poteroo

Read on a US 'Cessna' website:

I believe that with USD140.00/hr rates for Cessna 172's doing just VFR training, GA is dying in this country. My intent is to refurbish Cessna 150's and, hopefully, get them into LSA category.....so that I can charge out at USD80.00/hr.

There's one born every day !

Wonder if the instructor is going to pay him as well as the student?

happy days,

It seems reasonable for flying schools based in or close to major cities to require hirers to be up to scratch with departure and arrival procedures. Given the high number of CTA incursions, many pilots, especially low timers, will benefit from a short out-and-back x/c to learn these. But, it seems unreasonable to be asking for 3-4 hr x/c's when the hiring pilot has already just demonstrated competency in either a BFR, or a PC issue.

happy days,

Traffic-wise, making a 180 at Jandakot is akin to turning to face the hordes of Genghis Khan !

The track they were on is the 'out' route via Yangebup Lake to Lake Thompson and then south thru the JT training area. The best forced landing areas are the Kwinana Freeway, a couple golf courses, or one of the lake banks. They were just under 1nm south of Lake Thompson, and nearly 2.5nm west of the Kwinana Fwy.....so out of gliding range to anything open, especially in an Arrow! Another 1nm and they'd have had an option of internal roadways at the Alcoa tailing ponds. All in all ....bad luck to have it right there, but at least their good judgement got it down successfully.

happy days,

Interesting interview. A bit surreal that 2 journos can discuss declining standards without either expressing any real concern, or proposing any solutions. The major influence seems to be the flood of so-called 'press releases' from government and business - making life ever so easy for a lazy journo. Investigative journalism appears all but dead.

happy days,

Sounds like carb ice to me. We have ci quite often on the south coast of WA. We teach doing the power checks last - so that any ice accumulated during taxi is cleared. Also seems impt to use wide open throttle all the way on climb, rather than some form of reduced power/cruise climb.

happy days,

When you open up to 'full power' and see about 21-22 inches MP on the clock, even 300HP upfront isn't going to give you whiplash ! . That's why you need substantial, (5-10%), downhill slope to get airborne.

And, by the time you have opened up to full power - and checked you have it - you've already passed your accelerate-stop distance - and you're going off the end - engine runnning or not !

Agree with XXX regards the overloading and climb rates. Mostly, you can't meet the 6% SE climb gradient limit which used to be drawn onto the former DCA take-off charts. Which meant lots of manoeuvring in valleys, using the upslope lift, to get up to the gaps into the next valley.

Most of all - it's the cloud which is so intimidating. It's everywhere - layer after layer, Cb after Cb - and it's real rain ! Many places average over 150 inches per year - some well over 200 ins. Most companies used to need leading edge repaints annually.

Want to take your RAA aircraft up there for a jolly around? Forget it!

As for Foreign Correspondent on Monday night - well, PNG has changed for the worse since the taim bipoa. Greed, self-interest, corruption, and a complete absence of ethics or morality come to mind about current day PNG.

What hasn't changed is that, regardless of how sophisticated the aircraft, or whether you have 2 crew - negotiating the weather is just as risky as it ever was.

With all due respect to the Coroner, I take exception to the word rogue. Of course he couldn't see the lines.....he's untrained. All powerlines are dangerous. Some are more difficult to locate because of other features such as trees.

Powerlines are always hard to see if you have to start looking for them, in flight, without having a map with at least most of them already marked. The sun has to be in the right position - sometimes a line, or a span of it, won't be visible except for about 30 dgerees of a full 360 turn. Forewarned is forearmed.

Never assume anything. Never take anyone's word for abscence of lines. Never descend until you've really checked the area. Cross all lines over the posts.

Now that we are able to instruct low level, you should ask your instructor to do at least part of your next BFR at low level. You'll gain a whole new appreciation of the perils down there,and why spur-of-the-moment, low level manoeuvreing, places you at increased risk.

happy days,

Agree with Facthunter - you just cannot stay on-top in the hope that you can descend to your destination VFR. And this applies even if you are capable of radio naving.

As for descending thru or close to a cloud deck - get some training in this...it needs a steady and controlled configuration or things can get very pear shaped.....quickly.

