Mazda

The DME/GPS arrival requires the use of another navaid for directional information. The DME/GPS is only providing distance information and the navaid it is based on (eg NDB) is shown on the plate. You must use that aid (i.e. the NDB) for tracking information, and the DME or GPS for distance information. You descend to the prescribed altitude at the published distance. Yes, GNSS is the generic term. Remember we don't have approved WAAS in Australia, and Airservices has now scrapped its ground based augmentation system.

Set the QNH to airfield elevation when operating at a field with no aerodrome QNH available. The disadvantage is that unless you are right at the aerodrome reference point for elevation (or you use the threshold elevation from DAP) you might not actually be at a place on the airport that is at that elevation. Sometimes the aerodrome reference point could be at the windsock on the hill for instance. That's fine if there is nothing else available though, and it is normal practice. Using an aerodrome QNH means everyone is on the same QNH, so when the altimeter reads 1000 feet, you'll be at the same level (and everyone will know at which levels to find everyone else). In terms of IFR, you can even reduce the minima IF you can get actual aerodrome QNH, and it must be "actual" - within the last 15 minutes. Note in all of this I'm talking about aerodrome QNH, not area QNH. Enroute the rules changed a while back. You used to have to set area QNH (from the forecast), then set aerodrome QNH when descending to that aerodrome. Now we can use the QNH from a station within 100 miles, so you could get the ATIS or AWIS to get the QNH from a nearby aerodrome.

Yes, you are correct on both counts. The air is more dense when the QNH number is higher, and less dense when the QNH number is lower. So when you hear an ATIS or see in the forecast that the QNH will be 991 (as it was a couple of weeks ago), and it is a hot, humid day, in practical terms the aircraft will not perform as well as it does if the QNH is 1022 and the temperature is lower. Yes, it is also true that the density (not QNH) decreases with altitude as (in simple terms) there are fewer air molecules in the same volume of space as height increases. (Think in terms of a climber needing oxygen when climbing Everest). That's one of the reasons why the aircraft does not perform as well at altitude, and why it is important to look at take off/landing performance figures when operating from a higher elevation airstrip. Remember the ISA standard atmosphere at sea level is 15 degrees C and 1013 hectopascals. If it is hotter and/or less dense, the aircraft won't perform as well. You might see in performance tables indications for ISA, ISA +10 degrees etc.

Victor 1 is good fun, especially when the whales are migrating! Just a thought about Manly ... the Class C LL is 1,000 feet. I know Manly is a coastal spot and quite low in elevation, but if we must remain 1000 feet above built up areas, it may not actually be legal.

Happy 17th birthday Tomo! I hope you have a great day and enjoy the gliding tomorrow.

One thing to consider is the insurance cost which is quite high. You also might want to consider why the insurance cost is so high! I'd suggest plenty of tailwheel time, and dual time in an S2 wouldn't hurt before you get into an S1. The Pitts is unlike most other things, they take some getting used to.

Very true! Please do keep a good lookout, and please look under your wing! Please also don't rely on any gadgets to get you out of trouble - whether that be radio, TCAS or ADS-B. Radio alerting is great, but people make mistakes and radios fail. There could be an aircraft that you don't hear, and if you don't hear anyone maybe your radio isn't right. TCAS is great too, but it does require aircraft to have a transponder, and have it turned on. ADS-B out is like a transponder so does nothing for you unless you have an ADS-B in - and so far they are just visual, there is no sound to say climb or descend etc, due to some sort of patent issue. The last thing you want to be doing in the circuit is looking down at a screen, rather than looking out for the aircraft that perhaps are not transponder equipped, and have the wrong frequency set. Use the technology available, but don't rely on it!

Well done Morgan! I'm pleased that the Grade 1 sorted you out. Always remember it is your money, so if you find you do not understand something, you can ask to fly with another instructor for a different viewpoint. Sometimes different instructors have a different way of explaining things, and some people understand one way better than the other. It doesn't necessarily mean one is better than the other, just different. I used the aviation theory centre books and found them good. Other people swear by the Bob Tait books. I don't think you could go wrong with either.

