poteroo

Yes indeed! In this case the pilot survived whereas in most low level powerline strikes everyone dies because it's such an unforgiving type of accident. It's possible that the same charge may have been laid against many past offending pilots - had they survived. CASA have increased the risk management aspects for low level training via the new Manual of Standards for CASR Part 61. It's no longer a 'course-of-training' but now a full blown rating with lots more HF and planning subject matter. I'll explain this upskilling for low level flying in a new thread over the next few days.

A right handed, backhand karate chop over the offending persons arms works wonders - forced to do it when a, (Caucasian), RH pax grabbed the controls of a C185 on final to Efogi (PNG). One strip where you don't need earthly physical help - just some from above! In a desperate situation - over the bridge of the nose would be the go - and it seems this might have been the reaction here. Poor old bugga - can't help feeling sorry for his breakdown. Am wondering just how thorough the passenger briefing was in this case. Might have been rather cursory because the young pilot deferred a bit to the older persons flying experience. It's probably smart to over-emphasise the 'hands off controls' section with anyone who has pilot experience. I'm also inclined to lock their seat back a couple positions so they are not 'over' the yoke, and their feet are not on the rudder pedals because they can't reach them. All's well that ends well, and probably a few lessons to be learned from it. happy days,

it's a well accepted, although somewhat derogatory, euphemism for paradropping.

Very much doubt there were too many smiles around the strip. My old C182, (VH-EUR), survived many years at Pinjarra, doing meatbombing. This Airvan must have replaced it. happy days,

I agree -you have a valid point re the weights. It's been fairly well covered in past threads about LSA being too restrictive, and that we should be pushing for 700kg, or even 750 kgs. There is no easy answer because the 600kg weight is now established and I can't see it changing. We have to live within our boundaries. If you take a Brumby B610 at 360 kg BEW, add the more 'standard' 160 kg for 2 people, add 10 kgs extras - leaving 70k gs for fuel. At 18 LPH - you'll have space for about 100L of fuel = 5hrs 45 mins. Work back the other way and give yourself 4:45 in the tanks,(4hrs + fixed res), = 85L = 62kgs. So 360 + 62 = 422 kgs which leaves you 178 kgs for people + bags. That's pretty generous. And it's getting close to your challenge numbers too. I think you can do a somewhat similar set of numbers on the J230 where fuel burn is higher but speeds are too. Whichever way you look at this weight limitation - the conclusion must be that playing with the fuel load is only fiddling at the fringes. So is trying to carve a few kgs off the BEW - there is a structural or operational limit to that. The disposable load has to be managed. Either we Aussies start slimming, or we go get an RPL, buy a C182, and load it up. The facts are indisputable - over 2/3rds of us are too heavy for our own good. Over the past 5 years, I've had to turn away 4 prospective students who could not fit into the J160. Much worse than that, 2/4 couldn't actually get themselves into the aircraft without my external help as a 'pusher'. (I had visions of those Tokyo train pushers:cheezy grin:) I know they'd never have made it into a C152, and maybe not even into our C172. happy days,

ATSB AO-2014-143 24th August 2014. GA-8 Airvan VH-XHV left the grass runway during landing roll and collided with a Waco biplane, a vehicle and a tractor. A bystander was slightly injured. Substantial damage to both aircraft is evident in the Channel 10 news footage.

Would think they may not need support, as in government assistance, but the marketplace is becoming crowded with many new aircraft in this category. If this, or any other Federal government, really wished to provide incentives - they could perhaps begin by applying incentivisation to purchase and operate 'Aussie built' in all flying schools. It would be possible to link student pilot assistance to a school operating Aussie built aircraft, and to amend tax treatment for these same aircraft. Not all that difficult - all it needs is for the Nats & Libs to pluck up some guts and make sound decisions instead of squabbling in Canberra. A 'Chinese' contract for however many, (280?), units, to be delivered in China is probably easier to achieve than selling 40 units in Australia? That's been a good achievement by Brumby, and I sincerely wish them success. On the local side, however, it's difficult to predict just what the Aussie market is for a $125k LSA aircraft - given that these can be registered GA or RAAus. The Aussie market requires marketing to individuals, because it's truly private enterprise - and this isn't cheap because of the Aussie geography. IMHO, they have a very competitive design, but need to capitalise on the good name it already has in the local marketplace. Brumby does receive 'support' locally - from local government - as well it should if they are serious about local employment. In terms of pilot support,many of my fellow pilots and aircraft owners are 'serial' supporters of Aussie manufacturers. For many, a Brumby will replace, or add to, a Jabiru. In my case, I've owned a Victa 100, then a J160, and am going back for my 3rd Aussie type. I believe that the market is out there - but it needs to be developed and satisfied. Enough of these idle pilot musings on a wet morning. happy days,

you are correct - 20kgs it is. Sufficient for a long w/e anyway.

