poteroo

Yes, that's true - but, a student pilot must be checked by their instructor before each solo flight after their initial solo. Then, once they are out of circuits into the training area, it widens to every 2-3 hrs or so. The importance of competency checking is emphasised for instructors: very necessary before student goes back to solo or you void the insurance. The longer the student has not flown - the more important it is to dual check them for whatever exercises they have already been taught - before turning them loose. Also, until the student has their RPC, they cannot complete the DI and sign off the M/R. So, instructor has to be at hangar to do this as well. Frankly, I can't see how dual instruction can be 'legally' flown atm, and without it, student solo flying is a very grey zone. happy days,

Now this is a wheeler! Done by a pilot who flew it (new) in 1961 happy days,

A Flying School Cannot Sensibly Operate under Current Conditions. Let's initially put aside all the temporary restrictions on gatherings, social distancing, and non-essential operations: we should look at what our own personal risks are with just operating a flying school. Selfish I know, but that's common sense to an oldie. Firstly, it's not possible in a side-by-side trainer to socially distance. I always decline to fly with anyone who shows any flu like symptoms anyway, because they can't focus on their work, and more often than not, they suffer from ear blocks and pain. Besides, having an annual flu injection isn't going to prevent catching a 'new' strain of flu from someone who has just returned from travel: unbeknowns to me. Secondly, we stopped because the students postponed, and interest in spending on recreational activities dried up as people began to be retrenched. No customers = no need to keep the door open. And I think it will be at least end of year before things change from a demand aspect. I ceased training operations in early March. RAAus were formally advised. This was due to multiple concerns, mostly to do with limiting my own exposure to known current students, and to TIF prospects: I'm 79 and shouldn't be tempting fate. We have not flown a revenue hour for Feb, Mar or April - and are feeling the pain as it's the prime training - weather window on the south coast. We haven't just suffered a 15%, or 30%, or 50% decline in business - it's 100% ! This has allowed me to seek insurance 'relief', as well as annual landing fee, and hangar lease charges deferrals or extensions. I'd say that the majority of RAAus, and most country GA schools have long since closed the doors and retreated to social isolation. happier days,

Onetrack, You are correct re the mountain artillery. Have just re-read Brune and it's on p202. Brigade Hill begins as you step away from the top end of Efogi airstrip, towards the south. The river off the lower end of Efogi runs along the W side of brigade Hill, and that's where the Japs sneaked in behind Potts. The Japs had used a classic encircling attack for all of the Kokoda campaign to date, and although Potts must have been aware of it, there are only so many eventualities that can be blocked off. pics below: (2). shows a RAAF Caribou parked at the top of Efogi in the early 70s. The Track runs under its' stbd wing and then up Brigade Hill. It must have been one hell of an exciting takeoff here as we barely made it in 185s! The other (3). is from Brigade Hill looking back down to the strip - a fair slog to get there. 1st pic is of the War Memorial in Kokoda village - an easy 5 min walk from the strip parking bay. NB - a small rain shower in distance toward the ranges. The final pic is of myself and mates uncovering a treasure trove of Jap Zero fighters on Sek airfield, (30km N of Madang), in 1962. The rising suns were clear under the wings, all the insts were in them, guns there, tyres rotting off the rims. But the snakes, centipedes, scorpions, chiggas, and vicious 'kurakem' ants, along with 'salaat' stinging trees, (worse than a 'Gympie Nettle tree), were small disincentives! happy days,

