poteroo

When the owner is leasing the block, but owns the hangar - then they provide hangarkeepers insurance because they assume the liabilities when your aircraft is inside. What happens if the hangar 'owner' is also the local Council - I'm not sure. Probably is their responsibility if you are renting the space, but a Council probably has some sort of 'umbrella' coverage of all its' properties. Ask them.

Doesn't have to be a warbird either: try insuring one of these to do tailwheel endorsements!

Cost-of-Recovery is never considered by the business experts in local government. Try this example: Pilot 'Smith' incurs landing fee of $11, which requires an invoice to be raised and sent by snail mail, email or text - if they can identify the owner. Then, a 'reminder' is sent again the following month. Then, the 3rd invoice contains a threat of legal recovery. I know that it probably costs $20+ to raise and send an invoice, even in a super efficient organisation - which most airport owners are not! So, after 3 months, pilot 'Smith' pays the account. The airport owner loses money on the exercise, and for what reason? They refuse to even consider the cost. Folks, it's all about showing those fat cat aircraft owners that they can't use up our airport! It's plain, straight green eyed envy of the kind that seems to drive many political decisions these days. happy days,

Aviation Safety Digest, 88, 1974, p28 'I was still flying in rain and the weather conditions were no better than before, when, on my port side, I caught sight of trees at about our own level. Then, as I strained to look ahead through the reduced visibility, I glimpsed more trees in front of the aircraft. I immediately banked to starboard and, still at full power, increased the angle-of-attack still further. Although in a climb attitude at 70kts,the actual rate of climb was very slight, and the wheels actually brushed through the tops of the trees before the aircraft could clear them. But, apart from collecting some twigs and leaves in the undercarriage legs, no damage was done. Once over this ridge, I managed to climb to 5500 feet and from this point onward I had no trouble maintaining altitude. The aircraft was then climbed back to 6000 feet and the approach to Cooma and subsequent landing were quite normal. Later in the day, when I submitted my flight plan for the return trip, I learned that a SIGMET had been issued, warning of severe turbulence with westerly winds exceeding 45 knots at 5000 ft. It was only then that I realised I had been flying into wind on the lee side of the mountain ridges approaching Cooma, and that I had been caught in the downdraught that exceeded the climb capability of the aircraft. At the time of the incident, I had flown 700 hrs, including 100 hrs NVMC experience, and I was also undergoing instrument training for a higher rating. Although my flight to Cooma had been planned under the VFR, and it is doubtful that VMC existed at all times, at no stage did I have any difficulty in maintaining control in the reduced visibility. It was the prevailing downdraught conditions that almost caused the disaster, and not any loss of visual reference, as might have been supposed.......' Talk about rationalisation! If he'd read the forecast in more depth, if he'd planned via a lower route, if he'd actually read up on mountain waves in the meteorology texts, books of the day.........If he'd really been VMC, then he'd have seen the ridgeline 3nm away, and also seen that it was 'rising' in the windscreen. A check of the VSI would have confirmed that the aircraft was actually losing altitude, and the turn away initiated minutes earlier than reported. (On climb in mountainous terrain, watch your VSI and ALT - because you might not actually be 'climbing' at all. This pilot must surely have won Lotto next week! Incidentally, several DC3's survived with branches in one engine after trying to outclimb some PNG ridgelines as well. A few of the legends of PNG aviation involved too. happy days,

I have delved back into some old textbooks of mine......very interesting. In 1977, the BoM published Aviation Meteorology, Part 2. It has been reprinted several times since. On p38, 5.14 Airflow over Mountains - it covers the above discussed principles pertaining to lee side downflows. On p39, section 5.14 - it states Vertical speeds may be more than 15 knots and have been measured at more than 40 knots in the Sierra Nevada, California. A quick calculation of these numbers shows that 15 knots down = 25 fps = 1500 fpm, and 40 knots calculates out to 4000fpm - way beyond any light aircraft to climb out of! These are truly frightening numbers, and explain why so many aircraft have ended their days below the ridgeline of a mountain range when trying to fly over it from the lee side. This phenomena isn't just something that occurs on major mountain ranges - it is very common in Australia, and has been the cause of many close shaves and incidents. See: Aviation Safety Digest, No 88, 1974, p28 for a pilot contribution about his close shave approaching Cooma, NSW. NB - 1974, a long, long way back, and I've no doubt other reports could be found earlier. Happy days,

Not that I remember either. I learned 'on-the-job' from check pilots. It was much likelier to stick with you when you actually experienced the loss of altitude despite being at climb power.

