poteroo

But is that power OFF, or + some power? If the POH states the aircraft Vs = 40, then logically 40 x 1.3 = 52 approach speed. But, most aircraft are not flown with max fwd CoG, and most have some power on - so Vs = less than the book figure. So, you could fly a slower approach - but, what's the point if there is adequate runway and the air is a bit bumpy? So, we all tend to fly our aircraft to an easily observed IAS above the 1.3 Vs number. It's easy to get rid of speed but difficult to regain it. Perhaps? Maybe it was derived from some 'deeper' aerodynamic formulae? Again, refer to what the 'real' Vs/Vso is given the actual weight of the aircraft, the CG position, and the power used. I can't really substantiate my claim - but I believe many of these heavy arrivals have more to do with what we call ground rush. I think it has to do with less experienced pilots dealing with in flight malfunctions plus inclement weather plus other stressors - causing them to experience ground rush and so allowing the IAS to decay in the last 200 ft zone. The actual crash may be at less than their Vs/Vso - but there is a large vertical component involved. Anyone else?

It would be a major deviation from past practice for CASA to not 'accept' an STC for certified aircraft. Just as an aside - there may well be some additional requirement for backup battery power. Perhaps another 9v source may need to be added if the aircraft is used for NVFR/PIFR/IFR?

There has been a series of TV 'episodes' of Susi Air flying in both Papua and the rest of Indonesia. Firstly on Australian SBS TV I think. The strips they use are reminiscent of those in Papua New Guinea back in the 60's and 70's. Once the Aussie regulator began to mandate standards for commercial operations in PNG, these particularly 'hairy' strips lost their commercial approvals and became private, (missions), only. Regardless of whether there's a reliable P & W up front in their Porter, you can see that if the aircraft becomes a glider - there are not too many options for a safe landing. happy days......they were indeed!

AirVenture is an airshow, and it has to stand on its' own 2 financial feet. The costs of running airshows are massive, and more so when professional display groups are contracted to perform. Why not ask the general public for higher entrance fees if the budget is in the red? What's that - the GP will not pay it because they can view the whole thing from outside the airport? If that's the case, then it's a bit rich seeking financial input from members of the organisations which created AirVenture. Back to smaller, non-public, regional Fly-ins methinks. happy days,

I seriously doubt anyone can recover from a botched base-2-final turn @ 500ft - once it stalls you can, but if a spin develops then probably not. Agree with your assertion that anyone who can fly the aircraft in balance, and who avoids loading up the wing - will likely not become a candidate for a stall/spin accident. I think we're talking too much about recovery, and not enough about prevention in this thread. happy days,

It becomes a concern for RAAus if instructors are intentionally placing aircraft into a spin with students on board. We all know that spinning is prohibited in RAAus, even if you hold a GA licence with spin and full aeros approval. As few of us have any idea of the spin characteristics of all these 'new' RAAus aircraft - it seems most unwise to even try it. We're not test pilots. If by chance some of these 'new' aircraft have testing spin characteristics, do we really want to find out about them by design or accident? Recovering from a flat spin is damned difficult, and you need a lot of air below you. So, we unload the gear in the rear baggage area, and check the CG location with the fuel qty planned - making darned sure it's not very far aft before going out to do stalling and unusual attitude recoveries. On another subject, (that of Coroners' Reports), I am unhappy to hear that reports can be restricted to only the families. I say that, not with disrespect to the families, but with concern for the greater learning of the pilot population. If we can't be trusted with perhaps quite valuable information, then the system of accident investigation is not operating in the manner to which it was originally intended?

Have to agree with you there FT. Even Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, Maule,... made the same mistake by Certifying with only one engine mfr and model. The smartest mfr I'm aware of is Dick Van Grunsven - who refuses to factory manufacture, produces a limited range of kits, and leaves everything else up to the builder in Experimental category. It has seen them ward off several predatory claims for owner or builder errors/faults. When you visit VANS, you will be amazed at how such a small 'factory' has been able to create some 10,000+ kits so successfully. It occurs to me that many of the current LSA type manufacturers would be far better off by producing 'Quick-build kits' for the private/owner-builder market. Instead, they try to custom build aircraft,(in factory), for the flying school market where there is far more 'consumer liability' onus on them. happy days,

Important info. Best written in by an instructor. Helps no end when you roll up in a new location and announce you're 'good-to-go' at #4 in a diamond-9 !!

