APenNameAndThatA

On 01/07/2021 at 12:07 PM, kgwilson said:

I do my plan (Airmate)on my 10.1 inch tablet & download all of the ERSA plates for enroute, destination & alternates. The tablet is stuck on a magnetic holder on the panel & connected to the USG charge outlet. If it is somewhere I haven't been before I also fly the planned route on Google earth the night before to get an idea of terrain and landmarks. I print the ERSA plates out in A4 & have them on my clipboard in order and then one of the free CASA flight plan A5 forms with all of the frequencies in order, fuel tank changes etc & that goes on the top. The clipboard sits on the passenger seat or the passengers lap who I ask to check stuff as we go. Last thing is to lodge SARtime & have a fluorescent highlighted Sartime cancellation time noted so I don't forget & make sure the Spot tracker is set up & working. My wife checks my progress via the Spot tracker at home on the Google map overlay.

 

All of this is available on the tablet (some only within cellphone reception) but it is way too much hassle mucking around changing screens etc when flying as I prefer to look out the window.

This is the form? 

So, the throttle is the throttle and the mixture is the choke. Obvious to me NOW... Thank you so much for posting. 

Likewise, when I approach an aerodrome, telling my left from my right, and working out circuit height and overfly height is mental load that I need to avoid. Also, these are saved so I should avoid problems with writing down the wrong frequency. The green boxes are the active and standby frequencies (L and R) for COM 1 and COM 2 (top and bottom). The other pages are pages that are below the diagram, clipped to the clipboard. The blue bars are symbols of how long it will take to gain and lose altitude. All the diagrams are top to bottom of the page (not orientated) otherwise the writing takes too much room. I have 129 hours so this is not advice from an expert. Any reflections are welcomed. I think a bigger iPad would be too big, much as I would like to be able to see more. I hate having an iPad on the yoke as it changes the control feel. 

I used to draw on maps and mark things on the map with removable sticky tape. That made flight planning take too long and stopped me taking advantage of iPads. However, I did not want to plan frequencies, calls, XPDR, QNH, and altitudes on the fly, as it were. Too much brain power. My new plan is to velcro a clipboard to my kneeboard and velcro an iPad mini to the clipboard. In the diagram, red is transponder and QNH, green in frequencies, purple is calls and checklists, blue is altitudes and obstacle heights, and black is the rout, airspace boundaries, and 10-mile range rings. 

The poor load would kill it for me personally. 

Just now, facthunter said:

Things DO fatigue the more they are used. I know of a racing VW that replaced the crank every 6 SIX hours. A firm I  worked for( and drove the car once) was rallying one and broke about 3 cranks over  a few years. I could list about 5 other crank failures .  Nev

I don’t think anyone is actually arguing against maintenance. Just playing with ideas. 

On 27/06/2021 at 2:40 PM, facthunter said:

Just read carefully what I say thanks and don't put words into my mouth. Of course the first  flight after a plane has been on the ground a long while is often quite dangerous because the system checks are not adequate. Sub assemblies should be bench tested not tested on the plane. IF corners are cut there will be plenty of unreliability.. and there often is due to being pressured into getting the plane back in the air and pirating bits off other planes or a quick fix..  with a swapped bit that looks ok.

  Many of these "revelations "  may make good reading but a few I've read are pretty questionable. and I've had inflight failures I didn't cause and done test flying where things failed. IF better maintenance had been done they would not have failed, but it's It's a quantum leap of misplaced logic to take that as do less maintenance and you have less failures. You fix your maintenance set ups faults, like documentation and shift change over procedures and account for every tool used and part installed and removed.. Nev

I don’t think that anyone is putting words in your mouth. Another way of looking at it is that engines are so reliable that any maintenance you do might be crap maintenance, because it increases risk. When you work on an engine, you you have A, B and C sign off? 

On 27/06/2021 at 4:13 PM, spacesailor said:

Maintenance! .

The 4X4 clubs tell everyone to carry spare parts AND to replace parts before going on long offroad trips.

My thought is, if replacing perfectly good parts, why not csrry them as spares, after all they were good Before having to remove them. 

spacesailor

Extra weight. 

“Long covid” with psychological effects = literal brain damage. 10% chance of that happening to you if you get the delta variant. Risk of death from AZ vaccine is 0.0001%. The lack of vaccines is tragic.  

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

I have some news for you. Electric aircraft are already here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft

I meant ones that are better than ICE aircraft.

On 12/06/2021 at 1:47 PM, RFguy said:

Yeah hence the interest in high output constant speed power plants like that rotary etc derivatives.

