poteroo

Covers pilot proficiency perfectly. happy days,

1st one I've read about. I'm sure that VANS do warranty them, but because the average builder takes twice as long as planned - they often run out of time. And, as noted in that thread - it was onsold, which probably negates any warranty. In the case of my RV6, it took 5 years to build from pre-drilled basics, and by then many of the avionics were becoming outdated. Common experience with many builders in this area. Never buy this stuff until you're ready to go.

If you accelerate any model of RV to at least Vy below 50ft, then you'll have some manoeuvring ability. I never allow either my 9A or 6 to rise above the 50ft 'barrier' until they have achieved 90 KIAS and continuing to accelerate. On short/soft/rough strips you can still accelerate to well past TOSS provided you retract the take-off flap before Vfe, (78-85). RVs don't cool their engines at all well below 80 KIAS, and a higher speed 'cruise/climb' of 110-120 KIAS is kind to your engine. In the fixed pitch models, it also improves propeller efficiency and ROC. Now, as to the issues of RV handling on approach. As an instructor, doing BFR's, I've experienced 2 separate instances of having an RV6 stalled on the turn base to final. Reason : pilot distracted at un familiar strip, tailwind component on base, idle power, and pulls full flap on base, 70 IAS, then rolls into 45o AOB with some loading of the wings to get back onto final. Lots of loud airframe bumps - and down goes the nose. Luckily, the pilots hadn't made the superbad mistake of using excessive left rudder and inducing a skidding turn...otherwise we'd have spun 'under' at 500 ft agl and there's iffy recovery from that. The RV6 is all too easy to overbank, and doing this during low speed approaches is really tempting fate. I usually teach power on into any steeper turns, and/or, lowering the nose considerably. With an RV6 at idle power and full flap, to hold 65 - 70 KIAS in a base to final turn - the nose needs to be stuffed down!! There's some comment around that full flap shouldn't be selected in the 6 series until very late in a glide approach. That gives you some range in your glide, and it also ensures you are less likely to underestimate the ROD. The manual flaps can be deployed in an instant once the aircraft attains the threshold - it's rarely going to float from this. This adds another activity to perhaps a very stressed pilot - which some can and some can't handle. If you are not holding a good 60-65 KIAS on the 6 at the beginning of rounding out from a glide approach - then you'd better be able to judge your height to perfection or you'll arrive with a lot of vertical component. The 9A, on the other hand, is an absolute pussycat. It actually needs to be flown at a lower IAS than 60 in order to achieve a 500fpm ROD. With a Vso of 43 KIAS - the 9A gives you plenty of time to roundout and holdoff. In fact, if you don't use aerodynamic drag - you'll never land! [ I have been test flying, and instructing in RV4, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9, 9A, & 10 since 1998, and owned a 6 and 9A since 2001 and 2008 resp]

You'd assume they've done their 'homework' and have an exit strategy in the event? Frankly, I like the way VANS Aircraft are running their offshore kit construction - it's in the Phillipines - a much more 'westernised' Asian country. The quality of the QB kits is excellent. Just a pity that the kits go back to the US before shipping to customers, but that would allow for QC to be applied honestly. Without strict QC on the Chinese output, it would always be in the back of ones' mind that airframe integrity might not be as advertised. happy days,

Interesting comment. Care to enlighten us because you obviously are in a position to comment?

What happens in the other 44% of their airspace?

The catch seems to be in the mandated flight planning for flights in 'free' airspace. And 1000m altitudes will need to be above ground level - there are some very, very high mountains in China. It's a beginning though, and perhaps begins to shed light on why Aussie manufacturers are doing deals with Chinese companies. happy days,

Yes, I'd suspect that dehydration induced dis-orientation plays a role in safety for elderly pilots. It is understandable when one considers decreased bladder storage integrity in the elderly. It's damned if you do - and damned if you don't. You need to keep fluid intake going - but you don't have long range tanks any more. If the flight is low level, in the usual Aussie turbulence - then the pilot is really working on just keeping level. It burns both energy and water, and you have to replace them. Take a wide neck bottle, plus plenty of water, and a lunch box of good sangers, fruit, bikkies etc. You can cope with declining strength and endurance by playing smarter. Be prepared! happy days,