True, they did have these mountain artillery with them, and used them all the way up the Track from Kokoda to the top of the Gap. Potts knew about them, but the Brigade Hill setback was caused by Japs crawling up the slopes from the valley floor, and getting behind his HQ on the Track. I'm unsure whether the Japs actually managed to get their mountain artillery up and over the Gap to be used on the campaign through Kagi, Efogi, Menari, Naoro and Ioribaiwa. ? The Jap encircling movement, (despite being up a very,very steep slope, was what lead to the cutting off of many troops, causing a disorganised withdrawal. Potts and his HQ group only just managed a fighting retreat. I'm sure that is what Peter Brune wrote in his "A Bastard of a Place" which is regarded as a reasonable account of the campaign. When you have a look at all these places, from both g/l and above, you can only wonder at how anyone could defend anything. The pic below shows the Kokoda Gap from Kokoda on the N side. The lowest point thru the Gap was just under 6500, and even at 7500 going through in the mornings, we were looking up at a lot of threatening terrain. It looks so simple in this pic, but this is a rarity. By midday, you mostly need 12000 to get over here. Just to the RH side of this pic, the range rises to Mt Victoria,(13000). Alpine vegetation above 9500, and in cloud most of day. happy days,

Yes, Naoro is now abandoned - since the 80's I think. It was only 400m long, and every wet season, became sodden as the Brown R overflow. There have been other strips such as Manumu, (to the NW of Efogi), which we once used but are now gone. Menari is a newer strip, (80s), just E of Efogi, and notable as the closest strip to the Brigade Hill battle site, where Brig.Potts miscalculated the Japs ability to climb sheer slopes. Kagi is the location written up in WW2 history as where the advancing Japs held a huge lantern parade to frighten the retreating Aussies on the opposite side of the valley. There was another WW2 installed strip on the N side of the Myola Lakes which are not more than 6-8nm to the NE of Efogi, but it was only accessible to Cubs and Stinsons for medical evacuations. Pic of. In the 60's there were 2 crashed tri-motor types there but as we couldn't land -never found out their history. Myola is off the main Kokoda Track and at 6000 ft amsl, is cold and miserable. Have posted recent pic of DJU - now in Kiwi rego and happily flying in happier locations. Other posting shows just how densely clouded it becomes by lunchtime. The only way in/out is to fly VFR under the base, dodging the showers and always 'keeping the back door open' by switching sides of the valley to allow for a minimum radius 180. happy days,

