turboplanner

Here is the diagramme I posted earlier with the distances shown by the figures in the red rectangles.

We had about 8 RA owners using Goulburn while it was owned by the local Council. I've seen a lot of country airstrips in Victoria and South Australia with single aircraft sheds, sometimes with concrete floors, sometimes dirt. (It needs a concrete floor to avoid surface rust). The airstrips are usually in a farm paddock, often in its natural state, just mown. In Queensland I've been at one near Mackay which was a graded strip in a cane farm with the farm sheds providing the storage. Numbers of Hangars varies from about 4 to about 20. For an approximate market for Canberra RA, I'd suggest a target of 10 to 20. So far the discusion has centred around ACT and the shortage of suitable land. If you take a look at the green swathe from Canberra to Goulburn on Google earth, there's a lot of farmland on the northern side of the direct line from centre of Canberra to centre of Goulburn. Within that area there may be farmers who are not making money with their current operations. Within those there maybe suitable paddocks for strips. Within those there may be a potential strip with access to a road without disturbing the farmer and away from the house. From there it would be a matter of whether, say the building of 10 low cost hangars and 10 lessees could afford to generate enought income for the farmer to seriously consider it. If that looked good then before anything was done, the Planning phase needs to take place with a DA plus getting support from surrounding property owners, bearing in mind that Planning can be as complicated out in the country as it is in the city with plenty of farm house DAs rejected because the house is on a ridge line and would be interfering with sightlines from the next valley. I would start a different thread for it rather than tying it to Goulburn Airport, which under new ownership could possibly offer cheap deals and better facilities to win back former clients. And the people involved in that project would need to be people from the area who had RA aircraft or wanted to hire and train on RA aircraft.

Yes I do.

I posted the VFRG distance diagramme on the previous page. Note that based on altitude the visibility requirement extends to 8 km.

Referring to the OP comments: "There's been a fair bit of backlash regarding the 178 seconds video over the years, mostly along the lines expressed in this PoA [Pilots of America] forum" Garfly. How hard is it to understand that in Australia, if you have the situational awareness that some people have referred to, and you are flying legally, the cloud you see will be at least 5 kilometres away, so none of the 178 seconds video will apply and none of the comments will apply. If you choose to break that rule and go up closer to "have a look" you've crossed over into IMC which is prohibited area. The 178 seconds story was originally introduced in written form when the VRF rules specified only 500 ft clearance below cloud; you could legally fly at 1,000 ft cloud base - 500 ft below the cloud and 500 ft above ground. The 178 seconds was never intended as a specific doomsday event; it was just a sample of one incident and used as a catchy headline. It was published in Aviation Safety Digest in Australia. Subsequently, in Australia, PPL training introduced a model of two hours flying blind where the pilot was trained to scan the key instruments over and over again while flying blind. It was not designed to teach a pilot how to fly in IMC, it was to teach him how easy it was, even with no stress, and no bad weather, for the aircraft to get away from him. We still lost a crop of pilots every year, and the ATSB reports usually showed they were pilots who practised scud running, and some had even flown for short distances in IMC. The split was roughly 5 total loss of controls to 1 collision with a hill or trees. Over the years I've tried to start about four "Weather" threads to show people the importance of understanding Meteorology, and the NAIPS system which provides flying-based forecasts. Each one has petered out after the few Met experienced pilots had had their say. We've never managed to come up with a clear assistance to show which clouds or weather pattern is going to close in on you and which is going to open up, or how you navigate through multiple weather patterns. Sometimes the discussions drift along with references to a favourite weathers ource, ignorant that those sources are not providing aviation support, just what the general population and farmers need. A good example of the shortcoming of the supposed "Modern" system was the death of an RA pilot who took off into what was forecast by NAIPS as Severe Turbulence - a warning to stay on the ground. Sure enough within minutes of taking off his aircraft broke up. NAIPS (National Aeronautical Information Processing System) is part of Airservices Australia. Perhaps there should be a Met Module in RA Training. Perhaps RA pilots need to step in and focus on this aspect of flying. The 5 km visibility rule in Australia was introduced and provided a much better guide to the pilot of the No Go point, giving him plenty of time to turn around and go home, or at least make a Precautionary Landing in a calm manner.

The comments are being made in Australia where legal pilots will be 5 km away from this. I wonder what Dick would think about some of these comments.

This reminds me of the person who told us that on the way home from Natfly the weather was so bad he had to fly his Jab on instruments. This is not the US.

Part 2 of the problem is if you switch to autopilot you will smack into a granite cliff, because IFR requires flight planning to avoid this possibility. There's no easy way out without the training and currency requited.

By all means feel free to ignore what I said.