Ian I love all the news posts! :thumb_up:

Matt & Kaz, this might be of interest. I did this report on the Griffith trip for a UK site. Aviation Forums for pilots - from FLYER Magazine

Thanks Matt & Kaz, I wish I could have been there but circumstances prevented it. I had a great time at the Airtourer Convention at Griffith, although I was fined for doing aerobatics instead of attending the AGM!!! (It was such a perfect morning). Thanks for the photos, they are a familiar bunch of aircraft. (What is the collective noun for a group of Airtourers - a 'mow' perhaps?) They are a good bunch of people. Say Hi from me to John, Jan, Stan & Bonnie if you see them again. If you ever head back up to Sydney, try do to an approach to runway 10 at CN, Peter Bons lives underneath and loves to see Airtourer types flying by!

ICUS is in command under supervision, and it can only be logged after you have a CPL, so don't worry about that just yet. Get the books and read if you like to know what to expect. I particularly like the old Trevor Thom/ATC flying training manual, which outlines each of the practical lessons in the GA syllabus. I would always read about each lesson before I did it and it made sense. Just a lesson or so in advance, anything more and it may not make sense.

I know people with fixed wing, helicopter and RA-Aus licences, who regularly swap between jets, trikes and helicopters with no problems.

As others have said, doing RA-Aus training would be a cheaper way to go on the way. On the VH/GA side, you would need a CPL and either a night rating or instrument rating to get an instructor rating. Plus a Class 1 medical. CPL minimum hours is 150, and that is if you enrol in a 150 hour course at a school. Otherwise it is 200 hours for the CPL (minimum). Then you'd be looking at the night rating (not many, say 10 hours or so? I can't remember) or instrument rating (40 hours+), plus instructor rating (around 50 hours). So going the GA way, you would be a brand new shiny instructor at a minimum of around 210 to 300 hours, depending on which way you go. Instructors are in great demand, good ones more so. The problem is the pay doesn't match the demand. You'd most likely be on under $30,000 pa after spending all that money on training. And that is why so many end up with the airlines and the turnover is high. As others have said, extra experience before teaching would probably be a good thing too, if you can do it. As for hiring, yes, you pay for the hours you fly, but some places will give a minimum number of hours because that aircraft could stay at the school and fly all day, earning more money. What can you do when you hire? Go to places few ever see, faster than most people ever get there. See the outback, see the beaches. Take your friends. Or learn aerobatics or formation flying, and have fun not going anywhere at all.

I usually ride down from Sydney, but last time I planned to fly and ended up going by car. Not sure about this year yet, I may or may not go.

They are completely pointless for VFR to VFR communication in my view. If pilots are flying VFR, be VFR and look out of the window. If flying IFR, Radar will talk to you (if they can actually get a word in between the VFR position reports). The big problem is that as soon as one VFR pilot says one of these, every other VFR aircraft within coee joins in, usually using local waypoints that the IFR people or non locals won't know. Things like 'I'm in the lane too, northbound, I'll stay east of the shopping centre/river/road/whatever' Then another one says 'I'm east of the shopping centre. What is your position and altitude" "I'm just over K-mart at 2,300" "I'll stay south of the hospital not above 2000" etc etc etc. Then someone else hasn't heard properly and asks where everyone is, even though they are not traffic. It goes on and on and on, blocking the airwaves. What happens if Radar is trying to contact an IFR pilot to give vital separation or clearance information at this time? And what happens if there happen to be 20 or so VFR aircraft in that area at that time? They can't all fit in a broadcast call, so everyone will be looking for those who HAVE made a broadcast, and not looking for those who couldn't get a call in.

Thanks very much Tony.

Ultralights I've had that one too, it is a horrible feeling. You really can feel like the aircraft is pitched up and about to stall. That's when you do need to monitor the instruments. It is an acceleration error which makes you feel like you are pitching up. At least if you know what it is you can ignore it.

