Mazda

There was an AD out on the flap Nev. Mind you, it doesn't take much to get them down anyway, and considering the flap is full wing span and underneath the fuselage, and you can sideslip as well (with flap out), descending isn't a problem! Yep, they still have that Ford front strut, and the car horn stall warning. It makes people jump when you are doing pre-flight checks. They have short, broad, wings alright which gives them a better roll (combined with the full span ailerons.) You do need to be careful with weight/fuel/density altitude. I fly a 115 but have also flown a 160 CSU variant which wasn't underpowered, but didn't have the same light feel as the 115. I don't think I've flown an O-200 powered 100hp one. My theory is that using the same 130 hp O-235 as the Reims aerobat would be a good way to go. No increase in weight, and a little bit of extra power. Maybe one day!

In one of Richard Bach's books he recounts a story of sitting next to a guy on an airline flight. The guy recounted war tales in vivid detail, then summed up the rest of his life in a sentence. His life had no stories any more, and hadn't for decades. Life was dull. Richard thought of the pilots he knew, who all had stories from today, last week, last year. Inspired by Maj Millard's wonderful stories in another thread, I thought it would be great to share some inspiring moments of aviation - good, bad, or in between. You know the ones. Maybe your general friends don't get it, but your flying friends do. The time you departed at first light and watched the sun rising over the sea when you were flying down the coast. Your first solo. The time you introduced a friend to the joy of flight. That fantastic trip to wherever, even with the unexpected diversions and the dodgy motel. Let's escape the regulatory bureacracy in here and think about why we fly in the first place. Don't be shy now, people here will understand - be poetic and descriptive!

Great story Maj, one we can all learn from, but there's more to it which has made me think. In one of Richard Bach's books he recounts a story of sitting next to a guy on an airline flight. The guy recounted war tales in vivid detail, then summed up the rest of his life in a sentence. His life had no stories any more, and hadn't for decades. Richard thought of the pilots he knew, who all had stories from today, last week, last year. I might start a new thread, where people can add their stories. Good, bad, or just memorable - the flights which give us memories and define our lives. Maj, I hope you can add lots of them!

Turbo, yes the Victa is an absolute delight to fly. Ozzie they have flapperons which are full span, including flap under the fuselage!

Well Pete, in that case there are plenty of airline crews who have poor airmanship. People make mistakes, and it isn't just being on the wrong frequency, in some cases it is because they are juggling between radios.

