APenNameAndThatA

What about if you are in a tiger moth with no electrical system? (Not a rhetorical question.)

zaon seems to have stopped trading in 2013

False analogies, obviously. The RPT aircraft did not spot the RAAus aircraft even though it had twice as many pilots and etc. Genuine questions, would you not have transited 12 miles from the airport at 3500 ft? If not, would you say it was poor airmanship? Should it be made illegal?

Until I followed this thread, I had no idea that there would be IFR traffic routinely below 3000 ft and not right next to an airport. So, someone could be at 3000 ft vfr right next to a cloud, and a RPT plane could be right beside it in cloud. And the vfr plane could have no radio and no transponder legally? WTF?

Like Woody Allen said, I don’t mind dying I just don’t want to be there when it happens. I don’t have a parachute to save my life. I have a parachute so I don’t have to cope with sitting around while I plummet to the ground. One of those pilots worked for Peter at Foxbat Australia and was going to take over the business.

You are familiar with the Swiss cheese model?

Seriously, the RPT has 170 passengers and two pilots. They had proportionally more responsibility.

If the airbus saw they were on a collision course and were at 3000’ then it is on them to decide for themselves that there is no traffic to their left. If the airbus is on the published approach then they need to be confident they can see and avoid. They are somewhere that it is legal to be with no radio and no transponder and one pilot and little training. The thing about Class E is that people have to have a transponder, and it has to transmit height…

And here I was thinking that social media was supposed to be entertaining. The flip side, and I actually mean this sincerely, is that if you have RPT at 3000 ft 12 miles out from the airport, in Class G, this sort of incident is *INEVITABLE*, which means that hand wringing and pearl clutching is just silly.

You are not down on the Jab pilot, and you don’t want Class E lowered. Just as I said you should be.

Here’s my next hot take. The VFR traffic was a x-thousand feet plus 500, and the IFR/big Traffic was at x-thousand feet. 600 ft is actually greater than standard traffic separation. Normal situation. Nothing to see.

Lowering Class E. You all still against it? The way I see it, being down on the Jab pilot AND not wanting Class E lowered is illogical. Maybe Class E needs to be down to ground level if RPT pilots are going to transit at circuit height. 😆

Let me say the same thing differently. The fewer people on the plane, the less safe it is supposed to be. That means that it is illogical to try and have RA-Aus pilots tasked with keeping RPT planes safe in Class G. If there was nearly a crash, then that’s for the RPT people to fix. I note that some people are saying the Jab pilot needed to be better trained AND people have said that RAAus people should have access to controlled airspace. See the problem? (In fairness, you could have a very different training and testing requirement for that endorsement… and certified radios and transponders?)

I’m not convinced that this was the Jab pilots fault. 1. IIRC, it is legal to fly without a transponder at all. Or a radio. If traffic avoidance systems don’t alert pilots to transponders that are not transmitting height, then then that is a fault with those systems. If RPT planes can’t pick up traffic with a transponder, then that’s the fault of the RPT plane. 2. The pilot was 12 NM from Ballina and only twice the RPT plane’s circuit height. From my perspective, he was a reasonable distance from the airport. If people made calls every time they went within 15 miles of an airport there would be non stop radio traffic. 3. 3000 feet is low. IFR traffic is not supposed to be there, hence vertical cloud separation is not needed. 3000 feet for RPT traffic 12 miles from an airport? Too low. If I’m 12 miles from an airport, at 3500 ft, I’m not expecting to fly *over* a Boeing. 4. IIRC, it would have been legal to be there with no radio at all, in a different plane. FWIW, I leave my transponder on ALT at Archerfield. Tower never complains. One less thing to mess up. Happy to be corrected.

Thank you for posting this. Un b leevable.

Both

You decided to improve on the ERSA. If someone in an LSA was descending on the dead side you would have had a closing speed of 60 or 70 metres per second. If you were in a high wing and they were in a low wing, you might not have been able to see each other. Nothing more probably came of it because they thought you knew you were wrong. Then I’m on downwind I spend zero time looking up to see if someone is about to spiral into me from above. Is that where you were keeping your lookout?

One engine is usually safer than two, unfortunately for you.

Now I know what you meant by saying there is a limit to what the rudder can do, and about asking a lot of it.

The stronger the updraft, the steeper the angle of attack. That means that if a wing stalls with an updraft of, say 15 kt (1500 fpm) updraft, it will be able to cope with an updraft above that because the wing will be already stalled. You need to organise it so you are slow enough so that the wing stalls before there is an updraft strong enough to damage it. The slower the aircraft the slower the updraft will have to be to stall the aircraft. The intensity of the updraft does not have to specified because you just need to make sure the wing does not break. The intensity of the acceleration is specified, though. Its bout +4 and -2 G's for some things, IIRC, and there are design limits, safety factors and ultimate limits and etc.

That is fascinating. I wonder if technically it is therefore illegal to fly the Univat (? spelling) (University of Queensland to Mt Gravatt) VFR corridor. You have to fly at 1000 ft, and it's right beside the CBD. I don't think this matter passes skippy's common sense test, but. I have never read those regs and this is probs why.

I was deliberately not choosing. My understanding is that the only way to choose is to use a little pre-spin input, with rudder and/or ailerons!

Yeah, I won't be doing any skidding or slipping stalls. The one you were talking about, stalling during a balanced, steepish turn, I won't be doing either. Not unless I do it with my instructor first and he signs off. If you all don't mind me labouring the point, this is what makes stalls scarier than spins. I would not mind doing doing anything in a plane rated for spins because if you spin you just recover. In a RA-Aus plane, I'm asking myself, "Okay, this is just a stall, but I don't want to do something what will cause even an incipient spin because then I'll be spinning." So: stalls: potential disaster. Spins: no probs. Likewise, uneven fuel load: is it safe to do even a very basic stall with one tank full and one empty? I'm not about to find out: the lower wing with be the heavier one. Nev, how do you mean that there are limits to lifting a wing with the rudder. You have mentioned this before. Naturally, if I was correcting an unintended stall, I would use the stick forward (and use rudder but not rely in it). Are you worried that if I try and pick up a wing *as soon as* it drops, that something could go wrong? My own thinking is that if the wing does not come up, you are no worse off that if a wing really dropped in a stall, and you can just push the stick forward with neutral ailerons - and the rudder is already in the anti-spin position. Very curious to know your thoughts. I don't want to start half intentionally doing incipient spins in an aircraft not rated for spins.

Pretty sure that programming the autopilot wrongly would not cause this. Disclaimer: I don't know what I am talking about.

That is one of the reasons I don't like stalls. You don't know which wing will drop, for example,