ICE has to be at least 10% above  cruise power (efficiencies of gen-mot)  plus a bit to put the TO and climb phase  back into the batteries.  So for a 60kW cruise, you need a 70kW ish ICE...90HP ICE. depends if we are talking clutch coupled ICE , or uncoupled

Golly this thread has really gone off track.

I’m happy for topics to go off track. Also, I’ll stick my neck out and say electric power for airplanes is a long way off. Batteries are too heavy. Synthetic fuel (petrol or diesel), made from renewable electricity, water and carbon dioxide would be better.   

On 23/06/2021 at 2:09 PM, Garfly said:

Yes, and it seems to me that the importance of those checks is less to do with airspeed indication per se and more to do with the confusion/distraction that can come when confronted with anomalous data.  Confusion begets fear/panic which begets rationality melt down.  It's especially perilous near the ground, of course, and with low-time flyers.

 

Which reminds me of this recent Dan Gryder video about what happens to instructors when they have a student "lock-up" on them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was a fan of a previous video that this guy did. Talking about a pilot shortage meaning that they take anybody AND talking about specific crashes with students frozen at the controls is really unfair IMHO. 

As far as I know there is no way to select out students who will freeze at the controls. I read about a B36 pilot who was well regarded who froze under difficult conditions. I read about a military jet pilot being instructed who froze.  

As for the instructor. If you can’t overpower the student, you will have to stab them in the eye with a biro. Does any instructor know to do that? 

I posted a year ago about a bug in oz runways that they still have not fixed and recently found another one. 

1 hour ago, Student Pilot said:

No I'm suggesting fly the aircraft, keep it straight if it deviates put it back on line. When it happens again you will be aware. If the conditions are beyond your skill level, don't fly.  

Got it. I was with my instructor. 

2 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

If you look up stuff on wind gusts as written for wind energy turbines, you may see it claimed that the strongest gusts are 15 degrees off the main direction. This is clearly because of the thermals mentioned before.

The only advice I can offer is to expect side-gusting on a windy day. At least, near the ground, the vertical motions of the gusting are no longer there.Imagine how hard it would be to try and land on a mesh runway at 2000 ft.

I'm no meteorologist, but are you sure that it is not to do with the how much wind veers (moves to clockwise) when you get close to the ground? In other words, are you sure that it is not due to wind usually going at right angles to the pressure differential except when close to the ground? Maybe gusts act more like higher-up winds. 

Sin of 15° is about 0.25. So maybe you could expect a 20 kt wind to automatically have a 5 to 7 kt crosswind component with gusts. 

I borrowed this from Garfly's post. (I'm not saying he agrees with me or does not agree with me and have not discussed borrowing his post with him.) 

Alerted See & Avoid

In the modern age of electronic flight bags (EFBs), GPS, TCAS, and other electronic devices, pilots are more distracted inside the cockpit than ever before! Combine this with inconsistent radio communications, increased traffic density, and more frequent RPT traffic in regional areas, and the holes in the swiss cheese start to align!

Near miss and loss of separation events are the fourth most common occurrence type reported to RAAus. Now, more than ever, it is important that pilots maintain regular and consistent radio calls and look out techniques in order to maintain situational awareness.

Pilots must avoid the temptation to become dependent on position information displayed on EFB or TCAS displays - This technology relies on the fitment of similar equipment in other aircraft, often resulting in inconsistent traffic displays and the potential for traffic to go unnoticed. Whilst this technology is valuable in assisting situational awareness, it must not replace the requirement for pilots to maintain a constant lookout and the need for regular radio calls for efficient alerted see and avoid principles.

Head of Training Development, Neil Schaefer, recently observed the importance a maintaining a visual scan when conducting a flight review with an RAAus pilot. The pilot, who was using a SkyEcho ADS-B receiver, showed signs of complacency by relying on traffic information displayed on their iPad. During the flight review Neil visually spotted two aircraft in the local area which were not identified by the pilot in command - Neither aircraft was displayed on the pilots EFB.

https://members.raa.asn.au/safety/safety-focus/alerted-see-and-avoid/?

Since about the 1980's people have been trying to decrease accidents in complex systems by doing a so-called root cause analysis (RCA) following a near miss and accident. The RCA tries to uncover the factors that contributed to the accident and happened earlier than the last error that actually caused the accident. For example, if the ergonomics of a cockpit contributed to pilot error, then the ergonomics of the cockpit were also a cause, even though the cockpit was designed years ago. 

In order for RCA's to work, the people who made the mistake need to be willing to come forward completely voluntarily and tell the truth. They will only do that if they feel safe that they will not be punished. This is what it means to have a just organisational culture (JC) (acronyms are my own, not official) (Basically, if someone is reckless or impaired by drugs, then they should be punished, otherwise they should not. Different organisations draw this distinction a bit differently.) When all the information is collated, all the underlying causes of the problem can be addressed and the organisation and its safety improve. 

