poteroo

Horses might hurt a bit, but their rellies don't come after you, (as the offending pilot), waving bows & arrows - these days its' probably more like AK-47s! We always had to watch for them wandering across the strip on takeoff because the parking area was usually a tiny bit of flat ground off to the side, and when you were ready to go - out and off, no line up. Ist thing they would hear was 300HP roaring straight toward them! The pic of Ompkali is typical. It was about 13% slope and the was no go round from 300 ft on final. Several accidents here and it was closed in the 80s I believe. The pic of Guwasa shows a citizen wandering across well down - probably make it! The pic of Ambunti, (near sealevel on the Sepik R), shows a mighty big hill at the other end, which meant no go rounds from about the big tree on the nearside of the R. It was also slippery - rainfall about 150 inches. The strip at Efogi was notoriously steep, (17%), with a dogleg halfway and around 4000 amsl. This pic from a different era....a Twin Otter on final at about the decision point for landing. Efogi sits over the valley from Kagi, and next to Brigade Hill - both places of past battles on the Track. enjoy.

Good opportunity to post a couple more PNG pics. Here, it's less the length of strip, but the lack of power to get out of them. Lucky most were steep! At 8400 amsl, Kegsugl was the highest strip in PNG. Mt Wilhelm,(15,000) is just in LHS of pic but under cloud. A very intimidating strip, with average DA 11,000, and a 7% slope. 2nd pic is Wonenara in the Eastern Highlands also. Approx 5200 amsl, but over 10% slope, probably only 700m, and always with crosswinds. It was closed in the 70's after several serious accidents.

Wondering if there had been any changes made to the surface area of aileron, or the rigging of same with these mods? It didn't look like there was any effect from what he claimed was full aileron, though it's too far distant to see what deflection there was. Also can't really see whether there was rudder input to try to lift the stbd wing. The whole design of the thing shouts that it will be very susceptible to wind on the ground.

He was really optimistic in opening up the power when you could see the wind was already lifting his left wing. Your ailerons are useless until you have probably 30-40 kts flowing over them. He did mention 30 kt gusting winds, then calm, and looking into those storms in the background, plus the virga off higher storms in some early frames, I'd say he was a microburst victim. Really feel for him. Many of us have had similar loss of directional control but been lucky to have sufficient speed to be able to fly away - albeit away from the strip - and lived to fight another day. One thing I noticed was that he was more worried about the 'tower' approval than making a 'safer' takeoff. The tower usually can't see whether you are taking off or landing 20-30 degrees 'accross' the runway, and wouldn't care, provided you didn't conflict with a parallel runway traffic. Whatever it takes with high wing taildraggers!!

Yesterday was '9/11' day in the USA. It was also the 69th birthday of this fabulous Cessna 170A. Hard to believe but it only has about 5000 hrs TT, (that we can document anyway!). Of this, I flew over 2000 hrs into every 2nd paddock in the WA wheatbelt. It also trained at least 60 pilots to a tailwheel endorsement. I owned this beauty for 13 years from 1992 until 2005. Imagine my surprise when it arrived here in Albany, WA on the 10th Sept on a circumnavigation of Australia. Not only a few pics on the ground, and a talk with owners, but noted the string of improvements that have been made since in left here. Couldn't help myself so we flew out with it and took a couple pics. Going so slow that the RV needed flap!! happy days,

