA machines based there operated by NPPLs that never had a PPL and they seemed to manage pretty well. They happily flew to France, Germany, Italy and Austria; the did other European countries as well..

 

As an aside, this may or may not be good news: CASA Restructure confirms GA Branch - Australian Flying

I see Peter White will be involved, this ought to be good!!

The final report on this crash is pretty revealing. Nothing wrong with the aircraft or its systems - the fault was 100% with the pilot.The autopsy found he was so full of a cocktail of drugs he shouldn't have been driving a car, let alone flying an aircraft.

 

Sadly, the misuse of drugs in the sporting arena appears to be a constant, ongoing problem. Too many people can't handle the enormous pressures to perform, and fall into the trap of resorting to drugs, both legal and illegal.

 

Roy Halladay Autopsy Findings Catch Industry by Surprise

 

Another surprise was that fluid ingestion into his lungs was a factor in his death - essentially meaning, that if people nearby had made an effort to drag him from the water promptly, there was a chance - albeit a low chance - that he might have survived, despite broken bones and internal injuries.

The pilot should not have been there in the first place, his family now suffer the consequences of his irresponsible actions, I feel for them.

I agree with you. That’s why my preference is that those who want to fly into CTA get a PPL and fly a compliant aircraft. No trolling in that.

Would you like to put money on it Col? People who use controlled airspace all the time are fine. It's a fair bit of stuff to keep on top of if you only do it occasionally, and the radio work for one would want to improve vastly if people are not to get in the Pooh. IF it happens and there are incidents watch for the massive backlash.. How does Australia tell ICAO they have non compliant aircraft and non licenced pilots in their controlled airspace? Special VFR clearances across zones like Williamtown Coastal and into specific aerodromes are all you want.. Keep it something anyone can do. . That's my advice and it has been for years.. Not based on anything I got out of a book somewhere either. RAAus should look after it's "Core" properly Not empire build . for the Ego of it's managers, to the detriment of it's base. Nev

Terribly sad, let's hope that from an investigation comes a cause/reason otherwise no one learns from others mistakrs/misfortunes-:(

Ex

RAA was never intended for cross-country flying in complex airspace regulated areas.For that, you get a PPL.

If someone decided he wanted to go touring up the east coast of Australia, but either didn't do his homework on the Nav requirements, or decided to take the cheap route of getting a Recreational Pilot Certificate and bluffing his way through the airspace rules, that's his own problem.

 

What is clouding the issue, is perhaps one or two FTFs pushing for exemption from D Class on financial grounds to allow them to train for both RPC and PPL.

 

Sure the end result looks silly, but there's some logic in allowing training the way it's done The students then go outside that area with all the other RPC pilots, so they do get a saving in travel time and cost if they live in the City.

 

Have a look at a few threads on this site where flight planning, nav radio are discussed, and you'll see the standard of Certificate pilots generally; you do need that PPL training, and particularly the culture of using that training; it is different.

 

I'm not suggesting those who have been trained at places like Camden fall short; just that if someone wants to stir it up, the more likely action is an internal "Who the hell authorised these people to train RA pilots in this airpace", followed by a cancellation, rather than an opening up of D Class to all comers.

 

A few RA people have commented on here that they are "forced" over tiger country of dangerous conditions by not being allowed to fly in these prohibited areas. They choose to risk their lives and do it instead of flight planning around it. Even with a PPL, one of things you soon learn when cross-country flying is that there are MANY obstacles to what looks like a carefree point to point flight.

Wh

The plane won't fall on the school unless it's God's will. Nev

The idea the everytime a department puts in a rule and are stubborn about fixing it, give up and work around it or incur an unecessary expensive burden, especially when lives are at stake, is not the workings of democracy. Maybe RAAAus should enlist the assistance of AOPA, other GA representatives and even ATC representative bodies to help educate CASA that RAAus a/c and GA aircraft can mix comfortably and there are no turf wars (there may be a requirement to teh RAA Pilot Certificant to have a controlled airpace endorsement or just a flight radio telephony licence...) I am sure the RAAus boffins have thought about all of this...

Yes, it is nuts! To be clear, my aircraft fully complies with CTA access, and can enter C & D airspace with a PPL pilot in the left seat (and I have already done so legally). I have an RA-Aus Pilot “Certificate”, therefore I shall not enter as pilot-in-command! RA-Aus authorities have been negotiating this unfair anomaly with CASA for the last two years (or more) without result. Of course I’m happy to comply with any proposed endorsement exams, CFI check flights in my aircraft, etc. etc. but nothing has happened yet!! Very frustrating!

 

I’d love to fly up the coast to Far North Queensland, but cannot do so without CTA transit rights. Instead, I’m forced inland over mountainous & often cloudy terrain ducking under CTA steps, or perhaps even further inland into remote outback territory.

