Coop

The Navigator and I dropped in to Ceduna when they were beginning to implement this madness. At the time Ceduna had two RPT flights per week. They were in the process of installing three video cameras to monitor activity at the airfield in case of terrorism... One positive is the slight improvement in aircraft security as a result of these changes- you are less likely to have your tanks milked or your headsets stolen these days. Coop

I still can't forget the shock of seeing an example of this aircraft at the Smithsonian in Washington. IT really looks like a projectile. The front of the vertical fin is very sharp, and the back edge is about 6" wide. It looks like it simply wrenches the air apart on its way through- which is undoubtedly what it did. How the pilots were able to see well enough out of the tiny windows to manage a landing beats me. What a beast. It take my hat off to all who rode in these experimental machines- the bloody think looks dangerous just hanging in the museum! Coop

I just recently renewed mine. An offence of that nature could cost me my job, so no choice . At previous renewal, I wrote to my Federal MP pointing out that in the previous two years I'd visited so-called "security-controlled airfields" on no less than 60 occasions ranging from Geraldton, WA to Rockhampton, Qld, and never had my ASIC checked. However my wife went through the barrier to get to the loo at Emerald and then couldn't get back. I couldn't leave the aircraft because it was a windy day (Dorothy has unreliable brakes, and a low wing loading). She eventually had to throw a tantrum before someone would let her back in. So, far from enhancing security, all the ASIC had done was make things damned inconvenient. I got a form letter back with the usual bulldust which didn't address my points at all (ie, How was this system enhancing security if no-one was checking?). Then I got asked for it at Mildura. As I was about to swing the prop, I had it tucked into my pocket. Funny thing was, the chap asking me didn't have his showing (we were both airside), so before I volunteered mine I asked him to show me his. He looked a little embarrassed, and we compared our ID's (his was grey) and then we each went about our business. So far, that's the only occasion I've been asked for it. If I was paranoid, I'd think that the check was specifically targeted at me to demonstrate that they were doing something... but I'm not that paranoid, or so the voices inside my head tell me.... Coop

Hopefully. Been putting a lot of effort into the hangar of late, nearly finished that, then there's the re-covering of one undercart leg which is looking very tatty, and that means cutting the bungee to get the leg off and then replacing it. If we can get all that done, then will probably get to Echuca. We also have another planned excursion for around the same time- it will depend upon how much leave we have available. The Navigator has ceased work, so we don't have to worry about synchronizing leave any more . Cheers Coop

G'Day Don. Yeah, it got a bit involved, didn't it? I think the upshot was that it makes sense for lighties, but not for the heavies. Hope you're getting lots of flying in. Coop

Yep, it is a bit dated. For example it refers to taildragger undercarriage as "conventional". But the basics are still the basics, tailwheel or nosewheel..... Coop

That's a very good point to remember in our relatively low-powered aircraft. I recall seeing a U-tube video of an accident where this was the main factor. Fortunately, Oz doesn't have very much terrain that would cause us such a problem. The highest take-off we have ever made was at Armidale, NSW- about 3,500' AMSL. I can't really say we noticed much difference in the machine's performance. We were on a flying holiday at the time so were quite well loaded, and it seemed to get off in abut the same distance as usual. But that's hardly a scientific observation. We really do have a great country to fly around in. Over two thirds of it is no more than 1500' above sea level, so if you are flying at 2,000 there's a fair chance you won;t hit anything. Coop

Joined this forum in 2008. Haven't been active for a while. I represent no-one but myself. But I understand your cynicism.