Well, maybe. VANS published info for 9/9A is for MTOW of 727 kgs up to 795 kgs - (registered mine as 795kg). For stalling speeds, VANS published numbers are 41.6 kts for 727 kgs, and 43.3 kts for 795 kgs - ( mine stalls at 43/44 KIAS... didn't work out CAS!). So, my assumption from what's been discussed is that my RV9A fails to fit inside the 760 kg limit, and that rules it out, regardless of the fact it has Vso <45kts. It stays in GA for now because the individual owner, regardless of whether they built it under EXPERIMENTAL or not, cannot change the manufacturers numbers without themselves providing the afcts to backup their claims. Very few RV9As will fit under 760kg without having been built specifically for this purpose. With regards to my Brumby 610, which currently has a Vso of approx 37kts (POH), at MTOW of 600kg - I'd guess that it would not exceed 45kts even if it was loaded up to 760kg MTOW. However, it's unlikely that it will perform too well, and in any case, the manufacturer probably doesn't have, and isn't going to spend big dollars, on doing all the testing required to increase its' MTOW. It would take quite a bit of work - and for what benefit? If the intent is to fill both the seats with 120kg people, and then fill the fuel tanks to 135L - most aircraft would weight 375 kg BEW + 240 crew + 100 fuel + 20 bags = 735kg. Pretty close to the new limits! I'd be very, very skeptical of it's takeoff and climb performance being anywhere near what it currently has. That means a lot of new performance figures would be required for the aircraft or the POH would be demonstrably incorrect and therefore, unusable. Frankly, this 760 kg MTOW limit promise is one which CASA cannot in all seriousness contemplate, without it costing a heap of development time and money for the industry. IMHO, it's a mirage, floated to placate a few noisy birds in the industry. happy days,

My understanding is that a qualified flying instructor actually did the 'guidance' - not the ATC

Student had, (reportedly), been flying C172 dual prior to this flight - his 'first in a 2 seater'. I think this explains a lot. However, given the shock of having a collapsed instructor on his shoulder, it was a seriously good effort. Hope his CFI signs this flight off as 1st solo. happy ending.

If you want an omelette:you have to break eggs. Progress in aviation has almost always involved increased risk for those participating. We don't need a bloated bureaucracy keeping our industry in cotton wool. As others have said: they kept away from the non-informed public, and took the risks upon themselves only. Their only mistake was to involve the press & media - who seem only able to sensationalise any 'aviation' event. Great stuff!!

That's true Nev, but there's a cohort of the human race who believe they are exempt from the use of common sense, or any sense for that matter! Never is this more evident than with pilots, where there is an over abundance of hubris. In respect of competency checks: just how frequent is enough. I've flown with charter companies which required 3 monthly line checks with the CP, or a C&T pilot, and that didn't eliminate the CPLs and ATPLs making some stupid decisions. It seems that competency checks, (a la CASR 61.385), will not eliminate over confidence, and spur-of-the-moment risky operational decision making. Frankly, I can't see this ending well for AF, regardless of how many friends there are in the Senate.

Councils have an unfortunate tendency to being sucked in by smooth talking entrepreneurs. Read the last meeting minutes and attend the next meeting to ask a few probing questions. You can expect your CTAF to become worse than the Tower of Babel in no time flat. Good luck!

The ATSB handling of the data, such as they are, doesn't match up with real life numbers such as hours flown. I tend to 'agree' with AF that some invalid conclusions were drawn from it. However, perception is reality as far as the general public is concerned and I think the era of VFR AF activities is about to close. Based on a '7x higher probability', the ATSB should have been calling for an immediate cessation of all VFR AF flights. Instead, they have obfuscated, dithered, and concluded with a report that really does not address the root causes of these accidents. Frankly, PPLs should not be placed in a position where they are possibly going to initiate an AF flight when all the indicators say it just isn't doable in VFR. CPLs with a CIR are really what AF need, and the sooner they accept it - the better. We can't rely on teaching existing pilots more human factors etc etc: many are already quite resistant to any behaviour education, and are going to take risks no matter what. Look at how many LL accidents and incidents still occur - despite huge promotional efforts to prevent it. Same with VFR into IMC.

Good advice:the imperative is not to load up the wing when you have altitude below you in the centre of the valley. 20 deg flap and 60-65 KIAS is right on the edge for an unmodified C182. NB: the demo here was done with a C182 fitted with a Sportsman STOL kit - which is a step upwards in lower speed flight. For the average pilot in a 172, 182 type - use 65-70KIAS and 15-20 deg flap. Note also that as the nose was allowed to fall away in the late stages of the 180 turn - the IAS rapidly increased from 60 to 80. But, still within the white arc. Without flap being deployed, expect this to be faster again. Of course, this demo was done in clear skies - it looks a whole lot different if you are doing it under a cloud base with rain along the mountains.

