Bluey

That's terrible! Any idea what happened? Bluey.

Flying trikes in Tassie must be challenging as I always see lots of frontal activity down your way. Seems like a pretty windy place alot of the time? Bluey.

You can't get GRS into the country anymore from what I have surmised. There is a BRS dealer in NZ that i have spoken to that you can import them through. I did a quick search and came up with this: Australia: BRS Aviation Australia. Bryn Lockie, Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer of BRS Aviation Australia, has been factory trained in the USA in the theory and practice of ballistic parachute operation and servicing, and is rated to carry out this work. For more information: Bryn Lockie Ph (02) 8355 7009. Email: [email protected] Bluey.

Thanks John, I'm looking forward to reading it. Bluey

I'm not sure about that. How do you prove that you informed them of the safety requirements unless it is in a written declaration? A friend of mine had his Microlight crashed by a pilot on a BFR a while ago. The pilot lied about his recent experience and misled the instructor about his total flying experience. The pilot crashed the trike during landing because he had a control reversal 6 feet above the ground. The instructor was unable to react fast enough to prevent the crash. The truth then came out but the pilot in command was deemed to be the instructor and so the pilot who caused the crash was absolved of all legal reponsibility. In this case the pilot had not flown for more than 2 years and so was not eligible for a BFR. He also claimed that he had left his log book at home so the instructor was unable to confirm his claims. Even though this pilot had lied it was the instructors responsibility to check this guys claims. The owner tried to get the guy to pay for half of the substantial damage bill to which he replied: not my responsibility as you were the instructor and PIC. He then informed the owner that he would be claiming for damages to cover income he had lost while recovering from his injuries. To this day not a cent has been paid by this pilot to the owner. The owner obtained legal advice where he was told if he pursued the case he would most likely lose. Bluey.

I agree, we need to be easy going where possible and resist the temptation to be too up tight about safety. However, an avoidable prop strike caused by stupidity that would most likely lead to massive vibrations and resulting in engine overspeed followed by shutdown and an emergency landing that may or may not be successful is not something I can be laid back about. As pilots, we are ultimately responsible for the safety of all on board regardless of what happens during a flight. This means we have the duty of care over our passengers and must protect them from everything even their own stupidity. If Saturdays flight had led to a prop strike, I would have been held responsible and been accountable for any injuries or damage caused. The passenger could plead ignorance as their defence and in the eyes of the law they would not be in any way responsible. The only way around this would be to prove that they deliberately tried to sabotage the aircraft in an attempt to bring it down. Good luck with that one... Bluey.

Hi John, if you don't mind I think we would all benefit from hearing about the details of your prop strike incident and how you handled it. Bluey.

From now on, I'll be insisting that all items that cannot be tethered be either left on the ground or stowed in one of the zipped bags in the trike. Although I was very tempted, I haven't led on how I really felt about the incident to the PAX. they are still floating on cloud nine oblivious to all this and I have no intention of making any further issue of it with them. Bluey

Probably just lucky it didn't go through the prop. However, if it was an earlier pre smart phone unit it probably had a smaller surface area and higher mass. The one used on the weekend had a 4 inch screen. Bluey.

That's interesting. Bluey

On the whole, I feel that most individuals are generally good as this person is. What I'd like to believe is that her naivity or false sense of invincibility has led her to feel confident she could do it safely. It is this naive nature that we need to be wary of. Bluey.

I fly an SST winged trike with a tall windscreen. The windscreen greatly reduces wind around the pod in smooth air but cuts in abruptly about 8 inches either side of your shoulders. With significant turbulence from the 20 plus knot area winds flowing over the escarpment that day, the potential for wind gusts to encroach on the passenger space was high. We were cruising at around 60 kts for most of the flight with short bursts to around 80kt on a few occasions. The passenger had a very light build and couldn't even handle the controls for more than a few seconds on her own. The more I think about it, the luckier I think we were. Bluey.

She's on my no fly list. Bluey

It's one thing to stupidly expose yourself to unnecessary risk, it's another to do it to someone else without their consent. Bluey

I mount mine with high strength Velcro to the dash. It is also tethered to a car charger that cannot be removed without squeezing the connector in two places. I run ozrunways on it and it works as a great moving map display. The wind buffering in the trike is the equivalent of highway driving at 110km/h.

