poteroo

At these high DA the mixture must be leaned to get the peak RPM. Because the MP is very much lower - take off 1" for each 1000 alt, the aircraft can be held on brakes then carefully leaned. In this case it would probably have only made 21-22 " MP, (60% power?). FWIW, I would have leaned it, then used every metre of runway in a 'rolling' take-off,but zero flap. Then, rotated by clicking in flaps 1 via the reliably positive manual flap bar - but holding in ground effect while retracting. There are undoubtedly other factors involved, eg engine condition, but 180HP........... you are always going to struggle. Having a substantial downhill slope,(5-15%), was our saviour in PNG, where OPS at 7-10,000 DA were common.

Have flown 180/250, 260, 260B, 260C models. The 180HP Comanche is a poor performer in higher DA, eg, >5000. Hard to accurately lean a carby engine for best power take-off. FI better, but need a multi point EGT as well. No info as to configuration for take-off, nor the technique used to rotate and if it was held in ground effect to gain IAS. All very important. Wonder if pilot had any form of training, or any briefing on high altitude ops?

Disclosure: As a recently retired GA Instructor 1, and + RAAus CFI, I'm possibly able to now make comment without kickback. One of the unappreciated factors in badly handled landings is the positioning and height of the pilots seat. Unless the pilots eyes can see along the top of the engine cowl, and down the left hand side of it, then they are unable to judge positioning the aircraft so as to have it touchdown only on the mains. I always taught that the nose should be held up in the flare so that it was just above the horizon, but this works only if the student isn't sitting too low. Student pilots are usually too fast on approach, and this leads to the need for an extended flare, chewing up runway/strip distance rapidly. Hence the urge to 'plonk-it-on' and get on the brakes. Aerodynamic braking is the best way, both in the air, and once on the mains. I tried to have students hold the nosewheel off for an extended time - even encouraging them to use enough power to keep it there while rolling along the runway. Gives them a 'feel' for just how easy it is to do, and how little power is needed to give elevator command. Trimming is a major omission from the technique of many pilots. At mid final, a pilot should be able to take hands off the controls, and the aircraft should be at stable IAS and ROD. With C172, 182, 206 types, it's often impossible to gain enough aft trim to cope with full flaps: what's needed in training on these types is to place some load aft, so that there is sufficient trip for approach. 182's have a sad history of nosewheel/firewall damage due to poor management during training ops. (I have lots of time on them, and I always have 20-30kgs water in the baggage compartment.) As to whether strips are suitable, or not, as instructors we need to have enough length to be able to use 1/3 of the distance for the students áim point' and stiff be able to decelerate without any braking to a safe stop. Brakes should be taught as your 'last resort' when taxying, and landing. If we can instruct so that the student clears the strip end comfortably, but not above 50ft, then thats even better for their future success on shorter strips. Consistency is the important consideration.... golf comes to mind! happy days,

thanks for that. Did my aggie with Max Hazelton at Cudal in 1971, and that training served me well in the years since. Never met Jim, but later flew several of the aircraft that he ferried out from the USA - Aztecs VH-COO and COB, Comanches BOO, and PAO. cheers,

Gday Fellow Aviators, With very few, and minor, regrets, I'm ceasing my flight training here in Albany - effective 31/12/21. There are many reasons: Difficulties maintaining my CASA medical, and feeling my 81 years are foremost. I've held a Class 1 CASA Medical since 1965, and it's become really difficult to justify all the tests that Avmed can apply. And, to be honest, they may be sending me a message. You could say that I've had a pretty good innings, and it's time to move on and allow more progression through the industry. I have sold my RV9A, (VH-VFE), and you may see it around the continent with a couple of very keen new owners who I have provided with a sound transition training. I'm keeping my Brumby 610 high wing, (24-8554), because I'm still able to hold an RPC and DL, and you may see it around inland Oz over the next few years. Without the need to keep a FS open, my wife & I intend to click up some Brumby time doing the retirement thing. The retirement tasks include an autobiography covering my dual careers, (agriculutural scientist, (1961 -2009), and commercial pilot/flying instructor (1963-2022) Intend to stay on this excellent site, (thank you, Ian), and contribute whenever able. cheers all Ralph Burnett, aka poteroo - which is incidentally misspelt - should be all o's .

