poteroo

Agree. You should pickup the plan you want from the main menu, then press menu and 'activate' it. Then it should show the 1st waypoint either on your map page plus the magenta trackline from your departure location. Or it will show a magenta arrow from your departure location down to the 1st waypoint on the plan page. I always have a field on my map page which shows the next waypoint, (NB:not the final wpt) - thus making it easy to tell if the plan has been activated. 296 is a vg GPS - hang on to it. happy days,

Under the CAR 5 system in GA - for certain endorsements, an instructor needed a check flight and a signoff before going out to instruct - eg, in formation and aerobatics. In low level, under the old CAR 5 system, you needed a special approval from CASA. (usually an Ag rating was required plus an Instructor 1 or 2 rating). However, under the new and confusing Part 61 - a GA instructor now must pass a test for a 'training endorsement' in each endorsement or rating that they intend to instruct in. I can't see anywhere in the low level instructing requirements of Part 61 that an instructor needs to have any previous low level experience - they just need to pass a 'training' check with an ATO. I assume that the ATO is low level, (or ag),rated - but again, many are not, so the pool of available checkers seems very limited. Now under RAAus rules, it is pretty simple. If an instructor is endorsed -they can teach and signoff on any endorsement. No problems you say? Well, it hardly seems the safest approach with more onerous endorsements such as low level. It's likely to be the 'blind-leading-the-blind'. There seems to be room here for Ops to make a ruling on low level, and have a checking system to ensure that instructors are up to a safe standard. Probably a 'grandfathering' would be applied so that those who have previous experience can be approved to check 'new' instructor applicants. Frankly - all instructors should be low level trained - for the many sound reasons already posted on this thread. happy days,

FT - care to expand on these points? Are any of the RAAus schools 'linked' with the GA schools so that RAAus becomes the entry point for ab initio training, then students converts to RPL? The Asian students probably don't understand the new RAAus to RPL pathway and have signed up for the full GA pathway simply because the end point is a 'Licence' and not a Certificate. I take it that USQ doesn't offer any 'aviation' degree? Funny how poor old Aussie students still manage to party while broke. In any event, we're now off subject by some miles. This thread was intended to obtain comment on the RAAus intention to create a 'utility' or 'rural' endorsement. The unanswered questions including - that it would/would not, contain all of the current LL endorsement, or, that it would be a stand alone endo which required/didn't require a LL endo beforehand. happy days,

I think we're agreed on that. We might even be able to negotiate better insurances for those who complete LL? Something for the Board to consider perhaps? happy days,

I think there is general agreement that training will reduce incidents - in any particular aspect of flying you like to choose. eg, instrument flying is a CASA requisite for all CASA licences. Given that CASA recognise the level of accidents involving flight into non-VMC, and the value of IF training and currency in reducing this problem - why not expand training to cover the other high risk sector? My proposition is that they should treat low level training in exactly the same way as IF and include RAAus in it for good measure. happy days,