I took a work colleague for a first time flight on Saturday. Nice day, with light to moderate westerly winds blowing. Seemed like a routine joy flight until we landed... On landing I discovered that my passenger had decided to ignore a major safety rule and use her untethered large screened android smartphone throughout the flight to take pictures. This was despite the fact she had a properly tethered camera for the same task. Before the flight it was carefully explained to her the expectations I had when it came to items to be carried during the flight. I made sure to clearly communicate the risks and consequences of a prop strike. This was done on two occasions prior to the day of the flight as well as during preflight checks so the passenger was under no misconceptions of what was expected in order to maintain in flight safety. Yet, despite all the clear communications to the contrary, the passenger proceeded to flout these safety rules and take numerous images with her phone so she could upload them in near real time to Facebook. At no time during the flight did she make me aware of what she was doing and so the extreme dangers she was putting the two of us in was never known to me until it was all over. It has taken great self control on my part to stop myself from ripping her a new one. I made it quite clear without showing how upset I was with her that what she did was not acceptable and while she agreed, no apology was forthcoming. So the obvious question is: why did she do it given that she knew she was breaking a major safety rule in the process? I've given this question quite some thought and the answer I've come up with is "personality". As an outgoing, outspoken type who also likes risk taking, she didn't see the risk she was taking as excessive. Not unlike many of the personality types we see in flying. Now, up until now I have always taken it for granted that the passengers we take up for a spin are always going to do exactly as we say without question. Maybe this assumption is wrong and should never have been made. I now feel that whenever I go for a fly I need to pay extra attention to the potential risks my passenger may pose. Not just the usual risks that happened inadvertently but risks like the one just described. I think a personality profile needs to be established to estimate the passengers likelyhood of posing a safety hazard. It might be necessary to ask them some specific questions about the kind of risk taking activities they have been previously involved in. Including how they feel about what they are about to do. In my case, the passenger was very relaxed about the flight probably more so that I was given that we faced periods of moderate turbulence. Or maybe we need to make a blanket rule of not allowing passengers to carry anything on them that is not properly tethered. Either way, this has been a big learning experience that has forever changed the way I see the non pilot passenger. Bluey.

I'm with RAAUS and while I don't have the reference to their operations manual, instructors have told me its ok under the above stated conditions. I'm not sure if the HGFA regulations have changed to be in line with the RAAUS? Bluey.

It's ok as long as you can glide clear of the population to a safe landing area and you are above 1000feet AGL. The most populated areas are in controlled airspace most of the time. This is especially true around Sydney Matt. Bluey.

The SST will do 80kts too without too much problem. I have found that it is not realistic or efficient to go much faster than bout 65kts indicated in a trike as the fuel burn is excessive. I flew in a Revo recently (100hp) and found it to be a great trike but again the fuel burn was too high at more than about 70kts (around 16l/hr). The owner said he generally doesn't fly faster than about 60kts most of the time. At that speed he's burning around 11l/hr. I'm burning less than 10l/hr in the SST at the same speed and around 12l/hr solo at around 70kts. I think the SST with the 80hp has the most economical cruise going around at the moment. Bluey.

Rob was pretty clear in saying it was no faster than the sst. He has spent quite a few hours flying their prototype wing. Bluey.

Does it trim any faster than their SST? How's the handling? Bluey.

I was talking to Rob from airborne the other day and he told he that they have been testing a new topless wing and were about to release it for sale. Apparently it has a wing span about 1 metre shorter than the SST and so together with a bit more wingtip area is lighter in roll but no faster in speed. I believe it also has an overall smaller area so wing loading will be higher and so should be a little better in turbulence as well. Anyone know any more about it? Bluey.

Sold!

Yes, we had a very good long discussion. He is very knowledgable on the subject of ballistic chutes. He has extensive experience with military ballistic chutes such as the ones used on aircraft such as the late f111 bombers. He regularly repacks BRS but has had little to do with the GRS as they are much more difficult to import due to the military grade pyrotechnics they use. He quoted around $300 for the repack and conversion to spring loaded plus shipping. Very reasonable indeed. He also stated that I don't need to be in too much of a hurry on the repack or rocket replacement as all the ones he's done have always looked as good as new when he's opened them up. The pyrotechnics are generally good for at least 10 years. From his experience the Europeans are more conservative than the Americans when it comes to service limits on their rockets. BRS life the rockets at about 12 yrs where as GRS replace every 6. Too conservative in his opinion. Bluey