Well, things appear to be moving with the Rotax 912 engine models. The concept of offering endless options on a new model has not proven too satisfactory in Brumbys' business to date- (IMHO). The Lycoming was an unproven model and probably should have remained as a prototype until all the bugs were sorted...but that's history now. They were sceptical of using the 912iS engine over a year back, and that convinced me to keep it all standard. Ditto with the Dynon Skyview v's the well proven D180 or D100/120 combo. It appears to me that the secret with this model Brumby will be to keep it light. No tundra tyres, no autopilots, no full analog panels, no duplicate panels, and no heavy strobe or landing light kits. A BEW of 360 kg would be acceptable because you'll then have 240 kg disposable. For travel purposes, full fuel of 140L will use 100 kg of the load, leaving you 140 kgs for people and bags. For me that works well as my bride is only 45 and I'm 75 - so we have 40 kgs for baggage. For training - I intend to run it with no more than approx. 60L fuel (=approx. 40kgs ) - leaving 200kgs for pilot + pax. (NB: weights are all rough calcs - plse, no pedantic corrections!) Henry Ford, the creator of the production line, emphasised these 3 essentials - the product must be cheap, strong and have few options. Hence his famous quote: 'you can have any colour you like - as long as it's black' happy days, h

Clearly this is another case of 'work expanding to fill the available time' in the nations' capital. One would have thought there are more important problems in aviation, but........... here we go again. PS - Loved the CASA 'looks' when we asked about the new fangled Restricted Pilot Licence! (haven't we heard of that before?) Seems a rather sensitive subject. happy days,

Attended CASA Safety Meeting yesterday and CAAP 166-1(3) was mentioned. They seem determined to have people on area rather than 126.7 so it's going to be interesting! Rationale' seems to be that there are no busy strips which are not 'depicted' on maps - which I'm sure they are about to learn is untrue! So much for consultation with industry! happy days,

I think his Brumby is factory built, and a 24- rego. So with his current PPL - he should be able to fly CTA happy days,

Your aircraft probably meets requirements as per CAO 95.55 part 7.3 ........ but, unless you hold a PPL with CTA, your Class 2 medical is current, and your BFR is current - you are excluded - (see RAA OPS 2.01.6 and 4.06.2-3). It may be quite some time before there is a CTA endorsement for the RAAus PC. After Sep 1 - you could convert to a GA RPL via a Drivers Licence (Aviation) Medical, then be checked out into CTA for an endorsement - an expensive process. To be honest, unless there is a really compelling case for you to fly through CTA, even with a GA licence - all the stuffing around is often not worth the bother. happy days,

I guess that CASAs' inability to make simple rulings on frequencies explains why the rewrite of CARs to CASRs has taken 10 years and $300m or thereabouts. I expect that this Wednesdays questioning will elicit the same response. Well, it will make for a very good question to ask during a BFR:thumb up: happy days,

This frequency business is with us again following an article in The Australian 14th August. CASA are still holding that CAAP 166-1 is what we must follow, and that is what Jill Bailey has sent out as RAAus C119/4. In both these documents - the default frequency (for a non-depicted location without a discrete frequency) is 'area' However, AIP ENR puts it differently, with the default frequency as 126.7 My interpretation some 2 posts above is incorrect - (although I believe makes more sense). Take this example: We have an airstrip depicted on WAC, and in ERSA is shown as having no discrete frequency, (but is shown as 126.7), while only 8 nm away we have a busy private strip which is not in ERSA or depicted on WAC, or for that matter in the Country Airstrip Directory. So, under the CASA system, I call taxying on the WAC depicted strip on 126.7 and call departure on 126.7. I then pop up on ML CEN with a call that I'm 5nm out from the private strip and give eta. I then make all the arrival calls on area, plus again when I depart. Can you just hear ML CEN going ballistic! Well, it's getting late - so I'd better close before typing a comment that I might later regret. We have a CASA safety seminar here next Wednesday, and this will be on the agenda. Betcha they can't satisfactorily explain how it all improves safety. happy days,

If only I was contracted to fly Minister Truss somewhere, and had an opportunity to brief him in respect of seating in the right hand seat. It might just provide him with an insight into why pilots are frustrated by the regulators' convoluted, legalistic and unrealistic approach to aviation safety. He might also understand why strict liability is such an aggravation to pilots? happy days,

Yes, it is somewhat ironical that democracy is so little appreciated. Ops Manual has to be approved by CASA. What the CFI's recommend has to fall within the operations boundaries and not in policy, strategy and other locations where CFI's may hold strong opinion. As members know, CASA have the last 3 Ops Managers of RAAus sitting in positions of power over RAAus operations. Whether 173/174 CFI's are in favour of any change - it can be scuttled by CASA with the stroke of a biro. CFI's are well down the pecking order, and it would require united and concerted Board representation for major changes to the scope of RAAus operations, eg, CTA access, to be approved by CASA. happy days,

