Happyflyer

If you bring the nose up with power, the airflow from the engine over the elevator will make the elevator effective and get the nose up higher. If you then take that power off the nose will drop every time. This does not mean you have necessarily stalled. It just means the airflow over the elevator can't hold the nose up any more. Just as a nose drop doesn't necessarily mean a stall, if you don't get the nose drop it doesn't necessarily mean you haven't stalled. You could be mushing down fully stalled but the design of the aircraft is such that the centre of pressure hasn't moved back far enough to over power the elevator and cause a nose drop. In the end, if you don't get the stick back too far you won't stall.

Military pilots fly oval ccts because that is what they are taught. The reason they have been taught that is because forward visibility on their fighters is not great when on final with a high angle of attack. The Mirage was very bad for that. I haven't flown in a Hornet so I have no idea about it. What I do know about the military is that if they have done something for generations it is very hard to bring about change. Personally I fly both square and oval depending on the aircraft I am in and who else is in the cct. I do not cut in on the aircraft in front, it's not safe. I suggest that if you are having to use much power at all on base and/or final your ccts are too big. Do yourself and those behind you a favor and tighten up. You'll save time and money and be safer.

We are stuck with what CASA have chosen to give. Now we have to understand it and use it as best we can. An RAAus instructor can train a student to an RPC which CASA have said is equivalent to an RPL. However if that RAAus instructor wants to teach the same person to the same level in a GA aircraft he can't unless he becomes a GA instructor. CASA gives almost no recognition for his RAAus instructor qualification, even if he already has a CPL. I am hoping this will change and RAAus instructors with a CPL will more easily gain GA instructor ratings, without having to do an extra 40 hrs of training plus 200 hrs of ground school. The new regulations make it possible to recognize the RAAus training but CASA staff have difficulty letting go of the past. It will happen but may take some time.

If that jump happens when winding back, your vernier throttle stop has been broken by a ham fisted operator. Unfortunately you need a new throttle. It doesn't happen on a serviceable item.

Only use the button when going to full throttle or back from full throttle. Use the vernier for all other throttle movements and you won't have the problem.

Climbing at Vx is dangerous. Getting to height as soon as possible (Vy) is safer. Height is safety. Play the odds.

I agree you have to be flexible enough to cope with all that and it's good training. It's just frustrating being behind some one in similar aircraft and flying ccts so big you don't have to start a decent until well after you turn final! It's unnecessary and unsafe in my book.

When you are a student paying for cct lessons it is definitely a big deal if you only get in 6 cct instead of 10 because the guy in front of you thinks he is flying a 747. Check out this video watch the gold bars on his shoulder!

Yep, I always make sure my wing is

I just went on google earth and checked a typical circuit I might fly in an RAAus aircraft such as a Jabiru or Sportstar at my local airfield. The furthest I go away from the middle of the runway was 1.1nm when turning base. This was a generous cct. I would suggest 2.2nm from the middle of the runway is a long, long way. If you lose 500 ft per minute at about 60 knots you won't make it back to the runway. How about others? Measure your cct distance on google earth using the ruler, what size ccts are people flying?

So the case against is that if a few fire man are trained to let a pilot know what the ground weather conditions are or advise if they are aware of any other traffic, then we will not have trained fireman available to fight a fire and they will also have to fill in pot holes? Really? Goodnight.

The suggestion is for them to carry and listen to a radio. Take a trip to the states sometime and see how a Unicom operates there. It's not hard.

There was a guy who retired from the fire section at a capitol city airport a couple of years ago after 40 years there. Never ever went to a fire. Seems like they have a bit of time to learn another skill. They have to have radio skill anyway and if they are listening to the Unicom frequency they may get advance warning of any emergency.

Agree Don. The old argument, they can do it in the US but not in Australian conditions. The requirement to be ASA or Ex ASA is ridiculous. I think it's just ASA trying to protect their turf. Like a plumber who says no one else can change a tap washer. I can give a weather update while flying to the controller but when on the ground, legally I can't reply to another pilot who phones in to ask about the weather and if I did, legally he is not able to take my views into account when planning.

There are plenty of people who fly into our airfield and have managed to find us (not hard with a GPS) but haven't prepared for arrival by reading ERSA, can't read a wind sock, follow the Foxbat doing cross wind landing practice on the shortest strip in their fast little number instead of using a sealed 1000 metre into wind runway etc etc etc. So just because someone does a nav doesn't mean they do it well. The inbound radio chatter is sometimes unbelievable, more so if they are flying in company. Having said that a lot of that can be covered on the ground, but a short nav with diversion doesn't hurt once in a while. People can talk the talk on the ground but to do it all while they are flying is where you find out if they are the real deal. There are not too many people in aviation to make a fortune (because you can't) and those that rip off are soon out of the game. I would suggest anyone who has been around a few years would have a reputation that can be checked.

I'm not lawyer, so if CASA give me advice 0n how to follow their own regulations via a CAAP, I'll follow that until the CAAP is rescinded or amended.

