Mazda

Very, very wise words Mike. One thing that always niggles away at me is hours vs experience. Does a 20,000 hour airline pilot really have 20,000 hours, or just one hour 20,000 times? To me, an experienced pilot is one with broad experience. It's someone who can fly VFR with a map and a compass, fly IFR, do aeros, fly formation, fly singles and twins, tailwheel and nosewheel, fly in traffic or in the bush, notices those little specs on the horizon that soon turn into traffic, notices weather, notices little glitches with the aircraft, and has those wonderful gems of information like the older pilot Mike flew with. It is someone who knows the answers to aerodynamics, systems or procedural questions asked by students, without having to open a Trevor Thom book to find out. I suppose it is a competitive market, so students can choose to fly with any instructor they prefer. Personally, I have a strong preference for those with broad experience. Who others choose is up to them.

Thanks Ultralights! I love seeing photos from out there, it's where flying seems truly free. (OK, not in the financial sense!)

Anyone can press direct to on a VFR GPS, that's true that it isn't difficult. But I have to disagree that using all GPS units is simple. Unlike car GPS units, the more complex ones can take a fair bit of working out. Databases must be up to date, RAIM, PDOP (or equivalent) considered, offset tracking status known and so on. And not all IFR units have a moving map. If it is so simple, an IFR pilot could be current in a Garmin 430, then jump in something with a KLN89B or a Trimble and do an approach - but the rules state they must have some currency on the unit being used. I do agree that everyone needs to learn how to navigate VFR using a map, watch and compass first, without GPS. That's why VFR aircraft have no navaid requirement at all! Ben the RAF seem to have a history of that, and it wasn't so long ago they had some fast jet pilots navigating with a map, compass and stop watch too. But I also think if you are flying an aircraft with a navaid you can't use, it would be wise to get even some basic information on how to use it.

True that ILS is the only precision approach in Australia, and that basically requires a VOR. As we don't have approved WAAS here, GNSS approaches are non-precision. The ground based GBAS (inferior to WAAS in my opinion) seems to be under review (so will probably take decades and perhaps only be at major airports). It's also true that GPS has different TSO standards. Not even all IFR GPS units are certified for "sole" use, but they are certified for "primary" use backed up with other aids. VFR GPS units are not certified for "primary" use, so therefore they are a back up to visual navigation and/or other aids. Also to use GPS to this level does require a log book course, and DOES have traps. Think of the Benalla accident - they were conducting a GPS approach and something went terribly wrong. They are the cautions, but I do agree GPS is the best navigation tool we have and we should use it!

Don't hold your breath about shutting down NDBs and VORs in the near future. We have a lot of NDBs and not all airports have GNSS instrument approaches yet. Remember it isn't about us, it is about flights under the IFR. VFR flight is by reference to ground and no navaids are required at all. The GPS must be of a certain standard for IFR, and even then there are different standards for "primary means" and "sole means" use. I do agree it is a good idea though to learn how to use any navaids available to you, including GPS!

Congratulations!

Fantastic report Airsick! Keep 'em coming! (I would never have guessed you two are brothers!)

There's some good advice above. I'm a big fan of GPS and I'd say yes, go for it. It is the best nav tool we have and it adds to safety. Now, the warnings. As people have said above, you DO need to plan the trip, not just jump in and hit "Direct to" your destination. The direct GPS route could take you straight through restricted areas etc unless you plan around them. It should show the airspace so you'll know it is there, but planning is the best thing to do. There are some pretty strict requirements on using GPS as either sole means of navigation, or primary means of navigation. For instance, the GPS needs to be of a certain standard and you need to have passed a GPS course. So legally you MUST navigate using your charts, standard navaids etc but you can certainly use GPS as well. AirNav is a good thing too. (Matt, it's just flight planning software like the Champagne PC one, but it prints out the route on official Airservices charts). I use AirNav, just the standard one. You can choose an area and you get all the maps for there. The Premium version I think includes all the VFR charts for Australia, and the IFR includes all IFR and VFR charts for Australia. It depends how far you want to fly. I think you can add extra map packs though if you get the standard one. I don't have the GPS capability with mine, so I just print out the charts with my track on it, and if I'm using GPS I'll enter the route manually. We should have WAAS here but we don't. Current GPS here will pick up on WAAS at times but it is not approved. Instead Australia is looking at a ground based system not used anywhere else. Seems crazy to me! Anyway, forget WAAS capabile GPS as being an advantage here (unfortunately). Blue chart is a card adding extra data. I've used it for marine GPS, it gives better detail. I returned the card though as the coverage was not as advertised. American's don't seem to think we matter much and it is difficult to get detailed data for such as small market as Australia. Have a look at GPS to suit your needs (colour, black & white, size, cost etc). I bought a Lowrance AirMap as it had most of the features of the Garmin at a lower price, with a bigger screen, and with a mounting bracket that is perfect for a canopy aircraft with a stick. Everyone loves Garmin though, they've become almost an industry standard.

Is that the one with the passenger being talked through a landing? I don't think the person flying is a pilot.

