poteroo

Agree - It would be a bit more relevant there. Your move.

In an ideal world - yes, a good idea, and yes, it would save lives. But,this just isn't possible. Not many instructors are keen to indulge in LL flight, let alone training another pilot. Unless you've legally mustered, or flown ag, LL training is going to prove a challenge to most instructors. In addition to that, there exists in the minds of our regulators in Canberra, a strong aversion to LL training - 'because it will inspire pilots to indulge in LL beat ups and other illegal activities' (There is no safety evidence of this - in fact most of the LL accidents involve untrained pilots). However, these same bureaucrats are strongly in favour of pilots being given several hours of instrument flying - 'because it may save their lives should they enter non-VMC weather and need to climb up and fly out of it to safety' The question that needs to be asked is - don't we need some of both in our training? As far as I'm concerned, the primary reason for a pilot, (RAAus or GA), wishing to learn LL skills is to improve safety. It's farcical to be preventing pilots from learning (safety improving) skills when the organisation, (RAAus), is busy spending funds, with banging-the-drum about safety. It seriously is one of the elephants-in-the-room. Before some bright spark twigs that I do LL training - yes, I do, and I'm damned well qualified to do it, but I don't expect all instructors to have it forced upon them. Just allow those pilots who wish to improve their skills, to obtain the training from wherever they can without all this BS about 'reasons'. It should be self-evident to all pilots. happy days,

Pic #2 surely isn't Merredin township below the spinning Grob - looks more like a major/capital city. Onetrack has made valid points about Chinese ownership. Compared to the value of US, UK, EU 'investment' in Australia - it's not very large. We are really becoming paranoid when ownership of our assets is called 'investment' if we perceive the owners as friendly, but if it's by Chinese, or North Korea perhaps - we see it as a 'hostile takeover'. It's not racism - simply the perception of the intentions of a less friendly people. We'd certainly see the same reaction to huge investments by Russia, which is a Western / 1st world nation, and it's driven by fear of their intentions. Where the acquisition of agricultural assets raises concerns could be in the way that these are serviced. Were the Chinese owners to import fertiliser, chemical, and other necessities directly into Australia, for their exclusive use on those properties - it could trigger an interesting debate. If they were to export all of their production directly to China - a similar discussion may occur. Can foreign owners actually own and operate an enterprise in Australia without ever directly purchasing a single item, and export produce outside of the approved export protocols? I believe that rural communities have some concerns about the operation of these foreign owned properties insofar as their adherence to quarantine and biosecurity rules. The possibilities are certainly increased if there are increased movements of personnel in/out of these locations. Were the scenario in the para (above) to be happening, then the risks are magnified. It needs our federal Dept of Agriculture to have AQIS run a risk ruler over these properties, perhaps over the 'whole' would be prudent? happy days,

Yes, VANS has put out a short article on this very thing, but with particular reference to the RV9 and RV9A, which are structurally different, and less robust, than the other models. In particular, VANS recommends not exceeding 160HP in the -9 models because of their lower Vno and Va speeds. I understood where he was on this issue, but chose to fit a IO-360 Superior, (delivering more than 180HP), to my -9A. In my defence, I can say that I've always been super conscious of the need to slow down, (in all aircraft), on descent, and whenever there's turbulence happening, or forecast. I have a G-meter fitted and check it after each flight. So far, I've never been near +3.8 - 1.9 and plan to keep it that way. happy days,

Good find. Having only groundspeed makes interpretation difficult, but I think we could assume that they were in less than 20-25 kts wind at Whangerai, well up the North Island, and in summertime. Now 200kts GS is right on the VNE of 199 - but take 25 off that and its 175, well back from VNE, but still just above Vno - which is 167 for the RV7. So, it's possible they were into the lower end of the yellow arc of the ASI. Now, the Vno is based on structural strength, and is that which allows for up to a 50fps gust. However, it is usually placarded as 'smooth air speed' and 50fps is far from smooth!! But, we don't know whether encountering a 50 fps gust was even likely....probably not. What I'm interested in is the information about the Va speeds for the RV7. The 123 KIAS Va speed usually given for RV7s allows for a 6G load on the aircraft when full elevator is applied. But, this also means the aircraft must be 727 kgs or less to allow this. Any heavier, and perhaps there is real structural risk? Is it likely that anyone would apply full elevator above 123 KIAS? Quite possible if avoiding a bird collision, or perhaps recovering from a loop where the elevator was used harshly to roundout at low level? No doubt the NZ ATSB will follow all the possibilities and we can only keep watch on their findings. I think it does alert all pilots to the fact that aircraft can be overstressed by pilot inputs' and turbulence when flying above Va - and who isn't cruising there? But if you have a particularly fast aircraft, as RV's are, then fly it according to conditions and avoid overcontrolling it.