As for scud running.....well, without being low level trained, and current.......you're asking for trouble. Even then.....it's a last resort.

happy days,

Many training aircraft now have attitude instruments fitted - whether vacuum or EFIS.

Referring the student back to instruments during and after a manoeuvre is standard practice, so it's not difficult to include the attitude instruments at this time.

This won't make an IFR pilot out of anyone - any more than the 2 hrs for PPL will - but it's making use of what's available to increase a pilots' skills.

I'm also not of the opinion that pilots with a little 'IF' training are more likely to intentionally go IFR. Reckon it's a more fundamental value than that - namely whether they are a risk-taker or not. Same could probably be said of low flying - where it's Capt Gung-ho who'll be doing the beat-ups rather than F/O 'Cautious' who's been suitably impressed by his instructors demonstration of the perils of LL.

happy days,

Some good advice above. Any engine can 'fail' - for any number of reasons.

My best advice.....always have a plan.

Sometimes, the shortest route isn't the smartest. Why did we all fly via the gaps in PNG........... because most cleared land, and riverbanks, were in the valleys. As well, why flog your engine an extra 5000ft to get over the hills when it's only 10 mins more to go around?

I've had 4 totals - 3 were big Continentals, and the last a Jabby 2200 - and the root cause of each problem was mechanical failure way inside - which a pilot could not have identified. In my 'events' if I hadn't been close to, or nearly over, a cleared locale, it would have been curtains......which brings in the factor of 'the plan....which was to never be too far from a forced landing area.

It's just as applicable in Oz. Here in WA I have often flown Laverton/Leonora to Ayers Rock....but never direct!! Many do, but I'm a cautious driver, and go an extra 10 minutes via over-the-top Warby Range. Roads most of the way, and you'd expect to get down in one piece.

Another point not raised above is that you should use all of the G airspace available to you - wx permitting. That might mean using an 'opposite' hemispherical level, and that right on the bottom of CTA. eg, you are coming from the east into Jandakot, and elect to fly 2500 because it's 'hemispherical' and below CTA. That's fine...but you could just as well use 3500, stay on Perth radar for traffic guidance, and have another 1000 up your sleeve when traversing tiger country. I'm sure there are plenty of similar situations in the east.

happy days,

There's a practical limit to how much step-down or step-up you could fly off another aircraft, and still make it 'look' to the ground observer that the aircraft are in close formation.

I agree with others re the CASA ruling - it's allowing for judgement, whereas RAA's 100ft isn't easy to judge. In fact, trying to fly 'off' another aircraft at 100-200ft is much more difficult to do than a wingspan - because the turn-in tendency is greater.

happy days,

Who was it who made the statement - There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics. ?

As a scientist of 40 years, it's been my experience that you can make a case for most things out of the numbers. It's a question of interpretation.

happy days,

Looks like that system has lost it's oomph! We had 330/60 from surface up last week, which was the reason for substantial damage around the SW corner of WA. Surface winds in Albany reached 125 km/hr....67kts by my calculator.

Whenever the forecast says 'severe' - lock the hangar doors ...regardless of whether it's VH or 24/19 registered!!

happy days,

Hypothetical? No, it's Happening Hundreds of Times Each Year

What's hypothetical is being 'recognised' visually by a good citizen who knows you are in CTA, or reports you for low flying. Pretty unlikely I'd think. What's more likely is that you are in a modern aircraft with your TXP bleating away on ALT - thus giving Centre the picture that you have just violated CTA, and at low level. They then have to determine just who you are - and that's not going to happen if you land 'elsewhere'.

It occurs to me that an intentional unauthorised CTA incursion is where the PIC elects to configure the aircraft so as to not attract attention, (TXP - OFF, strobes - OFF,), and fly well clear of habitation, without becoming so low as to attract attention - but still below radar!

An accidental or unwitting CTA incursion is less likely to worry authority if you can see the situation unravelling, and make an early call for advice. And that's regardless of whether you are dual licenced. Knowing which frequency to call is something everyone should have at the fingertips.

Sure, PPPPP applies to these situations. Perhaps some re-training is needed, but....... most GA pilots who infringe CTA, ( those who are eventually identified), get off Scot-free. So why should our hypothetical RAA driver be crucified?