I'm sure they would all be gainfully employed in re-writing the CASRs.

True, but the telling factor is in how much the wing is loaded up during turns. At lower IAS, and lowish heights above terrain - it's vital that power is increased before/as the turn is initiated. This increases lift, and avoids increasing angle of attack to prevent height loss in the turn. It varies from type to type, but more often than not, too much flap is used for lower level flight. This uses up extra power, which could have been used to improve the turn safety. Sure, flap reduces Vs, but not so much that you can ignore the negating effect of the extra drag due the flap extension. Before allowing the aircraft to descend to 'low' level, it should have been trimmed to the target speed that you consider, or the POH says, is recommended for slow flight. After this, all the pilot needs to do is vary power settings to cause the nose to fall, or rise - or the IAS to be increased into turns. Makes all the difference if your head is 'out the window' and there are no inside distractions. The other factor in these lower level/lower speed turns is whether the ball is precisely in the centre. Too many pilots are guilty of trying to increase the rate of turn by pushing in too much rudder, (usually in LH turns), causing a skidding turn. This is a surefire way to stall the inside wing and spin under. Recovery takes thousands, not hundreds, of feet altitude. Nothing really dangerous about a steeper turn with power, which many pilots are afraid of at lower level. The laws of aerodynamics apply just as truly at 300ft agl as at 3000ft.

What really makes for interesting decisions on go/whoa is if the strip is quite sloping and there is precious little over-run at the lower end. It makes your decision point quite close to the top end of the strip because you must take into account the poor braking on sloping wet grass strips. Especially those of > 7-8% slope. What we tend to forget in performance calcs is that the (unsupercharged) engine output is significantly reduced with altitude, plus the coeffic of lift is lower than 1.0 and so the v2 of the equation must be faster to create lift. Probably why PNG has its' own 'P' charts, and I'd be sure that other high altitude countries like parts of Africa, Nepal, the Vietnam highlands, European Alps, and the Rockies and Andes of the Americas all have modified P charts for each and every aircraft type. happy days,

True - LL isn't really defined by the FAA, so provided you don't endanger anyone it's accepted. But DYO? FF is another thing, as I thought that this required a pilot to 'be competent' in whatever activity they wanted. Probably spelled out under the FAA Part 61. How do they achieve this.? Can't imagine that people just go out and DYO formation? Aerobatics? - wasn't aware this was ok in LSA in the US? Good luck to them learning under a DYO system. Our Aussie RAAus system is only mirroring the GA system here, (Part 61), and it is not going to change as long as CASA exist. happy days,

All very exciting for the US pilots, but it really doesn't have much relevance in Australia. RAAus already is able to offer a huge range of endorsements to the RPC - read them all in the Endorsement Syllabus in the Ops Manual, or better still, have a look at the Endorsement Form on the website. An RAAus pilot can already become endorsed on a manually adjustable propeller control - it doesn't require much in the way of understanding and certainly isn't such a difficult flying control that the average pilot can't manage it in addition to flying the aircraft. Of course, they are expensive. But, a pilot here can also become endorsed to retractable undercarriage, to tailwheel, to waterborne, to formation flight, to low level flying, and to glider and hang glider towing. As well, we don't have any limitation on the speed that we can fly an RAAus aircraft at - the US suffers from the 120kts limitation that has always been with them. We are soooo much better off than our US counterparts. Thank your lucky stars for what we already have. happy days,

