APenNameAndThatA

22 minutes ago, cscotthendry said:

Yeah, He outsmarted me ... and himself!

Yeah, you fell for his not-interested-in-it ruse hook line and sinker. He should have been smug when you met him, not angry. 

I suspect that the answer is a definite "no", because preventative maintenance prevents breakdowns. On the other hand, maintenance is the most significant cause of engine stoppages in large Boeings (or was in the early 1990's.) Does anyone have any anecdotal evidence? One factor is that if manufacturing gets better and better (a big if), breakdowns and unscheduled maintenance would become less and less likely. On a related note, are there any particular gotchas for oil changes and 100 hourlies? 

On 07/06/2021 at 9:42 PM, F10 said:

Would be great to have Mogas at more airports or rather, small airfields with RA aircraft operations. Rotax discourage Avgas usage, because of led affecting the gearbox, and leaving led sludge in the oil. I hevesen on occasion led globules closing up plug gaps causing a misfire on Lycomings/Continentals (can clear sometimes by running at high power), but never heard of any other problems like oil sludge with regular aero engines? Another question, topping up your tanks (Mogas) with Avgas, to make it home, I guess that should not be a big issue?

You are allowed to mix mogas and av gas. I can’t remember the names of the things you add to remove the lead from fuel, but Rotax say they have not tested them but they don’t seem to cause problems. 

It was great. I got to request a code, just like the grownups. (3357, IIRC.) Later, I was told to contact tower on 118.7, the kind on hand holding that is usually reserved for airliners. Totally different from Class D. 1200 and 3000, my usual transponder codes, are so pleb. 🤷‍♂️

On 27/05/2021 at 8:22 PM, Thruster88 said:

I would argue that if you fly GA with caution and knowledge it can be very very safe. I just searched ATSB data base for 2017 accidents,  in PRIVATE flying there were 5 fatal accidents. They fitted into just three categories, running out of fuel, VFR into IMC and exceeding the envelope. All easily avoidable. 

 

Cessna 310 no fuel

Tobago angel flight vfr into imc OMG.

Cessna 172 vfr into imc

Grumman perth stalled

C210 in flight break up.

That is true. The Finer Points aviation podcast says to have *written* personal minimums. (I actually don’t) I wonder if it would be a good idea to have two sets of personal minimums, one for flying alone and one for flying with the family. For example, 15 kt crosswind alone, 7 kt flying with the family. So, for example, setting off and seeing how the cloud is would be okay flying alone, but below personal minimums for flying with the family. 

On 19/05/2021 at 3:12 PM, KRviator said:

The short answer, apparently, is "very".

 

So the back story is I didn't listen to the KRviatrix when she said "Build a -10!". Nope, I thought I knew better and built an RV-9...Well, two became 4 rather quickly and we need 4 seats, so I've been plane-shopping for the last year or so, asking the brains trust here of their opinions on the Cardinal and Comanche. But that's not the point...What bloke, whose missus gives permission to build an RV-10, builds an RV-9?!?🤬

 

 

I cant imagine you’ll like reading this. GA has a fatal accident every 100 000 hrs. If you fly 50 hrs a year, that’s 1/2000. The population-wide risk of a kid dying is about 1/2000 per year (but that includes stuff like cancer as well as accidents). So, if you fly, the kids’ risks double from 1/2000 to 1/1000. I have a two seater and fly with one kid at a time. There is no right answer, IMHO. 

It is a great book. I am about a quarter of the way through it. It is fascinating how the stability of airplanes has changed over the years.

I did not know, for example that the angle of zero lift tends to be at a negative angle of attack. Or that once upon a time, ailerons became completely ineffective before a stall. He said that some aircraft had a tendency to need the stick to be actively pushed forward as they approached a stall and that this was not good - he didn’t actually name Bristell. 

Also very quaintly sexist. 

This from wikipedia. 

Wolfgang Langewiesche (pronounced:long-gah-vee-shuh) (1907–2002) aviator, author and journalist, is one of the most quoted authors in aviation writing. His book, Stick and Rudder (1944), is still in print, and is considered a primary reference on the art of flying fixed-wing aircraft.

Born in Düsseldorf, Germany, in 1907, he migrated to America in 1929. He was a graduate of the London School of Economics and earned his master's degree from Columbia University. He was in a doctoral program in the University of Chicago when he decided to learn to fly and pursue a career in aviation.

Mr. Langewiesche wrote for Air Facts magazine, an aviation safety-related publication edited by Leighton Collins, and his articles were the basis for most of Stick and Rudder. The basic facts about flying that he emphasized in 1944 have withstood much criticism since then. Over 200,000 copies of the book had been printed by 1990.

