Mazda

Great advice Mozartmerv! Yes flyingdog, you came through with a solution which is good, although I'm a bit concerned you were in failing light, marginal weather, and without charts in reach. I suppose we all learn from these things, so good on you for posting on here. I bet you always have charts in reach now though. You never know when you might need to divert.

Speed is relative JR! I doubt the fast jet guys would think of the C130 as fast! :man flying: Flyingdog, that was just an example of a call, nothing specific. However in saying that, the definition of "vicinity" happens to equal 10 miles. I'd also suggest you read the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the CAR166 changes, because that is proposing a call at 10 miles if you have one radio fitted, or at 8 minutes if you have two radios!

A chandelle is a climbing turn. A wingover is basically a climbing turn and a descending turn. Not 1G though, and you can be a bit inverted at the top of a wingover. They are not difficult at all, but if you stuff up it could get a bit nasty. Please, as Nev says, please get some proper training before thinking about it.

As pilots I don't think we can entirely avoid risk, all we can do is to assess the risks, and manage them as best we can.

Hmmm. I don't see the point in broadcasting VFR enroute position reports. Has Australia ever had an enroute VFR midair collision? Flying VFR is random enough for the big sky theory to have some merit, there is very little risk in the first place. The problem is the busier it is, the less it works because people can't fit in the calls, and if it isn't busy, there isn't much risk to warrant it in the first place! Plus if the broadcasts are on an area frequency, it may block calls between a controller and an IFR aircraft in cloud. If pilots don't know the area, they won't know local features, and instead of looking out they will start looking all over their WAC to find the traffic, which could be a very long way away. Or they will call back, giving another position report, resulting in calls going backwards and forwards, when all they really need to do is look out of the window. I'm talking about enroute though. Near airports it is different story because there is more traffic in a smaller area, there is a separate frequency, and it is easier to work out where people are ("10 miles to the west inbound, 2,500 feet"). That is where we do need to tell people where we are, while also looking out for any aircraft that may be off frequency, or getting their position wrong (like 180 degrees out!)

Thanks Dunlop! Merv, not yet, I'm still a lowly CPL, I haven't found a school to do the instructor rating yet. I can't wait to do it though!

Well, I can think of two farmers I know who fly their trikes from a local strip, never leaving the property! C130s, fast? I'd hope they see you first anyway, because if they can't see other (slow) aircraft, we are in trouble if we go to war. If you want to mandate radios, are there other similar countries that do this? No? I wonder why? It's not ICAO, it doesn't work because of the human factors element. If radios are MANDATED in CTAFs, people think everyone is on frequency and it isn't true! If you think GA guys make more mistakes, that's probably true. They might have multiple radios and be trying to monitor multiple frequencies (which doesn't work well anyway), then select the wrong radio to transmit. I bet they have a radio alright, probably 2 radios, and I bet they make the calls too - just not on the right frequency. The more radios you have, the more complex the system, the more chance of a mistake. I think you'll find most people do have radios anyway. If you read the ATSB reports, its not non-radio aircraft that are the problem, it is pilots making mistakes. That includes multi-crew airline aircraft. Just ask MozartMerv! At Bundaberg some years ago, three aircraft were doing approaches in cloud, and one was on the wrong frequency. No one knew it was there. Oh, it's mandatory to make those calls alright, but mandating it doesn't stop mistakes. That's why ICAO only mandates radio for airspace where there is a third party to talk to the pilots and make sure they are all on frequency. It doesn't mean that people fly around with no radio in uncontrolled airspace, or that they don't make calls, it just means that in mandatory radio airspace, the pilots in there have spoken to someone so know they are on frequency. Most people at CTAFs have radio anyway, mandating radio won't make it any safer. Otherwise MTAFs/MBZs/CTAF®s would have a higher level of safety than CTAFS - and the BASI/ATSB incidents show that this is not the case.

In the new aerobatics section of the forums there's a thread going about EMT courses.