Good news indeed. But, your experience speaks volumes for the industry experience in dealing with these vexatious despots. Now would be a very smart time to write a letter to the editor of the local paper, with a copy to Council, congratulating them on their support of small operators at the airport. You might also note that the City have already adjusted landing charges for light aircraft from a charge everyone basis - to nil charge if under 1000kg. I know, not great if you have a >1000kg machine, but at least it provides all RAAus aircraft with essentially freedom from landing charges. Bravo!! As to the prior permission required for non-VH registered aircraft: you might be best to work with your new and more enlightened manager to have this modified. At the very least, for any resident aircraft, or for regularly visiting (non VH-), aircraft you should be able to organise a once off 'approval' to cover you annually, or even better. happy days,

Was flying across NW Mexico with a Yank mate in his 206, (many moons back), with me LHS and he desperately trying to get a LORAN fix. It's pretty mountainous country, and we were trying to avoid a Mex Govt AFB, which had a bad reputation for confiscating aberrant US aircraft. After much pushing and pulling knobs, he swore at it, turned it off, and said to me - "guess you know how to use pilotage to navigate - hope you do, because we're in the S unless we get a fix" I'd actually been reading a 'sectional' chart since we left Nogales, and with my trusty 1963 model CR-3, gave him a fix immediately. He couldn't believe that there 'pilotaaage ' had saved the day. Aussie cred was raised considerably. happy days,

One of the most disappointing aspects of cross-country instruction is that pilots are not up to scratch with their whiz-wheel use, are unable to construct a basic flight plan, and once in flight, find that all the 'navigation' tasks overwhelm them. The result is usually quite inaccurate headings and altitudes, with the pilot losing it very quickly. It requires several hours of briefing, (read theory lecturing), to get them up to any standard. Happens in GA too. Pilots have come to expect they will be 'taught' the endorsement. It's only after they exceed the minimum 12 hrs that they appreciate the necessity to be prepared. happy days,

The issue arising from this accident is that pilots are being 'trained' to flight plan on a 10 mins before 'last light' ETA basis. Sundown was some 15 mins before official last light, and if we must continue training pilots on this 10 mins nonsense, then it should be 10 before sundown. I have never ever used the 10 mins advice because it is just the wrong advice. I learnt to use 30 mins before last light, and quite often this has been only just sufficient to land without landing lights. I'd love to hear a rational explanation of this from our regulators.

That wheat crop is massive! Probably in the order of 7-8 T/ha by my eye. I'm just surprised that the Foxbat wasn't held up by the dense crop and the crew simply opened the door and stepped out. No wonder we struggle to compete with European farmers.

US aircraft are usually well fitted out, and a Piper Saratoga over there would certainly have had a 2 axis autopilot, coupled to the NAV side of the 2 NAV/COMS usually fitted. He had probably received some training in all of the systems in the aircraft? If not - why not? As well, most US pilots know how to select a VOR radial by the time they reach solo standard, so it would be unusual if JFK wasn't using an outbound radial off his departure airport, plus the inbound radial to the destination airport on the other set. (VORS every few nm over there). How difficult would it have been to place the autopilot into NAV mode and allow the aircraft to fly itself directly to destination? This, especially as he was probably conversing with both passengers, which may well have been contributory. Have always wondered about this accident in what was such a well equipped aircraft.

CASA 'recognise' the RAAus Cross-Country endorsement, (12hrs), as being equivalent to the GA cross-country endorsement for the RPL. The RAAus endo is transferred straight across. However, at the GA schools I'm familiar with, the RPL cross-country training takes more like 18 hrs, and it covers more subject matter too. So, it appears to me that CASA have been quite 'generous' in allowing this recognition. I'd say that it is less to do with the diligence of the RAAus instructor, and more to do with what can be taught and absorbed in a 12 hr endorsement. I find it difficult to adequately cover the RAAus endorsement in the minimum 12 hrs. From within the ranks at RAAus I'm hearing that it's too long, and therefore too expensive, but honestly, if you are flying about Oz in an aircraft equivalent to a 95-110 kt GA type - then you need good cross-country training. As to just how much modern technology is allowed into the training: that is up to the RAAus and its' instructors. I teach the old and new together so that when doing the paperwork we are cross-checking from one method to the other. Same in the air, where I like to see combination being used. Pilot will always have a back-up that way.