Powerin Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Edit: Found the answer to my question in the other thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I have flown V1 countless times, there is only 2 places the worry me, just south of sout head to bondi as cliffs are 400 ft, and the area from bondi south for about 3 nm where you can't glide to shore. I will take victor 1 any time over the LOE to the west over 8 8ths suburbia. Also, it is mandatory to wear life jackets/vests when flying V1, well it was a last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Gordon Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Has anyone been taught the technique for ditching into water? It was not taught in either my RA-AUS or PPL courses, but an old aviator friend of mine (ex-RAAF) told me gear up (if you can) and make sue the tail goes in first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Yep Geoff, but I think the 'gear up' is a real problem for most of us.David You need to go back to Howard Hughes' earlier post... he added a link to a paper on water ditching. According to that there is statistically no disadvantage between gear or no gear... or was it gear up and gear down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Yes... but opinions based upon nothing are more meaningless. I mean the earth appears flat... For many years people swore it was because of what they saw... its not. If you didn't read it... then you are actually basing your opinion on less than nothing. (don't take it personally- I don't mean you. Its just human nature really.) The statistics may be perfect but they are a better indication then.... nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 It does make sense... Seems that it would happen that way. Still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 You can fly over water with out glide to land if wearing a life jacket. And that`s smart??????????............In an RAA ,single engine aircraft!!!!!! Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 And that`s smart??????????............In an RAA ,single engine aircraft!!!!!!Frank. Seems that teh Tassies among us might be a tad limited if they were to apply a no water crossing approach....And their water is a tad more unfriendly than ours (well mine at least...yours has all sorts of unfriendlies that I dont have such as stingers and salties) But on a serious note if the approach was to get rid of all risk, we'd all stay on the ground wouldnt we? To me understanding and then mitigating the risk to the extent that we can is about as much as we can do and still go flying which I assume most like me will do anyway, for as long as we can... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Teckair, plenty of aircraft are operating in the areas we are discussing. RAA included. How else are we meant to transit sydney? or should we all be confined to the backwaters, over tiger country. Out of sight out of mind? There are areas one could technically glide to in the sydney lanes (although I wouldn't like to try), and as others have quoted, there is provisions in the regs for over water flights.If your worried about us loosing freedoms, how about not inferring (in an open public forum) that people aren't being compliant. It would appear there will be one aircraft less operating in those areas. If you want to transit Sydney by air do it in a GA plane. You were the one who said you would rather ditch in the sea than crash into a built up area on a public forum all I did was point out how to avoid doing so. RAAus is supposed to support affordable flying and should not be wasting resources on pursuing turning the organisation into GA MK 2. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 From what I hear Victor 1 is under close scrutiny at the moment from CASA, Airservices and the ATSB. From chats with my instructors you do not fly it without lifejackets and you make damn sure you're up to speed with wind direction and are fully prepared to ditch into the water. Personally i think i'd rather ditch as best as possible into the water a little way off the coast and float around in my lifejacket for a while rather than try to land close to the coast among all the rocks, cliffs and innocent people. The Warrior tends to float for a while if you ditch well enough which helps with this option I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 And that`s smart??????????............In an RAA ,single engine aircraft!!!!!!Frank. Some of your buttons seem to be getting stuck on your keyboard Frank. I was pointing out it is not illegal under certain circumstances when someone inferred it was, always. The intelligence (or choice) of doing it I will leave up to the opinion of the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Teckair, if you wish to grind your political axe, do it in another thread, this one is probably not the right choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Teckair, if you wish to grind your political axe, do it in another thread, this one is probably not the right choice. Maybe in your opinion, I think this accident is significant and highlights problems with operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Maybe in your opinion, I think this accident is significant and highlights problems with operations. You said if you wish to transit these areas do it in a GA aircraft...what exactly makes a GA aircraft safer in these lanes? (at least when talking 4 strokes) I agree it highlights a problem... the problem lies with Airservices and is not GA/RA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Some of your buttons seem to be getting stuck on your keyboard Frank. I was pointing out it is not illegal under certain circumstances when someone inferred it was, always. The intelligence (or choice) of doing it I will leave up to the opinion of the individual. Tex, Not having a shot at you in any way! If we are going to be fairdinkum about safety,we also need to point out that being safe isn`t only about being