skippydiesel

Hmm! There's a thought. Personally I would like to see the height go to 3000 ft . Reason being, The Oaks circuit height is 1900 ft, overfly is technically above 2400 ft, however most quote & go for 2500 ft. We appear to get a lot of overflying aircraft at 2500 & well below (even down to circuit height). 3000 ft gives a nice buffer, from transiting aircraft for those arriving/departing The Oaks. 😈

"Probably The Oaks traffic needs to use the same CTAF as Camden." Camden is controlled airspace (has a tower). I can see how having the same radio frequency would reduce transiting pilots workload but at the same time would congest the airwaves, likly making communication worse. Also I am not sure how the Tower would deal with aircraft movements that are 7 Nm away, out of sight. "But then does The Oaks traffic make uncontrolled calls or is there a pseudo semi-controlled calls from/to Camden and what format does this take and what control does Camden have over The Oaks movements ?" I Dont understand. Please expand "Camden puts limits on the number of aircraft allowed to be in the circuit " That Camden have a limit to the number of aircraft in the circuit does not impact on The Oaks - its the aircraft entering/leaving the circuit, transiting The Oaks, that is the problem. To me this is a lack of training/personal discipline problem - Have the GA pilots received appropriate training & follow up BFR, looking at the obligation to communicate, when transiting within 10 Nm of an airfield? Is there a mechanism to bring the failure to communicate (with The Oaks) to the attention of the flying community based at Camden? Penetration of airspace, as for the above? Should it be impractical to try and get the Camden pilots to do the right thing - could The Oaks inbound (to Camden) reporting point be removed or relocated away from The Oaks? The above may not address the dot point problems, which collectively demonstrate poor pilot behaviour but would relocate the risk away from The Oaks😈

Sorry BurnieM - I repeat this is not about THE ACCIDENT, it's about past & ongoing lack of communication from pilots entering/leaving Camden via The Oaks. THE ACCIDENT is but a symptom of what's been happening for a long time and continues to this day. Camden pilots just don't acknowledge the presence of the airfield - No communication, often violate our airspace. I flew yesterday - up with me, three aircraft apparently not on/monitoring 126.7. While on ground, doing some work on my plane, with handheld monitoring transiting aircraft (X6) - not one made a call. This is situaton normal, even when The Oaks may have significant number of aircraft departing/arriving and students training in the circuit. How do we get Camden pilots to communicate?😈

I used to attend a lot of "air shows" in NSW - after a while they all seemed to be working from the same script - not much if anything new, became boring as -------! The good ones of the past Narromine/Temora seemed to offer camaraderie, that is now only found in the small club originated show/fly-ins. Now that RAA seems to be fixated on holding their annual at Parkes (Security Controlled) - can't even wonder up & down the flight line checking out the wide variety of visiting aircraft.😈

How does fatigue explain the majority of Camden in/out transitions, above The Oaks, making no calls at all and not even monietring the CTAF?😈

The accident is subject if another thread on Forum - This thread is about how to get the overflying pilots to communicate😈

A topic much debated - when, where & what to say. An example of ongoing dangerous communication failure; The Oaks airfield CTAF 126.7: Within Sydney Center 124.55 Class G airspace Overfly min alt 2500 ft 7 Nm to the west of the much larger busier Camden, Tower 120.1 About 4 Nm to Camden airspace The Oaks is a reporting points for aircraft coming from the West, entering Camden and is often overflown by aircraft departing to the West. Aircraft entering Camden airspace do so at 1800 ft & Departures 1300 ft. Despite its proximity, Camden ERSA does not mention The Oaks Camden departure instructions require aircraft to switch to Syd Cen 124.55 on departing Camden - no mention of west bound aircraft needing to switch to The Oaks 126.7 A few months ago, a Cessna, from Camden, entered The Oaks airspace/circuit. No Oaks pilot, active at the time, recalls any communication from the two very experienced pilots in the Cessna. The Cessna and an Oaks Jabiru collided, at circuit height - all three pilots were killed. Despite this recent tragedy, aircraft appearing to be bound for/from Camden, continue to overfly The Oaks without any radio communication at all. Hard to judge but often seem to be under the 2500 ft ceiling. Hailing on 126.7, results in silence. There is no doubt that it is congested airspace, with demanding radio communication from transiting pilots, while trying to meet altitude and tracking targets, but does this excuse not even a courtesy call to inform Oaks pilots of their presence & intentions?. The majority of The Oaks pilots are RAA. The Camden pilots GA The RAA pilots may not always use the correct phraseology but they always try to communicate - not so the Camden GA. Do we need another tragedy to bring about basic communication from Camden GA pilots???😈

