Roundsounds
-
Posts
1,021 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Everything posted by Roundsounds
-
Another poorly taught fact in training, stall speed increases with load factor. Increase in bank angle doesn't always mean increase in stall speed - don't pull (increase load factor) and stall speed won't increase, but your rate of descent will! Poorly trained pilots will use shallow bank angles turning final to avoid stalling (I see this a lot during glide approaches). Then they use a boot full of rudder to "help" it around the turn, the yaw creates a roll which is then held off with aileron, drag increases, speed decreases, the aircraft gets nose heavy, pilot holds nose up.... flick, spin, crash and burn. All of the symptoms are there if you're aware of and looking for them. Under some circumstances a steeper banked turn is appropriate - much higher turn rate can compensate for the increased rate of descent, just don't let it get slow or load it up too much. It's all about training and exploring the slow speed handling of each aircraft under safe conditions - safe height with an appropriately experienced person.
-
I'm sorry you find my statement insulting, but it is based on many years of experience training pilots and reviewing accident investigations. I cannot recall an unintentional stall / spin accident from a height that would allow recovery by the average non aerobatic endorsed pilot. The hands off spin recovery technique is nothing more than a cool party trick, it has no practical application for the average pilot. The incidence involving stall / spin accidents can be reduced significantly by proper stall /spin recognition / recovery training, this does not need to include developed spins.
-
Spin recovery training is only useful for pilots completing an aerobatic endorsement. Should a non aerobatic pilot inadvertently enter a spin, they will have little chance of recovering. Having said that, spin awareness training is a must - all pilots should learn the likely causes of inadvertent spin entry and taken to that point just prior to entry and taught to recover at that point. The most common stall / spin accidents occur in the circuit and usually below 1000' AGL, a competent aerobatic pilot would be doing well to recover from that height let alone a non aerobatic pilot. Slow flight / stall recovery training is generally very poorly taught in current flight training.
-
I teach students to estimate a track bearing and distance before measuring it. This provides both a gross error check and develops the ability to estimate a diversion without using a plotter / protractor and rule. I also have them estimate time intervals for the same reasons.
-
I hope your instructor will provide preflight guidance as to how they expect you to perform the diversion? Trying to learn one of the many methods in flight is a very poor instructional technique. I am not a fan of trying to measure a track airborne, diversions are often the result of adverse weather. The last thing you need to be doing is going head down - that's a sure way of inadvertently entering cloud. Estimating a track or holding your chart up to the DIrection Indicator are a couple of ways of establishing yourself on the diversion.
-
So you work on the basis that flying creates potential for a collision rather than stick to the recommended broadcasts? Additional broadcasts would only be warranted should another aircraft make a routine broadcast and you determine their flight path could create a conflict. "It's not rocket science"
-
Making inbound and joining circuit calls are recommended, what is a position call? I can't seem to "position calls" in CAAP 166, AIP or the CARs.
-
The change in RT procedures and increased reliance on radio and other tech devices over the past 15 years scares me. The recommended calls haven't changed, but the number of unnecessary routine transmissions have. Situational awareness is reduced when too many calls are made, as an instructor it is my practice to cease patter to allow both me and my student to hear and react to the calls. There are occasions where I can fly an entire circuit without being able to provide a student with feedback / input. I have no issues with calls to avoid a conflict, but it's not uncommon to hear a pilot make the following routine broadcasts: - taxiing * - entering the runway * - rolling - turning downwind - turning base - turning final - short final - clear of runway In the above case only the first two are recommended, I personally make a base call with intentions but the others are completely unnecessary if no potential conflict exists. If you put say 4 or 5 in the circuit there's zero space for any other calls. I've just returned from the USA and am pleased to learn they understand and apply correct RT procedures.
-
If the hourly rate determines who you train with, then go for the cheapest hourly rate and see how that works for you in the long term. -
Do you think all cars be required to be fitted with two way Comms and make calls approaching intersections or when changing lanes?
-
Ah yes ICAO harmonisation, the road to the death of GA in Australia.