within the law/Regs! Frank. Ps, Notice the buttons didn`t stick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 You said if you wish to transit these areas do it in a GA aircraft...what exactly makes a GA aircraft safer in these lanes? (at least when talking 4 strokes)I agree it highlights a problem... the problem lies with Airservices and is not GA/RA... GA aircraft can legally be flown in these areas and they are supposed to be more reliable due to more stringent maintenance standards. There is a good reason RAAus aircraft are supposed to be able glide clear of built up areas, it has got something to do with owners being able to maintain their own aircraft, without going into too much detail. There is a term Pilot in Command, the Pilot in Command chooses how the aircraft is flown in the given circumstances, to blame Airservices for the actions of a Pilot in Command is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 GA aircraft can legally be flown in these areas and they are supposed to be more reliable due to more stringent maintenance standards. There is a good reason RAAus aircraft are supposed to be able glide clear of built up areas, it has got something to do with owners being able to maintain their own aircraft, without going into too much detail. This argument is so full of holes you could drive the Titanic through it... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegro2000 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 To All, It is always with dread that we learn of another accident involving an aircraft In this case the pilot has been lost and the passenger severely injured. We all extend our heartfelt sympathies to the love ones and friends of those involved. For RAA this looks like one of its'blackest years, we all do not want a repeat of what has happened. There has been discussion of RAA revealing the outcomes of accidents so that we are all educated and therefore forewarned. I realise that this comes at a cost, there will be many RAA members that will scream but for our safety we should look at this squarely. Allegro 2000 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Yes blackrod, from memory the aircraft that landed in a street killing both on board was a twin, with 2 GA maintained engines. Iggy has started a thread to discuss points brought up in this thread, let's air out grievances in there. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davidh10 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 It would appear there will be one aircraft less operating in those areas. If you want to transit Sydney by air do it in a GA plane. .... RAAus is supposed to support affordable flying and should not be wasting resources on pursuing turning the organisation into GA MK 2. I find the GA vs RAA comments quite spurious. Everything we do in everyday life has attendant risk. The best we can ask is to be aware of the risks affecting each activity, so that we, as individuals can make an educated choice about the risk profile inherent in each activity. There is a responsibility on all PICs of non-commercial aircraft (whether RAA or GA) to ensure that passengers have some appreciation of the risk profile. A more interesting discussion is how far should we go? ...I think this accident is significant and highlights problems with operations. Perhaps you know more than the rest of us about the actual cause of the accident? It wasn't an engine failure that caused the aircraft to spear in at a (reported) steep angle. Neither was the cause due to being over water. Maybe, as the passenger recovers, some new light may be shed on the actual cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mc Guyver Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I find the GA vs RAA comments quite spurious. Everything we do in everyday life has attendant risk. The best we can ask is to be aware of the risks affecting each activity, so that we, as individuals can make an educated choice about the risk profile inherent in each activity.There is a responsibility on all PICs of non-commercial aircraft (whether RAA or GA) to ensure that passengers have some appreciation of the risk profile. A more interesting discussion is how far should we go? Perhaps you know more than the rest of us about the actual cause of the accident? It wasn't an engine failure that caused the aircraft to spear in at a (reported) steep angle. Neither was the cause due to being over water. Maybe, as the passenger recovers, some new light may be shed on the actual cause. October last year I was at Tyagarah (Byron Bay) and filled up with mogas (unleaded 91 octane) for a 80HP Rotax. 10 hours later, my fuel filter had blocked up. I was fortunate in being only about 3 miles and 1200ft AGL from our airfield, able to restart and limped back to our airfield. I insist that the guys at our airfield practice simulated engine failures regularly. Number one priority being to get your best glide before thinking of anything else. Factory specs of my aircraft: GR 6:1 and I teach 12:1 Almost all of us have a GPS which will give glide ratio, and it is easy enough at a safe height to find the best GR for the aircraft flown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Factory specs of my aircraft: GR 6:1 and I teach 12:1 So Factory spec is that for every 6ft forward you loose 1 ft of altitude How then do you teach to 1/2 that (12:1) ? or do you mean that you teach 3:1? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mc Guyver Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 So Factory spec is that for every 6ft forward you loose 1 ft of altitudeHow then do you teach to 1/2 that (12:1) ? or do you mean that you teach 3:1? Andy It is 12:1 Send me a PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Use power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 It is 12:1 Send me a PM So you teach a better more gradual glide slope than the manufacturer states. Surely that's not what you mean?? Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now