poteroo

So I hear. Possibly VH-IFC? Owners in for pleasant surprise if they are 'stepping up' from something like a 160HP RV-9A.......probably +25kts faster.

VH-XQQ, a VANS RV-14A made its' 1st flight , plus 2 subsequent flights, all on Sunday, 3rd June. The -14 is powered by a 215 HP Lycoming XIO-390 engine driving a Hartzell CS propeller. The initial flight was organised through a very helpful Jandakot Tower at 0900 - light traffic only. So light in fact, that I was cleared for takeoff before the camera crew had settled on the 'tower' hill. The circuit used was LH off 06 Left, and then a rectangular LH, wide, 'circuit' was flown at 75-80% power settings for 20 mins. Everything behaved itself. It flew wings level, hardly any rudder needed even at this cruise setting. The acceleration was rapid, (see the vid), and it was through 110 KIAS in a matter of seconds, with a 1000+ fpm ROC. Nearly busted my clearance of 1000ft! Seemed more sensitive in pitch than other RVs, but generally, it flew very balanced and responsive. 65 over the fence with full flap and a trickle of power allowed it to handle the small crosswind and touchdown neatly on the mains. Will post more when we get seriously into the test flying. RV-14A_Maiden_Flight_3rd_June_at_Jandakot_WA.MOV RV-14A_Maiden_Flight_3rd_June_at_Jandakot_WA.MOV RV-14A_Maiden_Flight_3rd_June_at_Jandakot_WA.MOV

Correct. In other words, what has been hyped up by the RAAus HO is unworthy of even a news release. If this is what our HO thinks is a gain for RAAus - we are in trouble with our credibility! It is of benefit only to less than 3/5ths of 5/8ths of our RAAus pilots. In any event, the problem for most RAA pilots is not with Class D which is usually of 3nm radius and 1500ft vertical dimension: rather, it's with transiting Military CTA, or civil Class C airspace. I'm reminded here of the saying - be careful what you wish for.

Correct re don't change tanks. If we run with the hypothesis of 'off position with the selector' - then somehow, or someone, changed the selector position - after the accident. Otherwise, the LAME could not have conducted run-ups afterwards? More possibilities?

15% of the 'flight fuel' in your plan. We took this to include allowances for taxying, run-ups, and circuits at departure and arrival. That's a very sensible practice Kaz. Gauges are not to be trusted. The only time I'm inclined to 'believe' them is when they appear motionless against the E mark! I did finally fly my old C170 to complete fuel exhaustion one day - there was 20 mins flying left in the tanks after the gauges ceased a flicker of movement! That was somewhat comforting. I increase my reserves the longer the actual flight too. So, if doing a private flight over 3 hrs - I use 60 mins fixed reserve. The further one flys - the greater the likelihood of a weather change, especially along the southern Australian coast in winter and spring. happy days,

In my experience, this does happen. It was only a partial power loss, as the pilot actually believed he could make it back to the airport - from 200 agl! The timeline, (though only approx.) says 1st call at 1109, 1 min to run-up area, run-up completed and tanks changed, then taxied to holding point where cleared for to at 1114. That means the RH tank was being drawn on for approx. 2-4 mins. Not a long time, but probably enough to detect a 'misalignment' of the tank selector? Training aircraft are notable for wear & tear on the fuel selector, such that it might 'point' to the tank mark - but not have clicked into the 'detent' in the selector. (Our Aero Club had their C172N involved in a F/L due to this very problem - brought about by thousands of changes between tanks by pilots trying to balance the wings). If this was the cause, how was the misalignment 'missed' in the post-crash investigation? Again, more questions, which don't appear to have been covered, (perhaps not reported?), in the investigation? happy days,

If so - why was the LAME unable to find any blockages, any water, any sediment, but adequate fuel in the selected (RH) tank? If they were thinking it was a fuel flow issue - then the 'complete test' of the engines 'operation' should have detected any restrictions at high power, or, any intermittent functioning of either fuel pump, or both? BTW, I have the power loss urgent actions beginning with Carby Air- HOT, because it's the most probable. But then I've not looked in a PA-28 POH for a very long time! Maybe I'm wrong? happy days,

