APenNameAndThatA

To answer your question, stalls scare the s--- out of me. I am worried that if I had to correct one in real life that I would freeze - which means that it is a bit tricky practicing them on my own! I am perfectly aware that they are safe. I might try correcting them by easing the control column forward without worrying about using the rudder to keep the wings level. That might stop me worrying that if I don't keep the wings level I will spin. And die. Frozen. 

I read about the Fly Better books by Noel Kruse on these forums, but want to amplify how good they are. Because they come as a (free) down loadable PDF, they are easy to put on an iPhone and listen to with NaturalReader Pro or similar. I have half way through the first of four books. Just by listening to the book, I have been able to picture in my mind just how Dutch roll works - something that I had given up ever understanding or picturing in my mind's eye.

And if you plot the rectangular area from a point on the speed-drag curve, you have described the power required. Obvious, now it is mentioned. 

And if you have wind blowing over a church spire, you can view the situation as the church spire moving through the body of air. Obvious, too, but when I first thought of it, it did my head in. That means that next time I am sideslipping to the left, coming in to land, I can view myself as moving to the left through the air mass to catch up to the runway which is also moving through the air mass to the left. (But, TBH, this way of thinking about things does lose its utility when gusts come into play. Or does it? If the wind suddenly stopped, that would be, from my point of view, a gust from the right and the runway suddenly stopping moving. The problem is, why would the runway stop moving just because there was a gust from the right. The answer might be that, from the reference point of the wind, my aircraft was suddenly jerked to the right, for no reason.)  

In spite of the above, I think that he will very much emphasise *practicable* flying. I just havn't got far enough into the books. 

He seems to land almost on all three wheels, much faster than a full stall. And therefore not protect his nose wheel at all. (Disclaimer: I have 40 hrs total time.) 

I’ve got a Prusa Mark 3S that I got as a kit and have become a bit of a Maker-Nerd I guess. 

 

I’ve  used it for some Jabiru based stuff but nothing structural or requiring absolute strength. Some are pretty basic due to my just learning.

 

I just use TinkerCAD to design things and the Slicer program that comes with the printer to make the guide files that the printer itself needs.

 

 I have tried Fusion 360 CAD program but Fusion 360 is pretty intensive learning and requires a lot of getting used to. so I tend to just stay with TinkerCAD which is a simple free online CAD designed for school kids. It’s About my level! ?

 

So my list of bits: 

 

Dash bits - Instrument hole blanking plug

 

                    Small plate to hold USB extension plug from the sky view. 

 

Clips to hold sun visor up when not in use. Headphone cradle for the control/battery box on my Light speed Zulus

 

Camera mount for my 360 Fly “ball” camera on the vertical stabiliser. 

 

There’s not a lot of things I’ve made for the Jabiru specifically compared to other stuff in the workshop or round the house because I’ve been worried about structural strength. 

 

Some have to be heat resistant if they are going to be permanent in the cabin. 

 

ABS plastic has the highest melting temps of the simple,  easy to use plastics and is used for some motor vehicle parts but I’ve seen some examples where even they have melted so I’ve been a bit careful. 

 

I’d be keen to see what other makers/jab owners/pilots have done and extend my experience. 

 

That is impressive. 

Wouldn’t a milling machine be a better idea? Been around for decades and don’t make things out of the crappest plastic known to humankind? 

Yes Nev, the use of aircraft has declined as roads have got better. A good example is Hermannsburg near Alice Springs.

 

These days, the airfield is overgrown as the 40k is easier handled by a car.

 

But as regards the availability of doctors in the country, I will disagree that it is inevitable at all.

 

We could graduate as many doctors as you could imagine. Their scarcity is entirely contrived .

 

I was once on a committee which wanted to enable some more " straight A" students to be enabled to go into medicine but we were stymied by the Commonwealth who were wanting to reduce their medibank payments, as well as funding to  the universities.

 

That is exactly what happened. The government deliberately restricted the number of medical students in Australia to reduce costs. When that blew up, we imported a huge number of international doctors. 

I considered posting this story under the title "Fraser Islands plane crash caused by drunk fisherman!"

 

The statement about the frequency of sand bogging is going to do nothing to improve the operators insurance premiums.

 

Denied insurance means no premiums at all. Who would provide cover for that? 

Karren, I  flew the Cheerokee 140 when it first came out because I had to.  and a lot of time in the C-150 which you could  easily land in two tennis court lengths when you flew it a lot. All my initial flying was on the DHC-1 Chipmunk and the DH-82A Tiger Moth. Ground effect is a height  (of the wing)v/s wingspan thing so any low wing will have an advantage, all other things being equal. The Fowler flap on the highwing Cessna's, with considerable washout on the wings, makes them a pretty accomplished plane in this area. ALL planes need accurate control on Landing and any time you have excess speed you run the risk of having the nosewheel contact first which can rapidly ruin your day.. Landing fast is a bad habit people get at places with long runways. Nev

 

I'd never made the connection before: the faster you come in, the lower you AOA and the more likely you are to bang the nose wheel. Thanks.

