Jump to content

aro

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    964

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

 Content Type 

Everything posted by aro

  1. aro
    My understanding is yes, GA endorsements count for RAA. Does a tailwheel endorsement still count as a flight review? If so, fill in the form for the RPL, do the tailwheel endorsement, and maybe you have an RPL, RAA and GA tailwheel endorsements and GA and RAA AFRs in one fell swoop?
  2. aro
    Not necessarily. 912ULS specify minimum of 5200 rpm at WOT, which can be a problem at climb speed for aircraft with higher cruise speeds. Some manufacturers fudge it a bit so 98 would give some extra margin. That's one area where variable pitch would actually be useful for the Rotax.
  3. aro
    I wasn't suggesting that any aircraft would be recoverable from that height, just commenting on the suggestion that aerobatic training might prevent this type of accident. It appears he did have aerobatic training.
  4. aro
    That's the conventional wisdom, but reading a few accident reports made me wonder. I went back through ATSB accident reports and looked at fatal accidents involving stall/spin/loss of control etc. An awful lot of them happened to people with aerobatic endorsements/qualifications. You can't be sure without knowing what percentage of pilots have aerobatic endorsements, but the impression I got was that pilots with aerobatic endorsements were more likely to crash due to loss of control. The pilot in this case was an instructor and reportedly had done an aerobatics endorsement in a Pitts.
  5. aro
    The error typically varies with airspeed. E.g. using the calibration chart from a C172 POH, if you calculate 1.3 VS0 based on IAS, you actually only have 1.14 VS0. About 8-10 knots worth of the "extra" airspeed is just reduced error as the AOA reduces.
  6. aro
    As djpacro pointed out, that gives you IAS which can have significant errors near the stall. If you are calculating margins you need to use CAS not IAS.
  7. aro
    I have definitely encountered turboprop aircraft flying 1500' circuits. The occasional jet also visits, but I haven't been in the air at the time. I suspect they fly a straight in approach usually.
  8. aro
    There have been references in discussions of this accident to a previous accident involving the same aircraft type - are you sure you're not confused? I haven't seen anything similar about this accident, it seems early to know those sort of details anyway. Have you heard details first hand about this accident - i.e. not just read it on the internet?
  9. aro
    I don't think this is true. Airservices don't provide a feed. Flight Radar 24 receive their data from a network of people running a receiver on a e.g. Raspberry Pi with a USB radio, and sending the data over the internet. It is basically the same as the ADSB devices that feed data to Avplan/OzRunways etc. in flight.
  10. aro
    I don't think it's legal to install a transponder without functioning ADSB-OUT for many years now. So if it was professionally installed I would expect ADSB out to be working. I would not rely on Flightradar 24 as an indication it wasn't working.
  11. aro
    How many FR24 receivers are at Cowra, and where are they located? There is a difference between adsb transponders show on fr24 and adsb transponders always show on FR24. FR24 could be interrupted by internet outage, receiver offline, someone parks a van next to the receiver etc. What's the registration? I can see if I can find other flights on FR24
  12. aro
    I doubt there is any problem with your installation. I'm pretty sure it is illegal to install a new transponder without full ADSB out capability now, so if it was professionally installed it should have the required functions. More likely the person at Cowra wasn't taking the limitations of the receiving equipment into account.
  13. aro
    Is it the form that's the problem, or the flight review? (Presumably you already do flight reviews) This is what I can't figure out - exactly what you are asking for. No form? No training? No requirement for transponder etc? No medical requirements? Can you be explicit about what you actually want? Having observed RA-Aus over many years, I would expect them to add their own requirements in excess of what CASA require for RPL...
  14. aro