 

C’mon bureaucrats! Get going on this endorsement:angry:

You're going to get awfully confused then, the real nutters in the political system are firmly on the right.

If you want some maritime history - Port and starboard terminology originate from where the steering oar was placed.As most people are right handed, the steering oar (or board) was on the right side, Steerboard - right.

Boats were then docked on the left side so as to not damage the steerboard, which meant the left side was the port side.

Plenty of engines have to have the motor opened up every few thousand feet or they might stop . Are you aware of that? Nev

Another form of "Tiger Country" involves Bass Straight crossings (AIP SP1). In my case, I did the recommended track over Flinders Island (via Cliffy Island, Hogan Island, Deal Island then via Cape Portland or Waterhouse Island). Many of these islands are very rocky looking from above, and seem not viable for a good landing should the Rotax 912 fail.Of course I did the recommended SKED reports at 15 minute intervals, at flew at high altitude (8500 & 9500) for best glide range - so only travelling in ideal weather helps here. Also mandatory was my life jacket & floating PLB, personal strobe, and for extra help, my SPOT locator, OzRunways tracking, and ADSB-out. With all of this, I still considered it a calculated risk and flew solo, not feeling I could put someone else at the same risk in my Eurofox.

 

I'm happy to report that my journey went just as I (carefully) planned, and was without incident. Being RA-Aus, I have no access to Class D at Launceston, so I had to track along the north coast to Devonport to re-fuel, making my journey much longer for no good reason. The regulations as they currently stand are very discriminatory towards RA-Aus pilots, forcing us low under CTA steps in rough tiger country, or preventing me having Class D access at Launceston when that would be shorter & safer for Bass Straight crossings.

 

I wish CASA would do as their name implies, and put RA-Aus pilot's safety ahead of their bureaucratic intransigence on CTA access/transit.

Good reply there turbo.

As we all know aviation is all about risk. That risk level is entirely up to the driver to asses and what value they put on their own life. Personally I now never fly over terrain where I don't have an option to at least have an excellent chance of surviving and I fly behind one of the most reliable engines ever made! I have a secret deal with my maker. I don't bother him and he doesn't bother me! -:)

Nothing new in this, I recall when I was first learning to fly in 1988 pilots would stand around at my flying club arguing about exactly what the rules were. The limit was 500 feet but the airfield owner insisted that circuits be done at 800 feet. Most of us just got on with flying.

Terribly sad-:(

There's nothing that can be done for her but hopefully her death will not be in vain and that some out there will learn from this event. RIP.

Imagine if that where Tigers! The Sky Gods QF would demand an emeadiate shut down, an inquiry and the grubby media would have a field day !!

Ex

If by "no throttle landing" you mean a glide approach, I absolutely agree. I was taught that unless you have to do a long approach to fit in with traffic, all landings should be a glide approach. Pull the throttle to idle as you turn base and if you have judged it right you should not touch the throttle again until you need it to taxi clear of the runway.This way you remain familiar & comfortable with your aircraft's glide performance, so when the fan does stop you are not in a completely different situation to most landings. Obviously there will be some difference between an idling prop and a stopped one, but better to practise at idle than not at all.

 

To open yet another debate I also agree with being able to turn a motor off completely, while overhead an airstrip and carry out a practise forced landing all the way to touchdown. This should only be done with a CFI on board and at a suitable strip that has safe options, at a time when it will not affect other traffic. I have done this and believe it is worthwhile to experience it. Having done it in a controlled & supervised fashion will help reduce the shock & possible panic when it eventually happens for real.

Don't you always have a choice of the terrain you fly over? I recall "don't fly over what you can't land on" being a basic concept. If you do that your engine won't kill you whatever it does. (This stuck from yesterday. Just picked it up)..Regarding the engine idle approach Idling motors are inclined to stop and I would suggest a lot more than when you have say 1/5 th throttle where the engine keeps some heat and momentum in it .It's also more ready to do a go around if you need to. Your idling has to be reliable., Having it a bit high makes it more so but that can result in the plane floating a bit further than you want it to. You are meant to do an idle check on the way out to the threshold. If it's not steady at the correct figure, return and have it rectified . Nev.

I've said it before elsewhere, flying at 500' or below taking off and or landing most of my attention is imeadiately underneath me as in where to set the plane down if needed, I also used this logic in low powered twins at MTOW. My attention span for such an event reduces the higher I climb. Anytime I come into a drome and I can do it without effecting others I do a power off as in idle landing, I never fly further away from the drome that I can't reach it if the noise stops, I'm always slightly high on final especially over built up area's, side slipping is a beautiful thing. Don't have to reach the rwy just the airfield where it's clear. A lot of engine failures occur during a power change, usually a reduction change. The one thing that concerns me these days at dromes where sausage factory training is going on is the 'jet' type circuits they teach, bloody dangerous!!