Nah, missed by 50 years! The swinging sixties were the good years in aviation. It was actually possible to fly in a NEW Victa, Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, or Maule. Why? because they were new, and affordable. In 1965, for my capital investment of $500 in a new Brisbane flying group, I got to fly a new Victa or a new C172 out of Archerfield. The rates were: Victa $9/hr and C172 $11/hr - both wet. In 1964 my 1st R/G endo was a 1963 Piper Comanche. My 1st T/W in 65 was a new 1965 Maule Rocket. My 1st twin in 67 was a new 1966 Piper Aztec. In 1969, I flew a 1969 Twin Comanche C - lovely unit. There were a lot of restrictions on flying back then - it wasn't open skies. We had to submit a flight plan for every trip - in writing mostly, and maintain full radio contact on VHF and HF at all times. Radio position reports were required every 30-40 mins. Lodging and closing plans was a real hassle due to poor radio reception, terrible phone availability too. Todays system is far better. happy days,

Actually, the RAAus syllabus is pretty much a very slightly pruned GA syllabus. The answer to why we have this structure is illustrated by the fact that the US FAA Part 61 flight training regs are 90 pages long, the NZ CAA P61 regs are about 120 pages, and, (wait for it), the CASR Part 61 regs run to 580 pages, with 620 pages of çompetency' guidelines for instructors. And, ours continues to grow, but according to Murphy - work expands to fill the available time in Canberra. There will never be any reform while CASA believe the air is different in Australia, aircraft behave differently here, the Yanks know nothing, and strict liability exists in our aviation laws. happy days,

Spreading, perennial grasses are best for runways. Tufted, annual grasses are a dead loss because you have to allow them to run up into seed every year = too deep growth to push through with small diameter aircraft wheels. Broadleaf weeds are worse, and you need to fight them back with either a frequent mowing, or some selective herbicide, (MCPA/dicamba mixes are useful). Common couch grass, (Cynodon dactylon), also known as Bermuda grass, African star Grass, etc, etc is a native of Africa, Australia & Asia. It is stoloniferous, ie, the stuff grows underground like kikuyu, and is very drought tolerant. It can be grown by using bits of turf, individual stolons, or, if you are lucky to know someone with a patch of it - by mowing off the seedheads into a catcher and then spreading them during wet weather. You should be able to access planting materials of this grass quite cheaply. Find someone who has it by the hectare! Plant in linear lines longitudinally up the strip and allow the grass to spread laterally. This creates less bumps. Important - get the plain old common couch - not one of the fancy hybrids, or selections that are used for better watered turf in parks. Lots of details on common couch management on the internet.... Dr Google is your friend! It is very responsive to both nitrogen and sulfur, which are available from sulfate of ammonia fertiliser. Assuming that your soil has better than 25ppm of phosphate, and 100 of potash, then N is what drives the couch along. But, you need several sprinkles of AS during the wet season because it leaches rapidly and the grass may not have sufficient root mass to uptake it. Don't mow it too low, frequency is more important. Once you can find its' roots down below 40-50mm, then it will handle a bit more aggressive cutting. Hope this helps, cheers.

Luckily, I've never had to do a dead-stick onto a steep slope : my experience has always been with all engines running, although sometimes with near gross load,(MTOW). I reckon the pilot concerned did a pretty good job. Any slope over 5% is going to require a fair change in technique. We were taught to make sure we turned final at a set altitude, and to fly the approach with sufficient flap to allow us to have some reserve power for the inevitable sink on very short final, as well as to carry the aircraft forward above Vso as eyes were raised to the top end of the strip. I usually added power in the flare so as to not hit the slope too hard if I misjudged things. Some pilots added 5-10 kts to their Vref but this was more useful on the really steep ones, eg, over 14-15%. The early C206 had inadequate elevator command, and several were bingled on steep strips. Later models were improved. The C185s that I was primarily using were great for the shorter strips, (60 KIAS on final), but on the steeper slopes it tok quite a change in attitude to get them to 3 point. We usually 3 pointed in case of soft surface. I can't remember ever operating on anything over 17%, (commercial PNG ops had a few more restrictions than the Missionaries, MAF and private operators). Some of their strips we used to fly past and marvel at how they ever managed. One Missionary pilot of legend, said it was doubly hard for him, as a priest, because he flew one handed while rubbing his crucifix with the other!! When I began to route & strip endorse, it required a leap of faith to sit there while a newbie came down final. Quite often, turning final was often your decision point.

Good post onetrack. Pilots continue to lose control when 'inspecting' potential airstrips from seriously low level. What you can't see from 150-200 ft agl isn't really much: because lower down you need to have your eyes ahead and cannot devote time to any 'strip inspection'.

