Mazda

I borrowed a copy from a library for free, but thought the book was over-rated. Darky what information are you looking for?

Check-in I think the shorter time to solo in the past was as much to do with a different syllabus as anything else. I know of a school teaching ab initio in Citabrias, their average time to solo is about the same as if they teach in nosewheel aircraft.

Luskintyre??? One of these???

Well done!

Welcome! Sometimes I think the C152 was the best thing Cessna ever built, certainly the cutest. :) Flying tailwheel aircraft without a doubt makes people better pilots. In saying that, nosewheels are certainly more stable and have better visibility on the ground, which is an advantage. Tailwheel aircraft are generally better for rougher fields, as facthunter says, nosewheels are fragile. Sue do persevere with your tailwheel training if you can! You can use cushions (or phone books) behind and underneath to help you to see if required, but remember with some taildraggers you won't be able to see out on the ground no matter how many cushions you use. That's why taildragger pilots do S turns on taxi (and look to the side for the take off & landing). As soon as the tailwheel comes up you should be able to see. As for yoke vs stick, there is absolutely nothing to debate there, the stick wins by far! Yokes were used to make people think they were driving a car. Think about it. Crosswind aileron into wind, you end up with the yoke sticking into your legs (especially if you are on cushions) and it feels very awkward. Crosswind with a stick, everything is the same, just move the stick over into wind, easy. Aerobatics with a yoke - awkward. Aerobatics with a stick - natural. :thumb_up: Remember that there are nosewheel aircraft with sticks, and tailwheel aircraft with yokes, s you could choose whatever you prefer!

Of course the pilot is to blame. Pilots are responsible to ensure the safety of the flight, through prefight planning and in flight decision making. If the pilot had consulted the NSW Country Airstrip Guide they would see Cooranbong listed under closed airfields. If the situation you refer to was a precautionary search, surely they would see the strip was not the best place and perhaps divert to somewhere like Warnervale, or determine if it was possible to land there. (Is it possible to land on the taxiway? It is at Hoxton.) If it really was a forced landing, knowing the strip was there could really help if that is the only place to go. Hoxton was removed in the next charting so I don't know why it is inconsistent, that could be an issue. Why not phone Airservices? I do think it is terrible that "closed" strips are torn up so quickly then left to rot with no development. You would think the developers would at least leave them as emergency strips, but of course they don't. A point of interest, at the end of WWII there were ...... airfields in the UK. Anyone want to guess? About how many are left? It's an ongoing battle. Residents constantly complain about traffic from airports, or in relation to low flying aircraft - even if the airport has been there for decades. They get cheap real estate due to noise, then campaign like crazy to close it down. All we can do is to try to engender the spirit of aviation. Take them for a fly. Try to fly neighbourly where possible. It worked at Temora!

I think you are jumping to conclusions. John McCormick wants to encourage participation in aviation, including RA-Aus. As for the Government's White Paper, why not read it?

Darky I'd suggest that you go to the normal run up bay, do your normal checks, and do your normal pre-flight safety briefing. They are pre-take off checks after all, and you are about to take off. If you don't, you just might forget something (trim springs to mind, or flaps, or fuel pump if required). Plus, if your instructor has just jumped out you might be in a different frame of mind (excited, nervous) - normalise everything, do it the same, because your instructor won't be there with you to pick up on any forgotten items. A couple of points. Some aircraft have different run up RPMs for the first flight of the day and subsequent flights, so you may be able to use a reduced RPM for this run up. If you are not sure, do what you normally do. Before taking off, always do a "flow" type check, left to right, top to bottom. Look at every instrument (and trim, and flap) making sure it is as expected. Say to yourself (or out loud, even better), things like "Airspeed indicator reading zero. QNH/altimeter set. DG aligned to compass. Temps & pressures in the green. Flaps set for take off. Trim set for take off. Switches as required. Fuel on, sufficient, correct tank." etc. Look left to right, top to bottom, at everything. One simple check is CIGARS. Controls free and in correct sense. Instruments checked left to right, top to bottom. Gas - on, sufficient, correct tank, pump as required. Attitude trim set. Runups. Switches. (Although I prefer to do a control check after run ups). The flow check will catch anything you've missed though. Preflight safety briefing is what you'll do if everything goes according to plan. "I'll line up on runway xx for left hand circuits, the circuit height is ..." And what to do if things don't go according to plan. "If the airspeed indicator is not reading, temps & pressures not as required, static RPM x RPM, any smells or vibrations I will close the throttle and stop on the runway. If I have an engine failure below x feet indicated, I will land ahead, best glide speed is .... If time, initial checks are ...etc etc." Then if something unexpected does happen after this take off, you'll be prepared. Someone said to use elevator to control speed and power to control rate of descent. That's an interesting one and open to different views. Power and attitude = performance so a combination of the two will work, but as you move into higher performance aircraft you'll find it more effective to maintain a stable approach by pointing to where you want to land with elevator and using power to control speed. The majority of GA schools teach this way now, so you don't have to change your way of thinking somewhere down the track. Having said that, if you have not been taught this way, stick with what you know for now!