For the last 55 years I've been carrying far too much fuel as a 'fixed reserve' of 45 minutes at 65% cruise power settings. Now, our omnipotent and all-knowing regulator says that I can reduce my reserve by only using 30 minutes. And this is a safety initiative? I can only wonder what will come next!! happy days,

My Points of Difference with the ATSB Report AO-2017-046 1. ICING PROBABILITY Chart shows only moderate icing probability at cruise power - but serious at descent power. - Perhaps more than serious at idle power on the ground? The engine was cold when started at 1109. The carby heat was checked and found operable during engine runup. - what isn't known is whether the pilot ensured that there was no ice formed already in the carby by selecting it on HOT for at least 20 secs. This was also not carried out immediately prior to entering the runway after receiving clearance. In suspect icing conditions, ensuring that the engine is free of ice before takeoff is, (IMHO), an absolute essential, and is what we teach. In other words, engine run-up last, and carby heat left on for 20 secs to ensure any ice already formed is melted. The aircraft commenced takeoff at 1114, soon after the aircraft was airborne and past the threshold, the pilot noted power loss. Then, it is reported that 'the throttle was adjusted' - this is puzzling, because a partial loss of power is highly likely due to icing and fiddling with throttle would be futile. Immediate application of full carby heat at the 1st sign of engine 'coughing' may have restored power. 2. FINDINGS (a) disagree with their finding that carby ice was unlikely: This fails the 2nd dot point of their own 'key' points ex the ATSBs own 'Avoidable Accidents No 3 - Managing Partial Power Loss after Takeoff. Here they talk in terms of conducting ground runs so as to avoid the risk of partial power loss - yet don't spell out what this includes. Any time spent idling on a holding point, whether in likely icing conditions or not, should be followed by application of carby heat before take-off. (b) disagree with their failure to evaluate all the after take-off actions of this flight. Again, they have not referred to their own publications key points - in this case, dot point 1 re pre-flight planning. A complete pre-flight self brief by the PIC would have included what actions could be taken with respect to power loss after take-off. This, surely would have included immediate application of carby heat in the event of any engine faltering. This need not distract the PIC from flying the aircraft toward a possible landing site - it should be almost a reflex action. Much is made of 'throttle adjustments' - but apart from the friction nut slipping, what else could this achieve? Notwithstanding my criticisms of ATSBs report, the young pilot involved did a good job of avoiding serious damage and injury under the circumstances. I do not believe that ATSB have seriously contributed anything to aviation safety via this report. Rather the opposite in fact. The absence of a 'smoking gun' should not have prevented a closer look at many other possible contributing conditions and actions. happy days,

I can appreciate your position - many of us began our careers that way. Firstly, you need to 'get the horse before the cart' as the old saying goes. While buying your own aircraft sounds 'logical' - given that you are only perceiving the advantages it offers you for future training - don't do it. You should firstly consider just what type of flying you'll need to help attain your RPL>PPL>CPL. Only 100 hrs of RAAus flying is allowable when looking at the 200hr CPL. So, RAAus isn't going to be the answer. And, you would require an aircraft with full panel instrumentation to do your RPL and PPL IF experience. For CPL, you'll need an aircraft with accepted navaids, at least up to NVFR level, and capable of 120KIAS and with CSU. That means you need an aircraft worth over $100,000 by my calcs - not worth it. In any case, as an owner of 11 consecutive aircraft since 1977, I can tell you that they cost far more to operate than the salesman will tell you. Unless you fly an aircraft 300 hrs pa, the overheads/annual charges are going to bury you. In order to learn your flying in aircraft of increasing complexity, you'll need to hire them. There are many ways to achieve good deals, including negotiating with a flying school, or joining an aero club with well equipped aircraft, or finding an owner who is prepared to hire to you for specific blocks of flight. eg, to increase the cross-country hours you need for CPL, you might negotiate the dry hire of an aircraft and take 2-3 passengers with you for a good long inland or northern winter flight. With a hired aircraft - you can have certainty of cost. Cost sharing is a legal and perfectly acceptable way to split the costs of any aircraft flight and this is easily verified when you use a hired aircraft. If you do 20-30 hrs of cross-country flying, yet only pay 1/3rd the total cost - your budget stretches so much further for the other required dual training. Another solution which may/may not work for you is to join in a group ownership scheme. There are quite a few around. Here, you buy a share, which might cost you anywhere from $3000 up to $20,000 - depending on owner numbers and, the value of the aircraft. Then, you fly that aircraft privately whenever you can - the more you fly, the lower becomes the 'overhead' component of each hours flying. Group aircraft are usually insured for training, and so are usable for your higher licence training - but remember that flying schools tend to scale up the instructor rates on outside aircraft. I became a member of the earliest Brisbane flying group in 1964, and did 100s hours in their Victa and C172 - leading on to my CPL. It worked well for me because I easily onsold my share of $500, (what's that worth now?). I was also very active in trying to meet each and every aircraft owner on Archerfield. I picked up a few 'ferry' flights that way, and also got to fly a Maule M5-210 for the local agent. You don't have to brown-nose to achieve this - a bit of talk, perhaps some help with the aircraft or in the hangar? It goes a long way to proving your character. Owners judge more on character than on what hrs you might have in your logbook. That's life. Good luck in your flying, happy days,

