poteroo

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Forums are meant to be locations where we share these differing opinions without denigration being heaped on us. Lets keep it that way. happy days,

It may well. But, the aircraft continues to fly according to the principles we've all learned, regardless of height above ground. A little akin to engines continuing to run whether they are over open land or 100nm over water. The time for 'steep turns' is while you have height,airspeed and 'clean air' - as you get lower, you should be just fine tuning the approach. Holding your attitude accurately for best glide, and making any turns precisely in balance will extend your airborne time - really important. Common errors in BFR's for both GA and RAAus are flying too fast, and way out of balance turns.

Calling Andrew, Ultraflash, and Downunder in particular. I'm looking for a few more Aerofest pics that show the front display area and possibly the Brumby as well. Would greatly appreciate. thanks, email to : [email protected].

I did briefly speak with both the President and CEO - who said that they came over with the intention of helping establish RAAus better in WA. I asked them why such a rush to get over here, schedule 3 meetings which will draw 3 men and a dog - but ignore Aerofest. In any case, they arrived too late to speak at the opening of the event - not clever.Pointed out a need for them to work with the flying schools here - not make decisions in Canberra in complete ignorance of our needs. (seems to be something in the water over there?) It's my intention to prepare a thought out proposal for RAAus to collaborate with their FTF's over here, and get behind an annual event...... Aerofest one year, and something else in the alternate year. Thinking about circular coms with all CFI's in WA to prepare a stronger proposal. Your thoughts?..... or, PM me as maybe we need to keep the politics off this site. cheers,

I've seen Hindu sacred cows as well as Aussie sacred cows,(CASA for one). The major difference I've noted is that ours are fat - while theirs are lean. Both outrageously block the traffic in any direction. happy days,

Inviting everyone who attended to comment on this event from an RAAus pilots viewpoint. I was there - had our Brumby 24-8554 on display in the 'prestige' viewing area. Also, lead our formation of 6 RV's in a formation display at 2pm. Thought it very unfortunate that RAAus didn't have a separate static display/booth along with AOPA and AWPA in the hangar. Also, RAAus appear to have missed the possibility of having all RAAus registered aircraft parked in a separate and clearly signed area. There were plenty of us there - but scattered through the GA fleet of about 70-80. All in all ......a great effort by Busselton Aero Club, and a message to RAAus to get cracking to ensure a full effort for the 2018 event. It's the WA aviation event of the year. happy days,

I'd say that happens anyway. Once you make a clean lift-off, the aircraft immediately turns toward the upwind,(down), wing and by the time you can level the wings - viola, the crab angle has been setup. Exactly how it was instructed to me on a C180 back many moons. happy days,

There has been a wealth of experience with these aircraft in WA. They were trialled by CALM,(DPaW) as firespotters but found to have inadequate takeoff performance for summertime work off their forest/hill strips. Then several were placed online as trainers, but again, Jandakot experience was not complimentary to the Eagle - and as a result they were sold off into the private market, (with great difficulty I believe). A local pilot purchased one here for about $35k - flew it for a year - and couldn't sell it quickly enough. No idea what he sold it for, but it wasn't for $50k! I'd be thinking that if there is likely to be a MTOW 'difficulty' with RAAus registration - that there are other more proven types in the marketplace. Good luck with your return to aviation. Don't rush into anything btw.

Don't think there is any school at Carnarvon. Geraldton has both GA and RAAus and several types for hire, and is actually better served by RPT than Carnarvon so I'd think about starting from there. cheers,

At 140KIAS - it only takes a twitch of the fingers to shift an RV out of position. And, it happened just as we went over the target location, and.....someone clicked it and kindly emailed it to me. Our #3 is suitably mortified.....but these things do happen. As leader, I fly in the #4 position which allows for better adjustment of everyone ahead and above me. When we fly a wedge-6 ship, I can see everyone in that formation as well. Thought I should show you that, despite everyone in this group having a couple hundred hours of formation, and 10+ years flying RVs - it's a dynamic activity and your positions are always under challenge.

