maintaining skill currency in PFLs

[chippy061]

hi everyone,this is c my first "have a say" as a new member - I am the proud owner of a good second hand jabba 160c & in my view its a great little aeroplane & all things considered I would not have anything else, current engine problems included. I would certainly prefer a TEF in the jabba in preference to a GA "heavy metal" job that ive flown commercially for a good number of years. I practice forced landings every month solo for at least 1-2 hours but I would warn against t/o "turn backs " without having a very detailed discussion with you local CFI.- Im sure he will sugguest the usual 60 degrees either side of runway centreline - now comes the "gripe" - RAA/CASA would do well to rethink the RAA ops. manual in regard to CAO95.32 (2011) item 8 witch clearly states a minimum height of 500 feet - this is rediculus & dangerous for the very reason that if your field length is marginalised you have no idea at 500 ft. if you are going to make it a safe op. by pressing on. CASA has designated low flying areas close to GA aerodromes So RAA u have to badger them for the same deal !.

 

in a 2000m field you grandmother could pull it of !! - as a side issue I hope CASA avails themselves of getting a good legal brief from the crown law dept.as to the definition of the word "passenger" - if flying schools cant carry a person on a TIF they'll be a hellava commotion ! cheer guys. have good day

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Hi Chippy, and welcome to the forums.

 

Im not exactly sure what your trying to get at with regards to 95.32. The 500 foot rule is not dealing with engine failures, its meerly the benchmark for "normal" operations , apart from those described in section 8.

 

The turn back discussion has been raised several times on the forum, and its always san interesting discussion, but i dont think 95.32 applies to an EFATO situation.

 

Cheers mate

 

 

[poteroo]

as a side issue I hope CASA avails themselves of getting a good legal brief from the crown law dept.as to the definition of the word "passenger" - if flying schools cant carry a person on a TIF they'll be a hellava commotion

I'd say that CAR 228 clearly 'authorises' an instructor to direct a student pilot, (the person undergoing the TIF and who has signed a temporary membership of RAAus form), to handle the controls of a suitably equipped and registered RAAus aircraft for the purpose of understanding their uses and limitations. The person experiencing the TIF is not a passenger but is an informed member of the flight crew. As such, RAAus is well and truly acting within the scope of the Regulations.

 

happy days,

 

 

[chippy061]

Hi Chippy, and welcome to the forums.Im not exactly sure what your trying to get at with regards to 95.32. The 500 foot rule is not dealing with engine failures, its meerly the benchmark for "normal" operations , apart from those described in section 8.

The turn back discussion has been raised several times on the forum, and its always san interesting discussion, but i dont think 95.32 applies to an EFATO situation.

 

Cheers mate

i can see where u are coming & agree but my aditional interpretation is that flight below 500 ft is not permitted unless u are actually taking off or landing & maintaing the other lateral separations - but a practice forced landing is not a strictly a takeoff & landing as so to speak so proceeding below 500 ft agl is illegal

cheer buddy - thanks for your interest

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I would think it is a landing :))

 

A " forced" landing..

 

 

[chippy061]

I'd say that CAR 228 clearly 'authorises' an instructor to direct a student pilot, (the person undergoing the TIF and who has signed a temporary membership of RAAus form), to handle the controls of a suitably equipped and registered RAAus aircraft for the purpose of understanding their uses and limitations. The person experiencing the TIF is not a passenger but is an informed member of the flight crew. As such, RAAus is well and truly acting within the scope of the Regulations.happy days,

Thanks for reminding me of 228 - point taken cheers

 

 

[chippy061]

I would think it is a landing :))A " forced" landing..

[ben87r]

I'm my GA training we never busted the 500', unless we were given a failure above or near an ALA. Can't say the CP's out of training have given me the same luxury tho ;)

 

 

[poteroo]

I'm my GA training we never busted the 500', unless we were given a failure above or near an ALA. Can't say the CP's out of training have given me the same luxury tho ;)

Luckily for our schools - we have access to a number of areas and farm strips where it is legal and safe to take a PFL, and PS&L right down to flare. (approved LL training area, instructor LL approved). I cannot see how placing a limit of 500ft agl on these exercises is going to really teach the student much. In fact, it's the last part of the approach that 'makes or breaks' things. Unless the student can 'see' that they are really going to make it into their intended location, (or they're not), then what have we taught them? happy days,

 

 

[chippy061]

Luckily for our schools - we have access to a number of areas and farm strips where it is legal and safe to take a PFL, and PS&L right down to flare. (approved LL training area, instructor LL approved). I cannot see how placing a limit of 500ft agl on these exercises is going to really teach the student much. In fact, it's the last part of the approach that 'makes or breaks' things. Unless the student can 'see' that they are really going to make it into their intended location, (or they're not), then what have we taught them? happy days,

Luckily for our schools - we have access to a number of areas and farm strips where it is legal and safe to take a PFL, and PS&L right down to flare. (approved LL training area, instructor LL approved). I cannot see how placing a limit of 500ft agl on these exercises is going to really teach the student much. In fact, it's the last part of the approach that 'makes or breaks' things. Unless the student can 'see' that they are really going to make it into their intended location, (or they're not), then what have we taught them? happy days,

i agree with you totally- a good response - i hope RAA come across it ! Chippy

 

 

[facthunter]

Regardless of rules pertaining, unless you go to flare height or near it the exercise misses out on being convincing, in most cases. If the circuit at your aerodrome (or another) is empty you might utilise that on occasions but you have the advantage of knowing the height of the landing area above sea level, a luxury you won't have in the real event. Landing on an area without defined boundary shape or known slope is an extra challenge that should be part of the learning experience. Nev

 

 

[ayavner]

I insisted on doing my PFLs at an ALA so that I could get down to flare height over the grass... i did a few in earlier days where we'd get down to 500' AGL then go around, but I wanted to make sure i had the sight picture down.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Yeah going round at 500 feet saying "yep we woulda made it" doesn't exactly do it for me.