MY VERY 1ST EMERGENCY - 19/11/67. Cessna 185C, VH_DJU Naoro, Kokoda Track, PNG Naoro was a 550m strip at 1000agl on the infamous Kokoda Track between Iorobaiwa and Efogi. Naoro was in a wide valley and about 10nm S of Efogi, but the surrounding terrain was 100% uncleared jungle, ie, not possible to land in or survive. It was dead flat, very grassy, and one way only: the E end was a river and then a hill! It was a very tight strip and you needed to be well setup to arrive in a full stall just on the markers: which meant about 60KIAS and some intermittent stall warning as you passed over the tree stumped 'undershoot'. This is getting seriously committed in a fully loaded 185. Unfortunately I don't have a pic of it, but have included pics of both Efogi and Kagi - further up the track towards the Gap. By late 1967, I was just beginning to be competent on the 185, with 155 hrs PIC, TT 675 hrs and PNG 260 hrs. In those days, we were pretty much thrown in at the deep end, which explains the high accident rate in PNG in the 60's and 70's. The 'incident' rate was off the clock - but DCA either was unaware of that, or chose to turn a Nelsonian eye to it. As their only part-timer, I flew mostly on the weekends - on Saturday the coastal runs to the Gulf, and to Milne Bay, plus the Kokoda Gap 'shuttles' early on a Sunday. Wx permitting, though from 6-11 was usually doable. My steed was quite a nice 185, having been purchased new in 64 by one of the Missions, and onsold in 66 to my employer. For the era, it was well equipped, (looks archaic now), as one of the pics shows. All our 185s had cargo pods fitted, as it was one way of keeping the CG reasonably forward. Unfortunately, they were not water or oil proof, and we were constantly berated for the mess that resulted. The pods also penalised the aircraft by about 5-7 kts, (probably due to having to extend the cowl flaps further open), and lowered performance just where you needed it most: takeoff and climb. But, this particular 185 had been into maintenance a couple times recently with 'CSU variations' on the MR, but nothing was found! How hard the engineers looked depended very much on whether you threatened to ground the aircraft! Junior pilots didn't carry much authority! On the 19th, I did a 1st charter over the Owen Stanleys to Safia, and back to Port Moresby. I then completed 2 return trips to Efogi, which is a nasty strip at 3800'amsl, and is 17% slope on the lower end, with a dogleg at halfway. It is in a tight little valley with absolutely no go-round as the ranges just disappear into the mist from the top. The Kokoada Track crosses the parking bay at the top end. The CSU seemed to be behaving itself, although lagging a little at full power, but I had one of those 'doesn't feel right' moments on the next trip where I dropped a load off in Efogi, then into Naoro empty to see if there was any upload waiting. None there, so I was (fortunately), empty, and with only 90 mins fuel for the last 20 min flight back to Port Moresby. A quick call on HF to give taxying advice, and off we go. On takeoff here, I had always tracked to the right, against a ridgeline, then turned across the extended centreline of the strip, and climbed on direct track up to 4500 if possible. No sooner had I begun my left turn that the RPM began to drop and the engine began to shake. By now I was about 400 ft agl and could see the strip out my left side - but I was far too high to breakoff and begin an approach. Next, the oil pressure eased back off the scale and funny noises commenced! SH#T!! Even quicker MAYDAY call on HF, then got on with the job. Decided that the engine had about 2 mins to run before it seized, so decided not to shut it down until then. A descending left turn and I was on a close-in, (bloody close!!), downwind leg at 70KIAS. Then, shutdown engine, and began clean glide onto a curved base. Keep the nose down, and rack in full flap as I turned final at about 100-150 ft. Best landing ever, and used up only half the strip. Local Papuans who had been watching my departure came racing onto the strip, and we pushed poor sad DJU into the parking area. Much excitement, and lots of Motu spoken, but I was oblivious to it all, except whyen the headman shook my hand and said: OOOOH, TAUBADA* - YOU LUCKY!! WE THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO CRASH. * = Master or Captain I could only agree with him - a minute or two earlier, or later, and I would have become another PNG statistic! The rest went as usual. Called PM on HF and cancelled the Mayday, then asked them to advise company as there was nobody on our freq on Sunday. The problem was that the main bearings had been cutting out, and the oil filter blocked up = no CSU control. Other than that = ops normal. The maintenance crew arrived in another 185, setup a block & tackle, removed the engine and replaced it within a couple days. The pilot who 'caused' the incident was, (by some PNG tradition), obliged to fly it out. This served a double purpose as it then constituted the maintenance 'test' flight, and carried all the tools back out. All the brave maintenance crew flew back home in the 'good' aircraft. And we did all this just for the experience! happy days,

Any 'suspended' particles in the air will cause distortion of light. eg, think of water as equivalent to air, (both are fluids, so fluid mechanics applies). If you add soil to the water, it becomes muddy, and to all intents - opaque. Less mud = better visibility through the fluid. For pilots, think of smoke, fog, rain as being 'suspended' in the air. Light is deflected off any suspended solids by a process known as refraction. The net effect of this is that you cannot see 'as far' through the air, and so - objects are actually closer to you than what they would be in clear air. Your eyes, of course, have been trained to accommodate to the clear air, (VMC/VFR), situation, and thus, the unwary pilot is closer to obstacles than 'thought'. A CFIT becomes more of a probability. On approach, in less than VMC, and having a PAPI to help, it's probably wise to stay above the standard mid-way setting to allow for the visual illusion. My cohort of PNG pilots were trained, (ICUS), to operate with lots of water in the air, (usually as cloud, mist or rain of varying intensity). This was all part & parcel of the old ANO 28.1 which spelled out the requirements for commercial pilot route & airstrip endorsement, without which a CPL could not work in PNG. It still exists today. As well as learning all the landmarks of the valleys & gaps, and each airstrips quirks, we were trained to operate our steeds at KIAS lower than Va, and how to make minimum radius turns in confined amounts of airspace with visibilities of well below the minima. This usually meant 20o flap and plenty of power to keep from Vso in a 45o A-O-B turn. We learned a lot about staying visual! Much of this training carried through when I did my ag rating with Max Hazelton at Cudal in early 1971. Knowing just where to position your aircraft, and at what configuration and speed, goes a long way to staying safe at low altitudes. Today, I still teach low level, (some 53 years since receiving it myself), and I try to expose my trainees to some reduced visibility flight, in which to practise their handling skills. IMHO, this flying skill should be taught to every pilot as part of the necessary syllabus because not everyone has a full panel of attitude instruments, and even less pilots are competent to transition to non VMC flight. But, that's another story, as the regulators continue in denial of the accident rate in the lower levels. Hope this answers the question? Happy days,