I'm reminded of a couple common sayings: Ask no questions and you will be told no lies............. (unknown,18th century) Never ask a question unless you know the answer....... (unknown, but very applicable to Canberra) happy days,

See ATSB: Report AO-2017-046 Relevant as we are coming up to winter and more humid conditions in southern states. Comments?

After hearing 1st hand about 3 pilots nearly losing control due to CO poisoning, I don't trust heaters. Never use them myself - only for the bride who feels the cold. In that case, I direct outside vented airflow towards my face, but at a low enough velocity to not 'open' my boom microphone. (windmuff on the mic helps too). I have, (but don't rely on), the standard CO detector but replace frequently. happy days,

Well done so far Liam. Your organising looks to have been comprehensive, and no doubt you'll be successful if everything goes to plan. As a retired scientist, I'm curious to know how you plan to correlate a round-Australia flight, to encouraging students to take up STEM subjects? I'm struggling to see the connection. With increasing numbers of tertiary students, but less future jobs in the studied disciplines - do you think a broad-brush approach to STEM studies is likely to succeed? cheers,

Further to the above post - pics

Just back from ferry flight Kilcoy,Q to Albany WA in RV6 VH-MJH with new owner. Conversion training en route and another 3 hrs once back home. Route was Kilcoy - Moree - Bourke - Broken Hill - Port Pirie (o/n) - Ceduna (o/n due wx) - Forrest - Kalgoorlie - Albany. [refuelled to 140L all these locations] Total distance = 2063 nm Total engine hrs = 15.8 Total flight hrs = 14.9 139 kts GS, (from 150KTAS), isn't shabby for an E to W transit, but we were more often below 2500 to keep out of the westerlies, so fuel burn was well above 33LPH with the 180HP engine. Avoided the coastal Nullarbor transit due frontal wx, which was fortuitous indeed as winds reached 100kph along the southern coast. Via Forrest is a prudent route in winter months. An interesting thing with BP fuel carnets - one card was very erratic, one worked every time - even when inserted in reverse! Carry a backup card. Most bowsers didn't have operative printouts - so be sure to take a pic of the bowser readout when completed....just to check your statements later. happy days,

I've had a pair of them in my Brumby 610 since Feb 2015, and this aircraft is used only for training - 600 hrs so far. Have not had a single major problem with them. The mic boom locking nut tends to loosen off sometimes, but perhaps that's in part due to them being bumped as they are always hung on a purpose built hook above and behind the seats. The Brumby is a reasonably low-medium noise environment, but I've had no problems with in flight instruction. One thing I have done is fit cloth earmuff covers over them to lessen the 'wet ear' syndrome. Good idea to have some of these made up Ian, and sell them with the headsets. happy days,

Try changing the Baud - you should see a flashing asterisk on the Tru-trak when it is receiving from the GPS. If you have analog gauges as well as an EFIS, then you may need to adjust the 'static lag' in the TT to 1 or 2. Can't think of anything else atm. If you have an 'Installation Manual' for the TT, it might pay to, literally, return to start and check from there. cheers,

Yes, a Digiflight 2VS in a VANS RV9A - since 2008. Have had to replace the pitch servo tho.