No matter what you think, this is a pointless argument because there is no way in the world that any aviation regulator will ever, ever, ever mandate radio for all aircraft in all classes of airspace. The current Australian Airspace Policy Statement (which is the Airspace Act, i.e. the law) says that Australia is moving to the National Airspace System, which means standard Class G with no radio requirement. Any non-ICAO compliant procedures must be notified as a difference with ICAO. There is also a CASA CEO directive (i.e. it must be complied with) which says that Australia will harmonise with international practice unless there is a specific local issue which requires something different for safety reasons. It also says that if there are several international practices we could choose from, Australia should choose the one which provides that level of safety for the lowest cost. There is nothing unique about Australia's Class G which would require additional regulations for safety - except perhaps for some people's absolute obsession with VFR separation by radio, VFR position reports etc which no one else in the world does. The reason we CAN do it, and other countries don't, is because we have so little traffic people can actually do it. Overseas there's so much traffic it would be impossible to do it. It would be like all car drivers trying to separate by radio, talking to every other driver. It doesn't work when there is a lot of traffic, and it is pointless when there isn't much traffic. Bill, of course I'm talking about CTAF Rs because they have mandatory radio in Class G. There's no point debating mandatory radio in Class C because that is ICAO and there's a third party. Radio is already mandatory in Class C. So we are just talking about Class G here. Bill I'm not saying we shouldn't have and use radio, we should. I'm saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to mandate radio in any airspace without a third party confirmation because there is no way of knowing the radio is working, which means there could be in effect "no radio" aircraft in mandatory radio airspace. That is why ICAO won't do it. Plus, constant position reports by VFR aircraft on area frequencies (I'm not talking about CTAFs now) blocks air traffic controllers from SEPARATING IFR aircraft in cloud. Now that is reducing safety. If you are a local, you'll know where other aircraft are when they use a local landmark. Others won't. They'll be searching on their WACs with no idea where the other aircraft is. Head down trying to find where the other aircraft is, not looking out in VMC. Read the regs. We are required by law to look out. Don't believe my "opinion", spend some time reading the documents yourself. Look at where most collisions occur around the world, and if those aircraft have radio. Parafield - both aircraft had radio. 2RN - both aircraft had radio. Bankstown - both aircraft had radio. Hoxton Park - both aircraft had radio. That airline one in South America - both aircraft had radio. The airline one with the Swiss controller (in Germany I think) - both had radio. Tenerife - both aircraft had radio. You might also want to consider other types of safety because collisions are not really all that common. We've lost more people to CFIT accidents in Australia, but no one here is calling for mandatory EGPWS fitment or instrument training. Maybe CASA should "mandate" that all aircraft should be IFR, triple redundancy glass cockpit two crew, with air bags, emergency slides, EGPWS, TCAS, RVSM, weather radar, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, fixed ELTs. That would all add to safety, so shouldn't it be mandated? Of course it shouldn't - some aircraft couldn't even get airborne, and we sure couldn't afford to fly them. Anyway, I'm going around in circles. As I said, mandatory radio in all aircraft in all airspace won't happen, so there's no point going on about it.

MTOW for the 115 is 748kg, max aeros wt 703kg.

With that stall speed the Victa would be in ... just. The 100hp stalls at 43 in landing configuration, the 115 at 44. It's a bit of a gotcha though because that's assuming full flap. In the 115, the power off, flaps off stall is 54 knots, which is sooner than many people expect the stall to occur - especially as the stall warning only works when there is flap down.

I've worked out the problem here. The views being posted are purely subjective. It is what individual pilots think, from their own experience. It is not based on science or fact. Think about it. It is statistically safer to fly in an airline aircraft than it is to drive to a major airport. But if you ask the views of some airline passengers, they are perfectly happy to drive to the airport with a manic taxi driver in heavy traffic, but are terrified to get on the jet because they think flying is dangerous. It's just that person's perspective, it isn't the truth. It's the same as some people here saying, "I think radios should be mandated in all aircraft in all airspace because mandating radio must make it safer." The big issue though is that statistics do not show that is the case. Read the ATSB weekly summaries, which are full of people in CTAF®s (where radio is "mandatory") being on the wrong frequency. Consider the NASA report on diffusion of responsibility. Look at the Ambidji report on CTAFs. Look at ICAO recommendations. And most importantly, look at busy airspace overseas and how they deal with it. If it was safer to mandate radio for all aircraft in all airspace, don't you think that would have been done somewhere else in the world by now? Somewhere with a lot more traffic than Australia?

Fantastic story Maj, it's like reading a Richard Bach book! (Any more?)

I'm showing my RA-Aus ignorance here because I'm not sure of the requirements other than weight. What other requirements are there, such as a low stall speed? The S1 I used to fly was quite a heavy one and I'm trying to think what it weighed. From memory it was around 400kg empty, something like 520kg MTOW, but I could be wrong, it was quite a while back.

Bill the problem is that mandating radios will not make it safer and will not improve compliance. People will always be on the wrong frequency unless there is someone else on the other end to confirm they are on the right frequency. Unless there is a unicom operator or (to a limited extent) an AFRU, there is no third party confirmation in CTAFs, so people will continue to make mistakes. You don't have to believe me, just look through the ATSB weekly summaries.