The possible scenarios are many. There will be hundreds, if not thousands, of experienced jet and prop-jet aircrew out of a job within 3-6 months. That will kill all the big flying schools because there will be no realistic professional career path for years. There will be hundreds of very highly qualified instructors driving Uber. Career prospects for instructors are gloomy atm. We might see a return of interest in recreational flying, and RAAus schools may get back into action by end of year - but it will be very slow. Many will fold. Unless you own the school aircraft, hangar and buildings outright, the going will be tough. There will be zero demand for new RAAus aircraft for probably 2 years. Many owners will gradually quit their aircraft because of costs, and having their own finances very tight.. Probably more interest in shared or group ownership in our future. There will be thousands of GA aircraft available as the recession bites in the US, but with our A$ where it is - it won't be attractive to import. As to prices in the used market - probably less owners likely to sell immediately as there won't be many buyers, so why slash prices? Many aircraft were changing hands late in 2019 at much less than the advertised price, so the market probably won't drop very much later this year. Cheaper fuel will be nice, but the big items such as insurance, and hangarage are unlikely to reduce. I think there will be many more hangars for sale, and many more spaces available, especially on larger airports because charges are likely to rise as landlords recoup. In conclusion, this CV event is looking like a disaster for aviation at every level. Not 'happy days' from me atm, but, it will pass, and life goes on.

Agree completely. 'Quickie' tailwheel endos are the likely cause of so many groundloop accidents. I encourage new endorsees to fly another 10-15 hrs 'under supervision' after their basic t/w endo, and this to include as many different strips and paddocks as possible. And all of this before trying the fancy 'wheelers' so much used by aggies. happy days

I think both. Our airport is moribund, with REX making its' last few flights in before it plans to close on 6th. Both flying schools have closed down. A few local private owners have been up to keep the oil circulating, but we had a couple 'new' aircraft in over the weekend. Actually the hangar is a refuge for me atm : get to plant some kikuyu, clean up inside, wash aircraft, and keep out of my brides hair for a few hours. I don't see any risk to the quarantine principle by doing a local flight. I think the authorities are starting to verge on censorship of the 1st order when they begin to draw lines between 'essential' or 'recreational'. Anyway, keep your sense of humour everyone - we are going to need to. happy days,

C180 & C185 Workhorses of 1960s PNG Load>BEW, more if one really tried!

I'll be happy to go for a short solo fly to keep the oil moving, but our flying school is self-closed for business as I decided 2 weeks ago, (independently of regulators or health officials), that the cockpit is far too 'close' and really breaches the social distance advice at that time. TIFs, with unknown people, have been off the menu for several weeks. Theory classes are similarly not on. Sure, there are 180 flying schools who will all lose income during the next few months, and not just because of the health aspects: many, many students and prospective students will very sensibly now have their eyes on survival rather than recreational flying. Whether they return is unknown. I expect to lose around $20,000 income over the next 3 months, but luckily, I own my aircraft outright, and the hangar too, so my outgoings are manageable. But, I can potter round my hangar,(solo), plant some lawn, kill a few spiders, clean up, wash aircraft, and generally...........potter! happy days, happy days,

For the same reason, many owners & operators are reluctlant to enter maintenance issues, no matter how small, onto an aircrafts' Maintenance Release. Any later 'official' investigation involving the aircraft leads to inspection of the aircraft logbooks plus all the retained MRs. One, (no names) company that I flew with used to have what was known as a Snag Sheet - onto which we rookie pilots were told to enter all of these 'less serious' items rather than onto the MR. A different era! happy days,