Any RV owners visiting the wild west can contact me via a PM on this site. We have about 15 RVs located here or nearby and we have a fairly active formation group. If you have a formation endo: you are welcome to join in with us. It helps if you have had your logbook 'endorsed' with the highest number of aircraft that you have flown with. If not, then I can fly with you in one of our larger groups and signoff once you are safe. On the other hand, if you would like to stay a couple days here, I can do your complete formation endo to solo standard. happy days,

Preferably no more than 2 x 1.00 hr lessons per day. Preferably no more than 4 consecutive 2 hr lesson days then a break of 3 days. The 'learning' process isn't just your pre-flight brief and your post-flight debrief. The thinking student spends time 'visualising' the exercises - particularly when you reach more complex flying such as circuits and forced landings. Sketching out your own 'diagrams' is far, far more effective than death by PowerPoint. This way you have the plan in your mind, and so there should be less mistakes and fewer surprises. The Boy Scout motto of be prepared applies well in flying training. happy learning,

I was present,(in a lowly C185), at a few PNG strips when the very1st Porter landed. It was then backed up the parking bay so as to fit into a corner. The only flat spot at these strips was a small parking area right at the very top. The whooping and yodelling from the locals was something else - what next would these skygods come up with!! The Patair Porters did a lot of beta approaches into the flatter strips - but when you have a 15-18% uphill slope ahead of you, I'm told the roundout is massive and hard to control in a short distance and with a gross load. On takeoff the Porters just flew straight off the slope pretty near level, and then proceeded to climb away. (more whooping & yodelling!!). The poor C185's continued to disappear downhill and launched off the bottom end of the strip into clear air: it had to fly by then or you were about to become a hang glider! exciting days.

In straight out non radio instrument informed VFR flight, it is difficult to really hold 500AGL. It's a lot easier to hold 200-250'AGL because even small 'hillocks' of maybe 100-200' will be obvious because they rise 'up' in the windscreen. So in low level survey, you can see these changes in elevation ahead of you and you can adjust power to hold your height AGL. The main reason that aggies and LL survey/inspection pilots use the '500AGL' call is to reassure other traffic that they are in fact at 'low level' and should not present any conflict to other traffic. I've found that it's generally appreciated by higher traffic. I have flown surveys using RADALT and while it is effective - it's also seriously expensive. But, perhaps we are all overlooking the usefulness of stock, standard aviation GPS? For years I have used GPS to help students, and myself, get our 'eye' in with regards to maintaining 500AGL. Remember that we have to teach some low level navigation in the Cross-country Endorsement. I have a Garmin Aera 500 in my current instructing machine and this is how it helps us. 1. set a user defined caution elevation. We set 500' 2. set a 90 or 120 second look ahead time 3. set the alert sensitivity to High. The GPS is operating on satellite derived altitude converted to mean sea level based altitude. This altitude is only affected by satellite geometry - so if you have good numbers of satellites providing good 3D accuracy, then it's usable. Have a check of your QNH based altitude to the GPS altitude and you'll usually find they are not much different. The GPS-MSL altitude isn't subject to temperature or pressure variations. So, to begin the exercise, we descend down to a height and watch for the yellow terrain alert to show as we reach 500AGL. We then increase power to fly just above where the alert shows yellow, and become more interested when the GPS screen shows more yellow ahead of us. It need not involve distracting the pilot from keeping eyes outside the aircraft because the switch on of the terrain page alert creates quite a flash of light. Pilot should become really alert if red is also on screen- but by that time the hill should have been visually acquired. You can setup the audio output to call '500ft' - which, can be/might be, useful when doing forced landing practice or even for circuit training. By flying at on/about 500AGL as defined by the GPS database, the pilot can learn what everything looks/feels like. Knowing you are at 500AGL helps considerably in estimating distances, looking for landmarks, and estimating how far you can glide if the noise stops. There is more to GPS than just pushing the GO/TO button. happy days,