Strongly agreed, and that was my reaction the first time I saw it. The last thing we should be doing is inducing panic. Yes, 178 seconds was the average time that a pilot was able to fly blind without instruments. But what they didn't tell you is that this group was the control group...pilots with zero training, zero instruments and zero visibility. Even an IFR trained pilot is likely to crash in that situation. In fact, the study was actually to test whether or not a VFR pilot could be trained to use instruments to make a 180 turn. After "crashing", they taught each pilot the techniques to execute a 180 with reference to instruments and tested them again - every single pilot was able to learn to reverse course and get out of the clouds again. Then someone came up with a scare video based on the control group and how clouds were a deathtrap waiting to snare VFR pilots and lure them to their doom. Now, that is all anyone know of the study and the real lesson has been lost to the drama. Sigh.... And this discussion where the original experiment was returned to its context: 178 seconds -- the facts about the experiment GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM The following is a summary of some key points of the paper itself, entitled "180-degree turn experiment" and in UI's Aeronautics Bulletin 11. I have no axe to grind, and I think the "178 seconds" article does a good job of communicating the hazards of spatial disorientation. However, some issues have become clouded by the "chinese whisper" effect, so this is to set the record straight. * The research was conducted at University of Illinois Institute of Aviation in 1954, principally by Jesse Stonecipher, the CFI. * It was a response to the challenge from AOPA to devise a technique for non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC * The tests were conducted on a Beech Bonanza C-35 in flight (not a "ground trainer" as cited in the 178 Seconds article) * The 20 subjects for the experiment were chosen for being representative of those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not "none since primary training", none at all) * The Bonanza was chosen specifically *because* it would be difficult to fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly. * None of the subjects had soloed a Bonanza. As far as I can tell, only 3 of the subjects had any complex experience at all, with most of them recording time on Aeronca 7AC, Cessna 140 and Tri-Pacers. * Most of the subjects had only about 20 hours dual time, presumably the PPL syllabus in those days. 7 of them had less than 40 hours total. * The aircraft was made to simulate basic VFR instruments, plus a turn indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the entire experiment. * The first period of the experiment was the famed '178 seconds' test, aimed at assessing the students' baseline instrument aptitude. The time was measured between the googles being placed over the students' eyes and an 'incipient dangerous flight condition'. For most cases this was deemed to be an airspeed of 185 mph or an incipient stall. * 19 of the 20 went into a 'graveyard spiral'. One pulled the aircraft into a whip-stall. * Times ranged from 20 seconds to 480 seconds. The average was indeed 178 seconds * There then followed 4 periods of instruction in the 180 degree turn technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study * By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours (mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique. * The subjects were again tested by simulating instrument conditions, and asked to transition from cruise to slow flight, make a 180 degree turn, and establish a controlled descent. Each subject was tested 3 times. * Of the 60 trials, 59 were successfully completed. The unsuccessful one involved the failure to set power to maintain altitude and continued the descent in a way that violated the success definition. It was considered that control was not lost, and that if the aircraft had not become visual below cloud, the impact would have been survivable. The technique: Throughout, center the turn needle using the rudder. 1) Hands off the control column 2) Lower the landing gear 3) Reduce power 4) Set trim to a predetermined position for slow flight (95 mph) 5) Adjust prop and power for approx level flight at 95 mph 6) Note the compass heading 7) Turn using the rudder 😎 Roll out with appropriate lead or lag 9) Center the turn needle 10) Reduce power for a controlled descent It was noticed that step 1 was both the most important and the most difficult psychologically! The usual deduction from the 178 Seconds article is the rather negative one that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex aircraft. Julian Scarfe Over the years, we've actually lost a few from this site after the discussions were hijacked by people criticising this video. Of course you might be able to keep going for more than 178 seconds; of course you may only last 20 seconds, of course you don't have magic ears; "The sensory areas of the inner ear cannot detect slight changes in angular acceleration, nor can they accurately sense changes that occur at a uniform rate over a period. On the other hand, false sensations are often generated due simply to movements of the head and may lead the pilot to believe the attitude of the airplane has changed when, in fact, it has not. " What usually happens is the ones that get killed play around with flying near cloud and through light cloud with clear patches, and becomes more and more confident, oten loudly condemning the 178 seonc video. Then we see the photos of a squashed pilot. RA pilots will not be flying into IFR; if you break the rules you will be flying into IMC. IFR stands for Instrument Flight Rules and you need to qualify in GA and have a suitable GA aircraft for IMC. RA Pilots have to do a lot wrong to get into the above predicament: The diagramme below is from page 205 of the Visual Flight Rules Guide 2024. You are required to have 5 kilometres clear vision in front of you at all times. When the cloud gets that close you turn around and get out.

sheep farmers could step in four emigrants who'd sailed in on a typical Joburgh dingy had landed bringing four or their larns which immediately started to mate and produce young which systematically moved through the paddocks eatig sheep.Binnie, Winie Jannie and Bronte graded an airstrip, unpacked their Thrusters and toured around taking video shots of the endless velde and before long there was an infestation of Afrikaaners who brought along their Zulu cattle minders, the Zulu saw the sand hills and immediately claimed 45,000 square kilometres on the ground that this was the land of their ancestors, the Giant Sand Serpents and were given the land by Jack Kelly a tyical public servant who never checked anything. Tis was used by the Khosa contingent who's rafte across and claimed the Kimberley, and no one knew their orse frum their ulbow. Eventually ..........................