Hats off to them. I think that they are far too bright to be bogans. Doing something like that surely is not easy. It is one step short of building your own flying machine with the pilot just beneath the rotors. 

Fascinating. I thought that the Wirraway was an Australian design. I wonder if the Spitfire and Hurricane were too complex to build under licence? Edit: that was the Boomerang, 1942-45. 

There are stipulated weather minimums for ALL operations  ( Ceiling and RVR. Runway Visual Range) Taking off is never an absolute (unless the tide is coming in or The  Indians coming over the hill, or the grass is on fire behind you.. It's never "I must get home for  work tomorrow" or such non urgent issues. That's part of the Human Factors consideration. I know HF has become a dirty word but that's because it generally was done in a poor way..  If you once had a rotten apple you don't stop eating apples. You get better apples. Nev

 

I am fine with HF training. From my point of view, the problem with AF's solution is that more training will not help. All pilots know not to be emotionally pressured into flying in bad weather. Six-monthly training about how to say "no" to people might work, but AF's solution seemed to be just more intensive training when people are given their qualifications. 

The ATSB handling of the data, such as they are, doesn't match up with real life numbers such as hours flown. I tend to 'agree' with AF that some invalid conclusions were drawn from it.  However, perception is reality as far as the general public is concerned and I think the era of VFR AF activities is about to close.

 

Based on a '7x higher probability', the ATSB should have been calling for an immediate cessation of all VFR AF flights.  Instead, they have obfuscated, dithered, and concluded with a report that really does not address the root causes of these accidents. Frankly, PPLs should not be placed in a position where they are possibly going to initiate an AF flight when all the indicators say it just isn't doable in VFR. CPLs with a CIR are really what AF need, and the sooner they accept it - the better.  We can't rely on teaching existing pilots more human factors etc etc: many are already quite resistant to any behaviour education, and are going to take risks no matter what. Look at how many LL accidents and incidents still occur - despite huge promotional efforts to prevent it. Same with VFR into IMC.

 

A plague on both their houses. There is no way that extra human factors training is a good idea. My life is too short to work out if the ATSB cooked the books, but looks like they could have. 

I still think a dispatching system of some type would be the best way to avoid VFR into IMC accidents. I doubt there are enough instrument qualified pilots but might be wrong. 

As someone who deals in stats (and trying to see through dodgy ones frequently), on a daily basis I too am pretty cynical about this announcement. 

 

How does two crashes in 10 years get morphed into any useable statistic. It’s just noise in the background from a statistical point of view. 

 

This is clearly CASA just grabbing at dodgy figures and throwing them out in the media to hopefully blind everyone to their knee jerk reaction. 

 

Sounds like like the  jabiru engine fiasco all over again. 

 

You might be right - it sounds like you are. The actual report does have a section about statistical significance. I would be interested to know what you think. 

The late night pessimist in me thinks the doctor couldn't make as much money that way......

 

I should have been more clear. The patient and and GP could have skyped the specialist from the GP's office. 

I was surprised to read that Angel Flight said that it was CASA who regulated things and not to blame them (Angel Flight), *and* they lobbied CASA to not regulate them or their pilots more fully! 

It seems that the problem is pilots feeling pressure and taking off into dicey weather. The obvious solution would be for a dispatcher of some type being involved. Perhaps volunteer flying instructors could have pilots describe the weather and etc to them and sign off on the trip. That would give the pilots an out. Or Angel Flight could do that themselves. There would be insurance issues to consider. 

One of the people who died had juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. That could have been managed by a GP and Skype I would have thought. 

On ABC News Web Page 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-13/atsb-releases-findings-into-fatal-angel-flight-crash/11407294

That would explain the talks about being much more strict with Angel Flights. I don't know about the statistical significance of the difference and have not read the original report. 

 It would actually be more dangerous to have them doing a full circuit or even a partial one. (More time to tangle). The main trouble is with them taking a downwind when other's don't or can't safely do one.  I did put a big PROVIDED on my last comment. Having non radio planes mixing with RPT is pretty ridiculous  When we had no radio procedures Lights at the tower, everyone knew all about them.. Nev

 

As someone else said, RPT should be doing a 1500 ft circuit and that should keep them out of the way, and everyone should have a radio at such a field. 

On the other hand, I do worry that someone (I) might “overfly” a field at 1500 when the field is big enough for planes that circuit at 1500. 

I don’t see how a RPT and a small aircraft will tangle at an airport. Their circuits are in different places... except on final where all the other manoeuvring will decrease the risk of a collision. 

———-

I only just found out that final is where 80% of collisions in the circuit occur. Seems that having  a highwing with transparent doors will help: I will be able to see to the right during gentle left turns. 

Also, my plane descends at about 450 ft/min at 60kts, about a 9 degreed angle of descent. I don’t think anyone will be descending on top of me on final. I will need to be looking around more, not just looking at the airspeed and the piano keys. 

Also, I just found out that many collisions occur when a slow plane (me) is being overtaken. I need to look behind myself on downwind, particularly to the right (left circuit)

————-

Sorry about the irritated comment. I take that back. 