As a CPL/FI and RAAus FI working in both GA and RAAus, I must maintain a 'time & duty' record in which I have to log my start and finish times for all work. I usually use entering/leaving the airport. Then I log flight times from brakes off to brakes on. I've done this for decades now and have a whopping file of T&D sheets. My ratio of flying to duty is over 3:1. I am paid for the flying only, and by my calcs I'm receiving around $77/hr for that. However, my hourly earnings, based on T&D is clearly much lower - around $28/hr. The situation with a school owner/CFI is quite different to an employed CPL/ATPL who is on a salary and a set number of flying hours pa. Because of the longer flight legs, and probably quicker turnaround times - their hrs are probably closer to the T&D? If they flew, say 900hrs pa on a salary of $130k, that's notionally $144/hr. If the ratio of flight:T&D was 1:2, then the actual rate per hr is closer to $100 - as ben87r mentioned above. Now, you can either suck-it-up, or get out of the industry. I'm happy with the former approach because I'm doing what I love, I'm not dependant on it to live, the school pays its' way,(just!), and I feel good that I'm providing a bloody sound service to the student. But, every school, and CFI, will have a different set of circumstances, and to compare the up front dual instruction prices, here on a public forum, is perhaps being a little harsh. You don't always get what you pay for in life - but I believe that at most RAAus flying schools, you get more than fair value when you look past the up front dual charge. happy days,

In my experience, choppers and aggies who are intending to fly cross-country at 500ft agl may give a departure call something like 'tracking 360, 500 agl' or, '500agl/tr 360'. That's not to say that they might drop a bit lower over uninhabited country, or pull up a little to overfly habitation if it can't be circum-navigated. happy days,

ABC 7:30 REPORT - Tuesday 25th July 2017 There will certainly be some activity following this segment, which included guarded comment from CASAs' Peter Gibson. This recent Mt Gambier accident was compared to the night accident near Horsham some years back. The qualifications and experience of both pilots was discussed. An aviation industry consultant called for CASA to mandate higher quals and experience. A family member of the Horsham victims called for victims' families to commence immediate legal action against accident pilots, including placing a caveat upon all their property. Despite the fact that an inquiry into AngelFlights' operations several years ago, that did not initiate any change at all - this time things might just be different.

Depends on what you call the sticks Brett. A few schools have tried the 'outbush' approach - and all have folded up, (Wyalkatchem, Narrogin,Northamx2,Beverley). Students just don't want to sleep under a wing, or in the back of a hangar anymore, and usually the local motel has gone broke too in these places. Where you live has a big RAAus/GA school with modern aircraft, but this comes at a price. So too do the Geraldton motels because they, like ours, are run for tourism. Also, you have the problems of lots of RPT and CHTR traffic. Both ourselves and the Esperance school have tried to run part-time schools outbush, eg, Ravensthorpe, Katanning, Wagin), but it has never broken even. That's why we grit our teeth and payup for landing fees, and exorbitant hangar block leases, so that we have a 'presence' where there is a sizeable population. In our case, a city of 34,000 only just provides enough students to keep both schools afloat. Like Geraldton, we could offer flying rates so low as to be laughable - but because we are so far from Perth, it wouldn't attract a single extra student. In any case, we are cheaper than Jandakot, but not enough to get people to drive 400kms! I won't say the 'problem' of higher priced training is insoluble, but it's not going to be overcome in the short term. A better A$/Euro exchange rate might help. Cheaper insurance would be great - but our market is just too small for most companies to bother. happy days,

