motzartmerv

Daffyd, the load factor is not 2 in a 60 deg angle of bank DECENDing turn. Only a level turn. :) just sayin. If we are going to be constructive, we need to be accurate hey?

Yes, hence my confusion why it would be included in any sort of patter in VFR turns onto crosswind etc. Im aware what the syllabus says tubz,:) I fail to see the point in dynamic stability, and how it relates to a pilot being tested "IAW with syllabus"? Just to add to your 'concerns" I also teach stalls at 60 deg AOB. IAW with the syllabus and the POH.

Doesnt take long does it. Started out good, and as usual, turns to sh!t..

Oh FFS.. Tubz..For starters, a RATE of turn is not defined by degrees. Its a a RATE of turn and depends on airspeed. Steep turns at 45 degs are not what I would call steep:). 60 deg's has plenty of "safety margin' built in and is defined in the day vfr syllabus as "a steep turn" and should be demo'd during a licence test. I like the crosswind turn as a cut off point for making a decision though.

Yes I know frank. I'm confused aswel, I was just havin a dig :)

Only in status!! Lol

At the rsik of being pedantic Tubz. Airspace is not designed to separate Commercial from GA traffic. Airspace boundaries are not the issue at hand. The issue is, with zero oversight, and zero checks in place, theres every chance that un qualified, un knowledgable people will be flying uavs INSIDE the airspace. Regardless of which class. Nobody has ANY idea bout the sheer numbers im talking about here. Im talking literally thousands of thse things could suddenly become commercially viable entities, sharing the airspace with YOU. With no more aviation knowledge then what they gleam from the form they have to sign and send to CASA. The MAAA you speak of that run the "pattern flying" comps, and have their "one or two patterns" that each pilot must fly, so its the same for ALL of them, cant even keep the heights under 400 ft as we so dramatically proved to a local MAAA club. They had NO idea ( or every idea and didnt care) how high this "pattern" was making them fly. These are pretty die hard hobbysit, with at least the "club" and its procedures to employ as a safe guard, that cant even get it right. And you think a few thousand UAV operators that will have sudden cate blanche to fly FOR REWARD ( read Sh!t yea bro, im up there if I can turn a buck from it) are gunna have ANY clue at all? I have a UAV controllers certificate, and I was reasonably happy with the process I had to under go to obtain it. Sure, it could be simplified, but not DISSOLVED!!!!!

I was standing behind a guy in a hobby shop last week, he was cranky his Phantom wouldn't fly from the park where he lived. The attendant plugged it into his comp and deactivated the new version and its limiting function, so he can fly it now..He lived close to mascott, and the reason it wouldn't fly was because he was within 3 miles. I can only provide the info, if yo guys dont think its a problem then I cant help it. I deal with this every day and all I can say is, you were warned.

He gusesses...

Those rules exist now, an there has been countless breaches and near misses. This new rule change will only see more of them in the air. Still waiting for someone to tell how this will make it safer.

That's ok to be skeptical. People are skeptical about many fields of science, and yet, your iPhone still works, your cat scan machine still works, panadol still gets rid it headaches. That's the thing about, it's true weather you believe in it or not. What value would a psychological study have on the reactions of humans? I'd have to say a dam site more then " well I had a mate once that...."

Yea that won't happen ay. People dknt break rules. Even the rules they know about. ;)

Thanx for your input guys. I appreciate it. Cameron, the difference will be that now, your dde who buys his toy from uncle Pete's and chucks it in the flight path of a Saab, will now be casa certified. Can anybody give me one example of how this move will Improve safety? One?? Since when has casa's prime directive Been simplify the procedure for verification? Of ANYTHING,? Why now? Why this ? Because they can't handle the workload. Its as simple as that.

The question being asked is not why people turn back. Thats a very narrow view of the problem. The question is, 'how do humans behave when confronted with Immediate, life threatening situations" Immediate as in seconds from disaster. Daffyd, while those things you have experienced would induce the response, the time frame being the biggst and most Blaring problem in an EFATO in a powered aeroplane. A glider with a GR of 30-1? Slightly different, but just as serious. The time frame being the instigating factor in the flight or flight response. Ive had several failures at different stages and levels of seriousness in several types too, the only time i recall the flight or flight response was when I heard a loud bang in a skyfox that was halfway through a loop at about 200 feet. (not as PIC, so please...dont go there) And I would add, anyone person is only one human, your experience is not any sort of baseline to draw any form of " Fact" from. The fact may very well be that only 1 in 10 people are likely to succumb to this issue. What precursors in behaviour or personality type would be something to watch for in a student? Who is likely to handle the problem with no response. These are things that we are trying to answer. And while;e everybody has a story or two to add to the bucket, no individual should assume that the way they behave is the way everyone else will. The study is involving putting as many people into these situations in a lab to see what percentage of us are likely to be overwhelmed by the fight or flight, which doesn't have to have anything to do with aviation. The response is universal and can be duplicated easily in a lab (apparently). The minds being applied to this are much more qualified to comment than I am, some PHD's and several university lecturers who I am sure, reading this would laugh at our attempts to explain the problem.