I like the word co-ordination. At slower speeds, when your ailerons are less effective, the value of being co-ordinated with rudder is evident. Students really benefit from a few minutes of 'co-ordination practice' during every lesson. It's nothing difficult or dangerous. Simply roll into a co-ordinated medium aob turn to the R or L - then reverse the turn in the opposite direction - then reverse it again - then again - then again. If you achieve 'co-ordination' - the little ball stays precisely between its' lines, and the aircraft avoids the 'fishtailing' effect. Ask your instructor before scaring the daylights out of him with an undiscussed manoeuvre though. happy days,

Agreed, his credentials are outstanding. Leadership qualities in the services need to be honed into administrative capacities in the bureaucracy for him to be able to make change. We can but hope that he implements the Federal Governments' red tape reduction policy by way of slashing the longrunning CASA rewrite of the CAR's, and bringing some common sense to bear on CASAs' handling of all sectors of GA. We as an industry need to get 'into his ear' before he's infected by the internal malaise' so evident in our regulator. happy days,

The truth about instructing is that you don't really get much 'hands on' time yourself. You only demo a manoeuvre once, maybe twice - after that, you have to coach your student thru it until they become proficient. I'd guess that the instructor might really 'fly' for 10% of the time logged - if that. You'll never become an airshow pilot while flying all your hours instructing. As well as this lack of handling time - you will spend 2 hrs on the ground with briefings, debriefings, aircraft preparation, hangar cleaning etc - for every flying hour. It is never going to blow your logbook like ag work or long haul airlines. I'd recommend against approaching instructing if 'free hours' is all you have in mind. Contrary to the popular expectation that instructors always have their skills - it's very common for instructors to lose their 'touch' and 'feel' for the aircraft. This happens with newly minted instructors, or low hours instructors who don't fly very often. And, if your demonstration of a manoeuvre is sloppy - it's not a good look in your students eyes! If you own an aircraft and can bear a bit of extra cost - you need to get some solo handling practice yourself. If you instruct in GA, then it's often possible you do charter and aerial work flying which certainly keeps your hands on time rolling. I personally maintain my handling time by flying quite a few hours of formation in the RV, and I also spend 'company' funds on about 2 hrs per month low level handling in the trainer. So, why bother instructing? Well, it's more to do with a desire to teach. One-on-one instruction, ( in any skill ), can be very rewarding. Flying is exceptionally so. happy days,

I think you'll find that it's not 'in-the-deep-end' stuff nowdays. Both PNG and Irian Jaya have route and strip endorsing requirements that must be met by operators all new pilots. Usually this is mandatory for commercial flights, and perhaps 'required-by-insurers' for private operations like missions. The PNG system used to involve up to 5 flights on each difficult route and airstrip under supervision of a check pilot. Usually a check & training pilot required at least 1000 hrs flying in the country plus a checkride for approval. There's a lot to keep in your head, because looking up the details in your notebook, (these days your iPad or other device), isn't the safest while you are negotiating a mountain 'gap' in the usual fast changing weather. It was very character building flying. happy days,

The Drivers Licence (Aviation) Medical has so many exclusions that most pilots have to 'admit' to one of them. (Q - do you have a nap during the day? A - of course I do you fool, I'm 75!........ FAIL) In other words - it's not anything like the 'great breakthrough' that the industry kidded itself was being allowed. Far, far from it! We've been sold a pup. Once you do tick any of those boxes - it's off to the DAME for a Class 2 medical, because there is more leeway there. If you are young, (under 40), it makes sense to do your Class 2 anyway because you can then complete your PPL with full CTA at anytime you like. If you plan a commercial career - do Class 1 before you spend a dollar at a flying school. However, at any stage, CASA Avmed can step in and place you into the Complex Case Management grouping - meaning it can take months for decisions to be finalised - but it might well favour your case if you have taken the time and dollars to answer all of their queries. The cost of maintaining a Class 1 medical has skyrocketed for me. At least 1 trip up to Perth for cardiologist report, plus full blood tests to be done before I even go in to see the DAME. Add to that more regular vision and hearing tests as well. I estimate it's costing me close to $2000 per year to just stay in the GA+RAAus instructing system. Then, I have to add into that a biennial flight review by a CASA ATO/FE every 2 years - costs $900 for ATO + hired aircraft. Then, I need an RAAus BFR from a PE to renew my CFI/SI approval - costs another $400 at least. Now, with CASR Part 61 in force - I have to separately renew my Night VFR M/E, my Ag 2, and my LL approval. As well, there are currency minima on some of these,plus the usual 90 day currency requirements, so it becomes a never ending whirl of costs to remain an instructor. I think we are going to see a large dropout of older instructors. happy days,

