IanR

It was good to meet you there - I must say the Cheetah looks even better in the flesh than in photos !!

I posted this report on the "other" forum if anyone is interested http://www.australianflying.com.au/showthread.php?t=181 Not sure if you have to be registered to view it.

They are owned by the Scouts

It must be turning into a good site - am missing it already !!

When doing a leakdown test do you "wet" the rings with some oil ? I recall that as being part of the process from way back.

I think most has been covered - max turbulence penetration speed, don't fight it, etc. Just wanted to add something I learnt very early on in my flying. I had a great old instructor who was always very relaxed (those from Camden probably remember Raoul). On this particular day I was doing circuits in a C152 in quite strong turbulence. I was getting the white knuckle syndrome from fighting it and holding on too tight. We were on a very bumpy final approach when he finally got sick of me fighting, lent over, slapped me on the wrist and said "let it go - it will do a much better job than you are". I did let go and things smoothed out !! never forgotten that. While not quite the same as what you are talking about it shows that most naturally stable aircraft will fly themselves reasonably well and only need guiding.

Is that $375 their dual rate ? I was thinking of getting checked out on it - was talking to the CFI last week but forgot to ask rates. Their website says $320 for private.

Rog, I agree with you that if you follow the checklists and use standard methods that they all seem to start OK. Most pilots who fly lots of different tupe of aircraft (I include myself in that) use checklists all the time to avoid the subtle and not so subtle differences. I think the difficulties start when you have pilots who have only ever flown one type of aircraft - for example a C172. They are used to starting carby engines and don't use checklists as its all in their heads. When you replace your old aircraft with new ones they have problems for a while in adjusting !!

My two cents worth - the one good thing about the formal way they do the reports now is that each item is very well defined so if you can read them they are consistent no matter who issues them. I must admit that when I have not flown for while and look through the reports I sometimes have to look things up just to be sure. With the formality of the current wording maybe there is a case for a computer based translator ?

There is some debate about icing in various types of fuel injection systems. Most systems I have used are a direct mechanical injection system which, as Rog says, is not prone to icing. I was reading the other day about Throttle Body Injection systems which, although rare, can ice up if they have long induction paths. Do may RAA type aircraft have these systems ? Are they required to have a heat source ? One site that covers this is http://www.ellison-fluid-systems.com/faqs/carburetor_heat.htm which mentions experimental aircraft in particular so I am assuming they must be used a bit.

Rog, you are of course correct and I have deleted my post. After checking my books (which I said I intended to) I remembered what the issue was with night and PIFR - you are not allowed to fly at night at all with the basic PIFR. It is an FPA which can be added either later or in the initial test if done at night.

Me too - but the one at the back !! Its a T28 I think ?

The basic PIFR is for enroute but you can then add modules on for departures and various approaches.

Don't forget your ASIC !!

We had no power at The Oaks for about 4 hours

Great aircraft - used to do a fair bit of flying in them. Unfortunately round Camden the hire rate on the twin commanches has gone through the roof - not quite sure why !! I investigated only a month ago as I wanted to start flying them again.

I am not sure how much training would cater for pushing on into deteriorating conditions. When you are being trained the instructors have to ensure you are in VFR conditions - which means not getting yourself into a situation where there is no way out - bit of a catch 22. My view is that it comes down to common sense and treating flying as fun - which is why I assume most RAA pilots do it !! Pressure from passengers or yourself to get to the destination no matter what will eventually lead to disaster. I am not sure what is covered in the RAA sylabus but planning alternates is very important. When it all comes down to it - good airmanship is what you need to concentrate on - and that is driven mainly by yourself.

Certainly looks like a C177 - nice plane to fly but the original model only had 140 hp - they were known as the "gutless strutless" !! The B model is much better with I think 180hp and CS prop. Cessna introduced them as the next generation C172 - but obviously without too much success - C172 still being made new !!

Just looked at some checklists and manuals I have - For twins it seems universal that the manual says "retract when positively airborne" For singles most say "retract when airborne and insufficient runway available for landing" That certainly matches what I was taught in both situations - particularly when obstacle clearance is not an issue.

My wife had that problem for a while - turned out she was pregnant - went away after children arrived !!

It was fun - and good to meet you too !! Photos look good. Sounds from the news this morning that we headed in the right direction - cricket ball sized hail would not be nice in a Cessna !! Emma is welcome to come up sometime although sounds as though she is like my wife - doesn't like the bumps ! Runway we were on at Camden was 06 (it has 06/24 and grass 10/28)

Ian, I think we can get too worried about process if we try hard enough - my assessment would be do whatever is needed to miss him !! If doing an "official" method seems to be the wrong thing at the time then it probably is. There is no hard and fast answer to anything.

He used to have a Spitfire which is now at Temora. He still had a P40, Mustang and I think a couple of other trainers. A great loss.

Kaz, Have been catching up on all this discussion. I agree that if used properly with good pilots it is great - only concern I sometimes have is that there are good and bad pilots out there. I fly at Camden which is controlled - and people still manage to regularly mess up !! I have copied in the VFR guide mention of UNICOMs for reference - the highlighted part must be the most important. UNICOM (Universal Communications) is a non-ATS communications service provided on the CTAF to enhance the value of information normally available about a noncontrolled aerodrome. The primary purpose of the frequency used for UNICOM where the frequency is the CTAF is for pilots to be able to exchange relevant traffic information. Services available from a UNICOM should be considered as secondary and must not detract from the interchange of traffic information between pilots. Persons providing a Unicom service are required to be licensed by the Australian Communication Authority (ACA). Detailed information regarding the licensing and use of equipment may be obtained by contacting the ACA in the appropriate State or Territory capital city Participation in Unicom services relates to the exchange of messages concerning: • fuel requirements; • estimated times of arrival and departure; • aerodrome information; • maintenance and servicing of aircraft including the ordering of parts and materials urgently required; • passenger requirements; • unscheduled landings to be made by aircraft; and • general weather reports; • basic information on traffic. This information is available to all aircraft during the times that Unicom is operating. Weather reports, other than simple factual statements about the weather, may not be provided by Unicom operators unless they are properly authorised to make weather observations under CAR 120. The Unicom operator is solely responsible for the accuracy of any information passed to an aircraft, while the use of information obtained from a Unicom is at the discretion of the pilot in command. Unicom operators must comply with the requirement of CAR 83 (2).

Mazda, just saw this post - formation is fun whatever you fly !! Have been doing it for many years and never stop enjoying it. Am planning a Sydney Harbour formation at the moment with a motorised glider, C152 and 3 C172 - that will be interesting.