I can't see it getting to VNE that quickly in a roll! Yes, you'd be nose down, but realistically, even with an increase in airspeed, I can't think of much of an alternative. It's rolling to level and recovering, or nothing. OK, aeros trained people could use elevator and rudder inputs (the person below did), but an untrained person wouldn't. As you've said, the back half of a loop starts with low airspeed. Pulling through from inverted at a higher speed means a real danger of exceeding VNE, exceeding the G limit of the aircraft, hitting the ground, or all three! It takes a lot of height and speed builds up very quickly! Unfortunately being tipped inverted does happen, see here: Turbulence & hazards From that link:

The Sea Fury. (Actually, anything designed by Sir Sydney Camm!) The Sea Fury is such a beautiful thing, so graceful, and the sound of it is so unique, it really purrs. Secondly, the humble Aussie Victa Airtourer, because it is crisp handling and a delight to fly. It is simple enough for ab initio training, but is also aerobatic. It has design features now being used in modern aircraft. It has a fixed seat for the same perspective each flight, a side/centre stick. It has a low coaming you can see over, and a canopy for great visibility. It's easy to fly and easy to land. It has full span flapperons for excellent responsiveness. The stall warning only works when there is flap out - good for training and for aeros. It can be slipped, with and without flap. It's fun to fly! I've had people coming over for a trip down memory lane, wistfully saying that they learnt to fly in one, way back in 1963. I've also had people coming over saying what is that? Is this some sort of new experimental aircraft? It makes me happy that the 1950s design was so far ahead of its time that 50 years later, people still think it is a brand new type!

Easy in theory JR. I do agree that it is advisable to have a radio (even a hand held), but why should we mandate them? They don't have to be mandated to allow us to carry them you know!! Mandating has all sorts of problems. Firstly, in what airspace should we mandate radios? It's already mandatory in some classes of airspace, so do you think it should be mandated everywhere? Maybe for all CTAFs/ALAs, including a farmer in woop woop who likes to go for the odd trike flight and never leaves his property? If so, mandating means enforcement. So who is going to check that the farmer in woop woop has a working radio in his trike? Do we have to send a CASA rep there, and who pays for that? The poor farmer who just wants to fly for fun? Or the industry (which means us)? And what happens if that farmer says I always carry a hand held. Who knows if he does? No one. Unenforceable rules don't make sense. So what happens if the radio fails and you are flying somewhere. If radio is "mandated", that means you will be fined however many penalty points, because you are now flying without a radio. If radio is mandated at airports, where do you now land? Simple answer is you can't, landing without radio would be illegal. So you'd have to either land in a paddock, or pay a fine. So perhaps there would need to be a clause to say if your radio fails, you can land at an airport to have it fixed. That leads to two problems. Firstly, how do you know that a person landing at your local strip with a failed radio hasn't been flying around from a farm strip with no radio for ages? You don't. It's unenforceable! Now, the really big problem. That person is now flying into your local strip with no radio, because it is broken. (Or, there could be others flying into your strip on the wrong frequency, or with the wrong radio selected - effectively no radio). But because radios are "mandatory" everyone else at the strip is of the belief that everyone has radio. So being human, we all get a bit slack. Yes, that Jab called turning base, I've got him sighted. But perhaps we don't even look for the other aircraft on downwind, because there has been no radio call. I'm saying it is a good idea if we do carry radios, but mandating them won't work with no third party confirmation and no enforcement - and instead of assuming everyone else is on frequency we should assume they are not, and look out!

Yes Drizz, if you pull when right way up, it makes the nose point up towards you. If you pull when inverted, it still makes the nose point towards you, but now it is pointing down towards the ground. So to maintain height when inverted, you may need forward pressure. Nev is right, unless the aircraft has an inverted fuel and oil system, the engine will stop inverted, but it does take a little while to happen - there are plenty of basic aerobatic trainers without inverted systems. It shouldn't stop on a roll unless you hang inverted for a while. Unfortunately a sim won't give you the physical sensations or the fear factor, so do it for real if you can, in an aerobatic aircraft, with a good aerobatic instructor. It may be expensive, but it really is worth every cent!

Firstly, it doesn't roll over because you stop the roll input. You provide aileron input to 30 degrees, 45, 60 whatever, but you don't keep adding more aileron. Feel it next time you do one. You are the one who stops the roll. Secondly, most aircraft are designed to be stable so they try to right themselves. There are aerodynamic design features to encourage this. Purpose built aerobatic aircraft are designed to be less stable. Anyway, it takes more effort to get the things on their back than you think. However ... there HAVE been cases where aircraft have ended up inverted (or more commonly, not inverted as such, but with angles of bank over 90 degrees). It could be from wake turbulence for instance. So, what do you do if it does happen? "Roll to the nearest horizon and ease out of the dive." Never forget that. ROLL. Whatever you do, don't pull, which as Nev says is the first thing most people do, unless they've been trained not to do so. If you pull when you are inverted, the aircraft does exactly what you've asked, and heads straight for the ground. Roll to the nearest horizon. It might be that you roll back the way you came, or it could be that you continue rolling right around, but go for the nearest one. Do NOT pull while you roll. There's a thing called "Rolling G", resulting in a much higher stress on the aircraft than if you pull the same amount of G when level. Exceed the rolling G limit of the aircraft and you could have a structural failure. Once you are the right way up and your wings are level, you can ease out of the dive by pulling out - gently. If you are in a panic and pull back too hard, you might end up stalling and losing more height. Stalling is not necessarily related to speed. Now, power. It's likely that while all this is going on, the aircraft nose will drop in the roll and you'll be pointing downhill. Whenever the nose is pointing towards the ground, pull off the power. That doesn't matter if you are upside down or right way up. Nose down, power off. So, you have rolled to the horizon, wings are level, your power is off, and you are easing out of the dive. Apply your power once the nose climbs back up above the horizon - i.e. you are climbing again, nose pointing up. If you have a chance, go up with a GA aerobatic instructor and get them to show you!

That looks like fun!

The too many gadget thing has merit too - or reliance on too many gadgets. TCAS/ADS-B in is pretty useless in busy areas, there are too many signals. ADS-B in is being thrown around for collision avoidance in the circuit. I can't imagine pilots flying around the circuit with their eyes on a screen in the cockpit. Remember it won't show all the aircraft anyway and has no audio signal (there's some sort of TCAS patent issue), you have to look at the screen. All of these gadgets can add to safety, but if people only rely on them without looking out of the window it could be less safe.

Skydog the problem is that you can mandate that we each have 10 radios, it won't make any difference. The compliance issue isn't because people don't have radios, it is because radios are on the wrong frequency, or pilots have the wrong radio selected, or the radio has failed. People make mistakes and equipment fails. How would you know if your radio had failed? Most likely you wouldn't know. The only way you can know your radio is working, and on the correct frequency, and readable is if there is someone there to hear you. This is why ICAO only mandates radio for Class D and above, meaning there is actually a controller there to acknowledge your call. That's why many non-controlled airports overseas have a unicom operator, and why we have AFRUs at some airports. True, they are not perfect either, but they are better than no confirmation at all. Unless there is some sort of third party confirmation, mandating radios can't possibly work. For the same reason, it would be foolish to assume every aircraft flying in "mandatory" radio airspace had a radio working and on the correct frequency. The ATSB website is full of incidents to prove this isn't the case. So look out of the window for all traffic, not just the ones you hear.

Simon, you'll need to do a PPL flight test. See CAR division 5. (5.77) "... has been awareded a pass in a private pilot licence theory examination or a commercial pilot licence theory examination ... Has been awarded a pass in a private pilot licence flight test..." Plus all the other stuff with syllabus and aeronautical experience.

Very, very true cficare!

Transponders are good but I don't think they should be mandatory in Class G. I think if we mandate transponders, we should also mandate it for the airlines to have TCAS in the smaller airline aircraft, otherwise they can't see us anyway, transponder or no transponder. They have more money than we do. For a controller to see your transponder, yes there needs to be secondary radar coverage, and the controller you are talking to needs to have access to that. So if you are in the class C or D over Albury, remember the controller does NOT have you on radar. They controller doesn't have radar so you will be separated procedurally. They are great in that you get access to more airspace, you can get flight following, and TCAS equipped aircraft can see you. I'd fit one if I had a a few extra thousand sitting around - but I don't. They are not cheap to fit!

The poor C152 is getting a bit too much undeserved criticism I think! I prefer low wings, but 152s are good trainers and have been for decades. Given the choice (and 1 POB) I'd take a 152 over a 172/182. They are more fun, and there's nothing wrong with going a bit slower - it just means more hours in the log book! On crashworthiness, I think that is a type issue more than a high wing/low wing issue. Look at the new Boomerang, a low wing with a safety cage around the cabin, certified to a higher safety standard than standard GA high wings.

Well done!! I bet the student will never do that again.

Simon the CPL isn't really all that much different to the PPL so you might as well go for it. The main big difference is loading system echo, which has brought a few people unstuck. Don't even attempt that exam until you have echo mastered. I can't advise how long it would take, it's not really all that hard if you do apply yourself. Courses are good because they are structured, TAFE used to run CPL courses, I'm not sure if they still do. Remember in Air Law, they can only ask questions that are in the published documents, so learn those well, and bookmark them. You'll need to know about flight and duty time. Back when I did it we couldn't learn subjects one at a time, the CPL exam had all subjects examined on the one day, it was enough to give anyone a headache.

MikeHotel, I've sent you a PM!

Moy71, yes, the red ones are for air side access, the same as we get.

I use the plastic holder it came with (from CASA when they first issued them). It has one good use - it's the right size to put the Aiservices fly-away card on the other side to call for weather!