The above example is contrary to organisational safety because it is contrary to RCA and JA. 

• JA: people are going to be discouraged to come forward when they see that someone who made a mistake is publicly criticised like this. There was no need to label an attitude as "complacent". They could have said that the pilot was looking at the iPad instead of having their head on a swivel. 

• JA: they said, "signs of complacency". This suggests to the reader that no one bothered to ask the pilot about it. If they had asked the pilot about it, they would have been able to find out if the complacency was real. I think that having an iPad is the opposite of being complacent. It seems that the RA-Aus people spoke about it behind the pilot's back and decided to big note themselves, on the Net, about it. 

• JA: they could have used the pilot as a role model by having them write a near miss piece for the RA-Aus website. Instead, they wanted to look like superior aviators. 

• RCA: there was no consideration of the factors that lead up to the pilot relying on their iPad instead of looking out the window, or why the other planes did not show up on the iPad. There was no consideration of the possible upstream factors that could have contributed to the problems or where RA-Aus fell down on the job of fixing them.

• As I understand it, different electronic flight bags show up different sets of planes. RA-Aus has not been trying to get all traffic on all iPads

• How did the pilot come to think that traffic would be on the iPad. RA-Aus has allowed things to be marketed without sufficient warnings. 

• How come the pilot was not aware of the other aircraft because of radio calls? 

• Was the pilot safe because other safety layers, like doing proper circuit procedures kept people safe? 

I will be complaining to RA-Aus about their stupidity and encourage you all to do so too. I'm pissed that RA-Aus are wrong *and* happy with themselves. 

2 hours ago, poteroo said:

Whatever the wind, pilots face a dynamic situation which differs with airport surrounds. AWS is only for your guidance, and all pilots need to get out and learn how to manage the weather from cues that exist at the time of operation.  The humble windsock can provide a lot of info - but it's little help if you fly straight-in approaches, or cut into the circuit on base, and lower than 1000agl to boot.

 

If you fly directly over the windsock which is relevant to the into the most into wind strip, you should be able to observe the lateral sock swing. The greater this is, and the speed at which it happens, will help you to judge the possible cross-wind variation.  Then, as you fly the circuit, or if you very sensibly fly an upwind, (ie, slower g/s), leg, you should be able to note the up/down sock movement, and the speed of that. This vertical 'flapping' will help you to anticipate the gustiness to expect in the flare.  Of course, there are other cues that you should seek out, such as waves on dams, tree movements, dust movements, and the 'ripple' effect of wind passing over older crops and ungrazed country.  Your instructor should be teaching you all this stuff during your navexs.

 

Managing wind and low level turbulence is helped by a pilot learning to fly the aircraft intuitively and always in balance - but with eyes outside and brain engaged.  Again, don't expect to be crosswind competent until you can manage in flight turbulence, at normal approach speeds, without fixating on instruments.  You have to use your feet, hands, eyes and brain to keep the aircraft in the required attitude and approach position - without getting yourself into a high risk out-of-balance situation.  Until a pilot can fly in balance - how on earth can we expect them to be able to employ çross-control' techniques to offset crosswinds?  It needs good instruction and lots of practice.

 

happy days,

Looking at the windsock over time is a good idea. Again, there was very little to no movement on final until late. 

I must say, RAAUS describing a pilot as being complacent and looking at his iPad is *really* rude. The pilot would be able to identify himself from the anecdote. 

2 hours ago, Student Pilot said:

A lot of overthinking going on. Just fly the aircraft..........

I completely disagree. a) How can it be overthinking to wonder why you ended up beside the runway and not over it?  b) Thinking about why you ended up over the grass instead of over the runway is part of the fun of flying. 

When you say that there is overthinking, are you suggesting that thinking about how come the aircraft ended up in the wrong spot is actually harmful? 

On 20/06/2021 at 8:17 AM, Thruster88 said:

I think we need to do some maths on this landing. If the 172 was in a steady 10knot crosswind without any pilot correction it would be moving sideways at 5m per sec, so 2 seconds to deviate the 10m.

 

If we do a myth busters type experiment were our cessna is mounted on a frictionless rail and subjected to a 10knot crosswind it would take 4 seconds to deviate 10m assuming it was able to accelerate to 10knots at the end of the 10m travel, unlikely. 

 

In 4 seconds the 172 on approach in the 17knot wind would cover about 110m. Would a sustained 10knot crosswind gust be possible in this situation,  I think it unlikely however it could have happened. My probable cause for the deviation, the pilot failed to apply correct and timely control input. I know it sounds harsh but I hope you take it in the spirit it is intended. 