In the end, people are going to continue to infringe CTA, regardless of whether they hold a PPL,CPL,ATPL,or RAA endorsement. Educating everyone to use their navigation aids correctly, and to effectively negotiate with ATC will minimise incursions but it won't eliminate them.

happy days,

A comment on the Cessna 210 's Va and turbulence. When the very first 210's appeared in Australia in 1960, they were to all intents a straight back C182,with r/g and 260HP up front. The Va was 113 Kias - same as the 182C/D models. My recollection is that at least 2 of the early 210's broke up in flight - having been pushed through rough summer storm situations way above Va. When negotiating potentially rough situations in the bigger Cessnas, (especially C210 and C182RG), I slow down to < 120KIAS. Dropping the gear in rough air helps stabilise the aircraft and you can use a bit more power for improved control response.

Rudder! HH was on the money with respect to rudder. Employing more rudder to level your wings in rough air allows for a smoother,straighter approach. This allows you to concentrate on getting the approach angle right - for the wind situation of the day. You learnt this under 'further effects of rudder'.

Speeds? I find it easier to hold an angle of approach than slavishly chasing a target IAS. More h/w - use more power, (and maybe less flap), to 'flatten' the approach angle so that it's the 'same' as in nil wind. Faster IAS to hold approx the same ground speed seems to work well. Of course, there's a limit to watch, and that's Vfe. Take a J160 with 83 Vfe, and a usual Vref of 60 - you have over 20kts to add as needed to approach speed to achieve your 'learned' approach angle - and still be able to use flap. If you are out there in >23 kts hwc, then maybe flapless is preferable.

happy days,

Originally used a CR-2 for my PPL in 1963, then needed more accuracy and invested in a CR-3 for my CPL in 1965. The CR-2 went to a mate, who allowed it to meltdown in a car - about their only weakness. They don't appear to have changed over the years either.

The really important aspect of the wind side of the CR series is to ensure that you calculate the ETAS,(effective TAS), after you have the crosswind correction calculated. This gives you the TAS reduction when flying with large amounts of drift laid off. I failed my 1st CPL NAV theory by ignoring this little point.

You can also work backwards from drift correction to finally end up with wind speed and direction. It's interesting to compare the manual calculation on the CR-3, to the wind data derived off my Garmin 296, and displayed in glowing magenta on the Dynon 180.

happy days,

Merv,

It takes time for pilots to assimilate knowledge, and I agree, the currect cross country requirements don't even come near what you probably need. The newer, (higher) hours will go some way toward that.

The experience discussion is never-ending. In the UK, there's a requirement for instructors to have 500hrs TT before they do their course in GA. In Oz, you can start straight after CPL - could be as low as 150.1 hrs TT. My observations are that these pilots are struggling to cope with flying and instructing. More and broader experience will always be beneficial.

Tony,

Couldn't agree more about instructing immediately after being endorsed. In GA, and RAA, you can immediately conduct 'endorsement' training on, for example, a tailwheel type, after your own paperwork is official...and you are G2 or SI level. A recipe for disaster! I've seen 2 Cessna 180's groundlooped by GA instructors who were so arrogant that they took on an endorsement.......without any RH seat experience whatsoever. (Remember, in GA at least, you have to be 'endorsed' in the LH seat - so have never had a minute of RH experience prior to your 1st endorsement!!). It's really dumb.

I hope that RAA have a 2nd look at the implications of allowing inexperienced instructors to give 'low level' training in the near future. I'm hoping that the bar will be set a bit higher.

happy days,

The big island North of you is PNG, and all of the accessible WW2 aircraft are long gone to museums and rebuilders around the world. It's also most inhospitable terrain, and a newly certificated RAAus pilot stooging around at low level, gawking at the scenery would be fairly risky. Finding WW2 wrecks wasn't easy in the 60's, and I guess it's harder now.

Besides, the PNG authorities are a bit choosy about who gets in there to fly around these days, and operational requirements are onerous. Personal security is a big concern in most parts too.

Think about it again after you've learned to fly, and have some decent experience, because those mountains in PNG are up to 7 times higher than the Blackall Ranges just inland of you.

happy days,

basscheffers

'instructors are cheap' .......... if you can get one ! There's one hell of a shortage over here in the West. Even RWAC is having trouble keeping them.