It was worth every cent I paid for it. Flew it for 2400 hrs over 13 years. It took me into almost every paddock in the WA wheatbelt: with its' 8.00 tyres and just me up, it had very good soft surface performance. In the air it was reasonable too: 98-102 KTAS on 27 LPH. I used it to deliver over 100 tailwheel endos, and the same in low level endos. Made a good trainer as the door sill was exactly the same height above ground as a C180/185, and that was with a full size Scott 3200 tailwheel fitted. It you could fly the 170, and many found it quite a challenge, most other tws were easy. The reversed rh seat made air-to-air pics very easy. We used it several times to get RV single ship shots. It was a bit too slow to do formation stuff. What the old 0-300 Conti lacked in power, it almost compensated for by being a very smooth running engine. It also ran on just about any grade of petrol. Horses for courses.

This COVID pandemic is having the waters muddied via confusion over which cohort of the population is included. Denmarks data includes everyone over 12 - not just the over 16s. That makes the 70% benchmark espoused by our PM and the NSW Premier, look much less challenging - when it really requires a much higher number. What I think have not been factored into all the optimistic benchmarks are: 1. the 12-16 group 2. the significantly higher transmissability of the Delta variant 3. the wilful non-reporting of cases 4. the wilful non vaccination population who will continue to keep the virus circulating. On the other hand, our own Dear Leader has begun to suffer hubris on a massive scale by nominating next April as the open up date. We can't holdout forever, and it now requires a serious WA government push to vaccinate. IMHO, we will never, ever, reach 80% vaccinated when it includes all over 12s, and 90% of the indigenous population. Tighten your seatbelts!

VH-OSZ is a Cessna 170A which was rolled out the Cessna factory door on 11th September, 1950. Yes, on 9/11 - the same date that 51 years later saw the terrorist attack on the USA. It was flown in the US by several owners, and in the 1990s it was exported to the Phillipines. Then it was purchased by a Melbourne helicopter operation and registered OSZ in Australia, with claimed 2500 hrs TT. We purchased it in 1992, and sold it in 2006, after having flown 2400 hrs on the airframe, and repainted it in WC Eagles colours!. It has since changed owners again, but has been really well maintained along the way. Thought it of interest that I present this info today. NB: we often flew it 'door off' for photoshoots. happy days,

The general public is being fed a diet of the 'silver bullet' is coming with vaccinations.....have faith! I'm amazed to hear/read the simplistic approaches being proposed. There is no silver bullet. With biological management, there is rarely one single solution:many inputs are needed, and in a responsive, integrated approach. If each of the inputs is 80% efficacious, but several are employed - it creates a robust, 95+% reduction of disease. The best examples in plant disease involve the use of several management tools, including resistance genes, quarantine, prophylactic chemistry, crop rotations, and good agronomy. happy days,

FDH was never returned to service following a landing accident at Karumba in 2015. It was a lovely example of the breed, was meticulously rebuilt and maintained, and a delight to fly. FDH is one of the highlights in my logbook. The aircraft destroyed was a Cessna 185, which I don't think was ever in RFDS service. In fact, I don't believe that 185s were ever in RFDS colours. Both Jan and Dan Ende were quite badly burned in the fire, and on a long road to recovery.

Reportedly, with flying it's 300 TT, then again at 1000 TT.

Low hours and a C180/185 can be a very chastening experience : instructors need to be right on their game when doing these t/w endorsements. Back in the dim past of the 60's, I had a junior commercial doing his 1st t/w on a C185. He opened to full power in the same way as a C150, and away we went - predictably through the LHS markers. In the process, his seat unlocked, and he went aft at great speed, with the seat running off the runners. (real men don't use seat locks!). He ended up in the rear row of seats - significantly altering CG for the remaining pilot to cope with. An empty 185 is a mean beastie, and I just managed to get it airborne before the scenery loomed rather close. It took a lot of strength, but in my 20s it wasn't impossible. We all learn, and my young CP went on to become an experienced PNG pilot, and then onto Compass & Ansett - gaining his command on 737s there. But back to the Sia Marchetti accident. Looks like control locks still in as a 1st guess, as I can't imagine anyone using full aft trim to have landed it previously. In any event, the pilot was a well trained and experienced person who would probably run a checklist with some care and should thus have reset both rudder & elevator trim.