As with most of Part 61 this was not thought through very well. The CAAP is much more realistic (see para 8.2 below), hopefully it will prevail in the long run. 8.2 In the time available to conduct a flight review, it would be unrealistic to attempt to assess all of a pilot’s skills and knowledge. However, it is possible and important to evaluate and guide a pilot through those safety-critical items of skills and knowledge or elevated risk that, if deficient, could result in ‘damage to aircraft and/or injury to persons’.

CASA have a lot of information on what is required in a flight review ( http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/5_81_1.pdf ). Appendix B on page 23 gives a check list for the reviewer. Recommended flight times are 1 to 1.5 hours and longer if a Nav is included. RAAus gives very little guidance in what is required for a review so there is wide variation between the GA/RAAus type schools to the one man band RAAus only. A lot depends on whether the reviewer regularly sees and hears the pilot in the air or if he is a stranger. In my opinion the smart pilots take advantage of the time with the instructor to push themselves to do those things they don't usually do such as stalling, full and partial engine failures, being asked to change runways after a go around, land in stronger crosswinds or a simulated electrical fire incorporating an emergency descent such as Geoff13 recently had to do for real. If you normally hire and fly it's generally not that much more cost to have the instructor in the plane and it's only once every two years or even less often if you have done an endorsement. Of course there are those that are so good they feel the review is a waste of time for them, but generally if they are given a good work out and taken from their comfort zone, they appreciate that perhaps it was good for them after all. The instructor, in signing the flight review, is saying the pilot is safe and competent so he has to be sure. If you value your life and those of your passengers, don't short change yourself in the flight review.

Low and slow.

It's the way to go. Use avtur when you can get it and diesel when you can't. Just keep the diesel fresh and follow with avtur.

Can't argue with the video. I would guess you could only hand prop the 80 hp 912. If a slipper clutch were fitted it would be harder still. I would think a 100 hp 912s with slipper clutch would be well nigh impossible to hand prop. Even when the sprag clutch is a bit worn and it can't turn it over fast enough it won't start.

The English language test is required for the radio endorsement and of course as you need to use radio for CTA you need it for that endorsement. The 2 hours instrument time is required for the Nav endorsement, if flying into CTA requires traveling more than 25nm you need a Nav endorsement. I can't see many people doing the CTA without a Nav endorsement. The rules for Radio and Nav endorsements are below. 61.495 Requirements for grant of recreational pilot licence endorsements (1) This regulation applies to a person other than a person who is eligible to be granted a recreational pilot licence endorsement under regulation 61.500. (2) An applicant for a recreational pilot licence endorsement must: (a) have passed the aeronautical knowledge examination for the endorsement; and (b) have completed flight training for the endorsement; and © if the endorsement is a recreational navigation endorsement—have completed, in addition to the flight time mentioned in paragraph 61.475(2)(d): (i) at least 5 hours of solo cross‑country flight time; and (ii) at least 2 hours of dual instrument time, 1 hour of which is conducted during dual instrument flight time; and (d) if the endorsement is a flight radio endorsement—have a current aviation English language proficiency assessment. Note 1: For paragraph (a), for the conduct of aeronautical knowledge examinations, see Division 61.B.3. Note 2: For paragraph (b), forthe requirements for flight training, see Division 61.B.2. (3) The cross‑country flight time required by paragraph (2)© must include a flight of at least 100 nautical miles, during which a full‑stop landing is made at each of 2 aerodromes or landing areas, other than the one from which the flight began. 61.500 Grant of endorsement in recognition of other qualifications (1) An applicant for a recreational pilot licence endorsement is eligible to be granted the endorsement if the applicant: (a) holds a recreational pilot licence; and (b) holds another flight crew licence that authorises the exercise of the privileges of the endorsement. (2) An applicant for a controlled aerodrome endorsement is eligible to be granted the endorsement if: (a) regulation 61.480 applies to the applicant; and (b) the applicant holds an approval from the recreational aviation administration organisation to pilot an aircraft at a controlled aerodrome. (3) An applicant for a controlled airspace endorsement is eligible to be granted the endorsement if: (a) regulation 61.480 applies to the applicant; and (b) the applicant holds an approval from the recreational aviation administration organisation to pilot an aircraft in controlled airspace. (4) An applicant for a flight radio endorsement is eligible to be granted the endorsement if: (a) regulation 61.480 applies to the applicant; and (b) the applicant holds an approval from the recreational aviation administration organisation to operate an aircraft radio; and © the applicant has a current aviation English language proficiency assessment. (5) An applicant for a recreational navigation endorsement is eligible to be granted the endorsement if: (a) regulation 61.480 applies to the applicant; and (b) the applicant holds a cross‑country navigation approval from the recreational aviation administration organisation; and © the applicant has completed the following flight time that complies with subregulation 61.495(3): (i) at least 5 hours of solo cross‑country flight time; (ii) at least 2 hours of dual instrument time, 1 hour of which is conducted during dual instrument flight time.

If the authorities in Germany had known of the numerous doctor visits the co-pilot on the Lufthansa flight had had they would almost certainly have not said he was a fit and proper person. He had a sick certificate for the day! Just goes to show you need all the relevant information to judge fit and proper.

Remember the only difference between flying at best rate and best angle is the air speed, so you can't do the two climbs at the same speed. Your aircraft flight manual gives you the one and only speed you fly for best rate and the one and only speed you fly for best angle (which will be lower than best rate).