It likely was a mountain wave. The major PNG wave was over the Owen Stanleys (10-13500 ft) when the NW monsoon was blowing against them - (Dec-Feb). From the N side, (Kokoda/Poppondetta). you needed over 15,000 to get over the Gap area, so we chickens usually went around to the E/SE where the range was lower, (nr Safia). Tried it in the turbo Aztec one day, (empty), and succeeded in making -1500 fpm on climb. Time to quit!!

I think the most newsworthy Australian accident was the Southern Cloud' (?) in the late 30's in the Southern Highlands of NSW. Couldn't outclimb the ranges and that's understandable when you look at the diagrams. Modern BoM forecasts are detailed about lower level turbulence and windshear due to strong winds over mountainous areas. The pre-requisites for serious effects are winds of >25kts and blowing onto the range at less than 30 degrees off perpendicular. Prudent pilots just don't fly in winds > 30 kts in the lower levels, and if they are obliged to, they avoid the higher mountainous area via diversion. Even with lower speed winds, its unwise to fly straight toward the range or ridgeline, and to try to cross with less than 2000ft under you. The diagrams illustrate why.

Watched 'Aircrash Confidential' on 9GEM on Wednesday night. Whilst it used the Steve Fossett 'mystery' disappearance, then location of the wreckage a year later, as it's lead in story - the real story was about mountain wave effect on aircraft in the Sierra Nevada mountains between Nevada and California. The story made the amazing statement that some '2000 aircraft were believed to have been lost' due to failing to maintain terrain clearance when crossing this region. Did I hear right? It also stated that it wasn't until after the Steve Fossett loss that meteorologists proved that a massive leeside downdraft was responsible. This surprised me, because the effect of mountain wave winds on aircraft trying to climb over terrain (upwind) has long been known, and pilots trained to avoid it. We certainly have these effects in Australia during winter frontal weather over the Stirling Range in WA, and over the Great Divide in the Eastern states. Of course, it is a more serious threat to aircraft when the terrain is high - say, over 7000 ft, when many aircraft are at full throttle height and cannot increase their rate-of-climb. And, look up 'the Nevada triangle' on Dr Google if you want to read more.

I was a cadet didiman, (agricultural officer), at Mt Hagen in 1961, when the very 1st Bristol Freighter arrived from Madang with a surprise cargo. The strip in those days was gravel/mud/rocks and in the middle of what is now the main town area at MH, not down valley where it is now. The new monster lumbered to a stop, and the front clamshell doors opened up, in went a ramp, and down drove a new Land Rover. Well, the valley rang with thousands of voices all whooping and yodelling - they were amazed that this big balus, (bird), could give birth to a Land Rover. There was a near riot - which incidentally, didn't take much to start in those days. What next are these white masters going to do? From then on, the Bristol was known as 'Mama bilong truck'. Ansett later matched TAA with their own BFs but they were never a great success for either company.

There was another RAAF Caribou crash in Laiagam, (Western Highlands, 7000amsl) in the 60s as well. Cant remember exactly when, but they made a go-round and it couldn't quite make the gradient. It was unceremoniously 'parked' on a clear ridgeline and I think everyone walked away. Locals used it as their 'big' meeting haus for many years after. Have included few Tapini pics. The go-round wasn't 'on' once you turned final here, especially as we were usually loaded to the 'gunnels'.

Definitely not. Flew into Tapini,Woitape from 1967 to 1970 with STOL and it was a far wider strip than this one. Pretty sure this one is in West Papua/Irian Jaya or whatever they call it these days. The PC6, (Susi Air), is the same one that was in the U-tube vids of 'Most Dangerous' flying or airstrips. The Caribou that crashed here in '68 or '69 took its gear off on the threshold and slid into the RHS drain about 300m into the strip - a bad undershoot due to lack of experience in false horizon effect. (RAAF would never ask the unwashed commercial industry for any info/advice on getting in/out of these places).

Most of them have a barely believable ROC shown, and certainly not broken down into conditions vs weight. Also, whilst these 'numbers' are supposedly for standard atmospheric conditions, you need to be aware that in Australia, we are usually on the wrong side of these. The result is that we rarely achieve book numbers due to operating in higher DAs, but you also have to consider all the other variables such as engine and propellor performance due settings and wear/tear, and airframe rigging by individual aircraft. ROC gets 'lost' due to so many things that it becomes meaningless to try to fine tune it in the way suggested. You'll usuall find that the IAS needs to be increased above Vy for engine cooling purposes. In practice, with low HP types, if you can maintain 500fpm then plan on that and just take the extra speed. With my RV, I just set the vertical speed on the autopilot to 750 fpm and set, say 75-80% power, - and take whatever IAS results. It will always be faster than Vy, and the engine stays nice & cool. happy days,