...time off for church on Sundays, and mutton & pickles sandwiches, and Phenyl to cleam our homes, and ............................

This is a flying site and the thread is about Goulburn Airport and we're seeing some of the silliest posts I've seen on the site. People who believe in X? What on earth do you think these schools teach? Certainly not endless lessons on X.

Have the mice got to the cornflakes?; that's not research. You could equally argue that taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bil for any schools; that's the parents' jobs but they spend all their money on lattes, Kias, and the evil Monster trucks, Rav 4s.

.....would be a part of the great peoples of the West, even if only an irrelevant swill of swishing ..........

How about you do the research, find out what the government gives each private school every year what it's for, and what the school has to do for it in return. Anything else is blowing bubbles at the sky.

Looks like the interest in Goulburn Airport has petered out, and most have said they wouldn't go there anyway, so best to wait until it has been sold and then see what the new owner wants to do with it. Same with RA around Canberra, plenty of opinions but no appetite to support Goulburn by flying there, or buy a property and build an airstrip.

Your choice Skippy, I've seen both recently. A lot depends on the Public School Headmaster. Ours applied for the John Howard School Hall programme where the whole school +parents fits in for major events and also applied for new classrooms when Civid hit and the kids were doing online schooling.

......calm with occasional murder atmosphere of the Lost State as WA is known in the East. OEHOR pondered for a moment, still reeling at the news that Chairman Dan was heading for WA as Twiggy's Left Right Hand Man to fulfill his promise to China that they could have all that red dirt stuff in WA for a song. It was OEHOR's job to make sure it was a song that .................

........what was know as "The Blockages", not unlike the "Troubles" in Ireland which also started over a shortage of toilet paper. As we know, the Poms have always been frugal with "the paper" whereas the Irish would always help out a neighbour, and this difference inevitably led to civil war. Of course when the King sent soldiers to Ireland he was perplexed at how easy it was for the Irish to find concealed English soldiers and escape, but of course now we know. This also was why .............. Cappy's heartfelt explanation explains a few things that Turbo had always wondered about. When he was building the Jabiru, he'd made his own wheels, since wheelwright skills had been passed down the Cook family. This explains why the Jab had steel rimmed wagon wheels. It might be unfair to say this but there were wheel ruts all over the Kapooka Paddock, where the taxpayers, through the ADF had graded an airstrip) Another novel feature of his Jab was the girth strap and the draf chains, beautifully made, but limiting him to only one case of Brown Bros Red at their short strip. Our US NES readers might ben interested to know that the symbol for Florida is no longer the Orange, but in a deal carved out by Turbo and the Governor or Florida Enrico Garcia, the State is limited to claiming Turbine Orange Juice, and Turbine Orange Blossom. Here's a young Turbo playing Banjo (note the ring with the Turbine Family Crest. Playing along is the great Roy Clark who could play any instruments including a milk can. Turbo wrote this song for Florida.

Having said that, you go on to apply horizontal policies to vertical, which of course will fail. Nothing like it. Private and Church schools are required to train, teach and evaluate to the State School curriculum and they are paid for that base teaching, which helps commonality when they arrive at Uni or into the workforce. Anyone who has done part of their schooling in one State and then abruptly been shifted to another State would see the benefit of that. The Private schools then need an arm and a leg from the parents to add the components which bring the TERs needed for Uni entry in the best positions and character building to be able to hold down management jobs and professions.

It would seem straightforward to me. You may not be neatly in one camp or the other, but you're not wanting to just fly in one camp either. If you want to fly a GA plane just go GA.

An outstanding cry for democracy, Skippy but i would equate it more with Australia's never ending cycle from vertically integrated businesses to horizontally integrated businesses where every separate activity/location is required to make a profit. There's still room in the horizontal model for a sub group to operate at break-even cost.

This plays no part in the Planning Process as I found out on a couple of cases in the early days. No one has stepped up and said they want to build an alternative to Goulburn, but they would be looking at NSW as well, which offers locations closer than Goulburn.

I assume that when you set the bolt stretch cold, the manufacturer is working on that being the optimum setting at working temp.