Psychologists understand the mechanisms behind the way we behave daffyd. The study involves dozens of people, some pilots some not, but all are humans. The time slowing you speak of is perfectly explained by the underlaying principles and scope of the study. The fight or flight function is what causes the issues, and is a function of the primative brain and bypassed the logic centers of the brain. So we can train, and talk, and teach all we like , it all goes out the window once fight or flight response kicks in. Pulling the power on people to " shock " them actually has the opposite effect. It puts the pilot in " Flight " mode, and not fight mode. I'm not a doctor so forgive my laymans explanations. Freezing on the caltrols is another example of "flight" instead of fight. The first thing out monkey ancestors would do when confronted by a tiger is " freeze" hoping the tiger wouldn't see them. This function is still alive and well in the modern human. And the focus of this study.

They are a great tool. An reduci te tape is definatly called for. But this open ended ticket is not the answer. The training required will be zero. No oversight other then signing an online form.

Sd . The problem is the commercial use. Once people realise there's open slather on using them to turn a buck, there will be an influx of people throwing them up and with no oversight or protection from casa. There are model clubs and associations that deal with hobbyist at the moment and keep the knowledge base and accountability at acceptable levels. With this rule change the floodgate would be opened. Low kinetic energy? 2 kilos with communes velocity of say 150 kts is a shit load of kinetic energy. Casa have produced no evidence or study to supor the notion of " low kinetic energy" .

Yea thanks down under. My business won't e effected by this rule change, but thank you for that. Very helpful. If you happy to have 13 year olds flying 2kg UAv's with you in the air the be sure to write to casa an explain your views. It's a free country ay? Meanwhile, I will continue to campaign against this unsafe rule change. Thanks for your input

The video is coming Maj. I have been working closely with the university of Wollongong's psychology dept for about a year now. They have implemented a few "lab' tests and we are producing a paper on the subject. Once the findings are finalized, and we have concrete evidence we will submit it all to the RAA, CASA and the ATSB. One point that has been highlighted so far is that the way we train pilots to deal with it is a massive part of the problem. Im not going to go into it too much now, as im sure id get the usual responses from those who know better, but there is a scientific explanation that indicates these two things: 1. We are hard wired to turn back. Theres not much we can do about it in the heat of the moment. 2. We are training our pilots to turn back, even though we think we are doing the opposite. The testing and experiments is looking like getting some additional funding aswel, there is talk of the uni purchasing a light aeroplane to rig with testing equipment. I dont know if t will come off, but we have some of the best minds in psychology, in Australia working with us. Clearly there is a problem. And it CAN be overcome. For now, a headsup. Instructors. STOP pulling the power off on upwind. Its this training that is killing people. More to come......

Hi Guys. While im not teaching people to fly aeroplanes, I am consulting potential UAV business operators and helping them produce UOC's (Unmanned operators certificates) To make a long story short, CASA to date, have made the process of obtaining a licence to fly a drone/UAV quite demanding, and the complexity of any application for an approval is almost equal to that of an AOC for charter etc. CAA, in their eternal wisdom, have decided to attempt to change the ruling which would see under 2 kg drones requiring NO such licensing etc. NO UOC, and no pilots certification. The reasons behind this are and I quote " The rsik posed to the public by an aerial vehicle with a mass of less then 2kg's is almost negligible." UUMM... I dont know what CASA fly around in, but If i smacked into a 2 kg lump of plastic in my Jab, it would almost certainly bring the aeroplane down. A 2 litre bottle of coke weighs about 2 kg's, could you imagine dropping one onto a car from 500 feet? And just for some context, the current speed record for a UAV under 2k's is 707 klm/hr I cannot for the life of me understand how CASA can think the deregulation of the industry will at all increase the safety. Sorry to rant, but we need to make submission to CASA NOW to get this change STOPPED!!!!! Please sign the petition below, and submite a letter to CASA explaining how dangerous these things could be in the wrong hands. There are literally thousands of these things being sold every week in Australia. http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/civil-aviation-safety-authority-against-nprm-1309-unregulated-drones-uav-uas-rpas-in-australian-airspace?utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=supporter_message Heres a link to my new websiite.. (shameless plug im sorry) http://totalrpa.com.au/

Human resources training? Never heard of it ...lol You are right in both respects yenn.Far far too many jab failures, and far too many silly mistakes. Some bordering on downright stupid!!!

I am very pleased to see the RAA have an up to date (almost) accident incident report that can be seen by ANYONE. This is something thats been campaigned for for a long time. Congrats to the RAA for getting it through (despite the obvious objectors, no guessing who they might be) Its a step in the right direction. And no longer can some of these manufacturers say theres no problem. Look at those numbers!!! Stone the bloody crows. Operator maintainer error? Look at the "facts' and draw your own conclusions... http://www.raa.asn.au/safety/accident-incident-summaries-2014/

No worries oscar, was only replying to what you said, not the eyewitnesses. You did call a spiral a spin. Surprised that a cunning linguist such as yourself would make such an error;) Cheers

Good job Bruce getting it down. Thanx for the info.

Jsp6, one of the failures was a dropped valve seat I believe. No word on the second as yet.