Pure speculation, but it was more likely a case of not enough aileron input. My training never prepared me for the real world of gusty crosswinds - because the flying schools kept students grounded because it was too risky. So, I made some unbelievably bad landings in a 172 - how it never went over on its' wingtip I don't know. I actually learnt how to use up to full aileron deflection only on my first job as a CPL! And that was due to a helpful Hazeltons' aggie who was flying with us. So, I have a rather sceptical view of the training industry's success in crosswind training. Since then, I've been privy to many, many students and pilot BFR's - and I see the same weaknesses in their skills that once detracted from my own performance. Of all the skills we review - crosswind handling skills are definitely those which are worst performed. It begs the question as to why? IMHO, it traces back to the instructors' instructor, and back to their instructor, and back to the next generation of instructors again. The real limits of aileron and rudder are rarely explored. Most pilots can't say they have ever reached full into wind aileron, and whether they had sufficient rudder command to hold the aircraft straight. Which is the limiting control? What can you do to improve the effect of either control? There's a psychological reluctlance to really lower a wing , which is furthered via the passengers' alarm at the practice. So, it's not something that you practise with a load of your best friends - better to fill the aircraft with fuel and several unfeeling bags of sand, gravel,or even grain. But, lower it you must, or you cannot sideslip the aircraft into wind. If your slip force fails to equal the sideways force of the wind - you'll be displaced across the strip. High wing aircraft are much more likely to be upset by crosswinds. Many have limits of as low as 12 kts, and many flying schools place their own limits - usually lower again. But the principles remain the same. Watch a Fokker 50 or Dash 8 in a 15-20 kt x/w and you'll see a decidedly wing down flare, followed by touchdown on the upwind wheel. Passengers mightn't feel comfy with it - but it's necessary to avoid cross strip displacement. happy days,

There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little cheaper: and the people who consider price alone are this mans lawful prey. John Ruskin, (1819-1900)

Actually, the early models of the 206 did have an elevator problem which caused many heavy landings on the nosewheel with consequent firewall damage. Back many years, the old Aviation Safety Digest featured the high number of C182 accidents due to allowing the aircraft to thump down on all 3 wheels together or the nosewheel slightly first. With the 205 and early 206 on a sloping strip - there was not enough elevator to allow a full roundout. This was worse if full flap was used, and loadings were forward. Full back trim wouldn't allow a stabilised IAS on a power off approach. Worst case was empty rear seats, lighties in centre seats, and pod only with light freight. Trim fully back on final, then there was simply not enough elevator command to hold the nose off as power was reduced. We got around this by loading more rearward, using half flap only, and rounding out with some power still on. As a result of this, we found that the latter loading also gave us better control in crosswinds as we could keep the nosewheel off, until well after the into wind mainwheel was on, and the aircraft settled onto both mains. The 182, 205, 206 are all very nose heavy with light loadings. For training, (to simulate a full load), I usually place 2-3 x 20L water drums in the cargo compartment or tied onto the rear 2 seats of the 6 seaters. You'll have an idea of whether you have neutral trim by looking at the elevator horn position in cruise - it should be flush/hidden by the horizontal stabiliser, and the trim position indicator in the midway location. You need enough weight to the rear so that it's possible to trim for a stabilised, low power on, approach of 65-70 KIAS and still have some elevator command remain at roundout. Conclusion: IMHO, accidents will continue with the 'heavy' Cessnas because pilots, (it seems young CPL's in particular), are not receiving the full quid in their type training. The old method of requiring a 'proper' endorsement for these aircraft was probably a safer approach than just giving someone a few laps of a 5000 ft strip on a fine day. I seriously doubt that pilots are being comprehensively trained to handle these aircraft in all conditions. happy days,

No question about that. My TIF and 1st lesson at RQAC in 1963 were in an Auster and it was definitely exciting. Since then, only flown an Auster a few, (rare) times - but I definitely have more adrenaline pumping on those occasions. Sounds like a great trip. happy days,

206's actually handle better with a decent weight on board. Landing with full flap in a lightly loaded 206 in a 10-15 kt x/w can be exciting too happy days,

I have concerns about an airstrip which is not 'depicted' on WAC, (and probably these outnumber those on the WAC), as falling into Section C. It has always been the case that it doesn't matter whether the airstrip is shown, or not shown on the WAC - if it does not have a discrete frequency approved - then it becomes 126.7 first preference, area frequency last preference. I can't think of a single case of where area is 1st choice. This is just confusing the punters. In any case, there's very likely to be non-radio traffic so it becomes see and avoid. Joining overhead becomes your safest option. happy days,