    https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certificates/pilots/pilot-licences/getting-recreational-pilot-licence-rpl If you have an RA-Aus pilot certificate An RA-Aus pilot certificate is equivalent to an RPL. To get a CASA-issued RPL: complete application form 61-1RTX Recreational Pilot Licence and send it with evidence (the form tells you what to provide and how to submit it) do the flight review for your aircraft rating. Your category rating, aircraft class rating and design feature endorsements will transfer across. You will also get a recreational navigation endorsement if: your certificate authorises you to do cross-country flights you've done at least 25 hours flying time, including 20 hours dual and 5 hours as pilot-in-command. You need to fill in a form and do a flight review. Then you can do the endorsement for controlled airspace. There's actually less requirements for a RA-Aus pilot to get a RPL than for a commercial pilot to get a RA-Aus certificate.
  15. aro
    This thread sounds like no-one has actually flown circuits with other aircraft. If you have this much trouble, get an instructor, do some circuits with other traffic and practice spotting other aircraft. It's not hard - you see the aircraft in front and make sure you don't cut in front of them. Generally, faster aircraft will do wider circuits due to turn radius etc, and the greater distance covered means the times are about the same. The biggest danger is on final - particularly when you have faster aircraft behind slower aircraft, if they allow the spacing to tighten up. The reason we fly a circuit is to put everyone in a predictable pattern where you know where to look and can see other aircraft.
  16. aro
    I can think it through, but the rules say different. Here it is straight from AIP: Pilots should not descend into the traffic circuit from directly above the aerodrome... ... the aircraft should descend on the non-active side of the circuit and be established at circuit altitude as it crosses the runway centreline on crosswind
  17. aro
    How long ago? This procedure is exactly what is depicted in the diagram from CASA in a previous post. It is what has been taught for decades. It doesn't seem clumsy to me... what does seem clumsy is pilots who are in the circuit, but not yet at circuit height and are descending into circuit traffic.
  18. aro
    Overfly at 1500 AGL (or 2000 AGL if there might be high speed traffic doing 1500' circuits.) Check the windsock, determine which runway to use. Descend to circuit height on the dead (i.e. non-active) side. Join the circuit at circuit height. This is pretty basic stuff - anyone post area-solo stage should know it.
  19. aro
    Not in the last 20 years at least... You are supposed to descend on the dead side (or non-active side if you prefer) and be at circuit height before you cross the runway and join the circuit. Descending into traffic on the downwind leg is a no-no. Among other things, it is much easier to see the traffic you are supposed to avoid if you are not above them.
  20. aro
    20 odd years ago when I was training, the procedure was to join crosswind over the departure end of the runway. This has the advantage that if one aircraft joins for 18 and another for 36, they are separated and have time to figure things out before there is a risk of collision. For whatever reason, CASA decided to modify the procedures so you joined midfield (or maybe 2/3 of the way down the runway?) I don't remember whether it was a specific recommendation, but people started referring to "joining midfield crosswind" because it was in a different place to the previous "joining crosswind". I'm pretty sure the overhead join is just another name for what Australia calls midfield crosswind... because you join overhead the field, rather than on downwind etc.
  21. aro
    The one thing that seems to be missed in this thread is how poor the VMC minimum conditions are. If visibility is 5000m you are legal, but you can't see a horizon, you can't see landmarks 3 miles away, you can't see mountains 3 miles away. Even the maximum 10000m the BOM will report is very poor if the visibility is actually 10000m. Legal VMC conditions can in practice be IMC, so you need to be aware and you should probably use much higher minimums than simply what is legal, particularly for visibility.
  22. aro
    Try again - the word you are looking for is "cloud". Visibility is how far away you can see things you don't want to fly into - clouds, mountains etc. Clouds are - well, clouds. If visibility is 5000m you can't even see a cloud until it is closer than 5000m.
  23. aro
    See the column that says Distance from cloud? It says 1500m horizontal, or Clear of cloud at or below 3000 AMSL or 1000 AGL - not 5km.
  24. aro
    Yes I know, I’m just questioning whether you understand it.
  25. aro
    If the 5km applies to distance from cloud, how do you explain the requirements to be 1000m horizontally from cloud above 3000', or clear of could below 3000' / 1000' AGL? Wouldn't they be redundant?
×
×
  • Create New...