Every organism has a determinable mutation rate, and the probability of a new variant appearing is very much due to the total numbers and severity of the disease. Unvaccinated and travelling population, living cheek-to-jowl, both in/out of doors = higher probability of a mutation. A bad 'flu ' season in the N.Hemisphere probably means our vaccine will need changes to cover us before our winter. The 'normal ' flu vaccine which we receive takes into account as many of the previous years variants as possible, and our future is going to be one where our Covid jab does the same. Probable that they can all be covered by a single shot?

I'm uncertain as to the origins of COVID-19, but what I do understand is that each strain or variant has a mathematical rate-of-mutation: meaning that the greater the numbers of the virus, the greater chance there is of mutations occurring. However, whether these mutants are more or less virulent, more or less transmissive, more or less persistent on surfaces and, whether they alight on, and infect, a susceptible human, is unknown - at least for a start. When an organism, (virus, fungi, bacteria), reaches epidemic proportions, then more new strains can be expected - but in the greater majority of instances, they fall on non receptive surfaces or persons, (vaccinated or naturally resistant), and go no further. If the human, (or plant, or animal), is tolerant, (perhaps due to prior exposure/antigen buildup, or is multi-gene tolerant), then the organism fails to create more than mild infections and less spreading. It is one hell of a good case for vaccination, even if you only expect 60-70% (efficacy). Letting a disease 'rip ' as did Sweden, will eventually work, ( 'survival-of-the-fittest '...Darwin!), but at what cost? Aus 1000 deaths for 25m pop, vs Sweden 14000 deaths for 10m population. If the anti-everything brigade hold sway - we won't have enough Greek characters to name all the variants! btw, you won't find much support in WA for 'freedom fighters' other than the usual 'rent-a-crowd' which we see at every demo - just with different signage!!

I'm uncertain as to the origins of COVID-19, but what I do understand is that each strain or variant has a mathematical rate-of-mutation: meaning that the greater the numbers of the virus, the greater chance there is of mutations occurring. However, whether these mutants are more or less virulent, more or less transmissive, more or less persistent on surfaces and, whether they alight on, and infect, a susceptible human, is unknown - at least for a start. When an organism, (virus, fungi, bacteria), reaches epidemic proportions, then more new strains can be expected - but in the greater majority of instances, they fall on non receptive surfaces or persons, (vaccinated or naturally resistant), and go no further. If the human, (or plant, or animal), is tolerant, (perhaps due to prior exposure/antigen buildup, or is multi-gene tolerant), then the organism fails to create more than mild infections and less spreading. It is one hell of a good case for vaccination, even if you only expect 60-70% (efficacy). Letting a disease 'rip ' as did Sweden, will eventually work, ( 'survival-of-the-fittest '...Darwin!), but at what cost? Aus 1000 deaths for 25m pop, vs Sweden 14000 deaths for 10m population. If the anti-everything brigade hold sway - we won't have enough Greek characters to name all the variants! btw, you won't find much support in WA for 'freedom fighters' other than the usual 'rent-a-crowd' which we see at every demo - just with different signage!!

If ever there was a fit for strict liability, non-compliance with public health directions, after a pandemic has been declared, then it is with these so-called protests.

' Market ' based = whatever an equivalent sized airport is charging + extra for all the perceived 'additional ' benefits that their airport offers. Never a minus for what it lacks! Anything under $20 is actually costing the airport administration more than it recoups because of the overheads involved in processing invoices. (they take a long time to work out what we in small business know from way back!). Don't tell them this = red rag to a bull! As well, you're wasting your breath because council admins are the smartest guys in the room. Councils with RPT airports also calculate everything on the basis that 'little' planes cause runway/taxiway damage or wear & tear on a weight based pro rata calculation. Just as they calculate airport hangar site lease rates on 'main street ' numbers. The major issue in dealing with airport owners is that both staff and councillors are changing over short intervals. Arrangements which might have been acceptable last year are likely to be opposed by both new staff and councillors this year. Nothing lasts forever!

It would be near irrisistable not to do a spray height flypast in your F18 - shake up the spooks. If the RAAf doesn't then I'll take money on the USAF doing it. What an opportunity!

Never tell CASA that you are losing filthy money due to delays - their charter does not cope with that! It's like a red rag to a bull.

What struck me about this flagrant breaching of pandemic regulations was that the perpetrators obviously were not short of a quid - yet were only penalised $500 each. Suffering expulsion from SA probably didn't break their hearts either. When you can afford to hire a Cessna 206, at probably $450-$500/hr, and then fly it over at least 20 hrs - ($10,000 at a quick guess), then the punishment certainly didn't fit the crime. happy days,