I'm with Tony on this one. "Experts" are human like everyone else and mistakes can be made. Some of these things even end up in court with "expert witnesses" with opposing views! Any discussion of ideas which could prevent another accident is most worthwhile.

Kelvin I'm not too sure about the term 'risk resistant' because flying does have a degree of risk. If we were all 'risk resistant' maybe we'd never fly over the mountains or do a coastal scenic flight along a headland. No one would ever fly at night. These things are all 'risky' to a degree, but people do them by assessing and managing that risk as best they can. When we start out we are all taking (calculated) risks - that is how we learn. An instructor sending someone on their first solo is surely taking a calculated risk!! We cannot set personal limits without knowing what those limits are, and we'll only know what they are by getting close to them - i.e. taking risks. A new pilot might only be comfortable in 5 knots of crosswind and set that as a personal limit. How will they know they are ready to increase that personal limit? Maybe when 5 knots seems easy, they decide to push that personal limit and try one with 8 knots. That goes well, so the personal limit increases. That applies to a lot of things about flying. I'm not talking about cowboy actions, I'm talking about taking responsible, calculated risks. Like it or not, that is part of flying.

You won't see many people in things like Pitts Specials using a checklist, people don't have enough hands on start up anyway, and there's nowhere to put it. Maybe the term "memory" is being confused with the beautifully described "flow pattern" in those articles, compared with the highly structured printed checklist. It doesn't mean people learn the printed checklist by memory, it means people learn what their aircraft requires, then look at every single instrument, switch and control to make sure everything is reading as it should and set correctly. I agree with the article that people can be more caught up with the printed list than actually checking the real instruments. Learning to recite a checklist won't help this because people can easily recite the list without really thinking about it, and without actually doing the checks they recite.

How did you go Tim?

Maybe someone has been watching re-runs of "Big Sky"? Wasn't there a Chieftain hijacked in every show? (What are they doing to do? Say, "Take me to .... Cootamundra"?)

It must be wonderful flying from Griffith. I loved it when I was there for a few days. Good airport, good club, free sky. And not one single person showed any interest at all in looking at my ASIC (in fact no one has ever showed any interest in looking at it, other than friends who want to laugh at the awful photo).

Thanks for those links, they are great articles!

Pilots operating handbook. Remember if the air density is low your aircraft will take longer to take off and won't climb well. That means if it is hot, if the elevation is high, if it is humid and so on. So if any of these things are present it might start ringing alarm bells in your head and make you think you should do a take off and landing calculation for your aircraft for that field on that day. If doing preliminary planning you could use the declared density altitude charts in AIP. If you plan to fly to a strip somewhere relatively high (Mt Hotham, Orange, Bathurst etc), especially in summer, make sure you check. It might mean for instance that instead of carrying full fuel for the whole trip, you might need to break the trip into sectors to carry a lighter fuel load, landing and refuelling along the way. Or you learn to travel light! Ferret it's a great idea to get that book together with useful information, just remember a lot of that stuff you will need to know off by heart. You may not have time to revise in the air. So if you get the book together as a study summary you could study that, or take that with you and go over what you need to remember in the next sector. All of this information (and much more) would be in the text books though. Do you have any text books to study? Thinks like a BAK study book? I used the Trevor Thom books (for GA) and others say the Bob Tait books are great. The Trevor Thom Student Pilot Manual (theory) and Flying Training Manual (practical flying info with a bit of theory - very good) are great to have. I'm sure Ian sells them!

Yes, I've read Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The thing that stuck in my mind was the comment about driving a car being like sitting at home on a lounge chair, watching the world through that TV screen windscreen. Whereas being on a bike is like being inside the world, part of the world, not looking at a screen. I find flying canopy aircraft to be like that. The "affordable safety" issue is an interesting one. To have the same safety features as an airline aircraft in an RAA or small GA aircraft would mean most of us could never afford to learn to fly. I've heard it said that the important thing is to allocate the money that is available in the best way by addressing known risks. Would you be better off using your money for a ballistic parachute, or would it be better to spend the same money on additional training, or putting it towards new avionics or an engine overhaul? Maybe though in the serious aspects of all of this we've missed something that ROM was getting at. Of course we do everything we can to minimise unnecessary risk. Is there more to it though? Is there a little bit of Richard Bach in all of us, just longing to be up there? Swooping around like birds, seeing things that many others will never see? Haven't we all had those special moments up there that we cannot possibly explain to people who don't fly? It's that spirit that makes us feel alive, and it may not involve any risk at all. It could be watching the sunrise as we taxi out and knowing we will soon be up there. Is that Richard Bach 'spirit of flight' factor an important attribute of an aviator?

That's true Ian! ;) Yes ROM, I agree absolutely. The only way to make flying truly safe is to keep all aircraft on the ground (sometimes I think this is CASA's plan to improve safety!) Flying will always have risks, and it is true that risk taking equals adventure. It isn't about eliminating risk, it is about managing risk.

