Roundsounds

Like a transponder?

How much technology and procedures do people need? If the money had been equipped with Mode C the TCAS might have alerted the crew of the Metro. If the Metro Crew had maintained a lookout they might have avoided the accident. If the Mooney pilot and instructor hadn’t wandered into CTA the accident eg wouldn’t have occurred. If the Air Traffic controller had fulfilled their obligations the accident might have been avoided. Sometime stuff happens.

Hi Nev, you’re spot on Re the lack of attitude reference. I completed the initial test flight in one about 20 years ago, I resorted to glancing at the wings initially. You did get used to it, I wasn’t that keen on the lack of cockpit!

Just use 1/2 flap for the approach when doing touch and goes. When I had a flying school I banned flap retraction on the runway when moving (mitigates the risks associated with inadvertent gear retraction and ground loops) . I had a standard operating procedure to use takeoff flap when conducting touch and goes, but also taught full flap go-arounds including after touch down. The aircraft are certified for full flap go arounds.

The resultant roll from yaw is due mainly to dihedral, not one wing travelling faster than the other. I’m talking typical GA trainer, not airplanes with swept wings.

A proper understanding of the aerodynamics associated with un-coordinated flight would be a good start. The fear you mentioned is related to the lack of understanding. The BS taught as to why an aeroplane rolls when yawed constantly amazes me.

I would estimate at least 70% of pilots I completed tailwheel endorsements with would have completed skidding turns at some point. Most frequently on a marginal glide approach, trying to stretch the glide, minimise bank angle and away they’d go. The offenders were of all levels of experience. Whenever I had the chance we would go to altitude and see how close to a stall / spin they’d been. I hope this may have saved a life or two. unfortunately most current training aircraft do not permit this demonstration. The Citabria would have to be one of the best training aeroplanes produced.

Great advice, the other consideration / red flag being anytime you have aileron input and no corresponding roll. This is absolutely the case in the typical base / final turn spin. Many pilots are unaware of the fact they are holding off bank in these turns as the result of incorrect pro turn rudder input, resulting in a skidding turn.

You’re overthinking this whole thing. Each aeroplane type behave differently, stall and spin entry / recovery procedures will be found in the flight manual. Don’t think about down elevator, think in terms of reducing angle of attack. If you’re in an inverted spin you’ll need “up” elevator to reduce the angle of attack. Again don’t stress, you should seek proper instruction in each aeroplane type.

Hopefully you’re learning a lot of prevention skills? The technical term for UA training now is Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT). The most common upset killers are generally non-recoverable due to a lack of height, hence the desire to prevent an event developing at all.

You’d likely find the aeroplanes would have departed with a fault related to the braking system. Typically wheel brakes are automatically applied when landing gear is retracted. If a brake was unserviceable (some are permitted to be U/S) the crew would leave the gear extended to allow the wheels to spin down before retracting them.

I’ve never understood this gung-ho approach to first solos. I’ve sent many, many people solo. It’s always been a mutual decision, I’ll let the student know when I think they are near the standard and get them to tell me when they feel ready. The odd person will need a bit of encouragement, but I have found this method works. The human factors impact on simply stepping out and saying go for it is irresponsible at best!

Ian, there are a couple of points worth noting. - reduced hours PPL / CPL courses are based on ICAO Annex 6 guidelines. The basis for the reduction of hours being based on a syllabus integrating theory with the practical components of flight training. ICAO guidelines require training organisations delivering the reduced hour courses to hold what we would know as a Part 141/142 certificate. - the requirement to conduct flight training other than the shorter PPL / CPL courses under a Part 141/142 certificate organisation is not an ICAO recommendation. - ICAO Annex 6 privileges permit the holder of a flight instructor rating to deliver flight training without the need to operate under a Part 141/142 holder. CASA cannot let go of the old AOC big brother model. NZ and USA have embraced the ICAO guidelines. The holder of a flight instructor rating can deliver training, for courses other than the reduced hours courses in their own right. In NZ most small flight schools do not hold an AOC / Part 141 certificate. - CASA argue they require training for the issue of a licence or rating to be conducted under Part 141/142 certificate to allow them to effectively conduct surveillance / maintain quality control. The CASA model does not provide this outcome. Most flight testing is performed by employees of the 141/142 holders with very little CASA surveillance. The ICAO / FAA / NZ CAA model has independent Flight Examiners conducting flight tests. This model provides better quality control outcomes than the in-house testing system adopted in Australia.

