APenNameAndThatA

On 17/10/2020 at 11:22 AM, old man emu said:

Theoretically, quite so, but it depends on where the centre of mass of the fuel load is in relation to the CofG of the aircraft, and also the weight loss from fuel burn in 30 minutes at 75% power. 

 

If one accepts that altitude would have changed, would that negate a search for the reason for the altitude change? Would not discovering a dud magneto be the result of that search?

That's about 7 kg of fuel. So, your question is wrong. People keep mentioning the wind because it is the correct answer.

There is one fatal accident per 100 000 hours. So, if you fly 50 hours per year, you have a one in 2000 chance of dying. The baseline rate of deaths for middle aged people is about 1 in 1000 per year. The baseline rate of deaths for kids is about 1/2000. So, if you regularly take your kids flying, and they die, its probably going to be in your airplane. 
 

The road toll is rightly a big concern. IIRC, It is the number one killer of people in their early 20’s... and it is much much safer than flying RAAus. 
 

So a) RAAus could do with being safer, and b)  this is nothing to do with the straw man of saying people say that every flight is a flight into catastrophe. 🙄

It turns out aerobatic pilots wear helmets for hitting their head in flight, not when they crash. Who knew? 
 

The poor student. A really close call through no fault of their own. 

Suppose you are trimmed and flying along. Eventually, your aircraft will become lighter. Does the aircraft maintain the speed it is trimmed for and gain height? 

12 hours ago, old man emu said:

This paragraph has got to be what was misunderstood. I described an initial situation where the aircraft had been set up in cruise configuration and the things that indicated that the set up was correct were checked and found correct - just after take off.

 

In some of my replies I mentioned that the pilot was flying TIBMIN. My mistake was in using an obscure acronym, (Thumb in bum, mind in neutral) implying that the pilot was carefree and enjoying the flight. So it is possible that the pilot was not being scrupulous in monitoring the instruments. It does happen.

 

So after a not so long period, the pilot sees where the plane is and finds that it is not where he expected it to be. After eliminating external factors affecting airspeed, the question was meant to turn attention to aircraft systems, and I thought that losing one magneto would be a pretty obscure cause. Homing in on that required a knowledge of aircraft systems. Sure, a lot of people went straight to the ASI, but failed to eliminate it by a logical process. But they stopped there. 

 

I even said  in response to an very early reply that attributing the cause to an ASI fault was not the answer. Thruster suggested loss of power and I said he was on the right track. Nobody took that up.

 

I know I have learned a lot from this about how people read and comprehend stuff. I ran what I had written through a style analyser and it concluded that the content would be comprehensible to a Year 6 student. 

 

How much wood

Would a wood chuck chuck

If a wood chuck could chuck wood?

A trimmed aircraft would have list heigh, not speed. 🙄

The real value in this question was working out where it is wrong. The question states “the aircraft was trimmed nicely”. Aircraft are trimmed for speed, not altitude. Therefore, if the engine lost power, the aircraft would lose height, not speed. For a trimmed aircraft to lose speed but not height, it must have lost power AND have a trim problem. So, it was a systems problem after all! OME wins! 
 

Well, he would have, if he had told tge readers to ignore wind. The forecast and lack of turbulence are, of course, nonsensical nonsense. 

So, the answer should have been. "Check to see if you are no longer at 75% power, your revs dropped or you are flying slower than normal".

No knowledge of systems was required to do the first step and check if you are flying slower than normal.

S T U P I D

If you are maintaining 75% power, like the question says, then it will be wind. I suppose the answer you want is to check for carburetor ice.

I've got $10 that says that this is going to be nonsense.

182 RG? *Technically*, just because a plane is $10k more than it was does not mean it is bad value.

16 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Not at all. The way CASA have created the RPL, it is effectively an RPC but a CASA licence. In my opinion a waste of time as all your RPC time and endorsements (partially) can be cross credited towards a PPL. The RPL is just a way to fly GA aircraft the same way as you would fly a RA aircraft other than CTR endorsements. If you train for an RPC in CTR you can fly solo there but you still need a Class 2. If the intent is to get your PPL you may as well get your RPC as it will cost a lot less and you will fly modern aircraft & then just do the extras for the PPL at the higher cost in old dungas.

That was me being wrong. But if you have a Class 1 or Class 2 medical, you can fly above 10 000 ft

Flightscope Aviation at Archerfield works for me.

9 hours ago, kgwilson said:

You can only take 1 passenger with an RPL and the MAUW is 1500 kg. You can only fly solo at night under instruction and you can't exceed 10,000 feet. If you get a class 2 medical then you can take more than 1 passenger. Endorsements are RPFR, RPNA, RPCT & RPCA, (radio, Navs, Controlled aerodrome and Controlled airspace).

