Mazda

Having and using radio correctly is a real help. However (and unfortunately) we can't rely on it. How do you even know if your radio is working unless a controller, aircraft or AFRU replies? People do make mistakes - all of us. We could be on the wrong frequency, have the wrong radio selected, have the volume down, or have a faulty radio. Yes, I know, "correct" use of radio and these things are not correct, but everyone has done it, even multicrew airline pilots. And if you don't do it, maybe that other aircraft doing circuits at the airfield has made a mistake. It doesn't matter how mandatory we make it, how many radios we mandate to be carried, or how many radio calls are mandated in the circuit. People will still make mistakes. So my suggestion is to use your radio well, listen out for other calls, but most importantly look out for those who you may not have heard.

Thanks John. ECI is red and white, and operated by the school there.

Congratulations! That's a great achievement. Do you know if that Victa with the collapsed gear at Lilydale was ECI? How is it looking?

There is a fly in, but it is not on the last day (I think that clashes with something, maybe Nowra). From memory it is on the 19th of October, but that is only from memory and it is late/early (watching the Olympics), so it is advisable to check the date! It's a weekend.

Ha ha! I thought it could be an antenna issue as I was told the unit itself was OK ... but I wondered why it would pick up the audio signal well but not actually work properly. I don't think it has worked since the new radio was put in, so perhaps that has something to do with it. Maybe the experts managed to disconnect something.

Oh, Bazz, you are my hero. Do you know how hard it is to get avionics work done in Sydney? We seem to pay a fortune for sub standard work. I had a new ICOM IC200A TSO'd radio put in (GA aircraft), with going backwards and forwards to the avionics guys due to problems, it probably cost $5,000. So I might have some questions for you! (Like why does my ancient ADF unit tune and identify, but it won't "ADF" properly? It was cleaned up and checked some months ago but it has never really worked properly. The needle just turns around aimlessly.)

No idea Merv, I'm not an engineer! All I know is the first time I used full carby heat in the circuit in this aircraft I thought the engine was going to stop it was so rough. Got rid of the carby heat and she purred. My point is not that carby heat should or shouldn't be used, it is to be aware that some aircraft may need it at times that others may suffer from its use. I was not taught that in training. I was told the importance of its use, but not that it can actually cause problems! Note too that this particular aircraft has a carby temp gauge, probably for that exact reason. Most aircraft don't have one, and in those if all indications were normal I'd normally use carby heat.

Incredible!

Mark I think the comment about using carby heat whenever the power is reduced is not always the case. My aircraft has a carby temp gauge, and full carby heat is very hot. If I apply full carby heat when the power goes back, the engine can rough rough - from heat, not ice. So I monitor the gauge but have found in that particular aircraft, the carby heat is not used much at all.

Honda engines do fail. The camchain tensioner on a CBR600 was chewed up and the bits of plastic went into the sump, blocked the oil pick up, and the engine went bang. Not to mention how many bike engines seize during racing. And I also won't mention the VF750.:confused:

If in doubt just try to make sure they know you are talking to them! "Red biplane on final", "aircraft inbound", "aircraft east of Timbuktu township", etc.

News to me Merv! I flew out of Maitland for a quite some time, and always backtracked, usually on the runway NOT in use, then ducked down onto the other one at the intersection, going down the grass if dry. It was a while ago, but the last time I was there (not so long ago) I tried the taxiway and was the only one doing so - everyone else backtracked, and I sure wish I had. That relatively new taxiway is simply not suitable for some types. Backtracking can be a real nightmare too, because the reason for backtracking would mean taxiing with a quartering tailwind all the way - not fun in taildraggers. The runways cross, so be careful because sometimes both are in use at once, and there's quite a bump where they intersect. Yes, a Victor 1 is a great idea, but there is a tiger country issue (OK, more like shark country). It is at 500 feet well below gliding range to land, so by law you must wear life jackets, not just carry them. If you plan to do this you could either head towards Wollongong, or fly up to Appin and across to the Seacliff bridge, then fly north up the coast.