Done! Compass ground & air calibrations - 127%✔️ A of A also done but need to consult on when low speed warning comes on - currently at 50%😈

Latest ADAHRS fitted - off to the airfield to do the compass calibrations.

Hi Aro, Very succinctly put - Thanks! I should not have talked up GPS rather Dynon - my EFB gives me Air Speed, True Airspeed and Groundspeed. In the not so distant past I only had airspeed and altitude, from which to estimate True. Groundspeed was based on time taken between ground points.😈

Your enturing into pretty expert territory here. Airspeed, as you climb, will be a poor indication of true speed, due to the lower air pressure (ASI working off pressure differential). The higher you go above sea level, the greater the error. In the past we used the rough estimate of 2% for every 1000 ft ASL. In a 100 knot aircraft, 2 knots error (ASI reading low)/1000 ft. Now we have GPS systems that give an instant and likly accurate readout of True Air Speed. I vaguely recall that at altitude, Vne can be easily exceeded by the unwary pilot - may have had something to do with air molecule's exciting the airframe (flutter?) -- where is that expert when needed? So it seems to me that the pilot must go by True airspeed and keep his aircraft below Vne as indicated by this system (not the ASI) 😈

Well I have been flying for a while now, very far from an expert, but I found it to be confusing and possibly even wrong in parts. Looks like you might be getting a good camber on it. Dont over do it. It may make landing on a wet surface/crosswinds, a tad more difficult than it needs to be.😈

Had a great chat with David Brown - certainly knows his Dynon (& other) systems inside out.😈

Disagree. The overwhelming focus is aviation. For the most part the few digressions are informative & entertaining. In fact it may be better to have a section especially for when a digression strays too far from aviation - that part of the thread could be transferred to reduce the "pollution" 😈

You can rely on me, to come up with a humorous typo 😈

Anyone had a read of the article on Page 78 "Airspeed" - I thought I knew about the relationships between Air, True & Ground speed - now complexly confused😈

Be careful - the company makes performance claims, without specifying which engine is being used, 100-200hp😈

Email address not good - got another?😈

Thanks Rodgerc - have emailed him😈

Having a bad trot with my ADAHRS. Wondering if anyone else in Au experiencing similar. Original (first) module worked perfectly for aproximately 130 hrs Failed without warning, on ground, on pre engine start check. Cable continuity checked and found to be good. Loan module worked perfectly for about 5 hrs - Replaced, still working, when new (not remanufactured) module arrived. No explanation from Dynon as to reason for OM failure. New module had initial problems (frozen compass) - Fixed by belated download/update New module worked faultlessly for about 4 hrs New module failed on ground, on pre engine start check. Dynon sending a loaner module, hope to install today Note: First module failure , turned whole electrical system off several times - red cross & failure message appeared each time Second module failure, as above, however each time normal screen appears but only remains for about 30 seconds, before reverting to red cross & failure message. 😈

