GraemeK

Belated congrats Darky, well done!!! (finally the system let me reply!)

Interesting stuff Sirius! Seems the law is open to "interpretation"! There are two relevant regulations, both in the CARs: s2 (7) (d) (iv) which deems aerial photography "where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted" to be private operations. s206 (1) (a) (iv) which deems aerial photography to be aerial work and hence a "commercial purpose" and therefore requiring an AOC. We need Darky to interpret "on whose behalf" I guess. So, Dick Smith takes a few snaps out the window, bungs them in a book and sells them. IANAL, but he's probably in the clear, because he's taking the piccies for himself not on behalf of someone else. Mr Rudd might be different, if the local estate agent asked him to get some aerial shots of a property and he received payment - because he's taking the pics on someone else's behalf. Short answer - while the law may be an ass, you can't take aerial photos for reward.

Before 9/11, I spent many times up front in 747's for take-offs and landings (mostly on short hops, with only Capt/FO - otherwise the SO's normally grabbed the spare seats as you'd expect). Lots of fun, and some "interesting" landings and in fact that's what got me interested in flying. Sadly, now that's changed. But I'm sure if you asked you could visit the flight deck after the flight subject to operational requirements etc - if the crew's busy, forget it but I've done it a few times when they've got a bit of time.

I'll go the 335 - IIRC a couple were shipped back to the US after the war?

I think Dornier built a push-pull twin in the 40's??

Another one is Irfanview. You can either resize to particular pixel dimensions or a file size.

If you're just going to get one book, the best bang for your buck is the Dyson-Holland "RA-Aus Pilot Certificate Ground Training Manual" - it covers everything you need to know to pass the exams, and has good practice questions. If you work your way through it as they suggest, you should have no troubles passing the exams. If you want to learn more than the bare minimum, then the ATC or Bob Tait books are good - ATC is more comprehensive but a more difficult read, Bob Tait very user-friendly.

Welcome aglee - good to see your long term ambition starting to come to fruition! I started out flying when I was 60, and I met a guy today at Lilydale taking his first trial flight at 80, so it's never too late!

Document is here!

Well done Gomer! And many thanks for sharing your experiences with us - for me, it has both been entertaining and reassuring! Cheers

FL650 I hope - unless you're with NASA :) Great vid DD :thumb_up:

Yep, my thinking entirely. Let's take the example of encountering windshear at VREF in the Jab (63kt) with full flaps (VS0 = 48kt) at 50 feet. The trade-off between potential and kinetic energy is 9 feet per knot, per hundred knots. So, haul back on the stick as hard as you can until you reach stall speed. That's a speed reduction of 15kt, so you've gained 70 or 80 feet, but now you're stalled. Plus you've lost a fair bit of height anyway because of the sink. So there you are, at around 100 feet or so, stalled and falling faster than ever. That throttle is starting to look like a good option! But, as I said before, I reckon the two techniques in practice are much of a muchness - on final you're constantly making small adjustments to power and attitude, almost instinctively - so whatever suits you best! For mine, I find it helps me to think of the elevator as the speed control - because it may just prevent me trying to just pull back on the stick when what I really need is more power. BTW - I'm not saying you should never take advantage of your speed to quickly gain some height - one example could be "jumping" over an obstruction in a deadstick landing

Great discussion here, took me a while to catch up after being away for a while. First, I reckon it all ends up the same, it's just the way you think about it. Way I was taught, if I'm undershooting the aim point, I add power first to control altitude, then exert back pressure to maintain my approach speed. If I'm too fast, I exert back pressure to slow down, and reduce power to maintain glidepath. The alternative method does the same thing, except in reverse. On undershoot, pull back on stick to maintain altitude, add power to hold airspeed. If too fast, drop power to slow down, pull back to maintain altitude. Same thing. But the mental process is quite different. I prefer the way I was trained because I reckon we need to think always about energy management. If we are too low (ie low potential energy) then the only sustainable way to increase our height is to add energy from the engine - the elevators just won't cut it (you can only trade off so much kinetic energy for height before you stall). So in the back of my mind, I'm always thinking that way. The other day, I struck major sink on short final, nearly at the fence. So I applied a decent burst of power instinctively, as a result of my mindset. But to be honest I was shocked at the really strong temptation to just haul back on the stick with the ground coming up so close - I even commented to my instructor that I was surprised at how I almost had to fight it. Had I been taught the other way, my instinct might have been to go for the stick - not a lot of time to react or think, and not a good idea at low speed 50 feet off the ground! I'm not sure about other schools, but at ours roughly 4 RAAus instructors teach power for altitude, and one t'other way. My instructor explained both to me, however.

