Roundsounds

Current B737 Capt’

SSW is the correct description, 201 is based on the aerodrome reference point, to be a radial it would need to be based on the VOR. Maintaining effective situational awareness shouldn’t require “A quick tap” on anything.

The article doesn’t mention the name of the company who manufactures the displays, it certainly isn’t Boeing.

What a load of rubbish! The crew still had the ISFD, the lower screens and the FO screens. The title of this thread should be changed, there would not have been any hint of “terror”.

Circuit height varies with aircraft performance, could be 1500’, 1000’ or 500’ AFE.

We’ve recently fitted an ICOM A-25CE handheld to our J3, works really well. icom 25ce link

We had our last annual done by a GA LAME maintenance outfit. A very simple machine without an electrical system and billed $5K for the exercise. The cost of GA maintenance far outweighs the benefits. Just give RAAus the same airspace privileges extended to the GFA, it’s not rocket science!

You’re wrong

The GFA and Ballooning federation have had CTA access from day 1, there’s no reason why suitably trained / assessed RAAus pilots operating suitable airplanes shouldn’t have access today. I am require to maintain my GA quals to fly my RAA rego Piper Cub out of a Class D airport. I did my last AFR at a Class G airport, zero assessment of my Class D skills, it’s total BS.

Maybe the Stampe was part of the Rothman’s team, but Dick wasn’t. Here’s a shot of Dick’s old Stampe (VH-BVU) I took in April.

I find it very hard to believe a pilot could unintentionally place a 172 in an attitude where it “fell backwards”. Assuming they did set up a tail slide there’s no way he would be able to pull back and push forward on the yoke as it fell backwards. A Cessna 172 with one or two POB will exhibit quite benign stall characteristics. Put a couple of people in the back seat along with some weight in the rear baggage area and the stall characteristics won’t be so benign.

Whenever doing test flights I have a number pre determined parameters for a go / no go decision. The USA guy may not have done so, the takeoff roll isn’t the time to be figuring that stuff out. The point of me posting the USA accident report was the similarity in the observed flightpath immediately after liftoff. I’m more than a little concerned about the RV-12si fight envelope protections and the level of understanding of its functions and response to faults associated with the system. I’ve read claims by an Australian operator of the type having stall protections when they don’t. Download a copies of the POH and Autoflight systems manuals and have a read. The emergency procedures section of the POH makes for interesting reading, lots of pulling out fuses.

I did the initial test flights on an RV-6. The electric trim operated in reverse. Neither the owner / builder nor the LAME who did the dual inspection picked it up. I found it during the preflight inspection prior to the first flight. I always set trims to neutral on the first flight and don’t touch them until well above circuit height just in case.

Just stumbled upon this report, scarily similar to Wayne’s accident. I wonder if this was reviewed / considered during the Lismore investigation? RV12 accident on initial test flight. Pilots report suggested runaway trim

Dumb set of rules! I was a CASA delegated testing officer and could issue airspace endorsements. I am required to maintain a current PPL in order to fly my RAA registered airplane from a Class D airfield. I recently an AFR at a country airfield, zero assessment of my CTA skills.