I think this is part of the possibilities. The RV7, being aerobatic, has 2 sets of load factors. For 'normal,non-aerobatic flight' - it has the usual +3.8 / - 1.9 load factors. For aerobatic flight, it is weight limited to 727 kgs, down from 818 kgs MTOW. Now this is where it gets interesting. Va is calculated from the clean stall speed at any given weight - and, Vs varies with the weight of the aircraft. So, at MTOW of 818 kgs - Vs = 56kts. At aerobatic weight of 727 kgs - Vs is, (my calcs), 50 kts. Now, VANS states that at aerobatic weight of 727 kgs, the RV7 has a load factor range of +6 / -3 g - higher than at MTOW. So, using the calculation of multiplying the Vs x the square root of the positive load factor to attain Va, I obtain the following: MTOW 818 kg: 1.95 x 56 = 109 kts Va ( which is well less than the blue line on the analog ASI provided ex VANS) MTOW 727 kg: 2.45 x 50 = 123 kts Va (which is the blue line shown by VANS for the RV7) This presents the pilot with a conundrum, of sorts. On the one hand, it appears you could use 123 kts as your Va for all 'normal' flight if the weight was limited to 727 kgs? OR, is VANS saying that, yes, you can do limited aeros if the weight is kept below 727 kgs, and that during those aeros you should not exceed 6G? AND, does VANS mean that, for the majority of the RV7s' usuage, it should be operated in the normal category to a limit of +3.8/-1.9g, because it is not really designed to be aerobatted for its entire life. In which case, it appears that they may have published a Va which is too high? Remembering that the RV7 cruising speeds are way above even the Va of 123 kts, it is entirely possible that the airframe could be really stressed by hitting some really severe turbulence around mountain areas. And, with 180HP and a cruise pitched propeller, it takes quite a few seconds to decelerate to Va - probably too long to avoid some structural effects.? It's also worth checking all the VANS SBs on their website: there have been SBs raised for stabiliser cracks, elevator spar cracks, and the wing aft spar at the inboard aileron hinge bracket. This would prompt me to think carefully about, not just aerobatics, but the cruising speeds to use where turbulence might be expected. Having flown around 1000 hrs on every model of RV, and seen how often pilots flog them downhill with the ASI in the bottom of the yellow arc - I'm surprised that we haven't seen any obvious airframe damage in Australia. I can only ascribe this good result as being due to the inherent strength in the RV series. Love 'em. happy days,

Find an instructor who holds the endorsement and have him/her conduct your endorsement. You need to do this to be legal, and to satisfy your insurers that you have attained competency in handling the IFA prop. happy days,

I'm not sure this is the case. I was told, (albeit some years ago), that there was precious little spent in town, and that bulk food was purchased centrally, (in Perth), for both the JT and MDN establishments. Also, it was noted that everyone hits the road to the bright lights of Perth come the weekend, and that student spending was small locally. Things may have changed since then? I used to fly into MDN regularly in the 70's, but once CSA setup - it became inconvenient to meet their 'allowed entry' times. Result was that I used a small graded strip just to the West of the 6MD aerial. Originally, CSA promised the local Aero Club that they would provide both an aircraft and an instructor for 'locals' to do their PPL training on a weekend. This fell thru quickly, I'm told, because the instructors jacked up against weekend work. Who knows, but CSA arriving in MDN certainly put paid to any Aero Club activities. But, a whole swag of country Aero Clubs have folded over the past 30 years - without any help from foreign schools, so one assumes that the incursion by a large flying school hasn't affected anyone except the immediate locals. A lot of Aussie instructors have held reasonable jobs with CSA, and you could not say that they had just installed a 'Chinese' flight school to the complete detriment of our aviation industry. I'm not sure whether CSA made the right decision by locating in MDN because it is so far out in the sticks. Closer to a capital city or major regional city might have been better in many regards.? happy days,

I see a lot of GA & RAAus pilot logbooks, and it appears to me that many pilots are just plain wasteful of their capacity. I see 1 month to a complete page, or 2 months to a complete page - separated by 15 lines!! To get the best out of your 60 page logbook, I suggest you separate months by a single line, and don't be averse to running one month onto the top of the next page. Despite the fact that with instructing, you usually log 1 hr per entry - I manage to get about 1800-2000 hrs per logbook. The extra few 100 hrs are usually made up by ferry flights, private travel flights, and the odd contract low level or survey job. happy days,