Believe it was VH-SLS, the same plane featured in the latest issue of "Australian Flying"

I found this on the Northam Aero Club site (it's from 2005, so not sure how current it is though):

I got mine from Dymock's - could have been $60 but I thought it was less ....... Worth it anyway - in real terms only one-third of a lesson!

I smell a rat - even Dick Smith and John McCormack are on the NICE list .........

The PCA also has many of the common waypoints marked on the chart itself - I find it very useful when looking up area forecasts, because they tend to use points like WEBS, CRAY and CHOMP. My PCA sits under a clear plastic desk mat on my desk, so I can scribble on it with a chinagraph to mark out the positions of fronts/turbulence/etc.

But they (or CASA?) absolutely do have a responsibility to keep VNC's up to date, that's why they routinely publish amendments in the AIC/SUP. Except some things fall between the cracks ......

At the end of the day, we're all heading to the same runway threshold ........

Absolutely! But the guys at YLIL are very sensitive to this in my experience, and will generally avoid taking you up if the conditions (even though flyable) might dent your confidence. And on the other hand, if they think you can handle it without losing your confidence, they'll go for it - one of my best lessons was in some very bad turbulence on the last half of downwind and on to base, with updrafts and downdrafts and crosswind on final, but the instructor knew I would be able to handle it and it really did help my confidence. I was the last to fly that day, later lessons were cancelled due to the bumps. As for the "feel" thing, I'm with Darky - it's about the picture, the seat of your pants, the peripheral vision, the sounds, the "vibe" that gives you the "feel" for the flare. At least it does for me - I was hopeless when I tried to over-analyse it (still pretty hopeless, but getting better!).

Not surprising - the new CASA director said some time ago he wanted to put CASA staff inside the "self administering organisations". To help, of course, as in "we're here from the Government ....". Despite all the soothing rhetoric, the actions (much louder than words) of the new CASA speak to a controlling culture - and I fear for its impact not only on RAAus but also on GA.

Even if it doesn't have NOTAMS because it's an ALA, if it's on the current VTC's then its closure should be noted in the AIC/SUPs - and it's not ..... So - is it closed? And if not, what of the "vandals" who trenched it? And if it is, then what's AsA doing about updating its charts? I seem to recall the minutes of one of CASA's consultative committees noting some time ago that many charts were well out of date.

Some more general stuff on the art of flying: A very good read is "Stick & Rudder" by Langewiesche - written in the forties but still relevant today. On the net - See How it Flies is a terrific book on the theory and practice of flight (although sometimes a bit heavy going). Another one off the net - Fly Better has some good stuff, although better when you've got a few hours under your belt. Plus the US FAA has some great manuals here - although not all applicable in Oz. The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge is a pretty comprehensive manual, as is the Airplane Flying Handbook.

I've used three .... The Aviation Theory Centre (ATC) books suited me best from a learning experience - there's quite a range from aircraft general knowledge to BAK to navigation, meteorology etc. Sometimes they are a bit heavy going, but it depends on your own learning style. Certainly the most comprehensive IMO. A lot of people like the Bob Tait books - they're written in a much more user-friendly style, with a bit of humour thrown in. You'll pick up some gems of information in the Bob Tait series you won't find in ATC. Best for RA though is the Dyson-Holland one specifically written for RA - so that's the one if you want to be sure of passing the exams without having to wade though masses of detail. I reckon an essential item for preparing for exams because it's tailored to our syllabus.