I've been using a 'red' Tanami pump for over 4 years, and it works really well. $80 is good value. I have fitted a 3m x 12mm hose to it. This needs replacing from time to time as the P-ULP hardens it up. While refuelling my high-wing outside the hangar, I usually use the workshop compressor - 'careful', I hear everyone saying! The resettable pressure relief on the Tanami allows you to employ the big compressor - just have to be careful to keep it below 10 psi. Bulging side panels should remind you! With the big compressor, I empty a 20L jerry in 85-90 seconds. While away from base, I use a small handpump which is quite capable of holding 10 psi in the lines and my average time to empty is around 100-110 seconds. (puff, puff!). happy days,

A bit tough there, Mike. I'd say it's more a distancing of the pollies and upper echelon PS from what the coalface issues really are, and a developed attitude of arrogance to go with this. 'Yes Minister' got it pretty right. Sir Humphry wags the Minister in Canberra - as can be seen from the recent CASA response to criticisms. A responsible Minister would smack them down for that little bit of hubris - but we won't hold our breath!

There was a particularly horrible crash of a Baron at Norseman many decades back. The aircrafts original control locks,(a jumble of engine control red plastic devices plus a control column pin) had been broken, and the control lock pin was separately installed/removed..with some difficulty. The 5 passengers were footy players who arrived back late, and well after dark. The pilot took off and the aircraft climbed and rolled over to the left. No ailerons and no elevator - but in daylight the pilot might just have been quick enough to use elevator trim and assymetric power adjustment to save the day. At night - a very big ask. The lock pin was found still in place.

Your local RAAus school will ask you to 'sit' a Converting Pilot Theory test of some 50 questions before you begin to fly an RAAus type. Don't sweat it - your GFPT theory will more than cover it. Just try the test and see if there's anything you may be deficient on. Have the CFI go through your fails, (as in the KDR for GA subjects). I haven't found any GFPT or PPL who didn't breeze through it. happy days,

Will post more detailed comments once I have done the 25hrs Phase 1 testing on both -14s. The -14 is pretty close in climb & cruise to the 4 seat RV-10, but with 45 less HP. Haven't played with mixture too much as we are still pushing the Lycomings hard to get them run-in well. One of them has extra tankage of 2 x 40L in the tips, making it quite a goer in range. happy days,

I flew the initial test flight for VH-IFC on Sunday 1st July, all in the 06L circuit @ JT, but 1500ft. Went very well - just a couple of small bugs which need adjustment. Then flew 2 trips out to training area where the flight manoeuvres were widened. Vs was by the VANS book - as were most other numbers, which seems to be the case with every RV that I've flown. This RV had a panel to die for.....so many functions and so much info that it's going to take them a lifetime to sort it. Then later Sunday, VH-XQQ was flown back to Albany with owner, and the flight testing ,(Phase 1), will be completed here. 7500 ft @ 75% power produced about 174 KTAS, and 65% gave 166 KTAS - so, the journey was quite a buzz. Add to that 50 kts of NW tailwind and we were way over 200 GS all the way. Descent saw 235 GS. The Garmin G3X is quite a unit - all you need to do is wade through the 400 page 'Pilots Guide' These RV-14A's are by far the most comfy RV's that I've flown, with better visibility both side and fwd. They also have the acceleration of a 200HP RV8 - but without the gyroscopic swing. It's remarkable that VANS has a wing which cruises at 160+ KTAS, yet with full flap + power, it approaches safely @ 65KIAS, (Vso x 1.3). happy days,

That moves us further away from the 'recreational' aspect, and into direct competition with the GA Part 142 flying schools, ie, the mass production establishments. It's difficult to see that these high pressure schools would attract people who simply want to fly recreationally. In my experience, these schools are the very place not to learn to fly if one wanted to fly for flyings' sake. So that leaves us with the Part 141 schools which focus on RPL and PPL training - which is where most Aussies learn because there is less pressure, and the syllabus is oriented toward simple flying in Class G airspace. I think RAAus should be sticking to its 'knitting' and training for genuine recreational reasons. Our students are much more likely to remain in the system as recreational pilots, and as such, are the likely owners and hirers of RAAus registered aircraft. There will be some upward leakage to the RPL, but a well trained RPC has no problem attaining the RPL, especially if the RAA and GA flying schools are back-to-back, or work co-operatively off the same airport. Many of these RPLs are only interested in CTA, or in 4 seats, but eventually return to RAAus flying because of the expense with larger aircraft. Everyone has their opinion on whether 'general aviation' is withering on the vine. It certainly has declined in recent years, and IMHO, the prime reason is that there is now such a diversity of activities for younger people to engage in with less cost involved. This is despite the cost of flying training having reduced, (relative to wages), since the boom flying years of the 60s, 70s and 80s. I think that another quite important factor is the lack of 'inclusiveness' if you like, when one person is flying and their partner or mate is stranded on a cold/roasting, comfortless airport or flying school. Some locations and schools do make a real effort to resolve these issues - Aldinga in SA is one vg example. This isn't to say that every location needs expansive clubrooms, playgrounds, and lots of social activities - but these are probably influential in attracting the families of pilots to spend time at the airport. Back -in -the- day, pilots rarely included anyone else - it was a solitary pursuit best done without other concerns. Then to all of the above, you can add increased security at airports, and increased theory requirements. A few thoughts on a non-flying day! happy days,