Yes, Kaz, I see your point. Significant violations of the KISS principle. But that's true of much of our regulations, RA_Aus or otherwise... Coop

While it does talk about human factors, it is not a human factors book per se. It was first written in 1944 by a man who learned to fly in 1934 (well before the term "human factors" had been thought of), and revised in 1972. He was puzzled by the discrepancy between what pilots said they were doing and what they were actually doing, so he set about writing a book to redress that. "Stick and Rudder" was the result. If you've not read it, then I suggest you hold off on dismissing it until you have. It's approach appears a little radical, at times. For example, in the first chapter, it doesn't explain how an aeroplane is flown, but how a Wing is flown. Because that is what we are doing when we fly an aeroplane. We are flying the wing. Almost everything we do with the controls is aimed at controlling the wing, and once that is understood, much of the rest of what you need to know falls into place. By the way, the author was a test pilot for Cessna and Chance Vought, among others. He proposes a few other radical ideas too. For example, he doesn't much like the term "elevator" for the moveable flaps on the back of the stabiliser (tailplane). This is because the elevators do not make the plane go up, the throttle does that. (If you don't believe me, try taking off without using it.) He feels the word "elevator" conveys the wrong impression, but we are stuck with it. He regards the elevator as the angle of attack control with which we control the angle of attack of the wing. And so on.... If you intend to fly light aircraft, or if you are already a qualified pilot, this book will enhance your understanding of what you are actually doing, I guarantee it. But don't believe me, get your own copy and read it, and then pass judgement. It is such a well-regarded book that you can still buy it from Amazon, even though it was originally published 70 years ago.... Coop

Flight at 500ft AGL is legal. Flight below that level isn't unless for taking off or landing, or for a specific purpose for which the pilot has the appropriate endorsement such as aerial agriculture or low-level aerobatics or some types of geosurvey work. In my GA training, I was taught how to operate at low level if forced to do so by weather. This did not confer on me the ability to operate at such levels without appropriate training, it was for the purpose of giving me a little experience and to point out the more obvious dangers in case I ever needed to do so in an emergency. Dunno if they do this in the RA-Aus training syllabus. Coop

There is a great chapter near the end of the book "Stick and rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche called "The Dangers of the Air". (This chapter is actually written by Leighton Collins.) It describes how most students and newly-minted pilots fear engine failures, yet engine failures rarely kill pilots unless the pilot loses control of the aeroplane- usually as result of a stall/spin accident. It describes how these accidents happen, and how the right sort of training can reduce the chances of being caught out this way. The entire book should be required reading for all pilots of light aircraft, in my opinion. With appropriate permissions, excerpts from this book would be a much better inclusion in flying magazines than some of the material cited above. Coop

Yes, I've seen the one at the Alice and read the story.I think he damaged both ends, one more than the other. He used an axe to shorten the long end and balance it up. When he got it flying, it would barely stay aloft, despite the engine doing around 3,000 rpm (usual max is 2300- a tribute to the durability of the Gypsy Major Engine). He flew mostly in ground effect, but was able to use a thermal to gain some extra altitude (and rest the engine a little) on a couple of occasions. What I was asking was whether it would be possible to shorten only one end (if the other end was still intact) and balance it by adding some screws. bolts, etc. Because of the reduced length the force trying to drag the metal out of the short end wouldn 't be beyond the strength of the prop. And you might get a better result than balancing it by shortening both ends. As for the control-line speed event. I have seen this run at a modelling comps at Waikerie many years ago when the world record was around 150mph. The record was broken at that meeting. In that competition, they controlled altitude by twisting the wire- that's what the little handle he is holding does. The use of the pivot is to ensure they can't "whip" the model to gain more speed. THey have to complete at least 10 laps with the handle mounted on the pivot. When I was watching, they had balloon fuel tanks that they inflated with a big syringe which provided fuel under pressure to the engine. The pulling on the wire beforehand is to ensure it is up to the load that will be imposed when it is in flight. It is a crazy comp, but watching (from what I hoped was a safe distance) it was very impressive!! The little models are beautifully made. Coop

Sort of reminds you of an amputee. I wonder if you broke one end of a prop in the outback, could you saw it off, and add some weight so it was still balanced around the hub and then fly out? I suspect the pitch might be a bit too fine, but would there be any other problems? Coop

OK, you stand in front of the 737's engine at startup... I'll stand back and watch with interest.... :D