Was recently in Cusco, Peru - altitude 11,000 ft amsl. According to theory, that should mean it was -8 deg C. But, at 12 deg C, that equates to a density altitude of 13,600. No wonder the ground speed of the Airbus A321 looked rather fast! And that's lower than Bogota in Bolivia! Back in my dim past, we operated into Keglsugl, PNG - alt 8400 ft amsl. If it wasn't for the significant slope on the runway, our normally aspirated C185 & C206 would never have made it. Pretty daunting when you look at 21 ins MP while standing on the brakes! happy days,

What's changed - it's very normal to feel that way after the 'redeye' from Perth! happy days,

Authoritarianism isn't just an airline thing - plenty of it within the instructor ranks too. There, it may not lead to major catastrophes, but it can block the learning process, resulting in students leaving the industry in disappointment. Unsure whether it is more likely in ex military QFIs, or if it's an 'hours' or 'years' reason, or simply a personality trait? happy days,

That's a fact. In our case, it's been because of the reluctlance of the owner,(the City Council), to survey off more sites, due I'm sure, to the fact that the whole airport has drainage issues never foreseen way back when. Those are just being sorted and then there will be more sites. However, the price of steel, building costs, and building codes/essentials have skyrocketed in recent years and a hangar isn't just a cheap farm shed anymore. What I built in 1998 for around $35k, is now probably only replaceable for $80k? As well, site lease costs are now around $10/m2/yr - which in my case, with 330m2 to lease, it becomes a costly annual bill. Hangarkeepers insurance cover is also growing alarmingly, and it's another essential for us. All of the above means less pilots can afford to build their own. Hangarage 'rental' costs vary widely in the West, but $35/wk seems common for a smallish aircraft. But wait, there's more: hangar owners usually have a lease document 40 pages long, in which sub leasing is verboten. Sensibly, airport management doesn't look too hard at this aspect' or there'd be a mob of aircraft hangared under blue sky! Hangar 'rash' is avoided by all 'tenants' using utmost care. My hangar sharing pilots have managed to not scrape anything in 20 years, so it's possible. Yes, it can be a bit of a hassle, but common sense prevails here. Do you want your bird under cover or not? happy days,

definitely arguable Nev. A t/w type always has a higher angle of attack on the mainplane when on ground, and in my experience, it is much more subject to being lifted by wind gusts. When tieing the t/w down, it's preferable to point them tail-into-wind if possible to prevent the wind lifting them up and off chocks or pulling tiedowns out. Then, of course, the wind changes o/n! And, you need strong external control locks on every surface. The oft quoted reason for t/w configuration is that there is better prop tip clearance from ground, but that is also arguable. Unless the pilot adopts a flapped and tail low takeoff attitude, it's possible to compromise prop tip clearance by holding the aircraft in a tail high/level attitude to assist acceleration. We all predicted the demise,(due n/w collapse), of C206 types in PNG when they began to replace our much beloved,(often hated), old C180 and c185 types. It didn't happen, because with careful loading, and at least 20 deg flaps for t/o, the extra power in the 206 allowed the nose to be raised early on t/o and so prop clearance wasn't near the problem expected. The 3 blade props also improved clearance by 5-10cms. With RV's, the same applies. In my RV9A, with at least 15-20 deg flap, loading to position CG slightly aft, and a rolling start on rough or soft strips - the nose is easily lifted off within a few metres and if it's held nose high, the aircraft will plow through slush, over rocks and your prop and nosewheel are safe. I've not bothered to fit any of the expensive nosewheel strengthening options because I believe that safety is mostly in the handling techniques used. The -9 goes anywhere that I used to take my -6. happy days,

Nullarbor RH has Avgas and the P-ULP is also accessible by taxying around to it. Border Village RH has Avgas, but you can't get P-ULP except by carrying it around Mundrabilla RH - opposite side of road, and only P-ULP Madura RH - miles away Cocklebiddy RH - no avgas but can taxi to bowser for P-ULP Caiguna RH - Avgas, and P-ULP by taxying round to bowser Balladonia - no Avgas, P-ULP by lugging jerries out the back. Norseman - nothing!! Expect to pay $3/L for avgas, $2/L for P-ULP. Check availability - they often run out! Some of these strips can be very rough, with wind blowouts and gutters. Some can be a boggy mess, eg Caiguna if it's rained. Be very careful. Wildlife hopping everywhere. Bogans cutting up the strip isn't unusual. Call them in advance to check conditions. Enjoy!!