It's a tax dodge and it pays for his hobby.  If entry into the museum was free, we'd still be paying too much if we knew how much we've paid already.

 

Tax dodges can’t pay for hobbies. You only get back 30 or ? 47c back per dollar. 

I have always liked straight in approaches. I can cut the power at 5000' and glide all the way to touchdown and have done so many times, but the danger is in relying on wireless to find who is in the circuit. If you don't hear anyone in the circuit, that is a good start, but then you have to keep a really good lookout. Most of the traffic will be in front of you at the start of your approach, easy to spot, especially as they will be below you and stand out as moving objects. As you get closer the risk comes from the live side of the circuit and increases greatly. Here is where the goldfish bowl canopy of the Corby or RV really shines. The really hard aeroplane to spot is the other one also doing a straight in and in my case I would most likely descend onto a faster plane. That plane should be able to see me, but I wouldn't guarantee it. Especially if it was a C182 or something similar.

 

According to the book The Killing Zone, “Eighty percent of traffic pattern midairs happen on final when the pilot’s complete concentration is on the upcoming landing.” That means that by avoiding the circuit, you skip where 20% of collisions take place and increase the risk where 80% of collisions take place. I’m pretty sure that means that you thereby increase your risk of collision. It is recommended that people don’t do straight-in landings. It irritates me when people come up with procedures that are ‘improvements’ in standard procedures. Disclaimer: 35 hrs total time. 

 

Hmm... please don't judge me, but I am not wanting to start singling people out.  Aviation is a small community, and I don't want to get labelled as a trouble maker.  I asked these questions as I was truly curious as to how much of this goes on.  Was it common practice.  Stupid Practice. Rare, or otherwise.

 

It certainly makes me nervous when I myself am using that airfield.   Just again last week... I had just landed and was taxiing back when I say another GA plane ready to enter the runway.  No taxi calls etc. As I taxied, I made a bet with my Pax that there would be no radio call.  Sure as sh%t he turned on to the runway and blasted off in complete silence.

 

There are no landing fees here either - so it has me baffled at the amount of radio silence.

 

AOPA says that the hazardous attitudes are being antiauthority, impulsivity, invulnerability, macho and resignation. They said that resignation was when someone does not do something because it feels too hard and/or one is exhausted. The writer used the example of being impaired because he felt airsick and using the wrong runway. 

I, myself, think that 'agreeableness' would be just as good a word as 'resignation'. To be completely frank, not speaking up to the pilot and CASA are examples of resignation. It is letting a dangerous situation persist because speaking up is difficult and conflict is unpleasant. 

A while ago I was doing circuits and was on downwind when a low-wing glider tug entered the same downwind a little above me and a little in front of me. (By "a little", I mean about two meters in front of me and 20 m above/to the right.) Towing a tow rope! I told CASA. I told the gliding club, who seem to be taking it seriously. Sure, I feel a bit of shame at dobbing, and a bit anxious that I have cut my own throat, but duty is duty. F---- that! Furthermore, I radioed the tug to say that he was above me on downwind and he did not even reply!

I will make straight  in approach or base join whenever possible. AWIS allows the wind to be known and we have radios.

 

Others that do this are, every ag pilot(often with a tail wind), the freight plane, Rex and Qantas link, the flying school and others.

 

The less time I can spend in the circuit the better, it is a dangerous place.    

 

My understanding of the rules is that straight-in landings are legal but discouraged. That means that the best thing to do would be to join downwind, from the active side of the dead side. Disclaimer: 35 hrs total time. 

So many people turn back after an engine failure shortly after takeoff and crash. They are better pilots than me and would have known that lots of people die after attempting to turn back after an early engine failure. The temptation to turn back must be overwhelming, and not something that is/can be trained for. 

I think you got the MTOW wrong; it's 472.5kg not 742kg

 

The original post said 742 kg or about 1600 lb. As others have said, the payload is not competitive - even if the empty weight really is as stated. 

Empty weight of 270 kg, max weight of 742 kg and “rugged construction” seem a fantasy-land combination, especially with that narrow tail boom, strutless wings and sculpted glasshouse. Still a nice looking aircraft. 

Yep, a Kodiak or Caravan would be great, but the up front price is between $1 and 2 million.

 

Warren Buffet doesn’t own a Corporate Jet any more. He just bought an executive jet company and rents one to himself when he needs it.

 

A really well managed corporate/ charter aircraft is working 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and that’s how they amortize the cost.

 

As someone mentioned, this is an RA site so not a lot of GA operations experience, but some good advice has come up nevertheless. Another option is opportunism. I had to fix a warranty problem on a new truck in Kununurra one time. The call came in on Friday afternoon.   On Monday morning the Darwin dealer called me to say he’d fixed the problem. He’d taken his tool box and hopped a ride with a ****** staff plane taking crews to work on the Sunday. They dropped him off, delivered the crew then picked him up on the way back. Cost $0

 

1 to 2 million would be the price of a DA62, if a new Cirrus 22 is almost a million.