If your times are correct - then 20 secs to lose 3000 ft is certainly not a controlled glide. An RV6 should glide at approx. 70kts with a 700-800 fpm ROD. At that rate, there should have been over 3 minutes of gliding time @ 70 kts to locate the aircraft in a more suitable area. That's over 3nm, or 5-6 kms. Even if you took the descent as commencing at 1:25:30 - that's 3000 ft in 50 secs which is 3500 fpm. Not a survivable descent rate. These numbers don't correlate well with witness statements that have appeared, but there will be more to come when ATSB get to work.

Perhaps achievable @ 1500 fpm and 90 kts climb, especially if wind was E/SE at time. RV6 with a CSU instead of FP would not have had as good gliding radius, but the beach was only a second or two's glide @ 75 kts? Hope the ATSB can determine the root cause. RIP fellow RV'er. poteroo

Agree. Placing 20kg drum of water or 20kg bag of wheat rearwards will help to get the trim 'centered' and so it actually will trim out for a 60kt approach. C182's are notable for this lack of trim power when empty. For conversion training, I usually place 40kg in the baggage compartment and that gets things under control. We could begin to talk about flying on the' back' side of the drag/power curve - only for more experienced pilots - but this sorts out the too fast landings. happy days,

Agree with it all. Merv - forget Fred Astaire - it's Dancing With the Stars these days. Done right and you have the controls full back against the stops. Bit of power gives better elevator command and helps get the roundout taken through to a nose high attitude. happy days,

Reads pretty much like the usual loss of directional control when the Jabby nosewheel makes early contact while the aircraft is rolling a tad fast. Just shows how easy it is to be distracted - probably by the traffic chatter and the ATC presence at even a Cat D airport. It's an added amount of 'pressure' when you know that there are many sets of critical eyes upon your landing performance. probably not as bad as at an airshow, but can 'get' to a pilot. happy days,

A lovely aircraft to fly. More stable than a Baron, faster than a Navajo or Chieftain, and the best of the 6 seaters by a nautical mile! happy days,

Have had good result in C152, 172,182,210,J160,J230, (all high wings), with this technique. Yaw away from open door while pushing it outwards - then reverse the yaw and pull hard on the door. Easier if pax is able to do the door closing. happy days,

Agree. I actually don't see a problem in calling our aircraft an ultralight - similar to a 2 seat Cessna. It positions us in the relative order of size in the aircraft family. Describing anything is simplified by giving it's 'size' relative to a known item. happy days,

The numbers speak for themselves in Mervs' case history! In my very limited exposure - 12,000 hrs for 2 engine failures in Continentals, (none in Lycomings)........ but 3 fails necessitating an unplanned landing with Jabirus in only 800 hrs. The numbers were enough for me too. Just couldn't run the risk with students over unfriendly country so now we are embarking on a new phase with a new Rotax. I was an original group owner of a new Victa in the 60's, then a Jab owner for 7 years, and now Brumby. I want to support Aussie manufacturers - but the contract has to be mutual! happy days,

Q: When do you quit? A: When you 'fail' a flight review - which you were absolutely sure that you'd aced. (all other factors aside, eg medicals)

Interesting. Would take money on 'wheelbarrowing' as a major cause of these excursions. Too much reliance on brakes - not enough on prior aerodynamic braking. happy days,

CRM and 'democracy' on the flight deck is quite a distance from test flight decision making. A type experienced pilot in the RHS sounds like a safety enhancement, but it fails to satisfy the Australian Phase I requirement that a full test program be flown in no less than 25 hrs, (40 hrs for 1st of type. Once the aircraft is signed off - then 'instruction' - of whatever form, can be commenced. IMHO, any distraction should be avoided, and that especially means a talkative owner/builder. happy days,