Yes, it is indeed - but I'm old enough, and been in this business for long enough, (53 years), to know that scary messages just don't work well. VFR pilots continue to enter non-VMC conditions - some survive, others don't. Whether those who survive were in current instrument flying practice isn't known, nor is it published for those who, unfortunately, failed to make it. I don't believe that these numbers are known with any reliability on them. Unless we know this - where is the reason for all the scare stuff? For a fair comparison - lets look at the road situation, and the obsession with speed as a primary causal factor in road deaths. Slowly, slowly - experts are accepting that speed is only one factor in the equation. The actual fatality rate per (driver/vehicle/distance?) is actually falling, yet speeds achieved, and achievable, are higher now than when we drove VW beetles in the 60's. Much higher in fact. Focus on speed alone is misleading - just as is focus on reducing aviation fatalities by urging pilots not to enter non-VMC. The loss of VMC is one that we can reduce - in my opinion - by introducing improved 'attitude' training at an early stage of training. Students need to see and feel the 'loss of VMC' situation - when the primacy of learning is able to instil in them a healthy respect for it, and an appreciation of the simple solutions. It's too late to achieve this after pilots are let loose and begin to traverse Aus with an overly confident attitude about VMC. By then, they'll likely have 'tried' their hand at a bit of 'safe' non-VMC flying and, with mates' support, have begun to disrespect the warnings. Even if you have IFR training, and are current - there are clouds that you can negotiate, but there are others where you are crazy to go near. If the system is big and bad - it holds significance for both IFR and non-IFR pilots. We recently had a good example of the prudent IFR/RPT pilot here - the F50 decided not to push through a line of weather only 30nm north, and returned to Perth. That's what we pay for in RPT - sensible decisions and safe outcomes. There are no medals for scaring the paying passengers and probably shortening the life of the already aged airframe! For the VFR pilot - it means you keep a sensible distance between it and you - 10nm is a good starting point as that allows you to assess a greater length of the system. It means diversions when the cloud base allows less than 1000ft clearance - not when you are 200ft and <3nm visibility. Then you don't need to worry whether you'll last 178 seconds! And, while we're at it, why not compare the 'IFR' scene to those other causes of aviation fatalities such as EFATO and low flying. We train students from an early stage to recover from EFATO in various positions, and it's usually done well. But, without continued practice, these skills fall away, (as we see during BFR's). It's relatively safe to practise these yourself, and we need to urge all pilots to do so. However, low level flying is an entirely different matter. You don't know, what you don't know in LL - just as in attitude instrument flying. It requires training plus regular practice to retain competency. And, it should be commenced at a much earlier stage of pilot training so that, again, primacy-of-learning ensures that the student becomes an aware qualified pilot who does not need wishy washy messages and lectures form the regulators about the risks of LL. It has to start early in the training. I hesitate to use this - but the saying you can't teach an old dog new tricks has some currency in aviation. happy days,

As an RAAus member, you should make use of our very competent Operations team in Canberra. Phone them and get it from the horses mouth. happy days,

Our GA school had a CASA audit about 4 years ago where they were really nitpicky. They took the schools'daily flight sheets - matched them to the Maintenance release for a particular aircraft - then matched up the student record sheets - then matched the entries in our personal Pilot Log Books - and finally, matched up with our time & duty sheets. It was a particularly nerve wracking audit but all the entries cross matched, and both instructors lived to fight another day! Nothing as searching as this happens in RAAus - but it shows just how CASA can search your records. happy days,

This lack of information could be easily corrected. At their next BFR, each PC holder could provide proof via logbook of all endorsements held, and flight times to date, eg TT, instructing time, and perhaps time on major types? The qualifications detail is what CASA asks for the changeover from old Part V licences to new Part 61 licences. It's a lot of paperwork for instructors, but it should result in correct pilot records within another year. (if you provide the correct numbers of course.) RAAus could easily provide an extra column or two in the electronic BFR submissions from CFI's - and this would enable at least a 2 year accounting for hours flown. happy days,