As Nev says, V1, VR and V2 as defined have zero relevance to Single Engine GA aeroplanes. this discussion is more about threat and error management considerations during takeoff. a very worthwhile discussion.

There’s no way the weight increase will happen in any practical way. It’ll soon be easier to go experimental.

Read the material behind the links I’ve shared if you are genuine about understanding these speeds. I teach this stuff in my day job.

The stopping distance is predicated on the application of wheel brakes, this can’t be done with the wheels off the ground. V1 does not apply to single engine light aircraft. have a read of this document to understand the application of V1. CAO 20.7.1B

V1, VR and V2 have specific definitions and are speeds relating to performance criteria applicable to large transport category aeroplanes. You cannot apply theses speeds to small single engine aeroplanes. If you want to apply some TEM strategies to your operations that’s fine, but you’re never going to change the definitions of the above V speeds. This document explains these speeds. https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/media/takeoff_safety.pdf

I was fortunate enough to go for a flight in VH-GSG with Ken Andrews in the late 1960s at Camden when I was a young lad. I recall it was very loud!

Have a read of these definitions. there lots of other resources online explaining V speeds related to takeoff performance. https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2015/Nov/V_Speed_Review.pdf

Yep

It only takes one to make you wary of them. The nearest I’ve come to bending an aeroplane have been encounters with 2 thermals, both western NSW in low wing loading aeroplanes.

The system is flawed, lots of data collected but no apparent analysis. They should be looking at trends and developing a range of methods of correcting these trends. For example, it doesn’t take too much digging to see there are lots of landing incidents. I have not seen any targeted training on stabilised approaches or go-arounds. To me, a go-around is like a safety valve, if things aren’t going well on late final / initial touchdown and the pressure is building up go-around and work out what to do differently on the next approach. Too many instructors correct bad approaches / landings, these are ideal training events.

I agree you could use other sources of information, however I know the power and attitude settings for the aircraft I fly. The comment about estimating performance data doesn’t consider estimating wind component to correct the GS data. I would rather rely on that than GPS GS information. pilots can make up their own power/attitude table for each aircraft type. Eventually you’ll find a very similar combination across a wide range of types, the airspeed may vary but the combination of power and attitude varies little. I spend a bit of time thinking through “What if’s” scenarios. What would you do if your IAS looked ok on the takeoff roll, but as you started climbing you noticed the IAS continually decreasing without any change of power / attitude? A scan of the ALT / VSI shows zero RoC and the altitude not increasing, but you see you are climbing buy visual cues. You have your EFB mounted in its normal place. This scenario is a likely one and probably the most time critical one a pilot would encounter. What would be your initial response / actions?

If a pilot cannot fly an aeroplane without reference to their flight instruments by day in VMC they shouldn’t be flying. These pilots are playing Russian roulette with their own and any passengers lives. These pilots are also displaying the fact they have been poorly trained. All phases of flight should be established by setting a known power and attitude combination, the flight instruments are then reviewed to fine tune the phase. Over the years I have flown a number of aeroplanes where within a short period of time it has become obvious the airspeed indicator was in error, yet these aircraft were in regular flight training use with people blindly following the ASI. The subtle errors can be killers too. With an ageing GA fleet pitot / static systems can develop leaks as the result of corrosion in aluminium lines. My quick test is to open / close vents in flight while monitoring ASI / VSI for any rapid changes. These may be an indication of a leak within the cabin, it will not show up any outside of the cabin. These faults can then be referred for maintenance action.