 

It will do one of two things,

 

1 it will give you too much confidence in your ability to select and attain a good forced landing sight.

 

Or 2. It will instil a doubt in you that you might not find until you are doing it for real and all of a sudden find yourself with unfamiliar ground closer than you would like.

 

Either one would be dangerous.

 

I often think that it should be compulsory for us all to do at least one engine out landing, even if it was just demonstrated by the CFI I think that would be a priceless experience. Yes yes I know that is risky, but how many people have died because of a loss of control at low alt when engine dies?

 

We don't all have the benifit of gliding experience, but it is certainly on my to do list.

 

 

[chippy061]

I'd say that CAR 228 clearly 'authorises' an instructor to direct a student pilot, (the person undergoing the TIF and who has signed a temporary membership of RAAus form), to handle the controls of a suitably equipped and registered RAAus aircraft for the purpose of understanding their uses and limitations. The person experiencing the TIF is not a passenger but is an informed member of the flight crew. As such, RAAus is well and truly acting within the scope of the Regulations.happy days,

Yes i agree but if you read the first 2 proposed limitations casa has detailed in their draft 1425SS (which is/was on jabirus website) i would suggest that all bets are off with regard to RAAs determinations on this topic! cheers chippy

 

 

[chippy061]

Yeah going round at 500 feet saying "yep we woulda made it" doesn't exactly do it for me.It will do one of two things,

 

1 it will give you too much confidence in your ability to select and attain a good forced landing sight.

 

Or 2. It will instil a doubt in you that you might not find until you are doing it for real and all of a sudden find yourself with unfamiliar ground closer than you would like.

 

Either one would be dangerous.

 

I often think that it should be compulsory for us all to do at least one engine out landing, even if it was just demonstrated by the CFI I think that would be a priceless experience. Yes yes I know that is risky, but how many people have died because of a loss of control at low alt when engine dies?

 

We don't all have the benifit of gliding experience, but it is certainly on my to do list.

Heres a good little story - My initial introduction to recreational flying was in a j160 with an instructor with a aeronautical engineering degree ,very experiencd competition glider pilot and tug pilot & CFI of the training establishment told me this flight will be a forced landing from 3000 ft in the vicinity of the aerodrome - if i pull it off my next flight will be the licence test so off we went up to 3000 ft - he showed me how to close down the engine - made me do it twice - gee i thought this is fun ! - he said its my aeroplane now - closed the engine down a said - "ok sunshine its all yours - put me down on the piano keys of xx , & do your radio calls - "it" immediately started to run down the back of both legs ! - but due to pure arse i did the job.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Heres a good little story - My initial introduction to recreational flying was in a j160 with an instructor with a aeronautical engineering degree ,very experiencd competition glider pilot and tug pilot & CFI of the training establishment told me this flight will be a forced landing from 3000 ft in the vicinity of the aerodrome - if i pull it off my next flight will be the licence test so off we went up to 3000 ft - he showed me how to close down the engine - made me do it twice - gee i thought this is fun ! - he said its my aeroplane now - closed the engine down a said - "ok sunshine its all yours - put me down on the piano keys of xx , & do your radio calls - "it" immediately started to run down the back of both legs ! - but due to pure **** i did the job.

While I said I think we all need to do at least one engine out landing I feel very strongly against that approach. If briefed appropriately and carried out safely I think it's a good idea, switching it off without a brief ........................... Ok I'll try to be polite, if anyone turns off my engine or an engine of a plane I am flying without briefing me I won't ever fly with them again and would more than exchange words once on the ground.

 

 

[chippy061]

While I said I think we all need to do at least one engine out landing I feel very strongly against that approach. If briefed appropriately and carried out safely I think it's a good idea, switching it off without a brief ........................... Ok I'll try to be polite, if anyone turns off my engine or an engine of a plane I am flying without briefing me I won't ever fly with them again and would more than exchange words once on the ground.

While I said I think we all need to do at least one engine out landing I feel very strongly against that approach. If briefed appropriately and carried out safely I think it's a good idea, switching it off without a brief ........................... Ok I'll try to be polite, if anyone turns off my engine or an engine of a plane I am flying without briefing me I won't ever fly with them again and would more than exchange words once on the ground.

There was certainly a full ground briefing - the 2 restarts i did was to ensure that we could be sure of a start if it was really needed - it was not a done deal if there wasnt a safe slot in other traffic so we made sure we were airborn early morning - there were hints on this in what i said - i was trying to avoid total verbal diarrhoea. chippy

 

 

[SDQDI]

That makes it better:thumb up: