Mazda

There's something unique about the smell of a Pitts. Maybe it is a combination of oil, sweat (and perhaps a slight smell of the remainder of people's lunches?), I'm not sure. But you'll know it when you smell it.

Yep! Spoken is magnetic, written is true, area forecasts AMSL, anything aerodrome related like TAFs are AGL. Clear as mud!!! :thumb_up:

Ah, the old high wing/low wing debate. I've flown high, low and biplanes, and I started on high wing. Some people say people tend to prefer what they started in, but I don't. Give me a low wing any day. For a start, the ability to see through a turn in the circuit area is a safety feature in my view. You don't lose sight of the runway at all, and can see through the turn. If the low wing has a bubble canopy (and remember many don't) the visibility is even better. I find it more difficult to spot traffic from a high wing, you have to keep lifting your wings all the time. I also find that when on the ground stopping at the holding point it is harder to see aircraft on final. You can stop on an angle, but then you can't see if anyone is using the "wrong" runway. They DO handle differently. Think of the aerodynamics - high wing leads to a "pendulum" effect, which can feel like you are fighting it a bit more when you turn. I'm not talking about a lot, but let's put it this way ... there are many more low (or mid) wing aerobatic aircraft than high wing. To me they just feel better. They tend to handle crosswinds better. The lighties I've seen with crosswind limits of 20 or 25 knots are low wings. The worst I've seen (with a LIMIT of something like 10 knots) was a high wing. It is easier to fuel low wings, and ladies can comfortably fly in a skirt without worrying about the need to straddle on a strut or climb a ladder. With a high wing, it is possible to get fuel on your passengers if you have any accidental spills and they are standing behind the wing. It's easier to check the stall warning etc on low wings. Try doing that on taller high wings. Even something like a 172 is hard enough. I've quite comfortably sat in the shade under a low wing at air shows, so I don't know what all the fuss is about there. However, yes, you there is more room under the wing of a high wing for camping! You can camp under the wing of a low wing, but I think most low wing pilots would either take a tent - or just find a motel!;) On a nice day in a low wing canopy aircraft, you can taxi with the canopy open, and some can fly with the canopy open. They are the convertibles, the "sports cars" of the air. :thumb_up: High wings are easier for passengers to get in and out of, more like a car, so they are better for older/incapacitated passengers. Some country people like high wings because you can taxi between gate posts, if you need to do that sort of thing. (A low wing pilot would probably fly over and find another place to land on the other side!) I do like high wings because it means there is room for more low wings in the hangar! Sorry, there are some silly comments in there. Both have their advantages, and I do fly both, but for me the low wing is preferable.

Very inspiring words Mozartmerv!

There's one thing not being mentioned here, which is that TCAS is not mandatory for some RPT aircraft. What is the point of mandating transponders for us, which would probably cost $4,000 each fitted, plus scheduled inspections, when the airlines who make money don't have to pay to fit TCAS? Don't assume everything has TCAS. Don't assume everyone with a transponder has remembered to turn it on. Don't assume everyone with a radio has the right frequency, or the correct radio selected, or that the radio is working (how would you know if it had failed?) So don't assume that everyone at ANY airport has a radio. You can mandate as many pieces of equipment as you like (which all cost us money), and you can mandate hundreds of radio calls for every aircraft, but it doesn't mean people will always comply. People make mistakes, and we must expect that. Make your calls, if you don't get an expected response (AFRU, tower, other aircraft) check your radio, but you will only know your radio is working when something replies. In any case, remember always to look out the window.

Does anyone know of any hangarage coming up in the Brisbane area in the next few months? Archerfield, Redcliffe, Dunwich, Caboolture etc.

Ah, those were the days. It screened at every aerobatics competition I went to!

I had a stack of annual leave saved up some time ago, and asked the company I was working for at the time if they could pay out some of my leave. That paid for some navs. I also did some part time work for a flying school, answering phones, taking bookings, putting aircraft away etc, and I was paid in flying time. Maybe you could try that at your school - say you'll refuel and wash aircraft, sweep hangars, update AIP etc, in return for flying time.

I haven't read through all the pages here so forgive me if I'm doubling up, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. Commercial aircraft are subject to commercial pressures, plus hanging around in the circuit is where they are more likely to hit something slower, so I have no problem with straight in approaches, including landing with an acceptable downwind. They are out of your way in next to no time. Remember these aircraft do have an acceptable downwind, and remember too that the airlines have a stack of "exemptions" from the rules, so you can quote them all here until you are blue in the face but it may not necessarily apply to a particular airline. I'm not sure which exemptions apply to which airlines. The passengers probably don't get circuit entries anyway. The runway is over there, why don't we just fly to it and land? I find most (Ok, not all) of the airline pilots to be very courteous, they were in GA probably not so long ago! Someone said there are different procedures for CTAFs and CTAF Rs. Not true, it isn't like the old MTAF/MBZ days. A CTAF is a CTAF, whether radio is required or not. You can never, ever, ever assume that all traffic will have a working radio on the right frequency. How do you even know if your own radio is working if there is no AFRU unit, someone in the tower, or someone else on the airport to talk to? The truth is, you don't! It is so easy to have the wrong frequency selected, the wrong radio, and radios do fail (even new radios). You can never absolutely rely on a pilot who says they are in a particular place, to actually be in that place. How many have heard pilots saying they are to the south when they are to the north? Or saying they are joining for runway 36 when they are actually joining for 18? So do listen out of course, but keep alert. Even when on approach, or on taxi, try to get a feel for aircraft that are at the field. Runway in use (but be cautious), position in the circuit and so on. Cross strips? Be very careful. Do look both ways, even if someone has called for a particular runway. Be very aware also if you are flying a high wing because sometimes you can't see final very well at all. I've been on the receiving end of that too. I remember being happily established on final, strobes on, landing light on, all radio calls made, when a C152 pilot announced he was entering and lining up on my runway. He hadn't seen me.

Yes Dexter! 123.45

I think the story itself missed the mark, but there is an issue at times. I think part of the problem is some foreign students learn the calls perfectly, but they don't really understand, and don't know what to say if things don't turn out as they expect. Such as if a controller says "remain outside controlled airspace" instead of the expected reply, the student will launch into the perfect reply, 'reading back' the expected clearance they haven't actually been given, and planning to just keep on flying in without a clearance. I've heard it. I've also heard them giving a perfect call of where they are (such as at an inbound point or a circuit leg) but they are not where they say they are. The calls are word perfect, but it is not where they actually are. The other thing I've heard some do is to coach each other on the numbers frequency. One will be doing a "solo" nav, and calling up their friends on numbers to ask for advice. Get onto numbers and listen to the chatter! I heard some good stories about flying schools in the past setting up a circuit in the hangar using bicycles (so the students still have to actually do something and think about spacing etc while talking), with instructors pretending to be controllers, and if the students get it wrong they are taken aside and given a briefing. I wonder if that still happens?

Mozart is spot on about the descending turn. People always think in terms of level turn because that's what the books talk about. The stall speed is not doubled in a descending 60 degree angle of bank turn. That's why I say sure, go ahead and get the books, but you won't know for real until you are up there doing it, so get some decent training. For example everyone knows that if you are inverted and pull back, you'll pull into the ground. All the books say so. But I can assure you that many pilots without real life EMT/aeros training who somehow end up beyond 90 degrees angle of bank will pull as an initial reaction, even if they have read the books. Turboplanner I sure hope I don't have the Airtourer you were doing that in, because the manual is specific about what you can and can't do to avoid a 20 times shorter spar life, and tail slides are not approved! Stall turns are of course, but not tail slides. Actually here's an interesting point. "Stall speed" is for slow deceleration level stalls and has no bearing on some real world situations. You can be pointing up in a stall turn, with the airspeed reading zero, and depending on the type you can count a bit and still keep going up (and not stalled). So you can be at zero indicated airspeed and not stalled. Or you can stall at a speed much higher than the published "stall speed." But I'm getting off the track. You CAN fly a stall, I've done so many times, you can do falling leaf type things, fully stalled, not spinning. You will be descending, but still flying. Or you can put in some rudder and spin, still a controlled state of flight in an aircraft approved for spinning. Aerobatic pilots do that all the time - upright, inverted, flat, with aileron, with power etc. Stalling doesn't mean uncontrolled flight or falling out of the sky. A flick/snap is a stalled state of flight too, and the aircraft can be flying horizontally.

The aircraft does not cease to fly when it has stalled. It just has less lift. It will descend of course, but believe me, it will fly. It will turn as you wish, with very careful gentle rudder inputs, during the stall. As I said, don't try this "at home", get some EMT instruction.

Personally I don't like the term 'pick up the wing with rudder.' I prefer to think 'keep straight with rudder' and look at a point on the horizon, using the rudder to stop the nose from yawing. It is indeed possible to be in a stall and still flying (with a high rate of descent) and controlling direction by using the rudder, not the ailerons. As Nev said, do not "try this at home" without appropriate instruction, do a decent EMT course, it could save your life. Using aileron near the stall is not wise. It is true some aircraft are designed to have effective ailerons in the stall, but most do not and it isn't recommended. Do an EMT course in a decent aerobatic aircraft with someone who knows what they are doing! It is only a few hours and you'll have fun learning.

As most of you seem to do glide approaches, I thought I'd explain (from a GA perspective) some advantages of powered approaches. Firstly, remember that airflow over the control surfaces will be greater when you have power on. That means more effective controls when you need them most - close to the ground. The last thing I want is less responsive controls if I encounter wake turbulence or a decent crosswind. Also remember the stall speed decreases when you have power on, resulting in a greater safety margin and/or a lower possible approach speed. This means short field performance. There's that old saying that power and attitude = performance. If you take out the power, that only leaves you with attitude to play with. Using power you can lessen the rate of descent, resulting in less of an "arrival", especially in turbulence. (Helicopters can use a lot of power to land!) From a GA perspective, the heavier the aircraft you end up flying, the more important you may find this. The heavier ones do tend to sink when the power comes off and often the power is left on into the flare, or a bit of power is added at that time. If you decide you one day want to take your flying a bit further and do an instrument rating, the rate of descent and approach path requirements will mean you would need to set up the aircraft at a particular rate of descent, which you can't do on a glide approach. If you want to take that idea further, think of airline aircraft - they use powered approaches. Turbine engines take a while to spool up too, so pilots of turboprops and jets don't want to get too low on power on approach. As for GA piston engines, the cooling aspect of going to idle isn't great for them, which is why glider tug pilots don't tend to pull the power after release, they tend to pull into a descending turn and keep the power on to avoid shock cooling the engine. I'm talking about GA engines here, I can't offer advice on some of the engines you may be using! So there are a few points on why power can be useful. As I said, I'm talking about GA so take advice from your instructor and do whatever works for you!

I think white is the worst colour! For me, yellow, red and (oddly enough) black aircraft seem easier to see. Where I fly there are a bunch of white gliders and one red one. I can always spot the red one easily, the white ones are not so easy. Most people seem to spot my yellow aircraft before seeing white aircraft in the circuit, especially when ATC says, "follow the yellow ..."

Powered approach every time. Unless I'm deliberately doing a glide approach!

Have you spoken to your instructor about this? That might be the best way. You can do a lot in advance though. Yes, markers enroute are good. I use 6 minute ones, some people use 10 miles, some people use half way, quarter way, use whatever you want. Get your knee board sorted, and have an organised cockpit. Fold your maps in advance. I draw distance markers on my pencil for a rough check for diversions. I also make sure I can't drop my pencil/pen. You could tie it with string to your knee board, or use a lanyard around your neck. The last thing you want is to be fumbling around under your rudder pedals for your pencil. Really think about where you are going and learn to read your maps, especially topographical features on the WAC. Are you looking for a town on a ridge? Will the destination aerodrome be hidden in a valley? Should that lake be on your right, and how far from it should you be? In the planning stage look for a feature (or features) on track soon after departure as a check to make sure you are on track. Should you be over that town or 5 miles to to left of it? If the wind isn't as forecast you'll pick that up quickly by doing this. If the town doesn't appear at all, you'll realise something has gone wrong while you are still close enough to your departure point to work it out before getting lost. Know the rules. If there is cloud at your planned level, what are your options? How high is the terrain? (Know how to read this). Can you descend, and if so, how far? Can you climb? Where could you divert to? Know your radio calls. Rehearse them at home if you like. Or in the car. Run through the flight in your mind, take notes. What radio frequencies will you use and when will you change? What navaids can you use and where will you use them? Where will you get your QNH? What is the plan for joining the circuit at destination aerodromes? (Direction you will approach from, what type of circuit entry, circuit height/elevation, where to look for the windsock, where are the taxiways etc). If you look at the forecast you will most likely get an idea of the runway in use, but sometimes of course it isn't correct. If it is forecast to be a southerly though, and you've had a southerly enroute, it is most likely you'll be landing to the south. Check the windsock of course to make sure.

Orion, personally I do comply with the rules, but I think change would be beneficial. You have said you'd be happy to fly in the airspace if the rules were changed, so you obviously do think it is safe. Will you be one lobbying to change the rules, or waiting for someone else to do it? If no one does anything about it, the rules will never change. I'm very sorry about your lost friends and I also honour their memories. Did any of them lose their lives in a collision with GA aircraft in Australian military airspace? Remember that people who join the military do so knowing it has risks. They could go to war and be shot at. The same cannot be said for the civilians who lost their lives west of Williamtown while trying to avoid the military airspace. They were not training for war, they were just trying to go home. There was also a lucky escape for a student pilot who had an engine failure at 500' in the Willy lane. There wasn't time to do much so he ditched in those nasty shark infested waters, and fortunately he survived. I wonder if you asked a bunch of school leavers why they might want to join the RAAF if they would say they have a sense of duty to their country, or if they would say they really want to fly fighters? ;) As for non-military controlled airspace, don't get me started there either, because having Class D at Albury covering such a huge area is ridiculous! They don't even have RPT jet movements! But that is really getting off the topic.

Thanks Merv! :thumb_up: Orion, it is honourable that you think our forces are there to serve and protect, and I'm sure many of them are, however many of them enter to get free flying training and enough experience to earn the big bucks in the airlines when they get out. The truth is that the RAAF is known in some parts as the "Royal Amateur Air Force", but if you worked on the ground you may not have heard that. Even some current and former members of the RAAF call themselves "koalas." Our pilots are sent overseas for more realistic training and more hours per year, because they sure don't get either here, and some of them struggle when they go overseas. The reason the overseas pilots come here is because it is an "exchange", so we can send people overseas too. I suppose the lure of sunny weather, beaches and being able to drink cold beer within 2 days of flying might be attractive to some! I'm still amazed that you want to fly over tiger country rather than fly through safer airspace just because the military want to fly a few helicopters or Hercs in there, or even Hawks and Hornets. Our military airspace is so enormous that at times people have to fly a considerable distance off track, over high, rugged terrain, or over water. Australian military airspace takes up more volume than the combined military airspace of Europe and the USA. All this for less than 100 fast jet aircraft! Let's have a look at our airspace. For example, how do you go between Bankstown and Taree during the week? You can fly at 500' up the inland lane, or the coast, sometimes being asked to fly a mile or so out to sea (often due to airline traffic, at Williamtown and there are HUGE sharks in the water there), or you can head west and fly over somewhere like the Barrington Tops - which has already claimed several lives. Why shouldn't we be able to fly straight through? The chance of a Hornet actually being airborne at that particular moment is pretty remote, and if there is some traffic I'm sure properly trained fighter pilots could avoid something doing maybe 100 knots. It's about risk management. If you think a training area with a Agustas and Lear Jets should be restricted airspace requiring a clearance and a transponder, then ALL training areas with Agustas and Lear Jets should be the same, and that might pose a bit of a problem for those of us not flying Agustas, Lear Jets or similar. Where on earth would we fly? Where is the evidence to say that flying with Agustas and Lear Jets (or even Hornets) is particularly dangerous? If you look at collisions statistics around the world you'll find the greatest danger is in the terminal area, including when it is controlled. That is where the traffic is. For our traffic density in Australia, we've probably had more mid-airs than we should, despite our restricted airspace. How many mid-airs have there been between GA and military aircraft in heavy traffic areas in the UK, USA and Europe? Yes, there have been a few, but for our traffic density in Australia we've had more in CTAFs and GAAPs. Now let's have a look at the military airspace situation in the UK, past and present. In the early 90s a certain nasty little war was about to get underway. At the time, in the centre of the UK just to the east of Cambridge there was a Military Air Traffic Zone called Honington Zone. GA aircraft could fly straight over the top at 2,500' without a clearance, and there were 4 Tornado squadrons with 12 aircraft each and 8 F-111 squadrons with 18 aircraft each, between the three airfields (Honington, Upper Heyford and Lakenheath) that make up the zone. That is about double the fire power of the entire RAAF in an area of less than 100 square miles. Most of the aircraft were training for war, carrying live weapons and flying in large formations. And yet you or I could, in our little bugsmasher, simply transit above the Zone at 2,500'. Zone ATC (using primary radar, as we have at Williamtown and Nowra) just let everyone know, "There's a MATZ crosser north to south over Lakenheath at 2500". Simple, safe and efficient for all concerned. This MATZ crossing system is still in place in the UK because it works! Back to your theory though that we must avoid flying near anything military at all costs, how are any of you going to fly into Avalon? You'll be in close proximity to F15s and F16s, and heaven forbid, you won't even need a flight plan or a transponder!!! It just has to be consistent. If we can fly into Avalon during an air show, we should be able to fly through Nowra during the week.

Exactly Ultralights! Slow jets, transport aircraft and helicopters, not fast jets, and not doing firing and bombing. Just flying around, looking out of the window as they should do, because in a war not looking out will mean they won't last long. There are plenty of busier airports in Class G, some with aircraft carrying unsuspecting airline passengers who think every airport has a control tower. Orion, I'd prefer that you didn't call me a boy. The comparison with the UK is important because if our pilots have to go to war, they won't be fighting fellow RAAF pilots, they'll be against sharp eyed foreigners used to looking out for traffic. Our air force is viewed overseas as a joke. It's not because our pilots are not as good (they are) it is because they don't get the training, they barely get enough hours to be operational, and they rarely have to fly in airspace where they can be in conflict (or attacked) by anyone else. In many places in the world flying a fast jet means not only looking out for civilian aircraft, it is quite likely one of the allied airforce guys will take them on for a bit of sport. I can't believe you are happy to be forced over tiger country so our military guys can do normal flying training without bug smashers. You are the one paying for your fuel, your aircraft hire, or your training. Those pilots are paid to fly, in fact, you pay them. So why shouldn't you be able to fly on a safer, shorter route, when you'll get more traffic flying through a civilian training area? No other country would put up with it! I agree that rules are there to be followed, but times change and rules need to be updated - or do you still have someone walking in front of your car with a flag to warn the horses?

Exactly Ultralights! Slow jets, transport aircraft and helicopters, not fast jets, and not doing firing and bombing. Just flying around, looking out of the window as they should do, because in a war not looking out will mean they won't last long. There are plenty of busier airports in Class G, some with aircraft carrying unsuspecting airline passengers who think every airport has a control tower. Orion, I'd prefer that you didn't call me a boy. The comparison with the UK is important because if our pilots have to go to war, they won't be fighting fellow RAAF pilots, they'll be against sharp eyed foreigners used to looking out for traffic. Our air force is viewed overseas as a joke. It's not because our pilots are not as good (they are) it is because they don't get the training, they barely get enough hours to be operational, and they rarely have to fly in airspace where they can be in conflict (or attacked) by anyone else. In many places in the world flying a fast jet means not only looking out for civilian aircraft, it is quite likely one of the allied airforce guys will take them on for a bit of sport. I can't believe you are happy to be forced over tiger country so our military guys can do normal flying training without bug smashers. You are the one paying for your fuel, your aircraft hire, or your training. Those pilots are paid to fly, in fact, you pay them. So why shouldn't you be able to fly on a safer, shorter route, when you'll get more traffic flying through a civilian training area? No other country would put up with it! I agree that rules are there to be followed, but times change and rules need to be updated - or do you still have someone walking in front of your car with a flag to warn the horses?

Orion give the guy a break. Let's put this in perspective. What traffic do you think the guy was conflicting with? He wasn't operating out of Heathrow or LAX, he was at his own private strip doing circuits, and was monitoring the radio, and Nowra basically operates civilian helicopter types. I don't know where the strip was but it could have been 15 miles from Nowra. If he'd been operating out of somewhere like The Oaks he'd have lots more traffic and he wouldn't need a clearance, or a transponder. If he was operating 3 miles from a Royal Air Force Tornado base in the UK (probably in terrible weather), he wouldn't need a clearance. You can't say this guy was doing anything dangerous, when if he was doing the same thing around supersonic fighters in the UK it would be regarded as perfectly safe. I agree he probably should have known, but who hasn't made a mistake? Instead of crucifying this poor guy, why don't we think about how we can get rid of all that no-go military airspace that is just used for flying training?

Thanks Shags, if you get up to Caloundra or Watts can you let me know what they are like? (And if you see Nigel at Caboolture say "knobless" from Camden says hi, and where was he when I came up to say hello?)

"Airpark" is an interesting term for it, unless things have changed! Shag's here's a dumb question from a Sydneysider - if you live in the Redlands why do you choose to fly from Caboolture? Do you think that is the best GA field in the area? I'm just curious, as Dunwich, Archerfield, and Redcliffe would most likely be closer. What about Watts Bridge and Caloundra, are they any good?