The quarantine/biosecurity responses to this pandemic have been generally way too late, and then, applied patchily in different ports of entry. Here's my recent experience of our 'front-line' response: We were long booked onto a Norway cruise out of Tilbury, (London), departing on 24th February. About 2 weeks prior, the cruise company emailed us to say that they would be applying 'enhanced' medical screening at boarding - specifying temperature checks, and a detailed questionnaire. Which they did apply, and thoroughly. However, we simply walked straight through Heathrow, with barely a mention of cv issues! How was that allowed? We duly sailed for Norway, and disembarked in Bergen on 10th March, from where we flew back to Oz via Oslo and Doha, arriving in Perth on 11th March. Once again, our alert, vigilant, Border Security, (or whatever their name this week), failed to temperature check anyone off the flight. They did give us a nice A4 sheet telling us to report 'sick' if we came down with a 'flu' after arriving home. This was before the 14 day self-isolation requirement, but we actually did 95% self-isolate anyway, as I wasn't happy with the Perth Airport 'screening' To see this approach when we'd been better screened a month earlier - and by private enterprise!! My impression was that our Aussie government knew much more that those silly owners of the cruise ship. [disclosure: I'm a former plant pathologist who spent some time as a quarantine pathologist - not that this makes me any sort of expert, but I'm not ignorant about epidemiology] happy days in isolation.....with a well stocked cellar!

Many of the strips that MAF operates into are shorter than what the 'normal' manufacturers POH allows for. PNG has always had its' own 'P' charts for each aircraft type. In any event, 'short' is relative - it's the slope which generally dictates your landing and take-off requirements. Accidents will continue in PNG because the weather hasn't changed from being marginal, the valleys are no wider, the ranges are no lower, and the gaps are still as hard to negotiate. MAF have always operated with a sound local training system. They hold a full charter licence and operate to the same standards as other charter operators. The big problem is that the purely 'mission' strips are not necessarily to 'commercial' standard, but those ops were, (if I remember clearly), flown as private ops and so avoided the commercial category limitations. They used to do their basic training at Ballarat, but these days it might actually be done at Mt Hagen, their primary base in PNG. In which case, the junior pilots should be better equipped than their predecessors. Given the cost of their Caravans, you'd think that they would be even more cautious with selection and training? happy days,

The most important thing that a professional pilot can do is to avoid allowing the 'commercial expectations' to become an 'operational imperative'. Sometimes the companies' ground staff can oversell things to the prospective charterer.

We don't have any knowledge of the loading of this RV-6A, and that can make quite a difference to the way the nosewheel might contact the surface. If the aircraft is loaded sufficiently in the rear compartment, then the trim should be about midway for a full flap, powered approach. 70 kts on final is a little fast, 60-65 is better for a dirt strip. If a little power is left on during the round-out, then the nosewheel can be held off until speed reduces down to around 40 kts, or even less if you really hold full back elevator plus some power. Glide approaches, or cutting the power over the threshold, will often result in 3 point touchdowns, or worse, because of loss of elevator command. Back of the drag/power curve approaches will ensure your landing will be on mains only, and at a manageable speed. Get your instructor to demonstrate this in the RV, and learn how to fly it. Pilots must be positive in holding the nosewheel off. Brakes should not be used until you park the aircraft! One of the common habits I see in pilots transitioning into RVs is that they feel-the-need to plonk the aircraft on the ground and get the brakes hard on asap - often resulting in huge pressure onto the nosewheel. You'd think they were about to select the thrust reversers! It more often than not takes me hours to get them to use good old aerodynamic braking with the nosewheel way off the deck. One item that I do teach is to taxy the aircraft up the strip with flaps still down + power and don't let the nosewheel down until it is needed. This 'fast taxy' could save your day on a soft wet/sandy strip as the good power/weight performance of the RV allows you to literally drag it through bad patches. In closing, I'm going to list a few DO'S with nosewheel RVs: 1. Spend money on good training 2. Keep your loading balanced - RV's land best with some baggage compt load 3. Avoid glide approaches - use power sufficient to hold the nosewheel off - right down to walking speeds 4. Keep approach speeds down to Vref for your individual aircraft and loading 5. Keep off the brakes 6. Don't allow yr nosewheel on until you have milked every last control out of the elevators happy days,

It doesn't - but many applicants have that expectation, together with one of no theory competency thanks, $60/hr and then only from wheels off to wheels on, and no charge for briefings. Just sayin' same argument as the one supporting RAAus keeping our rego's confidential to avoid paying landing charges?