He taught "Theory of Flight" to US Army aviation cadets in the ground school at the Hawthorne School of Aeronautics in Orangeburg, South Carolina, during World War II, and test flew F4U Corsairs for the Vought Corporation. He later worked for Cessna as a test pilot and contributed several articles for Flying magazine. In the 1950s he became Reader's Digest's roving editor, retiring in 1986.

His son, William Langewiesche, is also a well-known author, journalist and pilot with an award-winning career with the Atlantic Monthly and Vanity Fairmagazines.

7 hours ago, F10 said:

By "humanly possible", I meant well within the standards required of the MOS61 requirement in terms of speed, altitude and heading accuracy. Within the standards any reasonable instructor would consider sufficient during a BFR. Perhaps this was not clear.

“Humanly possible” and “Within the standards  any reasonable instructor would consider sufficient” are two phrases that almost mean the opposite of each other. 

And I don’t fully get the idea of agreeing with a rule and being frustrated by it and wanting it changed. 

Of course you are more than competent to fly the Gazelle with less than five hours instruction. 

That is all.

On 05/05/2021 at 10:25 PM, F10 said:

 Recently I purchased a Skyfox Gazelle in a 50/50 partnership with a good mate. We've operated on a tight budget..., but have had huge fun, getting her going, 5 year rubber kit, annual servicing, were bursting to go flying! I am also well aware, this is all thanks to the existance of RAAus,awesome! However.... Despite 6500 Hrs total flight time, CPL(A), Grade III instructor raring (over 2000 hrs ab initio flight instruction) types such as C150/2, Diamond 40, CT4, to name a few, yet I need to pay for 5 hours training to fly my "low innertia" aircraft. I've done 1.3hours dual, 1hr solo and with my experience, I'm flying the Gazelle as safely and accurately as is humanly possible. Surely....an RAAus instructor could assess when I'm safe....5 hours?? My syndicate partner is not current, has a basic licence, so must stay within 20nm. He will hopefully do his BFR this weekend. After this, hes able to act as PIC. I can fly with him, but only as pax, as I'm still not "qualified". (Great he's PIC, Ive got NO issue with that at all), but is it me, or does that seem a bit ludicrous? Is my frustration understandable? Would be interesting to hear from other CPL's?

The obvious point is that if you are extremely qualified then the rules are not made for people like you. The rules are made for the 99.95% of pilots who are less skilled than you. You should know that so, from this perspective your frustration is not understandable.  

Apparently there are two types of practice, normal practice and so-called deliberate practice. Deliberate practice is where you practice by doing something that is currently beyond your skill level. Doing that increases your skill level. (Normal practice is where you just practice, like someone who does something for years without ever improving.)

I don’t believe that you are flying your Gazelle as accurately as humanly possible. If that were true then you would literally be the best Gazelle pilot in the world. Time on type is a predictor of safety, and you hardly have any. Do you really think that if you had 6000 hrs with your Gazelle that you would be no better at flying it than you are now? 

If you are flying your Gazelle as accurately as humanly possible then that means that you have not attempted any exercises that require accuracy. How have your chandelles, lazy eights, pylon eights, spiral turns and turning stalls gone? What does your Gazelle do if you stall simulating a skidding turn onto final? Is it even legal to find out?

What is the maximum angle of attack that you can sustain to land as slowly as possible exactly where you intend to land? Will you get a tail strike? What is the performance of your Gazelle if you are at height, full power, full flaps and flying as slowly as possible? How do you go simulating a slow short field approach using brief rudder inputs to maintain directional control and longer rudder inputs to maintain wings level (or is it the other way around?) thereby avoiding use of ailerons close to a stall? 

You do not have enough time in a Gazelle to answer these questions. The commercial manoeuvres are designed to increase safety. You haven’t even attempted them in a Gazelle, so it is not possible for you to reasonably state that you are flying as safely and accurately as humanly possible.

Obviously you are a vastly better and more experienced pilot than I am. I am not intending to suggest that the questions I ask reflect on my skill or the skill that you should have before you get a certificate. My answer is a literal answer to the questions you took the time to ask.  

17 hours ago, F10 said:

Yes I've noticed a drop off in aircraft sales/adverts and general activity in some areas...hopefully this is covid related. Here at Yarram we have a great core of enthusiasts, always someone around for a laugh and chat. Seems to always be an aircraft ot two buzzing around. We've recently got our Gazelle up and running..grassroots aviation is alive and well at Yarram!