Agreed. The angle-of-attack on the wing is increased considerably by fitting tundra tyres &/or resetting the gear legs. This requires more HP to accelerate on takeoff, but it also requires the pilot to adjust their flare to make the aircraft sit onto all 3 wheels for the classic '3-pointer'. It explains why there has been a large number of higher HP mods done to Cessna 170s and Cubs. It also explains why the 230HP + CSU in a C180 gives significantly better performance, and that was superceded by a 260HP, then 300HP version - designated the C185. As the HP increases, so too does the rolling tendency at low speeds with take-off flap - which makes for increased skills needed when doing short-field takeoffs. I noted in the vids that these US pilots were lifting the tailplane, on t/o, much higher than I'd think necessary. Yes, it allows for increased acceleration if you were really loaded, but it's going to take more distance to get off. I've found the 'tail - low' liftoff gets the aircraft clear of ground much safer and earlier - but it then requires some levelling off to reach Vx. It is also usually lift-off below TOSS (as given in the old CASA/DCA AFMs) - so, less safe. If you strike a soft patch, or something solid during the t/o run - with the nose up, and tail low - the aircraft is less likely to suffer damage, or, pitch forward/down and go A over T. (CoG further behind the mainwheels). I'd certainly caution against hard braking in t/w types. Until the tailplane is positively held onto the ground, I'd not use any braking. It was clear in the vids that their tailplanes were oscillating on some landings but they were braking as well! Very tricky balancing act IMHO, and to do this with a wheel landing requires both skill and nerve. Tailplane damage can result from severe oscillation, (in many ways a PIO), and it requires a fine touch to hold back on the elevators - without creating an inadvertent liftoff again. Best to ensure you cut power instantly on touchdown - although if there is a suspicion of soft surface, it might be best to leave some power on in event of deciding to go-round. Just a couple observations from someone who cut his teeth on taildraggers and enjoys this current STOL mania. happy days,

Talk to your local flying schools in CAB. Your RPC plus its' endorsements will convert over to an RPL no probs - you just need the 2 hrs IF and a check flight this way..... however, as you already have GFPT, which includes IF and GA aircraft competency - you should be able to fill in a heap of paperwork and you are done. Trust your old logbooks are all valid and signed off, and you have located your original student records? They'll be useful.

650 hrs on my high wing and no sign of nosewheel shimmy. I keep taxy speeds to <20 kts, and, on landing, never allow the nosewheel onto the ground until I run out of elevator. On take-off, I lift the weight off the nosewheel very early, and allow the aircraft to accelerate on the mains until its' ready to liftoff. Technique can save your nosewheel a lot of injury. Check your tyre for out of round, inflation, and wheel bearings too. There are adjustments for the damper, and you should talk to your LAME. happy days,

With most,(many), RAAus aircraft now having wing flaps, making a power-off glide approach is little different to what we were taught in the 60's. The trick is to trim for a flapless glide, and only employ flaps when on final, and it's clear that you have altitude to lose. This then flows on to making an off-airport forced landing - where you may need to be able to make a steep final over obstacles. It seems that with many of our new, slicker RAAus types, the rate-of-descent is higher than you would initially anticipate. I believe that it is the drag of the 3 blade, ground-adjustable pitch propellor which is causing this. There is an RPM where the deceleration is quite clear cut - in our Brumby it's around 2900 RPM. For this reason, pilots should practise with idle thrust and nil flap because that's the very best glide that you'll achieve with engine out. happy days,

Agree. Van Grunsven himself is oft quoted on engine selection for RVs....... the most reliable choice is an 0-320 Lycoming. I know of one RV flying that had it's 0-320 replaced only after 3200TT (on the engine, not airframe). I'm sure they have an autofuel STC available, but over the years, a lot of Cessnas have run their 0-320s on P-ULP 95 or 98 without paperwork. happy days,