Time to 'Escape from the City'

A BFR in a 1500kgMTOW GA aircraft, probably with CSU & RG, is as relevant to flying a J120 as is my RV to a SAAB 340. I don't know how they have rationalised things to reach this statement. The original intention of GA BFRs was that they be conducted in an aircraft the same, or very similar, to that which you had been flying the majority of the last 2 years. I thought this would, sensibly, be the case with GA-RAAus renewals, but it has changed to fit the regs as they are now interpreted. I don't send RAAus anything: it is up to the reviewed pilot to make a copy of the CASR Part 61 licence entry on p13, and email it to RAAus. That entry alone doesn't satisfy CASA however, and I then have to complete CASA form 61-9fr - the applicant pilot can scan/email it to CASA. CASA then enter it into the pilots file, a job which seems to me to be one of 'make work for the troops'. Why can't they trust us, and allow the reviewing instructor to enter the details directly into the pilots file. It's not as though there are 'state' secrets in pilots files! Come to think about all this 'make work' bs: why can't RAAus allow CFIs to access pilots files and enter the BFR, and other endorsement or test details, directly, without us requiring an in between person to do it? It doesn't make sense, but no doubt there will be a very defensive objection to my suggestions. Always is, when bureaucratic featherbedding is challenged! happy days, I never send RAAus a

There is still quite a demand for -9A s as they are the easiest RV to fly. Probably 50% of the WA built 9As are fitted with 180HP engines. You will only get 5-7 kts higher speed with them, but climb is quite a deal improved, and it makes 10,000 ft ops more attractive. You'd be very lucky to get a P model to do 130, without feeding it a wallet withering amount of fuel. Mine needed 48-50 LPH, avgas or mogas, and only then got close to 130. It had the 0-470-R Continental. The Q model, (77-80), has the U engine, and those I've flown were generally faster than the P models - one actually did 138KTAS!! I'm unsure of the existence of a Mogas STC for the Q models. R models are few & far between, and far more expensive to buy. You really need a good reason to own a 182 - like 200+ hrs pa, and heavy loads. Affirm! To that I'd add - ' or an aircraft with 4-6 seats, which you will rarely ever fill' happy days,

If you were taught to fly your downwind leg with the destination strip/runway 'cutting' the strut or aileron/wingtip at a set point - then it doesn't really matter, (from your flying point of view), whether you are a couple 100 feet high/low: your aircraft will be in it's correct position in relation to the strip/runway. Get your head out of the cockpit and watch for the correct visual cues in your flying, and stop stressing over what an inherently inaccurate instrument reads. happy days,

I wouldn't be so certain about that. I believe there is an 'intention' by our regulator to have all 'recreational' flying under a single roof. Training for CPL, and all current aerial work flying, and all charter flying, would become a new 'GA'. When you look at the bigger pic, it would not take very much change to merge the RPC and the RPL, which might require some changes to the theory exams, but really only a few differences to the flying syllabus. The differences between aircraft types could be via licence endorsements. Probably the most difficult part would be with the 'standardising' of instructors, but even that could be done by way of a common basic instructor course with add on endorsements for the type of instruction. I think we'll see changes in the near future. happy days,

Good plan. As stated by O.M.E. previously - you must do your Class 1 Aviation Medical before you think further about commercial flying. Be brave with this, because if there is even the smallest doubt/query/unknown showing in your medical at age 28 - it might just be an indicator of things to come when your are 48, and just beginning to get somewhere in your flying career. Incurring a huge debt at age 28 might not be the best move either - it may restrict your credit rating and have other unforeseen effects. good luck with it though,