Just an opinion, but I was a bit disappointed with Stick & Rudder.

I started off with the ATC books when they really were by Trevor Thom. The really, really, really old BAK book is very good if you can find one. It presents things in a way similar to the GA syllabus. The new ATC one has different information, still good. I found the ATC Flying Training Manual very helpful as it covered all the air sequences (for GA). For further information down the track Mechanics of Flight is good.

I thought it was a bit longer than that. Yes, there's a lot in there of interest. There's a bit about the increase in activity in the RA-Aus sector, self-administration, a sport aviation section of CASA, not allowing residential developments or nursing homes off the end of runways (so airports remain viable), 24 hour restricted areas being reduced from 81 to 15, improving the training sector, international harmonisation of airspace and procedures, capping of Airservices charges. They are a few things that spring to mind. It's worth a read. Meanwhile the media seem more interested in being able to carry tweezers, and changes to duty free.

I am just amazed at the focus from people on the security aspect of the White Paper. You have all read it haven't you? What are your thoughts?

172M, I think what people are getting at is that your transponder signal won't be picked up unless you are in secondary surveillance radar coverage. That's a very valid point about fixed ELTs, which is why the portable ones are so good. You could activate it before landing as part of your shutdown checks. Personally I use good old BUMFISH modified to suit - eg undercarriage up or down to suit, mixture ICO, fuel off, etc. ELT can be activated under under instruments or switches (ELT on, switches off), hatches unlatched, harnesses tight. But yes, the primary thing is to fly the aeroplane and get the thing down on the ground safely.

The problem with The Oaks is its location and thinking of which is the best frequency to be on. As I said earlier, overhead at 2500 I would NOT be on The Oaks frequency, I'd suggest monitoring CN Tower. If you are about 2 miles east of The Oaks, you MUST be on the CN frequency (below 2500' anyway) due to flights in proximity of a GAAP. GA training aircraft flying neaby will most likely be on Sydney Radar or CN tower, not the Oaks. IFR aircraft on descent will be on Sydney Radar. If you want to make a call on The Oaks frequency, I would suggest doing it at 10 miles or so, and be careful mentioning tracking points that may not be known to foreign or new pilots. You could just say you are x miles to the south to track overhead the field northbound at 2500. Then I'd suggest monitoring the CN tower when you get closer because that is the frequency most likely to be used by aircraft at 2500' in that area. Remember the original airspace policy that we are moving too mentions "appropriate" frequency for that reason. Actually, 2500 is probably the worst height for overflying there because aircraft overflying to join that circuit could possibly be traffic (circuit traffic would be below you), and aircraft inbound to Camden are most likely to be at 2500 (and on a different frequency). Also remember to be very careful with your lookout in that area. There could be aircraft on 4 different frequencies all in the same location near The Oaks (The Oaks, Sydney Radar, Camden Tower, Camden ATIS). So no matter which frequency you choose, remember not everyone may be on that particular frequency - so look out of the window!!

Pduthoit, an approach call for an approach call?? That airspace and radio frequencies are busy enough as it is. The problem is actually having approach points in the first place. Why on earth do we funnel low time (and sometimes foreign) solo students together at the same location and altitude in very busy airspace while they are trying to manage flying, radio and looking out of the window. Having a call x minutes from an inbound point is even worse, low time pilots will be head in trying to work out times (and they might get it wrong), and the further away they call, the harder it will be for ATC to see them. The call is already made well outside the zone. I do hope the change to Class D will result in standard procedures, such as calling "x miles to the west inbound." The changes are supposed to make things simpler, not more complex as complexity will lead to errors.

In that situation tracking is good, when requesting a clearance through airspace you could say transit. My thought though is to be very careful making a call on The Oaks frequency tracking overhead at 2500. The circuit traffic would be well below you - however The Oaks is an inbound point to Camden, and due to the terrain and the underlying airstrip, many aircraft for Camden call inbound at the Oaks at 2500' on the Camden tower frequency. So at the Oaks at 2500', your threat is more likely to be traffic for Camden, and you won't hear them if you are on The Oaks frequency. Food for thought.