Skybum yes a beep back unit is sure better than nothing, that's why Dick Smith invented it, but it does have some limitations! Jetr, the problem with compliance is not that people don't have radios, it is that they are on the wrong frequency or there is a problem with the radio. Mandating 10 radios won't solve that problem. I'm in favour of radios, but I'm not in favour of mandating them in airspace without a third party.

Thanks qwerty!! Turbo, I'm on your side here, I don't want compulsory radio. Actually Turbo, the Airtourer has a TSOd radio and intercom, which cost $7,000 fitted. I typed out a huge answer, but somehow i dropped offline and lost it all! Ambidji did a report on CTAFs and recommended getting rid of CTAF®s because there is no improvement in compliance. That's the thing you need to consider. What is the risk you are addressing here? Will making radios compulsory improve safety? Of course it won't. Most people have radios anyway, the problem is that they are on the wrong frequency or the radio fails. You can mandate 10,000 radios in each aircraft, but people will still make mistakes and be on the wrong frequency - effectively with no radio. The ONLY way to improve compliance is to have a third party on the frequency to make sure your radio is working - a controller, a unicom, an AFRU. That's why ICAO only mandates radio in airspace where you are talking to a controller. (Or do we know better than ICAO?) In the UK people fly in bad weather, and join on base leg to a grass strip, with no radio. In the USA they don't even have an enroute VFR area frequency. Oh, that's right, we have a 20th of the aircraft here, we must know better. If radio is "mandated" and you are in a glider and your battery dies, you are breaking the law. Imagine if your car battery went flat, maybe you left your lights on, so the police issued you with a fine. That's what mandating radio will do, without improving safety at all.

In fact, why don't we make CB radios compulsory in all cars, so we can arrange separation on the road? You can't be too careful you know.

Hey, why not ban climbing a rock and ban water bottles too ... Oh, hang on, we have. Talk about the nanny state! Whatever happened to making a command decision?

As Nev says, sometimes there isn't any light. Trying to land on lights in a black hole is interesting, and that's when I've had the somatographical illusion problem. Flying at places like Bankstown and Camden I haven't had it as there is plenty of light around, but flying from Bathurst I could feel it alright. Perhaps be aware of that, because if you do a nav to somewhere really dark you might not expect it. Flying in places with very little light makes it easy to find the runway though. Turn on the lights and bang, there it is. I'd recommend not descending too early on approach, it is harder to judge distance at night. If flying in areas with lots of light (around Sydney for instance) it is harder to locate anything. Towns seem to merge together, landmarks disappear, and runway lights are surrounded by so many others! Maybe use the heading bug in the runway direction for circuits - especially in a high wing where you can lose sight of the runway in a turn. I'm not so sure that fixating on any instrument is the way to go, rather than having a good scan, but I can see what your instructor is getting at. It is more important to get away from the ground and be in a positive rate of climb, then sort out the aircraft!

Yenn is right. For those who think radio is more important when it gets busy, imagine this. At a military Green Flag exercise in the USA on 31 March 1988, there were over 300 aircraft airborne, over 200 of which were fast jets (fighters). Following an accident when an RAF Tornado crashed, the exercise was called off and all aircraft returned to Nellis. All at the same time. Nellis has a tower, but there were so many aircraft all inbound at the same time (and all low on fuel) that the tower couldn't cope and told the pilots they were on their own. It was too busy to make any radio calls and everyone just slotted in, looked out, and landed safely without incident. Admittedly the fast ones did slow down, they were only doing around 360 knots so the slower ones could formate on them. That's a slow arrival speed for a fast jet in VMC, but it is still way faster than most of us are used to dealing with at non-controlled aerodromes. Can you imagine what would have happened if 300 aircraft all tried to talk to each other? "I'm downwind, where are you?" On that Parafield accident, they had radio, they were broadcasting, and they even had TCAD, but they collided. What didn't they have? See and avoid, because of the sun glare. They couldn't see properly, and they hit each other - despite having radio and TCAD. Plus they were using two frequencies in the circuit, talking on company frequency, instead of concentrating and looking out. I still think we should carry and use radio, but to mandate it with no third party confirmation can't work and it is doesn't replace a good look out.