 

In my private flying career I have done a lot of low level farm crop inspection type flying in a very light tail wheel thruster aircraft. Flying down tram tracks looking for weeds, slipping between the tracks 3m apart as quickly as possible just for fun. Flying down wind of a tree line like in the picture to feel the turbulence. Landing on narrow farm tracks. Doing down wind turns to experience the Visual illusion. Thousands of tail wheel landings. Has the wind ever moved me, no. Coming in to land now I feel very comfortable, I fly the aircraft. Always landing on and maintaining the centre line is satisfying. I am sorry if I sound like an a dick. Everyone should get a tail wheel endorsement, it will teach you about small timely control inputs. The Cessna 172 that I got my ppl in was destroyed by a "gust of wind". https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1998/aair/199800049/

 

Never stop learning.  

 

I don’t mind your comment in the least. I am actually grateful for it (really). One of the few benefits of being older is that I enthusiastically mention the mistakes I make, and ask him to make a mental not of them fir later. It was not a easy habit to get into. 

One instructor accused me of over controlling when I was sitting out a gust in cruise. And a few minutes before had told me to look on a map to find the hills that were 3500 ft high in front of us. They were 2500 ft but looked higher because that’s that they do. I did get shitty at him.  

The aircraft stayed wings level and was pointing pretty much straight ahead, so I’m not sure what control input would have caused that. (I would have expected to weathercock into a gust.) I could easily have taken four seconds to respond, as I was taken by surprise. It would have taken a while for the gust to accelerate the plane.

On a side note, with the accident report you mentioned that the pilot used aileron and did not mention pushing the yoke forward. One of my pet hates with instructing is that the tell people that if you pull back on the stick, the aircraft climbs. (Not an original pet hate, but I came up with it myself.)

I will quiz the instructor about my control inputs. They are as good as my other instructor who was a training captain in an airline. 

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Even big stuff allows for wind. BUT the wind is a smaller % of a planes target threshold speed if it stalls at over 100 knots, A pretty useful formula is ALL the gust and 1/2 the headwind component. . YOUR stall speed also varies with actual weight and Cof G position. Dumping flap will put more weight on the mainwheels with a tricycle gear but don't muck things up  doing it. Ground spoilers are much better when you have them..Flaps have drag if you are still airborne. Nev

That’s a lot more than I was told - just half the gust! 

The POH of the Foxbat says to land flapless if  the wind is over 16kt. I used to think of that as just being a cross wind thing. Now, I will think of it as any wind. 

I can see more why instructors are said to add a few kts to the book as a safety factor, even if it is a bad idea. Your speed has to decay somewhere, so it might as well be a foot off the ground, (even if it takes longer because ground effect decreases your drag). 

Thank you for the comments about thermals and eddies. 

Another day, another learning experience. Yesterday I was landing a C172 at the Gold Coast airport with my instructor. The runway was 32 and the wind was (IIRC) 310 and 17 kts. Gusts were not mentioned in the weather. I thought, "This will be easy, wind straight down the runway", and very little crabbing was required during final. When we were about 10 m in the air, we were suddenly blown about 10 m to the right. Almost exactly the same thing happened half an hour later when I was coming in to land at Archerfield. The wind at Archerfield felt more like 20 or 25, when I got out of the aircraft, rather than 15, FWIW.  

If I was at a very narrow strip I suppose I could have been blown into trees. It seems like another good reason to not land on the numbers, because if someone is waiting to line up, you could get blown into them. Does anyone know any meteorological way to know if there are going to be crosswind gusts as opposed to no gusts or gusts from the direction that the wind is supposed to be coming from? Do gusts, or gusts from right angles to the prevailing wind, become more common the stronger the wind is, say, greater than 15 kt? 

I went to a DAME for a medical and it will take CASA TWO MONTHS before the will look at the DAME’s results and consider issuing me a medical. And about six weeks before they look at my RPL application. Seems they are understaffed with people who do the work. 

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

It seems to me that almost any machine can be maintained to run indefinably - the limiting factor is usually cost (or cost effectiveness if you will).

 

Aesthetically I drool over many of the post WW2 light aircraft - but and its a big BUT, I can fly faster and cheaper in a current generation Rotax powered aircraft, than I ever could in the equivalent 30-76 year old two seater (even when they were new). Sadly it just comes down to economics.

 

Its very similar in the automotive world - beautiful cars/motorbikes of the past, lovingly restored/maintained by enthusiasts, for the most part just cant cut it as an economically viable daily commuter.

I would love a Mercedes 560SEL. But not to pay for the petrol.