Wags it is interesting if he said radios will be mandatory for all aircraft in all airspace when the new CTAF proposals have clearly defined procedures for entry for non-radio aircraft. If they can enter a licensed CTAF without a radio, they must have come from somewhere - like Class G airspace operating from an ALA. If that is the case, if it is legal for them to operate into a CTAF without a radio under certain circumstances, they must be operating without a radio outside of the CTAF. I'm not anti-radio at all. I think everyone really SHOULD have a radio. My concern is more about radio failure and instantly breaking the regulations. I'm sure John McCormick has pressure from the airlines to make sure bugsmashers have radios. Of course CASA has the responsibility for aircraft safety. But Yenn, not so long ago the CASA mission statement included a comment about encouraging "participation in aviation", it was NOT their plan to stop people flying. However someone (Toller? Byron?) removed that aim. I do think John McCormick wants to encourage aviation. He's one of us. Maybe he'll put that bit about participation in aviation back one day.

Look on the chart and get the number of the area. Go to the back of ERSA and check when that area is normally active. Check the NOTAMS. Now here is the confusing part. If the area is normally NOT active, and on this occasion it IS active, there will be a NOTAM out saying it is active. If the area is NORMALLY active (say, 24 hours, SFC to 6,000ft as an example), a NOTAM will only be issued if the area is DEACTIVATED. So if there is no NOTAM, the area may be active, or may not, depending on its normal status. On the Airservices briefing website there is actuallly a section there which shows which area is active or not active by time, that's a good way to find out. If unsure, you could phone them. In ERSA there's a phone number for all of the areas. In the air, you can tune the ATIS, or if you have an ADF you can tune that and turn up the volume. Failing all of that, you can use the radio.

Thanks very much Wags!! I do think John McCormick has our interests at heart, I've always thought that. I think we are lucky to have him. A few comments though. Firstly, on the ATSB Limitations of the See and Avoid Principle document. What they DON'T mention is that there was a revision made to that a long time ago. There was a comment made by CASA some time ago, to the ATSB, which was "Closed - Accepted", amending the original comment that see and avoid should never be the sole means of separation. Before quoting the original document, you might want to have a look at that amendment. On radios, from what has been said here it is again about airspace. Did McCormick say radios would be compulsory, or that they would be mandated FOR LICENSED CTAFs? There's a BIG difference there. The proposal he's put forward on CTAFs has a way of operating in and out WITHOUT a radio, so I can't see how it can be mandated outside of a CTAF in Class G. Of course the problem is when radios fail and everyone thinks everyone else has a radio (Thanks Qwerty). There IS a phenomenon of people relying on controllers. It's not fiction, the study wasn't done by an unknown consultant, it was done by NASA. The phenomenon is called "Diffusion of responsibility", and it is real. For those that like statistics, the majority of collisions occur on or near and airport - that's where the traffic is - and the majority of collisions do occur in controlled airspace. There is no such thing as a "CTAF®" as an airport category. People just can't let go of the MTAF, MBZ. No other country in the world has two these different types of uncontrolled airports. MBZs were removed so we only had CTAFs, and some CTAFs were to require radio, it was just going to be a small ® next to the frequency in ERSA. But of course people love labels and suddenly it was a new type of airport. Airports won't be CTAF®s, they will just be CTAFs - whether radio is required or not.

They are not bad for instrument and navaid work. The general handling is not like the real thing.

To make sure you are on the runway strip, find reference points you can use on approach, and when taking off too. Fly over a point on the ground. The perspective change is when the threshold rushes up and fills the screen - when it starts to look scary. Roll your eyes along the runway to the end. If you just look up without looking along the runway, you might pull at the same time and balloon. DON'T let it land. There's no hurry. Fly along not letting it land, power back and maintain the attitude to NOT let it land - you'll have to ease back a little. You'll feel it begin to sink, and when it does, raise the nose a little, not above the take off attitude, and you'll be on the ground before you know it. Holding off means don't let it land.

It does make safer pilots. I'm a fan of any training to improve skill, whether that be instrument training, night training, spinning, aeros, formation etc. Personally I think that people can't be "complete" pilots without the ability to fly in sun and cloud, day and night, and in 3 dimensions. Military pilots don't even get their wings until they've done all this, it is "basic" training. However in saying that, there's nothing wrong with observing the limitations to fly within the training we have. The thing to consider is what RA is about. Do you want to end up exactly like GA? If so, expect the higher costs of GA, and if it is the same, why do we need both? Be careful what we wish for! There's nothing to stop people doing additional training in GA aircraft, then armed with that knowledge they can enjoy the benefits of RA.

BlackRod the strip is a bit rough, with a fair slope to it and some high ground around. It's the sort of place where at times you have to consider whether it is better to take off into wind, uphill with the ground continuing to rise, or downhill with a tailwind. There's a lot of sand which tends to be blown around everywhere.

Couldn't have been me DJ, I haven't been in ECI for quite some time now, but she sure is an old friend and I'll never forget her. Imagine how many people she's taught over the years!

If there's no flying option you could travel on the water taxi or one of the barges.