I agree with most, head up the lane northbound and across to Maitland. I also would not recomment overflying Prospect on the way up. It is a BK inbound point, and also the end point of the lane coming back the other way. 2RN is an inbound point too, and personally I avoid it. I tend to fly north of 2RN for Parramatta. If you read the ERSA you'll note that you must be on the BK frequency there, so get the ATIS first and give BK tower a call, saying you are (wherever) at whatever height (say, 2000', clear of the 1500 traffic at BK), tracking for Parramatta. They will keep you on frequency and usually ask you to report passing the runway centre line. Then when they are happy you go onto Sydney Radar and head north. There's less tiger country going coastal than Richmond, but there is still some. Richmond is usually not restricted on weekends, and neither is Willy. So up the lane and you'll pass near Warnervale. There's quite a big mountain range on your left. If the cloud base isn't too high, don't worry, fly over Cooranbong and you'll see a wide and obvious gap between the mountains on your left. You can clearly see through to the other side, then you are nearly at Maitland. Call Maitland before you get there, permission is required. Beware of something that looks like a taxiway, it it best only used by people on foot. I'd recommend backtracking on the runway if required.

It's an admirable thought, but unfortunately it is not always possible. In fact, sometimes it is not even possible on take off, which means we wouldn't be able to ever get airborne! Whilst it is very true that route selection is important, at some stage it has to come down to risk management. Being in Sydney, if we want to head west we have to deal with the fact that we have to cross the mountains, and there's nowhere to land. If we want to do a Victor 1 or Sydney scenic flight, there is nowhere to land. Even flying up the light aircraft lane to the north, there are times with nowhere to land. So we can stay local, if that is the preferred option for that particular pilot. There's nothing wrong with that of course. But if we want to go somewhere all we can do is look at the most suitable route, but it doesn't mean within gliding distance of somewhere to land all the time. We need to consider aircraft maintenance, regular emergency procedure reviews, thinking "what if", monitoring instruments, LSALT, weather, alternates etc. But flying has its risks, and those who choose to do it are often the types who will calculate that if all seems well, the probability of a problem over that particular spot is low enough to be offset by the reward of getting to the other side. That is the spirit of our pioneering aviators we admire so much!

The 5 mile final is a hangover from the days when straight in approaches were not allowed at all, then through "consultation" it was decided they could be done at MBZs only, with multi-pilot airline crews only. So it was set up for airline aircraft. Then when the rules changed, the distance remained. The people making that decision were not aware that it was different overseas. It's just an oversight, nothing to do with a real safety requirement.

Sorry I missed you Steve. I was there!

Understood Yenn, but there are other issues. Imagine a pilot who has never flown at night with minimal instrument time, who doesn't know how to navigate to the field without familiar landmarks, doesn't know how to activate the PAL, and doesn't know about the night illusions. Maybe they haven't thought about lowest safe. That's why I think the American system has some advantages - the training might not be extensive, but it would probably get them safely to a field.

Airsick it seems that you did plan to be back 10 minutes before last light, and you were down by last light. I think that 10 minutes is the buffer - and you used it which is OK. Sometimes I think the Americans have the right idea with their PPLs because they must do a some night flying as part of it, and they don't have a separate night rating. I know, us Aussies probably do get better night training, and we probably need it with all the really dark areas we have here. But at least all of their pilots have night experience and would be legal to land after last light in this situation. I saw at ATSB report not so long ago about a pilot heading for Canberra who ran out of light and had to land in a paddock. It's a shame because the pilot wasn't far from Canberra. I'm not sure though about their recreational regulations for night flight.

Excellent report. I'll second Arkaroola as a great place to visit. Doug Sprigg loves aviation and he certainly looks after visiting pilots.