-
So what are your thoughts on glider operations in controlled airspace? No CASA medical, no PPL or or flight review. My main beef involves ops in class D airspace, For example Camden isn't busy enough to justify a tower, particularly midweek!
-
Trying to play the CASA game of hit the moving target, rather than levelling the playing field by insisting on the same rules as comparable RAAOs.
-
Healthy debate is a good thing in aviation matters, it promotes thought and ultimately safety. It's a shame you've adopted that attitude.
-
I stand by my statement.
-
That's a maintenance requirement, not equipment.
-
Yes they are, an aerodrome operating as both Class D and G have the same equipment requirements. Maybe you could educate me as to the specific differences?
-
Yes, I've read the "GFA" syllabus and it's not very detailed. I'm a GA Grade 1 (was an ATO) and an RAAus Senior Instructor, I train in both systems and apply the same standard to both. I fail to see why pilots I train in an aeroplane with numbers instead of letters cannot fly in the airspace or at least the aerodrome they learnt to fly at. Here's a copy of the detailed Gliding Australia Flight Training Syllabus for controlled airspace straight from their manual of standards: 2. Flight training and Radio Requirements (Circle applicable class of airspace) (a) Departure Procedures D/C (b) Circuit Operations. D/C © ArrivalProcedures. D/C (d) Transit Procedures. D/C
-
Not according to the Civil Aviation Act.
-
Good locations in NSW for a day trip?
Roundsounds replied to Pilot_DM's topic in AUS/NZ General Discussion
Temora, the Aviation Museum is worth a visit. Moruya and Merimbula are very scenic. -
The equipment requirements for Class D / G areodromes are the same. An RAAus pilot trained at a Class D aerodrome is only permitted to fly as PIC until they gain their RPC. The only way they can operate as PIC of an RAAus registered aeroplane on their RPC is to obtain an RPL, maintain a GA flight review and RAMPC or higher medical, why impose these restrictions? The standard of RT from both RAAus and GA operators could do with improvement, particularly in G airspace. The trend seems to be constant talk, several inbound calls, every leg of the circuit, taxiing, entering the runway, starting the takeoff roll, exiting the runway. Put 6 or so aircraft in the circuit and there's no airtime to make the recommended calls.
-
The current approach is very unlikely to see a suitable result. CASA will expect a class 2 medical or RAMPC and a whole lot of unreasonable training. The precedent has been set - simply apply the same limitations as those imposed on the glider and balloon pilots. Amend CAO 95.10/95.55, the limitations imposed are a hangover from the AUF when they were operating Skycraft Scouts etc. At the very least RAAus should ask why the difference in regulations between RAAOs. For example: a Sinus registered by Gliding Australia can be flown by a pilot into class C and D airspace / airports holding only a Gliding Certificate and self certified medical. The pilot of the same aircraft registered under RAAus needs to hold a GA licence, current flight review and medical in addition to their RAAus pilot certificate to operate into controlled airspace / airports. Why the difference??!!
-
They also said the RAAus training officer had been working for the organisation for 8 months, well she actually started 20 months ago. Airspace approval is a no brainer - RAAus insist on the same privileges as gliders and private hot air balloon operators. (ie- no requirement to hold a GA licence and have self certified medical - as per RAAus ops). The Civil Aviation Act requires the authority to treat all airspace users without discrimination. The airspace restrictions make no sense anyway, an aircraft / pilot who cannot operate from a controlled aerodrome can operate at the same aerodrome the minute the tower closes. Does this mean Class G airspace is safer than C or D?
-
Don't hold your breath waiting...
-
RAA accident / defect reports
Roundsounds replied to johnm's topic in Aircraft Incidents and Accidents
CASR Part 103 will require the organisation to have an effective SMS, which would include analysis of data and an appropriate response to the findings. I too work with an organisation with an effective SMS and see the benefit of it. Improving safety is all about education and not regulation. It seems to me we are heading well down the path of regulation, not education. We have had a Training Officer employed since Feb 2016 (16 months on my count to June 2017 - unlike the presentation by the management last week stating 8 months). I haven't seen much training material published as yet, so far two items relating to maintenance and none to flying.