I can confirm that it becomes stifling hot in most high or low wings left in the sun in Australia. I've had 54 degrees on my OAT when starting up, and believe me, you don't stuff around on the ground for any more than it takes to do your runups. Extra venting, (with adjustable nozzles), is very useful in smaller RAAus aircraft, especially if training in them. If fitting extra NACA ducts - fit the vent outlets lower towards the footwell area so the airflow is upwards and not in your face as some window vents are placed. Adjustable top of canopy screens are a help, but better if they are reflective ones. You'll learn that it's smarter to fly early in the day and so avoid being cooked in your bird. happy days,

Not for the RV-12, which is RAAus weight. My understanding is that, despite them being 'limited' (USA) to 120KIAS at sea-level via the propeller that VANS sells, they will go much faster. With a ground adjustable propeller, I'd be surprised if they couldn't move along at more like 130 KIAS - perhaps 140KTAS around 5000ft? An RV-12 is somewhat cheaper than a Blackshape. More info in an article in Kitplanes November 2017 . I'd be interested to hear of performance numbers from Aussie owners, particularly those who may have fitted a different GA propeller.

The Trend Toward Tertiary Level Qualifications One view of this could be that Qantas is trying to insure itself against a possible near future shortage of appropriately qualified pilots. Another could be that it's simply the worldwide trend of requiring higher, and yet higher, levels of academic qualifications for just about any position. The bar is continually being raised. The great academic revolution in Australia was when the federal Government widened the 'university' numbers, and that caused a broadening of the number of courses offered. This created competitive pressures for student numbers, which has seen entry levels to Uni being very much reduced. IMHO, the system has flooded the market with degree carrying young adults, who are only now beginning to (painfully) see that well paid managerial jobs are not as plentiful as they believed. A bachelor degree today means about what Leaving did 30 years ago. My local solicitor turns away around 3/week - law graduates can be found working in all sorts of positions. Yes, this Qantas offer could be good for those who make it through, although the concept of doing your entire training and 1st job experience with the same employer is akin to incest: many of the weaknesses, as well as the strong points, will be carried through. There was a wonderful era in the 60s, 70s and 80s where Qantas Cadets were sent up to PNG for 1-2 years to fly with TAL/Talair. After surviving 1500 hrs up there, the young pilots,(most of them), returned to Australia with some real command experience and went on to become sound captains. Qantas has quite some experience with cadets, and I think they know how to recruit from all levels of the pilot group. Getting the balance right shouldn't be difficult for QF because they are perceived as the top airline job. For many of the struggling 'startup' Low Cost Carriers though, recruiting, and keeping, good crew is likely to be an ongoing problem. QF are in the enviable position of being able to pick & choose. happy days,

Straight in approaches are definitely a factor. Due traffic in circuit, PIC is often flying slower to 'fit' into a landing sequence, perhaps with flaps-10 extended - but gear-UP. Very easy to miss the gear-UP situation - unless you have a very strict mid final habit of BUMPF. Only saved it myself on several occasions - all into busy locations, some CTR. Much more likely, (IMHO), if it's a lower HP aircraft, (eg, 172RG, PA-28R, PA-30), because you don't need the drag of the gear hanging out when you might need to accelerate or climb in a hurry. With something like a B36, or a B55/58, there's no shortage of HP, so gear can be dropped and speed kept up on approach. I think this was actively discouraged after the training syllabus revisions of 89/90 era. In my own operations, (GA & RAAus), I have long used the 'pre-landing' checklist. On return to circuit, I encourage students to run the checklist by 3nm, so that they can focus on traffic and their own handling.

Probably the one in a hangar not more than 100 metres from mine here in Albany, West Australia? happy days,

Test flying any aircraft is quite demanding if done thoroughly. To complete the full, (recommended), test flying of a GA Experimental kit build aircraft, does take pretty much all of the 25 hrs allocated. Trying to do it within 25 nm of your base is a bit restrictive - 50nm gives you more room for manoeuvring. For any pilot with less than 200 hrs TT, and perhaps 30-40 hrs on a very similar type, to try the test flying work: would be foolhardy in the extreme. I've not done any RAAus test work, but if all it involves is stall testing then, (IMHO), the aircraft has not really been 'test flown' sufficient for any instruction to be given in it after the 25hrs. I'd be a bit wary of it, and certainly would be very cautious beginning the owners ab initio instruction. That's not to say that 24 registered aircraft are given particularly extensive test flying by the factory before they change hands. However, factory 'test' pilots know what the type does and feels, being very much more aware of any flight outside what is normal for the type. happy days,

Although ATSB mention Va as being 118 kts, they don't mention the effect of weight on this. 118 is for MTOW, and it's doubtful if this aircraft was anywhere near MTOW. Likely it was 100-200kg lower - meaning that its' real Va would have been quite a bit less than 118. Perhaps 108 kts might have been closer. When you are flying around areas of potentially severe turbulence, in a lightly loaded 210 - holding closer to 95-100 kts is probably a safer choice. For my money, (after a few years of dodging this type of weather), the safest VFR choice is to be below the cloud base where you can see the location of cells and avoid the risks of losing control when skirting between rain-filled cloud at higher altitude. The fact that the US ATSB has reported so many 210 breakups should be enough for all pilots to be very, very careful in negotiating stormy wx.