Some of the advertised dual training rates are indeed eye-watering. I believe that its the capital cost of a nice 'Euro' LSA aircraft that is primarily driving prices. When you have to finance $120-$150,000, (who has cash for these scale purchases?), then the interest bill is crippling. If you could do it on interest only, think about even 10% on $120,000 = $12000 pa interest. Spread that over 300 hrs pa dual, and you have to find $40/hr just for interest. On an aircraft of this value, used for ab initio training, plus solo training, plus private hire - you are looking at perhaps $4500 pa for insurance = $15/hr. Then you have the ever increasing costs of hangarage, landing fees......all this before you put a bum-on-the-seat! My calcs say you have these overheads of near on $65-70/hr before consumables and instructor. If you think we are struggling, then consider the GA school that decides to replace it's worn out C172 with a 'new' model, (S,R). The capital cost doubles. Avgas @ $2.20/L is the norm, and these new 172's still gobble their way thru 32-36LPH. They are between a rock & a hard place because there are no 2 seat GA aircraft being built - they really have to register an LSA into VH- in order to compete. Yes, you can do SIDS etc and keep the old ones flying, (12,000-20,000 TT and getting tired!), but that effectively doubles the capital cost of your aircraft. So an older 70's model C172 which you bought for $50k - has just ended up a $80k or higher asset. Depends on how you account for SIDS - 'maintenance' or 'capital' improvement? However, when a prospective student does a TIF in my new, clean,'tight' Brumby, with all the bells & whistles fitted - they perceive value in our rates. We charge $220/hr dual, which is near $60-80/hr less than local GA schools charge for a veteran C150/152. Regardless of what schools charge, they have to offer value in terms of equipment, service,other stuff. Given that most RAAus schools include pre-flight and post flight briefs, plus a lot of theory assistance, plus more flight time/taxy time - they can't continue to do this on rates down near $150 dual. Much depends on whether the owner sees themselves as running a business, or running a 'hobby' operation to keep themselves satisfied in retirement. Once this generation hang up their wings - costs will rise across the industry. happy days,

My perception is that there are quite a few members who oppose any owner of a flying school, or an instructor, being elected to the Board. Why is this so important to some members? Having a commercial interest, plus a good knowledge of the aviation industry, should not necessarily be automatically deemed a 'conflict-of-interest'. That will only occur if the elected person does not declare fully their 'interests', and does not step aside when contentious, and conflicting, issues are voted on. Doesn't prevent them providing sound comment on issues - just provided they don't vote if there's possible c-o-i. Of course, it's probably best that there be a balance on the Board. That means we need to elect a mix of talents, and I think that is now happening. Like others on this forum, I try to judge applicants on their resume'. But, as of today, I have not received my Sport Pilot, and for that, RAAus - I'm not a happy camper. Online voting will have to come. happy days,

The missions raise money throughout the western world and are self sufficient. Whether Susi Air receive any help from the Indo government I don't know, but would guess that the government agencies use the charter aircraft same as on the PNG side. There probably is some cash about in the Papuan population, (sales of coffee,vegetables, plus employment at coastal towns), but they are less cared for than on the PNG side I'd think.

My testosterone levels have decreased significantly since the 60s Added a few more pics - worth a thousand words. Nev would have flown past the Tenyo Maru which was sunk just off the 32 approach to the old LAE airport - since gone. The pic of myself plus mates discovering nearly complete Zeros on the old SEK strip, (just S of Alexishafen harbour and N of Madang) rekindles my excitement about what could have been. Within a few years, scrap merchants had taken every last wreck possibnle in PNG - and it was all melted down for recycling! Imagine what these would have been worth today? happy days,

In1966, Papuan Airlines, (Patair), imported 2 PC6 Porters into PNG. Registered VH-PNG, and VH-PNH. They were used for at least until after 1970 nor mostly Papuan Highlands flying into strips such as Efogi, Naoro, Kagi, Manumu, & Menari on the Kokoda Track, and into the 'Goilala' strips of Woitape, Kosipe,Fane,Tapini,Kubuna. They pretty much halved the business previously the exclusive 'right' of the Cessna 185s - of which there were many in those days. Most pilots who moved onto the Porter already had some solid short strip flying experience. But, the accidents continued - simply because the weather didn't suddenly improve because you had a PT6 up front. The valleys didn't get any wider either. And it was just as easy to get lost and end up in a blind valley - from which you needed much more than a Porter to save the day. Somewhere in this period, another Porter,VH-PNF, was imported but I think it was a prototype with a recip engine - anyway, it didn't last long. In the 70's, these were sold off to other PNG operators. PNH was destroyed in a fatal in 1974, but PNG went thru several registrations,PNO, SEA and lasted many more years. The Australian Army was using Cessna 180s during the 1960s, then shifted into Porters which they used widely in PNG training work. Porters suffered from the same loading difficulties as the previous C185s - a sloping floor while on the ground, and an undercarriage partially blocking access to it's nice wide doors. Despite both aircraft being eminently suited to jungle strip ops, the loading/unloading issues favoured tricycle u/c types. A few are still operated by Susi Air in 'west' Papua, where they service some very rough strips indeed. Even the missions in PNG have shifted out of the Porter into tricycle geared PAC-750 and Kodiaks. The Porters' future was limited by the introduction of more DHC-6 Twin Otters by TAL/Talair in the 70s. 2 engine safety was very much preferred. However,even these great twins were not protected against pilot error and the infamous PNG weather. As well, airports were being upgraded and became accessible to Bandierantes, and to Dash 8s. And, more roads were constructed. I never quite made it onto the Porter:forever the bridesmaid pushing a C185 around for many years. But I regard myself as one of the lucky ones to have survived those years. Trust readers will like the pics. happy days,

