octave

I was taught by this CFI and earlier this year I did my BFR with him, I have always found him thorough and fair. It is a great responsibility for a CFI to sign off on the BFR, it would not be good for a CFI to sign off a pilot who went on to be involved in incidents or poor behaviour or worse still a serious accident due to lack of skills or attitude. Perhaps this CFI would be much tougher the next time this pilot presented himself for a BFR.

I agree with Ingnition, also our CFI with over 19500 hours also taught aviation at the university of NSW and prefers 6 minute markers, good enough for me

Last fortnight - forced landing practise, stall and a couple of steep turns Today circuits. To me practising these skill is a big part of the joy of flying. After I got my pilot cert I think I probably did not practise these things as much, just happy to get up fly around and get back safely but as my confidence grew I started to practise these skills more often. Of course during my first BFR I had to demonstrate these skills to the CFI so it would seem foolish not to keep these skills up to date .

My advice is Give it away old man actually Lloyd is my brother in law and I guess it is my fault he wants to learn to fly, it was the couple of hours in the Gazelle that did it!

well done!

well done! a day you wont forget, must have been 3639, 3519 is still not back!

Hang in there Darky, I am sure it will all come together soon!

:thumb_up:

I am 5'6 no problem fitting either

thanks for the info Greg and XAIRTV cheers

Cameron , I am attracted to the low cost easy build and low maintenance costs as well as the ability to operate from almost anywhere. I am also interested in a Savannah or Savage Cub. Not really after speed although a touch faster than the Gazelle might be nice. I have some pics from the open day, they are not great I will put them on a disk or something. cheers

I am wondering what are the pros and cons of these two similar aircraft?

Glad to hear that pilot and pax are ok but very sorry to hear about the Gazelle

Happy birthday Cam, perhaps you should celebrate with some Gazelle time (as long as it is not when I want to book it!)

First of all I will say that I have been taught and used both methods and I see little practical difference. I think I tend to use the method described in the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook. The objective of a good final approach is to descend at an angle and airspeed that will permit the airplane to reach the desired touchdown point at an airspeed which will result in minimum floating just before touchdown; in essence, a semi-stalled condition. To accomplish this, it is essential that both the descent angle and the airspeed be accurately controlled. Since on a normal approach the power setting is not fixed as in a power-off approach, the power and pitch attitude should be adjusted simultaneously as necessary, to control the airspeed, and the descent angle, or to attain the desired altitudes along the approach path. By lowering the nose and reducing power to keep approach airspeed constant, a descent at a higher rate can be made to correct for being too high in the approach. This is one reason for performing approaches with partial power; if the approach is too high, merely lower the nose and reduce the power. When the approach is too low, add power and raise the nose./I] I think the problem with many of these debates is that we seem to take two legitimate methods and assert that method (A) is the only way to do it, whilst method (B) will result in "blood on the tarmac" if this true would there not be flying schools out there with much higher accident stats? I would hope that as rational and logical pilots we would not be overstating the dangers of one legitimate method over another, whilst one method may have advantages the fact that both are routinely taught and written about must tell you something.

From The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook The objective of a good final approach is to descend at an angle and airspeed that will permit the airplane to reach the desired touchdown point at an airspeed which will result in minimum floating just before touchdown; in essence, a semi-stalled condition. To accomplish this, it is essential that both the descent angle and the airspeed be accurately controlled. Since on a normal approach the power setting is not fixed as in a power-off approach, the power and pitch attitude should be adjusted simultaneously as necessary, to control the airspeed, and the descent angle, or to attain the desired altitudes along the approach path. By lowering the nose and reducing power to keep approach airspeed constant, a descent at a higher rate can be made to correct for being too high in the approach. This is one reason for performing approaches with partial power; if the approach is too high, merely lower the nose and reduce the power. When the approach is too low, add power and raise the nose.

Yep I have found some people seem to be concerned by throttling down on the base leg turn, I now sometime during the flight demonstrate a power off decent. This gets them used to the idea and it means they are less likely to distract me whilst landing.

"He said the man had deployed the plane's parachute, which helps to hold the aircraft under its canopy for a safe landing. " Much amused by this newspaper quote. Glad the pilot is oK

Hey Admin, like me, you don't have a weight problem but a height problem. I would be the ideal weight if I was just 1 foot taller. :thumb_up:

I dont use the third person radio calls but this does not bother me in the slightest, I am much more concerned by the private conversations between aircraft that I occaisionaly hear. Far from being a gen y thing the 3rd party call seems to be an old timer thing like "Stations xxxxxxx"

A few random thoughts (with no criticism intended towards anyone) I would imagine that if 10 CFIs made such a video that each one would attract some form of criticism. I am not sure "bad influence" on low timers should be such a problem, I consider myself a "low time" (90 hours but 35 of it was 20 years ago). I have read many interesting techniques and ideas on this forum but before I would take them on board, like any information gathered from the net, these ideas must be run through several filters ie the experience and qualifications of the poster, my own research and of course most inportantly my clubs CFI who knows my abilities. Having said that, I found the video intersting but like some others I did not agree with everthing

lol, might try taking my laptop in the Gazelle!

I passed an eagle flying in the opposite direction to me, it did not seem to have any understanding that on that heading it should have been at 1500 or 3500 feet! Cameron I hope you left the Gazelle in good condition, I am doing a x country to Goulburn tomorrow if the weather is ok.

All good advice, it pays to try to see it from their point of view, I can see that the council has this prime real estate which would be worth a fortune is sold off, we have to convince them of the benefits of a thriving aviation sector can bring to the region. Also I think it is important to be very polite and not to push them into "defensive mode". thanks for the well thought out input cheers Graham

Destiny I think you are right, last night I emailed all of the councilers and recevied 2 replies. I presented it as a rumor and asked if they could clarify, both said they would look into, so I think you are correct that it is most likely the council staff rather than the counciler's themselves. Anyway I will keep the forum informed of developments. Cheers