Flying Safely

[Litespeed]

In fairness, the document does read that it is more for the organisation than the individual members. It is saying that RAA will do everything in its power to promote and improve safety. Like others here, I was querying just how effective it could be. What I was pointing out was that, realistically, we alone are responsible for our own safety and the safety of others around us. RAA cannot be responsible for our safety.

Yes I agree with your statement but the document is a typical say nothing, mean nothing document. It could have been cut a pasted from anywhere. It has no bearing on improving the safety culture. And my comments also relate to those from Turboplanner that we as pilots are bound by it, and it will magically make us all safer.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I was just very lucky that first time as I had absolutely no rudder authority once I rotated.

If that's correct, that aircraft design should be thrown in the bin.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Check around dutch, that's not unusual with RA aircraft, shows up regularly in Pilot Notes.

 

 

[dutchroll]

No rudder authority after takeoff? I mean, I can understand that if you don't have a rudder, but you have to ask why bother with one if it doesn't give you directional control on or very close to the runway.

 

In any case, one wonders why you would takeoff in any sort of crosswind if that was a characteristic of your plane.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just as a matter of interest, the link in post #1 is the RA-Aus Safety POLICY

 

I'll leave you to do your own research on the meaning of "policy" in corporate terms, but once you have done that you'll find the wording clicks into place.

 

Point 3 confirms the policy applies to all members.

 

If you go to the link below, you'll see this policy forms part of the Safety Management System, on which we have some very long threads a year or two ago.

 

At this level, the statements need to be broad enough to act as a form of index to the fine details likely to be developed as time goes on, and where very specific advice can be given for operating safety, training etc.

 

All in all, it's a very good start.

 

https://www.raa.asn.au/safety-management-system/

 

 

[turboplanner]

No rudder authority after takeoff? I mean, I can understand that if you don't have a rudder, but you have to ask why bother with one if it doesn't give you directional control on or very close to the runway!

The attitude has been "If you can fly one of these, you can fly anything!"

I see it more as being a passenger.

 

 

[kasper]

Well after all that, the answer to my question was No.You may have good ideas on how things should be run, you may be right about the Coroners, but you're still missing the principle.

My comment was about you appearing to give two fingers to the very people now focusing on the high death rate, and "as a Trike pilot" referred to the prominent number of trike pilots among the 29 dead being discussed on another thread, and I'm not implying trikes themselves are the issue.

Ok, I'll bite.

 

From the 29 in 29 months listing and add in the 30th from yesterday there are a number of trikes.

 

Trikes are a small proportion of our registered fleet (last listing at 31/12/12 showed of full reg RAA only 7.8% of airframes were weightshift)

 

As a fraction of air frames they are over-represented

 

As you say you do not think the trike is the issue but the trike pilot tell us what is missing from the safety system that is causing that that IS included in the RAA safety document that started this thread.

 

I can point to aspects of training, operation and development within the trike realm that I consider are likely to be at the core of some issues involved in the accidents but I cannot see how the safety policy from RAA addresses these.

 

So here are my prime issues on trike accidents ie the thing I look for in an accident report...

 

1. 3axis to trike converted pilot. As has been noted the control inputs are reversed for ALL controls on a trike compared to 3axis - stress response of people is to return to rote/learned patterns (part of the human factors syllabus) and low time/emergency situations do see automatic/un-thought responses that make the situation worse

 

2. respect for turbulence - a weightshift has a flexible wing - I know that's stating the bleeding obvious - but for pilots without experience of weightshift you have no concept of how changeable the control feel and responses can be compared to 3axis where getting tipped 45deg means you put in a control input that has the same feel as putting in the control respinse from lstraight and level - in weightshift its not like that.

 

3. appreciation/respect for negative G and/or bunt - they may be 'stressed' for certification in the neg G realm but going there in the air is bad news

 

4. trike envy - manufacturers are after greater performance from the next model - higher speeds, higher mass, more mod cons. Sorry but fundamentally getting higher speeds has come at the 'cost' of reduced margins of stability and much narrower margins between normal ops speeds and VNE. High performance wings do need a lot more respect that do low performance wings

 

Add any two of these issues together and find them in an accident report and you will, in ,my opinion, find the logical chain of events and reasonable explanations of why that chain was not broken.

 

So what will improve safety in Trikes?

 

Training, learning, recurrance training,difference training,experience and some more training. Not all by instructors, but learning.

 

I am a realist and know that manufacturers will not go back to selling the wings from the 80's and 90's with large safety margins and high levels of stability, nor will you ever get rid of the human from the equation but understanding your aircraft, its operations and your limitations.

 

Its a hard fact that modern very high performance trike can bite as the margins are necessarily low to give the performance people are demanding, but the outcome for low time/new trike pilots is that that little bump or mishandling that was easily absorbed by the older generation wings is now going to be an issue you are going to have to deal with early on in your trike flying.