I'd disagree. Once the dual rate goes above $200/hr - then prospective students begin to think twice. Sure, the total cost can be rationalised to $6000 total - but only if you use the legally minimum hours of 20 hrs to PC, then 12 hrs for cross-country, plus maybe another 3-5 hrs to reach 10 hrs for passenger carrying. Lets say 35 hrs total - and that has to be at at $170/hr. Of course, not all our students are Chuck Yeager, and they all can't fly on days when it's calm and beaut. The real hours to completion are higher. But, these charge out numbers might work if you operate a low value aircraft out of a private airstrip and already own your own school building and hangar. If you have purchased something more upmarket @ $120-140,000, are located on a landing charge airport, rent a hangar, and rent a school building - your annual costs are much higher and can only be amortised via high utilisation - plus higher charge out rates. How many schools do more than 500 hrs pa? 300hrs? Less? Once you fall into the above group - then upwards of $220/hr becomes essential, and that will struggle to cover costs. Insurance is a real slug with these new, higher cost aircraft. Actually, I think that it's only after the fresh new pilot gets away from the flying school that they are able to search out lower cost 'hour building' options. There are many aircraft owners who will rent out their aircraft to a relatively inexperienced new pilot. It's a question of what their insurer will require. Renting out for a block of say 30-40hrs done over 2-3 weeks becomes very attractive on a dry hire basis - it can pay the major part of your insurance. It's sometimes said, (and not in jest), that a newly graduated pilot is a safer bet for hire, than a know-it-all, longstanding pilot who has not maintained currency and skills. happy days,

When I did the Phase 1 flying on my RV6 in 2001, the Vso = 48 KIAS, which then gave me a calculated approach speed of 48 KIAS x 1.3 = 63 KIAS, ie, exactly the same as the Mudgee RV6. What I found in the flight testing of this RV6, and several others, was that the 'break' is sudden. ( I always used some power x 65 KIAS for general landings). It's even more so when you load up the wing in a turn of even 30 degrees. At 48 degrees it would have been very sharp. So, if you allow your RV6 to enter a steep turn during a descent - add power to give you elevator command. In a gliding turn - use 65-70 KIAS and keep turns to 30 degrees. There is no need to be making a 1770 fpm descent rate, in a 48 degree turn in any circumstances - let alone turning onto final. The RV6 is a great little performer - it just needs to be flown with due care and regard to the laws of aerodynamics. happy days,

The figures are 'rubbery' at best, and I'd be hesitant about drawing too many conclusions from them. Rumour has it that there are one heck of a lot of non-current, and never qualified, pilots out there. We are seeing less 50-70yo students, as enquiries, TIFs, or starts. I believe this is due this demographics' fears for their super and pensions, and the cost of living, (particularly in utilities). There is also a marked dropout of older GA pilots - one reason for so many RVs coming on market. But, we're seeing more 20-40yo TIFs and student starts. Mostly, these are not dreamers who want to fly for QF - many are professionals with a secure job and looking to a more demanding pursuit. Not many have indicated they want to even go on to GA. We also have a few who have chosen RAAus as the least cost route to RPL - only so they have the option of 4 seats. happy days,

It was the only tailwheel Brumby high-wing built to date - as far as I know. Regd 24-8630 and pics on the Brumby website. A real pity, as I was hoping to get to fly it and see whether we'd look at using one in the flying school. In respect of 'retiring' from any job, position or pursuit - you generally 'know' when it's the right time. It's less about age, less about being able to 'pass' a BFR - but more about reaching a personal decision that you should quit .... 'while you're ahead' as the saying goes. happy days,

Interesting 'connection' to a 2013 accident in same area, but different aircraft, being drawn on pprune.org Will be very interested in the details of this accident as the high wing Brumby has good performance and should climb away, even with 130L fuel on board. It would probably not been anywhere near MTOW - BEW 365 + 97 fuel + 100kg pilot = 562kg. We'll have to wait for RAAus to report. happy days,

Equitable, enlightened, progressive, responsible, and economically smart. In the halls of Fort Fumble.......... heresy!