I heard that GA instructor rates have just risen substantially. A couple months back the casual rate was $57.00 per hour for a Grade 1, GA instructor, and my guess is that it will now be over $60.

What happens in GA instructing will filter on to RAA, and my guess is that casual instructors will need to be paid more. But, that's another subject....

happy days,

It's more likely that the '5 hrs' requirement will only be valid if you complete your nav/flt planning before the new Ops Manual is activated on 1st August.

Remember that it's not just a question of how many hours you've clicked over - it's whether you have demonstrated the competencies required by the syllabus, and to the satisfaction of the CFI. That might just be more than the minimums set by RAA.

Actually, slightly longer cowling is already flying on RV's which have been converted to Jabiru 8 cyl engines - no problems and all were registered OK. I understand that Jabiru have already done the numbers for the use of a 6 cyl Jab in the -9A.

Contrary to what has been posted previously - the stall speed of the 6 and 6A series isn't too high...in fact it's on the VANS site right now as 48 or 49mph = 41-42 kts. The major issue is that there's little point in converting an 'old' design, which can't be flown aeros, which is harder to build, smaller inside, and gives you a rougher ride in turbulence. The -9A is by far and away the best VANS design ever.

Luckily for Aussies - there is no speed limit for RAAus aircraft. That's what is limiting the adoption of LSA in the USA. Manufacturers are having to limit speeds by pitching propellors finer - which makes no sense in terms of fuel efficiency. Please, please,.....don't put any of these silly ideas into heads in Canberra, or we'll all be back in the 50kts era.

happy days,

The maximum gross weights quoted on the VANS website are:

RV-6.......... 727 kg RV-6A............750 kg

RV-7 and RV-7A................................. 818 kgs

RV-9 and RV-9A.................................. either 727 kgs or 795 kgs, depending on the engine HP. For the 727 kg variant, the numbers are valid only for a Lycoming 0-235 of 118HP.

The VANS factory told me that they could see no reason why a Jabiru 120HP engine would not be a reasonable replacement for the Lycoming 0-235, especially interesting as they are 35kgs lighter. You'd need longer mounts and cowls, but that would be unlikely to exceed the 35 kgs saved.

Performance wise, you'd probably expect a cruise of around 130-135 kts, on a burn of 24 LPH.

Yes, you could go backwards in technology to an RV-6 kit, which is now out of production anyway. The 9A kit is easier to build, and it's a safer,(42kts stall), and nicer aircraft to fly. Forget the aerobatics capability of the RV-6 because you won't be using it if you register the unit in RAA.

Summary: Yes, it will be possible to register certain RV's in a new RAAus 'experimental' category - but only within a 750kg max gross wt. There will probably never be a 'factory' built version - because they are smart enough to stay in kits to limit their liability under US law.

happy days,

Saw a circuit flown in a C182, with the contol pin still in, by an instructor, who successfully used trim,rudder, and power to fly the circuit. After he had successfully landed the thing, his ticket was 'lifted' by the then CASA, and I doubt he ever flew again. It was actually a good bit of reactive flying....but we won't mention everything else!

happy days,

Doug,

Well written. I'm pleased to see that your time isn't being wasted with wide and rectangular circuits. With Cubs, low level and close-in racetrack circuits are the go. By making a descending 180 turn onto final, you are also learning how best to fly a bad weather circuit and approach - 'killing 2 birds' etc...

In our SuperCub, (which is bigger and heavier,with 160HP), we use 50KIAS + half flap for the initial 'base', and on the final part of the turn onto final, we go full flap and adjust to 40/45KIAS. With a stalling speed of 'around' 32KIAS, this still satisfies the 1.3 x Vsf numbers.

And, if you have 'toe' brakes....lucky you. We have diabolical 'heel' brakes - which require considerable dexterity in your leg movements.

safe flying,

As John has noted above, this 'step' idea was very much part of training in the 60's. My instructor could easily demonstrate that he could trim out a Cessna to fly several kts faster than I could. (He was a crusty old WW2 driver). I often try it on my students, and generally can demo 3-5kts increase in GPS g/s in the Jab 160. I'm not convinced that this isn't anything other than just the ability to more accurately setup for cruise. Once students accumulate experience - the differences narrow down.

happy days,