Right on the numbers! The words simpler, easier, cheaper, better....... are impossible to link with the acronym CASA. The air really is different in Canberra! Hypoxia at ground level. happy days,

Suffice to say that a CFI should ensure that the cross-country endorsee is capable of planning and navigating by using all the available means. Nothing has really changed. happy days,

I have heard of at least 2 x C210 incidents where the recalcitrant gear leg was 'hooked' by a towbar and pulled out into the down position. Did hear that there is a custom made 'hook' which can be pinned into a standard (nosewheel) towbar and then used to pull the main gear out into landing position. If I was a regular C210/CR182/C172RG pilot/owner, that is one of the very 1st items I'd have fabricated up by my LAME - and tested with the aircraft up on the jacks. happy days,

Another self-taught,alpha male validates Darwinian theory! It's more than cheeky for the company to now blame the FAA for not ensuring there is 'adequate low level training' for pilots.They were happy to accept all the interest and probably sales, from all the LL vids that have been posted in recent times. IMHO, they should now "man up" and recommend pilots don't exceed their capabilities and get some proper instruction in LL if they intend to do it. A very irresponsible response! AFAIK, the US regulations don't have a lower limit over unpopulated areas, which is different to Australia, (500ft agl). However, located in their regs is the same section as in CASR 61, ie, that a pilot should ensure that they are competent to undertake any form of flying in the aircraft they have chosen to use. So, in the US, despite there being no lower height limit, and no formal LL rating, (although there is an ag rating, but only for CPLs and above), a pilot is in breach of the regs if they fly a manoeuvre in which they lack competency. Only the survivors will be prosecuted!

In which case, an instructor is able to legally provide dual instruction - providing that the instructor is a current SI/CFI, is endorsed on type, is 90 days current and satisfies themselves that they are competent to provide dual in that aircraft,(61.385 applies). The aircraft should also be fitted with fully functioning dual controls. The question of insurance appears grey. If the aircraft has a current M/R, and it is signed off by the owner - then the aircraft is considered serviceable. It would probably be prudent to ensure that your insurer is advised that the aircraft is going to be used for your own instruction. They are likely to want to know some details of your proposed instructors' experience too. Instructors are the meat-in-the-sandwich here. They may or may not be insured in a particular aircraft. They are often not provided with dual controls. They are often left uncertain of the aircrafts' serviceability because of sparse records kept by the owner/new owner. I have had to draw the line at no rudder pedals in a t/w aircraft and a pilot with 50 hrs total experience on t/w type. In the likely accident report - I'm going to be PIC and that's forever on my record. I'm pretty careful in what I fly dual in these days. happy days,

Hard to believe! What you can't see from 200 ft AGL, (well clear of trees and windshear), in a strip inspection - isn't worth the risk.

Before going too far with the 'lets include the general public' theme - read the new 60 page CASA Air Display Administration and Procedures Manual. It appears to very much widen the liability/compliance net for Flyins and small airshows. Read it and we'll continue this thread. happy days,

That's possible, but the time you'd find out if there was an aux or tip tank fuel feed difficulty would be while in cruise. General procedure is to select mains at TOD or at least 10 nm out from destination. Should there be issues at that point, there's time to go for crossfeed, plus divert to a better destination. 310 fuel system isn't simple either. Then there's the other factor of maintaining speed in the circuit area. With a Vmc of 81,(91 more the recommendation), and SE climb of 105, it's usual to not drop below 120 around the circuit. Over the fence is more like 90/95 - which should allow for the landing to be completed even with fuel starvation of one engine. I'd be very surprised if an experienced twin driver allowed the aircraft to be turning at low level if they had already had fuel feed difficulties. Certainly not at speeds under 120, and not, (my opinion only), in the same direction / side as the starving engine. That is always going to yaw the aircraft into the turn and create a chance of stalling the inside wing - usually the left one in circuit. That's not easily recoverable without a lot of air below you. All sheer speculation. Trust ATSB can determine a cause/s. RIP.

Va is calculated for a reason - to save you shedding airframe parts. Simply x your clean stall speed x 2 and you'll be very close to it.