 

 

[kasper]

Just as a matter of interest, the link in post #1 is the RA-Aus Safety POLICY I'll leave you to do your own research on the meaning of "policy" in corporate terms, but once you have done that you'll find the wording clicks into place.

Point 3 confirms the policy applies to all members.

 

If you go to the link below, you'll see this policy forms part of the Safety Management System, on which we have some very long threads a year or two ago.

 

At this level, the statements need to be broad enough to act as a form of index to the fine details likely to be developed as time goes on, and where very specific advice can be given for operating safety, training etc.

 

All in all, it's a very good start.

 

https://www.raa.asn.au/safety-management-system/

I see a vast difference between a policy that applies to members and a policy that applies to the organsiations employees as they develop the operational documents, processes and controls that apply to the members.

No issue at all of the policy for employees being pretty much as written (without the reference to members being directly under the policy) so long as they apply that to the actual operational aspects of dealing with the members and the operational control of the aircraft/pilots through the appropriate documents/processes

 

 

[K-man]

If that's correct, that aircraft design should be thrown in the bin.

Perhaps you haven't spent much time in lighter aircraft. I trained in a 160 Jab and you need a lot of right rudder to keep straight on take off, even in no wind. Add a bit of cross wind from the left and it significantly reduces rudder authority. Cross wind from the right is much more user friendly.

Lots of strips you can fly into and land in strong wind only to find it difficult to taxi off at right angles to the apron due to that wind. I'm surprised you never noticed that in the Pitts.

 

It's nothing to do with design, unless you mean we shouldn't have a fin on the back and it's not about flying in unsafe conditions because unexpected wind gusts can catch you out at any time. The reason I mentioned it was to point out that if you rotate too soon you haven't got sufficient flying speed and you may be weather cocked. Keeping the nose down until you have more speed helps in those conditions. With a strong gross wind component I would prefer to take off with a slight tail wind if it means keeping the cross wind on the right.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Needing a lot of rudder doesn't concern me. Aircraft need varying amounts of rudder on takeoff and even more to keep them tracking down the runway in a crosswind.

 

The comment was that he had "absolutely no rudder authority" after rotate. None. Nada. Zilch.

 

I'm still not quite sure how that's even possible to have it on the ground, but not when you rotate, unless a different meaning was intended, but yes you're correct in saying I have very little experience in anything smaller than a Tiger Moth.

 

 

[Aldo]

I trained in a 160 Jab and you need a lot of right rudder to keep straight on take off, even in no wind. Add a bit of cross wind from the left and it significantly reduces rudder authority.

K Man

 

I've never flown the 160 (so I may be totally off the mark) but I do have a lot of hours in the 230. One thing I have found is that the sooner I have the nose wheel off the ground the better directional control you have in all conditions during takeoff. I believe this is due to the design of the nose wheel steering and the very short arm on the steering linkage and the rudder is obviously the correct size for the design, the more speed you gain the less input is required. Yes this will slightly increase your takeoff distance but not to any significant amount.

 

I'm certainly happy to be contradicted by people who know more about aerodynamics than me but this technique works for me and I do take off in xwinds at limit on a regular basis.

 

Aldo

 

 

[K-man]

K ManI've never flown the 160 (so I may be totally off the mark) but I do have a lot of hours in the 230. One thing I have found is that the sooner I have the nose wheel off the ground the better directional control you have in all conditions during takeoff. I believe this is due to the design of the nose wheel steering and the very short arm on the steering linkage and the rudder is obviously the correct size for the design, the more speed you gain the less input is required. Yes this will slightly increase your takeoff distance but not to any significant amount.

 

I'm certainly happy to be contradicted by people who know more about aerodynamics than me but this technique works for me and I do take off in xwinds at limit on a regular basis.

 

Aldo

I've never flown the 230 but I understand it to be a lot more stable. But having said that, I have witnessed an extremely scary takeoff of a 230 in strong crosswind. Again, it was a pilot with low hours on that aircraft. Once you know what might happen you fly accordingly. All I was suggesting is that some of these things be taught in basic training or at least discussed.

 

 

[K-man]

Needing a lot of rudder doesn't concern me. Aircraft need varying amounts of rudder on takeoff and even more to keep them tracking down the runway in a crosswind.The comment was that he had "absolutely no rudder authority" after rotate. None. Nada. Zilch.

Perhaps I should have said "insufficient rudder authority to maintain runway direction".

[dutchroll]

Aaah.....that probably makes more sense!

 

 

[facthunter]

Particularly with the LSA 55 You can get into situations where there isn't enough rudder authority/effectiveness/response. I've noticed it more on landing with power off than any other time.

 

It's well known to keep the weight off the nosewheel on take off and rely on rudder rather than having the load on the nosewheel. I think this is where you could really come to grief, and a few have gone bush off the runway. This is about the first time there has been any serious discussion about take off technique on this forum. Great at long last. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

OOPS It's stopped. Nev