You'll find bits & pieces that are relevant throughout many parts of your texts, but yes, it is very much a practical test. Common sense is important. Look at the bigger picture 1st. I emphasise items such as ensuring your passengers friends and rellies are encouraged to take all the pics they want, out and in the aircraft - then herd them back to a safe spot and direct that they stay there before you startup. It's akin to very important preflight items like refuelling and re-oiling. There are practical do's and don'ts that you best learn from your instructor. None more so that ensuring caps are properly locked down. Good luck with your flying.

A good decision by RAAus. CFI's are already snowed under by more & more paperwork - none of which time is remunerated. As stated, Australia Post is setup for Passport application - so let them cope with verification of documents. It's the student who applies for an ARN at a GA school, and the student also has to organise their medical, and their ASIC. The CFI just points the way. The Engrish speaking test is applied by the CFI.

I realise this is backtracking somewhat,(even past my own earlier response), but I'd like to highlight the RAAus instructor approach. While the 'level' for RAAus instructing is, and remains, considerably lower than for GA: anyone with an eye to their future should be completing an RAAus FIR just as fast as their chequebook will allow. It won't stay at 20hrs minimum - not likely when CASA is/has allowed recognition of the RPC for conversion to RPL. The GA FIR is 30hrs dual plus 20 hrs 'mutual' practice with another instructor trainee, or an instructor. That's why it 'costs' $16k-18k. There is some demand for RAAus instructors, and usually as part-timers. If you hold this qualification, and have progressed say, to SI, and 3-500hrs FIR time - my prediction is that there will later on be a 'conversion' deal with CASA. You only have to look at where CASR Part 61 has taken the industry - with PPL 'instructors' being allowed for training such as design feature and flight activity endos. In the meantime, there is no cause for despondency with RAAus instructing. Most RAAus schools are progressing well, as opposed to the many GA schools 'doing-it-tough' at their locations on secondary airports. But, don't expect the RAAus schools to pay you 'award' wages for your efforts. Depending on ones' viewpoint, you could say the school is 'helping' a red raw instructor to gain valuable experience. Junior instructors require supervision, and mentoring, by their CFI. They need to contribute more than just instructing at the school. happy days,

Interesting question. From the human view, it seems to depend on the length of the persons legs, rather than their full height. In terms of the aircraft, features such as sliding seats, adjustable rudder pedals, and clearance from the lower instrument panel edge are important. People with relatively long legs need to be able to adjust the seat, fore/aft, so that there is just a small amount of bend in the knees. If you can't do this, then it's likely there will be too much knee bend, causing knees to hit the lower panel. And this might also create control freedom problems. My experience with a J-160 was one of frustration in making short legged students comfortable. Even with rudders adjusted aft, and stacking cushions under and behind them - the student felt 'insecure'. Taller students, eg 1.8 - 2.0m fitted ok, but were at the limits and often couldn't fit a lumbar cushion behind them - creating a hard surface against their backs. The Brumby 610 high-wing resolved most of my student 'comfort' issues - but, anecdotally, so too do several other LSA types. I have been able to accommodate 2.3m, and also 115kg students in it - but it does become rather 'close' with these extremes. With my smaller (often female) students, I need the seat further forward, and some cushions added so they can see adequately. This does bring them close to obstructing the 'full & free' movement of the yoke controls. A catch-22, as are many aircraft issues! Hope these comments help.