Good points Merv. One big problem at the moment is the audio alert on TCAS is patented to TCAS, and is not permitted to be used on ADS-B. There will need to be some legal negotiations to allow any ADS-B 'in' unit to talk like TCAS does. At the moment, there is no real advantage at all. The airlines will still rely on TCAS for their Traffic and Resolution advisories. For Airservices, once ADS-B is mandated it means controllers will know where everyone is. Those who believe in conspiracy theories say this could lead to a billing system, or more people being pinged for VCOs, but who knows. I don't know how it could work for controllers anyway. There will be a lot of VFR traffic showing, it could be more difficult for them. I don't believe Airservices too much about the difficulty of maintaining SSR stations. In NZ they have just serviced their SSRs to last for a long time, and if the bl**dy kiwis can do it, I'm sure we could. (No offence to any kiwis on this forum). Mike is correct about the standards. The problem is that at the moment we are looking at 1090ES, the US is using 1090ES for high level, and UAT for low level (GA). UAT gives extra benefits like real time weather displays, but we can't use UAT here because I think the frequency is not available. The disadvantage though is that UAT still requires an additional transponder, and 1090ES does not. However the 1090ES is not the standard in Europe either. VDL-4 is another system being trialled somewhere over there. Some people have been saying we shouldn't rush ahead because there is no real advantage yet. Maybe we should use TCAS, and wait to see what the world standard ends up being - sort of like Beta or VHS. Then hopefully all the problems will be ironed out, maybe there will be an audio alert, and maybe companies like Garmin will mass produce units for GA at a reasonable price. Ken there is no transponder requirement at all for GAAP. There are aircraft flying there which do not have a transponder fitted at all. For those that do, the usual procedure (certainly here in Sydney) is to leave the transponder on STBY for circuits and turn it on if you plan to depart. The reason for this is that the tower controllers don't have secondary radar, so they cannot see transponder squawks anyway, but they can see out of the window. Transponder squawks do show on the radar controllers' screens, and they don't have any control over circuit traffic at distant airports (they are not on the same frequency as the traffic, and there are already controllers there who can see out). It just leads to extra clutter on the screen.

ADS-B would not have helped. There are a lot of misconceptions about it. First, there are two ADS-Bs. "In" and "out". The planned proposal gives ADS-B "out" only for GA. That means neither one of these two aircraft would have traffic on each other. They'd need ADS-B "in" for that. Even if they did have "in", there is no audio warning, no "climb" etc. Just traffic on a screen. And in the circuit having heads down looking at a screen might even lead to more problems.

Good points. However "qualified" people still get it wrong. Many ATSB reports have no recommendations, and some of the recommendations would not prevent the accident, just make it easier to find out what went wrong. Even good recommendations may not be implemented. A very detailed report seemed to have discovered what happened - but nowhere in the report did it even hint at why that might have happened. That is my point. For the next couple of years there might be nothing, while people wait for an official report. If we can learn something from this terrible accident, surely it would be better to learn sooner rather than later. How many circuits at Moorabbin could be flown in 2 years? How many circuits in Australia with student pilots could happen in 2 years?

The official reports don't necessarily get it right, so I don't have a problem with lateral thinking speculation.

Condolences to all interested parties. It is very sad. I don't think there is a problem at all with speculation, people might come up with something useful. I don't understand why so many people effectively want to put a gag order on discussions to do with safety! Having had dealings with the families of accident victims, I can assure you they will be looking for answers. I feel for the instructor who sent him solo, it must be awful. Congratulations to the pilots in the Warrior for landing safely. As for the comments of John Brumby ... why not just ban car accidents? Yes! Let's mandate against them. After all, theoretically it should be impossible for two cars to collide, so there must be a serious failure in the system if they do. Let's ban cars completely around cities and suburbs, let's move them all to the country where they can't veer off the road and into schools or occupied houses! I wonder how many "car movements" there are around Melbourne in a year? It's terribly dangerous.

Why is it in Australia that we can't use airmanship and instead have to mandate everything by law? Why not just encourage people to fit and use radios? If it is not mandatory, we are still allowed to do it!!

Yes, don the suit. There is absolutely no point mandating radio. Why not mandate that no one ever crashes? Yes, that would work about as well. Radios will always be on wrong frequencies, be on the wrong radio, will fail. What happens if radio is "mandatory" and your radio fails. Where can you then land? In a paddock? Or how can you take off if you need to fly to a maintenance facility? Everyone would just assume everyone else has radio, and they'd assume if no one called that there was no one there. Make them all plain ordinary CTAFs I say, it might make people look out better.