 

The RPL was originally created in the UK, US, Canada & NZ to allow ageing pilots to still fly when they may not be able to maintain a Class 2 medical back in the early 2000s but were medically able to drive a car. You could only carry 1 passenger and not fly at night. Simple. The medical requirements allow self certification. 

 

CASA procrastinated for another 10 years and came up with the uniquely Australian RPL with all the dumb rules and you need a heavy truck medical which is almost as complex and difficult to obtain as a class 2.

I think that you might be mixing up RPL with RPC. RA-Aus give people *certificates* so they can fly LSA's. RPL is a licence, issued by CASA, that allows you to fly a GA aircraft, but still with only one passenger. I think that if things go well, going from RPC, to RPL to PPL will be cheaper than starting with RPL and then going to a PPL. 

So... Airedales had a nasty reputation for lacking rudder authority? No? Didn't think so.

The Lincoln project was formed by Republicans who hate trump. Sure Trump sucks. My big concern is that both sides of US politics have lost their way. The Dems selected Joe Biden who has age-related cognitive decline as far as I can tell (i.e. early dementia), and they failed to condemn the looting and destruction that took place with the BLM protests. Both moves were insane.

Looks like inattention with or without panic.

An interesting question.

 

My aircraft's manual says that heavy rain can abrade the prop (carbon fibre) and that exposure to heavy rain should be avoided. On the other hand Boly's web site says their props treated with DuraTuff , which mine is, make waterborne operations possible."

 

I landed recently in reasonably heavy rain (approaching VFR minima) and also heard water splashed up by the wheels on the bitumen runway going through the prop, just after touchdown. No sign of any abrasion. I had only been in the rain for about 7 minutes, as it was a local shower pictured in the attached photo.

 

At normal cruise (60kt), the prop is doing about 1900rpm.

 

The next day, the seats were still rather wet and I had to go for a fly to blow dry the trike. :big_grin:

 

* Attached photo is Copyright David Hunt 2011.

 

[ATTACH alt=IMG_8906_DxO800.jpg]11291[/ATTACH]

I'll stick my neck out and say that that photo is of rain from convection and that abrasion of the prop is the last thing you should have been worried about. If you want to fly through rain, fly through rain from stratus clouds.

I don't buy the idea that lap sash belts should used in aircraft because four point harnesses because of the extra time it takes. The preflight means that going flying will always take vastly longer than hopping in a car. There is just no comparison. I think that GA aircraft have lap sash belts because the old ones were certified 50 years ago, and the new ones wanted to be fashionable.

I only just learned that apparently the reason aerobatic pilots wear helmets is the risk of banging their head when they do aerobatics. It's not actually for when they crash. In Flying once I read about a pilot who hit her head in mountain turbulence but was okay because she was wearing a mountaineering helmet! The take-home message is that four-point harnesses are for turbulence as well as crashes. And the other take-home message is that you should tighten the lap belt low and tight around your hips.

As for aircraft not having a place to anchor the top seatbelts, well, you need to get an aircraft with a roof.

I admire you, but you can fly that by yourself.

So don't do it. We fly for fun and no one is forcing you to do it. Just remember that there are plenty of people who do it, regularly and enjoy it. There are also others that would never fly in an aircraft powered by a 2 stroke or one that is not certified. Don't impose your own perception of risk and reward onto others....

He didn't impose his anything on anyone, FFS.

I wouldn't contemplate NVFR without a twin, or assisted power options (battery+EDF), or parachute . How the hell are you going to see the powerlines and the creeks and fences for your outfield emergency landing ?

Reply

Night VFR will always be more dangerous than day VFR.

I think that you are better off with an electronic log book. I use LogTen Pro. Make sure you back it up.

The best solution that I am aware of is to wear foam ear plugs and an ANR headset. If you have a passenger, they will need to wear the earplugs too, or the required volume from the intercom might be too different for each of you. The best foam earplugs are the ones that are cylindrical, and coloured yellow or beige. The earplugs that are are rounded at one end, like a bullet, distort the sound as well as reduce it. I suggest that you wear a type in the car and see if they distort the radio. I prefer to wear earplugs and ANR headphones. The radio and intercom are still able to be more than loud enough.

I think that you could add a lot of heavy sound insulation and not affect the sound levels in the cabin at all. The slightest gap in sound insulation nullifies the effect. If the noise is coming from the propeller tips, the noise would come straight through the windscreen. If you insulated the firewall, engine noise would come straight through the cowel and then the windscreen. You would need to soundproof the cowel. I would not even try.

They way he rammed the throttle forward, when stuff had already gone wrong suggested to me that he was trying to cut the power. Also, he was pulling back on the yoke, which *might* have meant that he had previously ridden a horse. I don't think he did it to take weight off the front wheel! When I started to fly, the instructor pointed out to me that the throttle worked the opposite way to a tractor. It was important that they told me that because I was able to make a note about what muscle memory might have me do. Panic is debilitating. I once froze in a 4WD driving down hill, and pilots have frozen at the controls...