Hey Merv I really must drop in for a coffee some time at CN, are you there much on weekends?

Thanks Merv! ;) Qwerty I think you are absolutely spot on. When people fly into a CTAF they tend to be more careful to look out for that trike or Tiger Moth that may be flying there without a radio. When people fly to a CTAF®, it subconsciously gives pilots a mistaken belief that there won't be any unknown aircraft in the circuit, so they don't look out as carefully. It's a 'human factors' issue. NASA did a study some time back on "Diffusion of responsibility", explaining why there were accidents/incidents at towered airports. It found that pilots mentally handed over the responsibility of looking out to the air traffic controller. (That is a real danger at GAAPs because the controllers don't provide separation in the circuit, only sequencing.) It's a similar thing with mandatory radio in situations where there is no confirmation that pilots are on frequency. Pilots mentally hand over the responsibility of looking out to the radio.

Oh, that's cheating, you have a PAPI!!!! ;) The illusions can feel very real, especially when accelerating and climbing away, I have felt like I was climbing vertically and had to trust instruments to maintain a good rate of climb. All I wanted to do was push down. thumb_down I've also had wake turbulence at night, I guess there wasn't enough wind to move it away.

I'm with you Qwerty. Turbo has a point in that we can have different levels of safety depending on the operation, and why not? If you want to fly privately around your farm in Class G airspace, why should it be mandated for you to have equipment which you do not need and will not make your flight safer? But an airline passenger would hope that their RPT aircraft flies to an airport with air traffic control. They would hope that their aircraft is fitted with TCAS (even if they don't know what it is!) I don't think that is too much to expect on an RPT flight. The problem is, the smaller RPT aircraft are not required to have TCAS (even if the lighties need to have transponders) and they fly into plenty of airports without ATC. I think everything is mixed up. I think there should be less restriction on recreational flying, and more stringent requirements for commercial flights!

Qwerty you are so right, but I think people are not comparing apples with apples here. When people say "mandate radio" what are they talking about? Mandate it for Class C? Or for flying in Class G? We could follow ICAO guidelines, where radio is mandated only from Class D and above for good reason. In that airspace there is a controller to talk to, and they provide traffic informtation and/or separation, so they need to talk to you. Plus, everyone in that airspace knows their radio is working and on frequency, because they must actually make contact with the controller before entering. In those classes of airspace, I agree that radio should be required. Mandatory radio in Class G can NEVER work, despite how much people might want it to work. The reason for this is that there is no third party confirmation to make sure the radio is working and on the right frequency. I'm pro-radio, I think we should all have them and use them, but I'm against MANDATING them because it can't work. If your radio fails, you are now illegal and subject to fines. It is completely unenforceable and completely unworkable. The worst of that though is that if radio is MANDATED, everyone thinks everyone else is on frequency. This ONLY works when people are talking to controllers to confirm they are on frequency. So in a CTAF, if radios are MANDATED, everyone thinks everyone else has radio, and they may not. Well, they may have a radio fitted, but perhaps they have the wrong radio selected, or the wrong frequency. Who here hasn't ever dialled up a wrong frequency? What happens if your radio fails enroute? You can't legally land anywhere. And if you try, other pilots there will get slack and not look out because they assume everyone is on frequency. Of course we should all have and use radio, but let's stop trying to MANDATE everything with rules that cannot work. Remember, you can still use radios when they are not mandated!

Well done Tomo!

With $53 million, I'd get the Airtourer back into production again and start manufacturing. You know what they say, to make a small fortune in aviation you need to start with a large fortune! True, it's no Sukhoi 29 or Yak 54, but I can't think of too many new basic ab initio to aeros trainers around these days, and everyone has to start somewhere!