Landed a HS-125 sans gear back a few years. Two of them in a Bonanza had a mid air at Tocumwal. There was another incident where they clipped the props of a twin during a gear-up and flew it back to base. There is a long, and not-so-distinguished, list of accidents/incidents with the regulators people involved. And yes - the metadata trawling is a concern, but they already trawl aviation forums such as this one - so what extra will they learn. U-tube must be a target-rich environment for them! happy days,

C205 was the original try at a C206 - but had a 260HP Continental IO-470 engine. It had poor elevator command - and needed power to hold the nose up on landing, especially with the CoG forward and full flap (40o) selected. It seemed to me that after a successful steep turning, plus slipping descent, his load changed from good for takeoff to too far forward, and he ran out of elevator command in the flare. (stall warning ceased for some time prior to and after touchdown). Also, as there were no RHS double doors on the 205, the RHS door should have been unlocked/opened by the jumper who was close to it. (pilot would have been too busy to touch his side). He did well to keep the aircraft flying. Once the turn was initiated - the nose has to necessarily be pushed down, and then some. Well flown I thought. I flew 100 hrs or so carrying freight in one of these things and it was no rocket ship! You needed the weight well distributed by compartment limits for it to be able to hold off for long during the flare. As we know, parachutists are very mobile self loading freight, and probably were all well forward for take-off, (as usually directed), hence the flip over was unavoidable once the nosewheel touched and weight began to transfer onto it. Of interest, I also flew a very early U206, (N5034U) in Arizona and Mexico during 1992. It was #34 of the U206's to come off the production line and it had all the pitch/elevator difficulties of the C205. The big improvement was 285HP plus the big doors. A few of these early 206s' came to grief on steep strips in various 3rd world countries as they proved difficult to roundout from a full flap approach. I seem to remember there was some directive to limit flap to 20 on steep strips for those models.? happy days,

Some encouraging changes there. I think it would be unlikely that flying schools would be enthusiastic about using a 19- registered aircraft because of the liability issues that might arise. Also - the current rule relating to training of subsequent owners.On the other hand, a 'group' ownership of a factory built 24- registered aircraft should be considered 'safe'. It would be insurable, as at present, because of ongoing maintenance by an L2 or LAME. If the 1/20th shares were able to be simply onsold, and RAAus be the keeper of the owner register - it should be workable and transparent enough to satisfy the regulator. I was an original member of an 8 person group back in the 60's and was able to easily and simply onsell my share. Why stop at 20 shares - why not 40? It would attract a lot more starters and enable the group to buy a very capable trainer. I'd welcome it. Why would any school owner feel unhappy about using op's trainer - save us a whole heap of capital investment. happy days,

A bit simplistic, but: Given that there have been suspect pitot/static inputs involved in some Airbus incidents - could pilots make use of a simple device like a Dynon D2 unit - where it is flying ground speed and GPS altitude? It has an attitude presentation, plus a magnetic heading/track presentation - so could it not be used to hand fly the aircraft using power x attitude? It need not be powered off the aircraft bus - just a larger battery that gave 6 hrs rather than the usual 2. There must be a simpler way to fly the aircraft when the computer misbehaves? happy days,

Security in our little corner of Oz is about to become much simpler for passengers. As of Feb 2016, Virgin regional ceases to operate to both Albany and Esperance with it's geriatric F50s. It's to be replaced by Rex operating 34 pax Saab 340s. As they are under the 20 tonne mark - no pax screening required. Big smiles about that, although our local MP has voiced great concern that 'people are losing their jobs in this clearly state government inspired move!' Last month he was 'concerned that Albany needed larger and faster pure jets on the Perth run 'so it would attract more tourists' And before that - he was planning for international flights to service us! And prior to that, he was talking of only accepting 'a big jet with a red tail'! Talk about a reality check - MP's clearly operate in a parallel universe! Now the dream is over. Sensibly, this City will have to accept frequency rather than size. Over a 200nm distance a jet is unlikely to cut the economics. Now, the café will be accessible without having to go through full security. The unfortunate operator might actually have some business at last! Oh, the wisdom of airport planners, and the stupidity of local government planners and engineers! But, the dreaded red ASIC is still required. All part of the smoke and mirrors policy to keep the masses feeling secure! happy days,