Low level flight article in Sport Pilot

[rankamateur]

You can buy those rubber thingys I believe that are lifelike and adapt it. Bit like "George" in flying high. Nev

Do you mean a blow up doll?, just clarifying, your discpription was a bit vague. That would work, the filler at the service station would be a good fit for PULP, good job we don't use diesel, that nozzle might be a bit tight, wouldn't let the air out!

 

 

[rankamateur]

The torso shaped tank I visualise (but I did visualise yours too, Facthunter) is disabled in that the arms would just be knobs at the shoulder to stop the seatbelts falling off, and the legs just long enough to form a foot to stop the whole thing falling forward while I fit the seatbelts. A low mounted outboard motor tank fitting would allow easy un plumbing of the fuel line to gravity feed to the header tank, (but about half the volume would be lower than the top of the header tank) so probprably needs an electric transfer pump in the system too. Could potentially nearly double the range.

 

 

[Karl]

All you need is the fuel bladder from turtlepac

 

http://www.turtlepac.com/products/bush-plane-long-range-fuel-bladder.html

 

 

[facthunter]

they've got everthing. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Had a early TST Thruster equipped with Micro Ag spray gear. Worked extremely well. 25 ltr plastic drum and 4 electric driven fan sprays with variable droplet size and spray width. Rule back then was your property only. Good chance it still is with a LL endo. One of the 'brothers' from out Orange way got real nasty when he saw it.

 

If the lower limit is 500ft agl then it is 500ft agl. Not 550 or 510 it's 500ft agl, end of story. 499 ft and 11 inches requires a LL endo.

 

Back in the sensible days i used to get a nosebleed above 300ft.

 

 

[DrZoos]

95.10

 

(b) the aeroplane must not be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level unless 1 of the conditions set out in paragraph 6.2 is complied with;

 

6 Provisions relating to flight height limitations

 

6.2 For the purposes of subparagraph 5.1 (b), the conditions 1 of which must be complied with for an aeroplane to be flown at less than 500 feet above ground level are:

 

(a) the aeroplane must be flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing; or

 

(b) the aeroplane must be flying:

 

(i) over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or of another person (including the Crown) who, or an agent or employee of whom, has given permission for the flight over the land at such a height; and

 

(ii) at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person (other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane) and from any public road; or

 

© the pilot of the aeroplane must be engaged in flying training and the aeroplane must be flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of the Regulations, authorised low flying.

 

So whats wrong with 501 foot? Technically

 

Maybe there was a termite mound ten foot tall so he was 490 above terrain

 

 

[rankamateur]

(b) the aeroplane must be flying:(ii) at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from any person (other than any person associated with the operation of the aeroplane) and from any public road;

This is a problem to me since my main strip is roughly parallel to and about 60 -80 m from the public road through my property, and my intersecting cross strip runs right out to the gate onto the same road. Wonder what the chances are of an inspector being present on the odd occasion that my strip is used? Funny that my commercial supering pilot has never mentioned the unsuitability of my landing area.

 

 

[metalman]

Take off and landing are obviously okay, plenty of airfields have approaches over roads,

 

I'd really like to know who gives the thumbs up to this Avius rubbish?

 

 

[rankamateur]

Take off and landing are obviously okay, plenty of airfields have approaches over roads

Yes, I got tangled up in the or's and and's.

 

Can't beat legalese.

 

 

[johnm]

the legalese ................. is written for the continued interpretation and employment of the legal profession ?

 

 

[AVOCET]

Take off and landing are obviously okay, plenty of airfields have approaches over roads,I'd really like to know who gives the thumbs up to this Avius rubbish?

Its not the original professoer Avious !

 

Gospel .

 

 

[rdarby]

It wasn't in the Prof Avious column. Why do people bag him without even checking? You end up as bad as you say he is.

 

I'm going to phone RAAus this afternoon and see if they know more than we do.

 

 

[flyerme]

L

 

It wasn't in the Prof Avious column. Why do people bag him without even checking? You end up as bad as you say he is.I'm going to phone RAAus this afternoon and see if they know more than we do.

Let us know the out come.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

But if Prof. Avius answers the phone, anything could happen

 

 

[rdarby]

They said phone Neil the Assistant Ops Manager. I have left him a message.

 

 

[metalman]

It wasn't in the Prof Avious column. Why do people bag him without even checking? You end up as bad as you say he is.I'm going to phone RAAus this afternoon and see if they know more than we do.

 

 

[DrZoos]

This is a problem to me since my main strip is roughly parallel to and about 60 -80 m from the public road through my property, and my intersecting cross strip runs right out to the gate onto the same road. Wonder what the chances are of an inspector being present on the odd occasion that my strip is used? Funny that my commercial supering pilot has never mentioned the unsuitability of my landing area.

Well im at a busy airstrip and never seen a CASA inspector ever...so your chances are about the same as tripping over your foreskin going to the bathroom..perhaps the consequences might cost you a little more.. id suggest they dont even know who you are or where you are

 

 

[rankamateur]

I do my best not to walk on my foreskin, easy I guess because I have very long legs!

 

 

[AJS71]

It wasn't in the Prof Avious column. Why do people bag him without even checking? You end up as bad as you say he is.I'm going to phone RAAus this afternoon and see if they know more than we do.

Send an email to the editor Brian Bigg. His email is [email protected]

Perhaps you could email RAA also...

 

 

[Guernsey]

I do my best not to walk on my foreskin, easy I guess because I have very long legs!

I don't have one of those so I get much cheaper life insurance..

 

Alan.

 

 

[facthunter]

Low level refers to altitude or even height, not the level of conversation. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

The example given was unfortunate in that the message has been lost in the comment. Given that the base-to-final turn is a major location for stall/spin accidents, and, this turn is meant to be completed before 500ft agl, then perhaps the author was making a valid point. Give Ops a break! During training, a student should not only be taken through the safe execution of this turn, but also through 360 degree orbits left or right at any point in the circuit, but particularly on base and final legs. This could mean making the orbit below 500ft agl, and with half or full flap extended. It's a fairly demanding manoeuvre. Good low level instruction will ensure that pilots don't 'lose it' during these flight phases.

 

As is one previous poster, I'm very much in favour of low level manoeuvring being part and parcel of all pilot training. It's necessarily a pre-requisite for a realistic practice forced landing, and for a precautionary search and landing exercise. Being trained in low level goes a long way to reducing the stress of marginal visibility. Because a trained pilot adopts the right configuration, and maximises their visibility - they have time to think through any weather or operational problem. It's not about training pilots to conduct low level beatups and other aerial hooning. It's more than likely that pilots who have received low level training will avoid the hooning.

 

It's been my practice for many years to use the BFR as a check of a pilots' knowledge of low level handling. Most haven't a clue - fly too fast - out of balance - poor lookout and so on. A few minutes spent on low level essentials during a BFR, can, I'm sure, have a positive influence on all pilots.

 

Finally, I can't think of why instructors would use low level training as a money making exercise. It takes about 1-1.5 hrs of briefing for every hour flown. And, each hours flying low level is much more fatiguing that upper air training. Get real you sceptics - there are easier ways to turn a flying dollar.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Geoff13]

I do not know about low level, but when one of my xcounties was cancelled due to bad weather at the destination, even though weather was good at my home strip, I was taken up with a hood on. Well 20 minutes of pure instruments, was about the longest 20 minutes of my life. Bloody hell the concentration levels were way beyond anything that I thought possible. That was hard work, I loved it :)

 

Cheers Geoff13

 

 

[facthunter]

It is a high level of concentration. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Try doing VOR intercepts under the hood, just outside Sydney CTZ, in turbulence.