Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

Sam the Swiss

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Sam the Swiss

  • Rank
    Active member
  • Birthday 01/01/1963

More Information

  • Aircraft
    Tecnam P2008
  • Location
    Basel
  • Country
    Switzerland
  1. Sam the Swiss

    Sam the Swiss

  2. For me it is the exact opposite situation: I pay flight time, but log block-off-time. I like that because I don't have to hurry on ground, and if I hit a wave of heavy traffic I just loose time, not money. For short flights I log substantially more time than I pay for. The minimum flight time is 30 minutes, preventing overuse of this. Typical time is 10 minutes till lift off, which is about the minimum time in winter to warm up the Rotax. Maximum time was 20 minutes. On the way back the situation is vice versa: If I hit heavy traffic I am circling on my budget, not on the owner's. But I can't complain: Air traffic control is mostly very good in squeeze us small ones in between the heavier planes. Taxiing back then normally takes 2 minutes. I like that distribution, knowing the hourly rate is higher if it is flight time and not block-off-time.
  3. The discussion is very interesting to me. Even if Swiss procedures may diverge from that of other countries, the reasons behind the procedures all lead to the same safety problems. Maybe I can include two excerpts of VAC of two Swiss airfields, one where the close encounter happened (Triengen) and one which suggests – after my reading – to descend from overhead to downwind, because of a restricted area close by (could also be a noise sensitive ares, or high terrain in other cases). Those picture are not from me, they are excerpts of Swisstopo and of Skyguide Switzerland, I use them here solely for safety reasons.
  4. This is turning out very interesting for me. I have learned flying on a ATC controlled airport (360 on downwind as standard routine for spacing, but of course controlled) and I am therefore not so used to uncontrolled airfields. Of course I have visited quite a few uncontrolled airfields, but most of the time I was either alone on the circuit, or the second plane. I learn a lot from your opinions. So the approach sector or collecting point was opposite to the downwind in this case. I learned to fly overhead to get the proper RWY, if there is no-one at the radio of the airfield. Then make my call containing my intention, descend to circuit height and join downwind , that would be around midfield. I see your point that it is better to come in at the proper altitude and form the outside. At least in the cases where neither noise sensitive areas (an issue in Switzerland) nor mountains prevent it. So you cross overhead, cross the downwind at least 500 ft above it, then turn in the direction of the circuit you want to join, descend and join the downwind 45° from the outside of the circuit. Do I get your idea correctly?
  5. Another yes and thank you: I will keep my hight until I know where the other aircraft is (or I hear that it is already final RWY XY).
  6. Thank you, Jaba-who, this makes sense, even if there are some planes there doing t/g. Thinking back the situation got more close the further along we were on the approach and we did not see us. I guess now that - even if I don't see the traffic - the sooner I attempt to make a 360 for spacing, the more room I have and the less chance that the other aircraft uses the exact same spot of air at the same time.
  7. Yes, it is a collection point, but quite large. The incoming aircrafts make their calls, but often they are not very precise ("…approaching sector east…“) and as the area is quite large it is difficult to figure out, where exactly the other plane is. Normal call is position (imprecise here), hight and intension, no arrival time.
  8. Hi everybody This is going to be a little lengthy. On my last flight, I had a close encounter with another aircraft coming in for an approach of the same airfield. Shortly before I did my call that I am at the designated approach sector (east) I heard another aircraft with the call that he is approaching the same sector, followed by a call of a third plane entering downwind of the active runway. I could not see either plane, so overhead the airfield I added to my call my high and my intention (descending to join righthand downwind RWY XY) and that I don't see the other traffic. As the pilot of the other aircraft told me later on ground I just underflow him at that moment with a distance of around 20 m, way too close for me. Additionally I entered the downwind in front of another aircraft, in a better distance but not really in a distance big enough. Both pilots helped me out, the first by doing a 360 overhead and the second by extending his downwind. So in the end no harm was done. But I don't want to let that happen again. What should I have done different? Making a 360 in the approach sector without seeing the other aircraft seems wrong to me, and overhead the close encounter was already fact. Moreover I did not know where from the other aircraft was approaching sector east. Can the more experienced pilots comment on that? I would appreciate you sharing your experience.
  9. Thanks @Garfly, that was interesting. It will help me if I ever will have the chance to fly in the US.
  10. @Downunder: All pilots on the same frequency can hear you, so you may talk to another pilot in approach. We use it when we are told to look out for traffic. When the other plane sees us, he/she tells so.
  11. That is also what puzzled me when I saw the case: She gets landing clearance over and over again. If we get clearance it is only withdrawn very rarely, I wasn't in this situation myself up to now. Only one plane per runway is cleared at a time. If I follow an airliner I might already be in very short final until I get the clearance, as I only get it when the runway is vacated. Is this different in your places?
  12. So far I get the following picture about the cruise speed (which is probably not the most important figure of a Savannah ): ICP advertises 97 kts / 111 mph / 179 km/h cruise using 18.5 l/h They use spats which yield about 6 kts / 7 mph / 11 km/h As they use 18.5 l/h compared to your 15-15.5 l/h, their cruise is measured at a higher rpm, which is at about 20% more energy for propulsion. 20% more energy for propulsion gives maybe 7% more speed: Starting from your 83 kts / 96 mph / 154 km/h this would give 89 kts / 102 mph / 165 km/h. Adding for the spats we are at 95 kts / 109 mph / 176 km/h, pretty close to the advertised numbers (1-2% off). So although their cruise is a rather high 75% cruise, their numbers are ok. Any other real world experience with a Savannah? Sam
  13. Good question… I think it should be something you have a personal relationship with, like for a friend of mine snoopy as a WW I-pilot, so it is difficult to provide advice. But maybe that by now you already know what to put on .
  14. Congratulations! You were fast and the bird looks beautiful! Sam
  15. Hi Tom I am following your posts on this site since you started your project, and I am impressed that you are already that far. Thanks for the link and I am looking forward to your data on the performance of your beauty. BTW: You were flying a savannah recently for transition training. Do you remember any data from there? I know, different machine, and a lot of things to get used to… Sam
×
×
  • Create New...