You have given me much to think about. I have all the necessary "bits" to convert to a manual linkage, except for the cable itself. The Ultraflex B14 cable is about $100 delivered. All the wiring & switch reversing polarity system is in place, so going with plan A first. Plan A is on the way - ACTUONIX L16-30-150-12-S linear actuator. Not cheap at $98US. It's the right installed size, 30mm stroke is a bit more than I wanted, seems to have plenty of power (= 20kg extended) for operating my small flap and has 20% duty cycle which is double the Chinese offerings (Yes I realise tits probably made in China & sold by a Canadian mob). Installation should be pretty much a no brainer - alway good!😈

It may be helpful to expand on; What sort of aircraft Its current condition regarding corrosion/oxidisation Where it is located Your short/long term objectives for it Has it been treated in/out with any sort of protective substance Is it painted Is it protected from the elements - hanger, fitted cover whole/part, nothing😈

I can't remember the last time I lodged an official flight plan & SAR time. These VFR days, I just copy my flight plan, leave it with my Wife or Son. Phone when ready to depart, phone at each stop and at arrival. To me this ✔️ all the safety element boxes, with a known rout, departure, progress and arrival. I also make a call to all airfield, along my route, that I may be passing within 10Nm. Hopefully they never have to phone the authorities.😈

Blueadventures & Turboplanner Try & work through this logicly, rather than knee jerk/gut response. For a general duties police officer, with/without a gun, to prevent a crime he/she must be present at the time. I ask you how often does that happen?? Just remember general duties police, include highway patrol, marine, rail, pathology, crowd control, etc are unlikly to be tasked with being at the pointy end of a known dangerous situation. So for that one in a million chance, an officer might be in the vicinity of a crime, involving armed criminals, willing to use their guns/machetes/etc on a police officer, you arm, at a guess about 100,000, for the most part ordinary people, with Glocks. No specialist training and to be blunt very low physiological pre entry & ongoing screening. History is against you; Just a few months ago a NSW cop used his Glock on his ex lover and new mate ??? WA & Qld have very poor reputations in this area - not to suggest that the other States/Territory are squeaky clean - they are not For the most part these are ordinary people doing an ordinary, often tedious, job - you expect them to react appropriately, to that once in a career threat, when they may use their weapon - you must be joking - the shear numbers are against you. If you want guns - Arm a small, highly trained, rapid response group. They already exist, so what's the point in all those Glocks?? They just end up killing/injuring someone, who most likly could have been apprehended, without the use of lethal force. The supporters of general duties cops carrying guns conveniently forget - one day it could be you, a relative or friend having a mental breakdown, young person acting the goat and they get shot by a general duties cop who felt threatened - thats all they have to say and murder is legal. One other point - a few year back, the police asked that their already lethal S&W revolvers, be replaced by Glocks WTF!!! You arm the police, the crims are more likly to carry arms, the police want better arms, the crims get better & more arms, as if one pistol is likly to be any more of a deterrent than another - Your shot! its either an injury or your dead - you can't be more dead - we now have an arms race at taxpayers expense -- talk about insanity. Not every police force in the World is armed - Check out the British police force, to see how its done.😈

So - two attacks where no "civilian" was harmed and you think this is a good reason for arming our general duties police - I am sorry you feel so strongly about this, it seems to have clouded your judgement. No police were on hand, armed or otherwise, so they could not have prevented what happened. This is the most likly scenario, when crimes are perpetrated. So arming our general duties police, is just putting the population as a whole, at risk, especially those poor mentally disturbed individuals who may come into contact with them, without a measurable increase in crime prevention. In short an ineffective knee jerk over reaction (check out the origins of arming our police - see any similarities?). Should the criminals be found, the police response is likly to be spearhead by a specially trained and armed unit - not general duties officers. This is the appropriate response to a dangerous situaton. The inescapable reality is, that arming our general duties police has little effect on reducing crime, while exponentially increasing the risk of "legally" authorised gun killings/injury. Might make the paranoid amongst us feel safer but it's just an illusion - just like ASIC but more dangerous. "you really have no idea what you are on about" Well actually I do - have you lived through a civil war???😈