I have a few ideas, take or leave any of these. Learn as much as you can. Be prepared Make command decisions Look out of the window Be courteous (Ian R, I sound like a Scout!) To elaborate, learning as much as possible can prevent all sorts of problems. Airline crews have crashed due to lack of understanding of the aircraft's systems. Additional training may prevent controlled flight into terrain and stall/spin accidents. Keeping up to date with procedures, rule and frequency changes also adds to safety. Be prepared. Think "what if" and what you would do. Prepare for the flight thoroughly, from a good walk around to doing take off and landing calculations. Indecision never helps. Use that constant learning to reach a decision and act on it. If the engine isn't delivering sufficient power on the take off roll, stop. If the weather is bad, turn around. Look out for traffic! People stare blankly ahead without even turning their heads. Look up, down, ahead, behind. In a high wing lift the wing and look under before turning. Stop at the holding point so you can see the approaches. Courtesy = airmanship. Don't leave the aircraft parked in front of the fuel bowser. Check behind before starting to make sure you won't blow dust into someones hangar, car and so on. Turn off your strobes when taxying. And recognise that even the best airmen still make mistakes at times!

Yes, I think they are all similar! (Just different ways of remembering).

Nev what I'm saying is that anyone who flies a simple aeroplane regularly should be able to learn how to start the engine, do basic checks, know initial emergency procedures and shut down without having to stop what they are doing every few seconds to read from a checklist. If they want to use a checklist, that's good, but I'd hope they could start without one. If single pilot military aircraft can be airborne and operational without consulting a checklist, I'm sure we can put in the time to learn checks for bug smashers. If people can't learn basic checks, yes, it is good to use the checklist every time. I'm not advocating no checks, I'm saying it is very important to look at everything, whether it is on the checklist or not. Check every instrument, every switch, all controls, trims, hatches, every navaid. I've known of people to rattle off the checklist without actually looking properly at what they are supposed to check. I prefer to read the actual instrument rather than reading what it should be on the checklist, otherwise it's too easy to not really look at the instruments properly ("Compass and DG both reading 010, DG uncaged, generator light out, oil pressure and temperature checked sufficient for take off, fuel pressure 4, ammeter +10, suction 5, fuel indicating 18 gallons, trims set for take off, two stages of flap selected ...") I'd also recommend a thorough pre-take of safety briefing too - covering intentions if all goes well, things that might not go as planned and measures to take if that is the case. Eg, "I'll be taking off from runway 24, departing crosswind, with and my planned track is 350. There's a 5 knot crosswind from the left. Should I not have expected RPM, airspeed, oil temps & pressures or fuel pressure, unexpected noises, vibrations or smells, I will close the throttle and stop on the runway. Should I have an engine failure after take off with runway remaining, I will lower the nose to 62 knots and land on the runway. Should I have an engine failure with no runway remaining below 800 feet INDICATED I will maintain 62 knots and land ahead. There's a field which may be suitable slightly to the left. If I have an engine failure above 800 feet indicated I will maintain 70 knots flapless glide speed, make a left turn and return to the field." It only takes a short time, it can be done while waiting for the temperature to rise before run ups. Matt, here are CIGARS and other generic ones which can be used for various types with a bit of thought. ROARS – after start (and pre-shut down) Revs set, Oil (pressure rising after start up), amps checked, radios on, switches as required. CIGARS – run ups. Controls full, free, correct Instruments checked left to right, top to bottom Gas – on, sufficient, pressure, tanks as required, primer locked. Attitude trims set Run ups Switches (as required) Lights, Camera, Action – line up Lights/strobes on Transponder on alt Action – power on, do checks and get airborne without hanging around on the runway. I’ve also heard people use FIST for a line up check. Fuel pump on Instruments checked Strobes on Transponder to Alt. FROST – after landing Flaps identified and retracted, fuel pump off Radio - tune to SMC or make calls as required (SAR etc). Revs set. Oil – monitor temps/pressures Switches – strobe/landing light off, navaids off. (Also a reminder for SAR if not by radio). Transponder – standby

Yes Nev, I always check heading, RPM, temps and pressures, and airspeed alive when rolling!

Depends what I'm flying. In my own aircraft I have memorised standard & 'bold face' checks. I don't want to be fishing for checklists or head in the cockpit in the circuit etc in a single pilot operation, and surely people can learn to start up and shut down familiar and simple aircraft without a checklist (or should we have them in our cars?) A good left to right and top to bottom look around before take off (and checks before landing) is a good idea. I like do do this verbally eg "ASI reading zero, AH erect, uncaged and set ....altimeter on QNH 1020 and reading elevation, temps and pressures in the green ... fuel on & sufficient, pump on ...trims set for take off, 2 stages of flap set, controls full, free and correct sense ... hatches and harnesses secure ... " etc. Re-check every instrument, switch, control, heading bug, radio panel and navaid properly, really looking at it and thinking what it should read - because even when using a checklist, people can skip a line or be distracted by a radio call. Using standard CIGARS, LCA, CLEAROF, BUMFISH, PUF, FROST checks etc are good too because they can be used for various types. I'm not current, or flying something I don't know well, or more complex than usual I will use a checklist. I try to do the checks then run through the list to make sure everything has been done, but if I'm very unfamiliar I might follow it through until I have a better understanding of the type.

Great news Tim! I wish I could be there but I'll be at work. I'll send you a PM.