If there are fewer airplane ads, might not that mean that demand is up and supply is down? 

On 27/04/2021 at 3:41 PM, kgwilson said:

Check out Dan Gryders "Probable Cause" account of this failure. It is raw and tells it as he sees it and I reckon he is right on the money.

 

 

I had no idea they were such idiots. 

On 28/04/2021 at 11:17 PM, onetrack said:

They were darn lucky the powerlines and pole gave some amount, and that they didn't go directly nose-down, into terra firma. Powerlines have killed a lot of aviators.

 

And just having the powerlines so close to the airstrip, is some pretty stupid planning. 

 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/08/warning-video-of-plane-crash-contains.html

The report said that the power pole was 27’ high and 360’ feet from the end of the runway. That’s an angle of 4.3 degrees. Most light aircraft (as opposed to LSA’s) approach at 3 degrees. Unbelievable. 

On 29/04/2021 at 12:41 PM, facthunter said:

Takes a bit of force to rip off a DC6  set of wheels. He was too low all the way in and the runway looks as if stopping would have been difficult anyway. It's bloody short. Nev

Funny you should mention that. The runway length was 3880 ft and the landing distance for a DC6 is apparently 2600 to 4000 feet. 

On 28/04/2021 at 7:24 PM, APenNameAndThatA said:

I don’t understand why they approached at an angle to the runway? There was no wind. 

The runway has a bend in it. Why didn’t I think of that

One good thing is that you can cut the throttle while you are working out what is going on. It is the first step for spins and spirals. (Disclaimer: I have 120 hours.)

Next, check the airspeed. If is fast, level your wings with the AH. (or turn indicator or DG). If it is slow,  stop the turn with your feet. (I'm saying this to myself more than you all. Mental rehearsal.) 

On 29/04/2021 at 10:56 AM, spacesailor said:

SO !

A Nissan Micro, having a headon smash with a Toyota LandCruiser, will hurt thse in the Big Toyota MORE.

NOT

From what lv,e witnessed, those little cars Fold all the way back to the rear seats.

Front or rear crash. They just dont hold together well.

In Saudi Arabia, those small cars Are BANNED from their roads, for saftey,s sake.

spacesailor

There is no need to straw man people on this website. No one even hinted that hitting a LC with a Micra would hurt the LC more. It is hard enough to have a sensible discussion on here as it is. 

Wow. Is the plane lighter now? Do the planes with the yokes like that have more room under the yoke for your knees? 

I don’t understand why they approached at an angle to the runway? There was no wind. 

13 hours ago, Yenn said:

While we are discussing the Sport Pilot, have a look at the next article. The physics of a good landing.

There is some good info here in the last paragraph, but as so often happens the use ofa load of technical gobbledegook  takes up a lot of soace and does very little except convince ma that the author may know what he is talking about, but he can't explain it.

He uses the term velocity along with several other letters in the diagrams, but doesn't put it in a coherent way, at least as far as I can see.

Velocity is as far as I know speed and direction, so what I think he means by velocity is speed, but to him velocity sounded much more up market.

How you can square speed and directiion I do not know, at least to come up with a usable number for his equation.

It all boils down to speed control and descent rate. Get the speed right, get the sight picture as you descend correct, that is your aim point should appear not to move up or down ahead of you, then that last paragraph advice to look at the end of the runway.

I thought nosewheel aircraft were supposed to be easy to land. How would the author go in an RV6.

Could anyone re write this article in an improved format, using less words? I think so.

I have only read the vectors section. I understood it only because I already knew the information from before I started learning to fly. It would have been better if it had stuck to two dimensions and said that any vector had an X and Y component, and had a picture. You would have understood that because you already know that any wind can be divided into a head/tail and cross wind component. 

I did not find the article supportive of the card. It provided me with information that I thought was helpful: it’s not an access card, watch where you walk, and people are obliged to dob on you, and you have to renew every two years. I didn’t know any of that.

It seemed to imply that you could not or should not apply for one for fun, but if you fly into security-controlled airports for fun, you will need one. 

5 minutes ago, walrus said:

an obstacle isn't an obstacle unless its covered by fire.

Words to live life by. Were any of your instructors Buddhists? Are you able to come up with enough quotes to write a book entitled Zen of the Army?

Beautiful looking bench and workspace. 

44 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

Mike if you don’t want to drink a whole bottle of good wine in one session, just squirt a little CO2 into it from a Soda Stream and cap it tell the next night.

Stops things oxidising because on oxygen? 

18 minutes ago, RFguy said:

Great description OME.

The correct bits, the last two paragraphs, come from Wikipedia.