Yes, I do believe it would not reduce safety at all, and would probably increase it. It would prevent people blundering around circling the the circuit area. It would reduce the need to pilots to fly way out over water or tiger country to get that 5 mile approach. It has been used in other countries since way before 1959. It is not using contra circuits, it is using joining on the leg or at the distance that best suits the situation on that particular day, using the normal circuit direction/spacing. If a 5 mile final is best, great, do that. If flying a trike, doing a 5 mile final over water or tiger country could be far more dangerous than joining on base. I don't see the problem, people join on base all the time at GAAPs where there is more traffic! There is NO separation provided, just traffic information, which you can (generally) get by radio at CTAFs. People still blunder in, make the wrong radio calls, or lose radios in GAAPs. So why can't we join on base at CTAFs like everyone else does everywhere else in the world? It is pointless to say it is safer if radio is mandated because most incidents involving lack of radio alerting involve aircraft with working radios. It's really easy on some aircraft to push the wrong button to select the wrong radio, an even experienced multi-crew airline pilots end up on the wrong frequency sometimes. Yes, radio is very important, but if you assume that you can hear everyone out there (even at a mandatory radio airport) you could be in for a nasty surprise. Always look out and never assume.

Yes Nev, and I disagree entirely because it works everywhere else in the world. Are we so dumb that we can't work it out? People in Jabirus don't need to do a 5 mile final when out at a bush strip somewhere when there are no other aicraft within 30 miles! Why can't they join on base? If someone is approaching from the base leg side, in other countries they join on base. It's not rocket science, people join on base at GAAP airports all the time and there is no separation service in the air at all. But we can't do that here. Instead we have to turn and fly away from our destination out to 5 miles, so we can turn and fly back in again! Or we have to turn to face the traffic to reposition for downwind. Or we have to overfly and circle around spending longer in the circuit where the traffic is. And we still have to do all of this if we are flying the only aircraft in the circuit. I'm not saying we should mandate shorter finals, or base joins, or anything else. We'd be much better off using airmanship, rather than mandating which leg of the circuit you have to join on, or how far away you need to be. That would mean you could join on a 5 mile final if that was the best thing to do on that day, or you could join on a close base if that kept you away from the hills, or slot in behind an aircraft on downwind if that was best for the traffic situation on that day, or join on a 1 mile final to a private bush strip with no other traffic around. It is what they do everywhere else. Maybe we ARE all idiots incapable of such tough decision making.

I completely disagree! The last thing GA needs is more mandatory rules and regulation. Part of the current problem is over-complexity (so people don't understand the rules) leading to lack of compliance, and a lack of enforcement. Who would enforce all these additional rules? I think the best way forward is to adopt a simple set of common sense guidelines which are understood by everyone. They would be complied with because they made sense and everyone understood them. Then it would be up to us as pilots to use airmanship, and up to the instructors to teach it! No wonder people break the rules at the moment. Why on earth should someone in a trike or even a GA training aircraft have to be established on a 5 mile final to a CTAF? In England people can join on a close base or shorter final In America people can join on a close base or shorter final. Not here though. Maybe because we are such idiots! Even so, it is impossible to regulate for stupidity!

If obstacle clearance is an issue, consider a short field take off, climbing out at best angle until obstacle clearance is assured, then lower the nose to best rate.

I think we all know aviation has risks, it's about managing them. People have crashed doing aeros, people have crashed when the aircraft broke up in flight too - but it isn't common. If we look at managing risk we have to consider where the risk lies. Do people mainly crash from in-flight structural failure, aerobatics (when trained), or things like flying into bad weather without an instrument rating, controlled flight into terrain or loss of control at low level? I think all we can do is to accept a level of risk, but try to manage the risk and minimise unnecessary risk.

I think it is in a Flight Safety article this month which mentions that these things can become "normal" when repeated. So if someone (as in the Flight Safety article) does a beat up and stall turn a few times without crashing, it becomes OK - when it is clearly not for someone that does not have appropriate training. "Appropriate training" is the important thing there. Flying in IMC is not terribly dangerous for someone in a properly equipped aircraft and with a current instrument rating. Flying into IMC for a VFR pilot in a VFR aircraft is often fatal. Flying aerobatics is safe enough when in an aerobatic aircraft and an aerobatic trained pilot, with sufficient height to recover by the chosen base height. Low level aerobatics with an untrained pilot and non-aerobatic aircraft could be fatal. So my thoughts on this are to get as much good training as you can!