Further pics of the Kokoda Track airstrips. The pic of Efogi with the Twin Otter on a long final shows the 150m of 'flat' strip and it then disappears downhill at close to 17% in parts. Never having watched a Twotter landing there - I'd only be guessing at their technique. My guess is that they don't carry full flap, and use a swag of power to keep the nosewheel from touching the steep slope at too great an angle. I remember a C206 being broken at Efogi sometime in the 60's and it was because the elevator command wasn't good enough and it hit nosewheel 1st. The DC3,(VH-PAT), pic below was actually taken by Robyn Keinzle, (daughter of legendary Bert), loading at Kokoda in early 1961. Look at the 'tropical' clothes! This was the last pic taken of PAT because about a month later, it was 60nm NW of Port Moresby with a load of supplies for the Health Dept in Minj,(Western Highlands),when the crew saw smoke coming under the door. They made an emergency descent from 10,000 ft and landed at Bereina, a mission strip on an island. The flight crew and the sole supernumary, (a recently employed,and their 1st, flight attendant called Patti Gollum), evacuated via the cockpit windows. The aircraft exploded in flames due it's undeclared load of chemicals and was a total write-off. Luckily for all concerned the Captain was e highly experienced wartime pilot called Myles Lewis. I was based in Mt Hagen at that time and thought little more about it. In 1989, I was purchasing an aircraft in Arizona, and was invited to stayover with the people concerned. After a bit of note swapping - to my amazement, the lady turned out to be the same Patti Gollum who had escaped the DC3 accident in 1961. What a co-incidence!! We have all become good friends and we see them on any US visits. I have posted a pic of a Piaggio 166 VH-PAP, below. This aircraft became one of the many to disappear, or crash, in the Kokoda Gap. It was in early 1961, not long after I had arrived in Mt Hagen and began to fly,(as a pax), around various wild and woolly locations in the Western Highlands. The 'Pig' was flying Popondetta to Moresby mid afternoon - in the usual appalling weather - and disappeared near Mt Obree, just to the east of the Gap. It has never been found.The pilot had only been flying in PNG for 2 months and was relatively inexperienced. While searching for this aircraft, another wreck was spotted on Mt Obree - which turned out to be a USAF C47 which disappeared under similar conditions in 1944. Almost every year or two, a WW2 wreck is found somewhere in PNG. Pretty sobering stuff! The other 2 pics that I've posted are of the active volcano, Mt Lamington, which is nearly on track the Kokoda Gap to Popondetta - about 30nm or so. It exploded violently in 1951, killing 3000 local people in a fast moving gas cloud akin to that of Pompeii. Although calm in the 60's it still gave a spectacular sight for tourists when we flew around the crater rim - sometimes even inside it. Finally, a comment on one of the earlier pics which showed the point of impact of a Twin Otter in 2012. One of the techniques we never used was to pull off power on passing the Gap and try to descend 'straight in' to Kokoda - probably because we didn't have the same ability as the Twin Otter with its' 2 turbines. The route endorsing system we used called for maintaining altitude until level with or even past Kokoda - then turning back and descending through the more broken cloud away from the main range. Worked for us. happy days,

I trawled through my early logbooks today and found that I had made 196 separate trips from Port Moresby into the 4 major Kokoda Track airstrips. Noted about 40 Gap passages to the N side as well. In all of those trips, there were only 3 aborts due wx. Didn't add up the hours but it was usually about 40 mins per trip, unless you went from one strip to the other, (Efogi to Kagi was 4 mins!). All of them except 8 were done in 260 HP Cessna 185 aircraft - the 3200 lbs MTOW models. No nosewheel Cessnas ever serviced the track strips to my knowledge. The Pilatus Porters were beginning to takeover the Track work by 1970. These C185s were all fitted with cargo pods and we used them every load to keep the weight forward. Surprise, surprise - we did weigh a lot of the freight and used a standard weight for national passengers. Each departure required a completed load sheet, pax manifest, and cargo manifest - making the paperwork quite onerous. It was really difficult to keep track of who was where, and what had been loaded into the aircraft while you were distracted with other tasks. Efogi was so steep that we usually used only 20 deg flap and 65 KIAS on approach because the roundout was so marked that more flap made it problematical. When you have to land on a 15% or more uphill slope - there's a huge deceleration involved. Hence we kept some power on right thru the roundout. Takeoffs were greatly enhanced by the slope on most strips. You just shut out any thoughts of an EFATO later than 30 kts - too horrible to consider! Anyhow, we were young and full of the right stuff so the risks were not too deeply considered! Have attached a map of all the airfields at Port Moresby during WW2. Many of them were still in good shape in 1965.

Have a draft done - but it's hard work!!

Actually...the obvious obstacle hazards are, but it's the lesser known or appreciated hazards which trip people up. Losing airspeed in slow speed turns, flying steep turns instead of minimum radius turns, loss of horizon reference, and loss of SA per se will all contribute to an accident. The fact is ....... you don't know what you don't know! happy days,

I've never walked the Kokoda Track, but I spent many hours flying into all the small strips that are located in the Owen Stanley Ranges. The well known Kokoda Gap, which is negotiable at around 7500 ft, is only 47 nm from Port Moresby, and by then the highest mountain,(Mt Victoria), towers over you 13,000 ft. There are several strips located on the track itself. The first strip away from Port Moresby was Naoro. It is now abandoned I think - but it was only 2000 ft up, flat, wet and slippery and 400m long. The 2nd strip we serviced was Efogi - 3700amsl, 600m long and average 12% uphill, (17% just in from the bottom threshold. And it had a dogleg as well. There was just enough 'good' strip at the top to get ones tail off the ground - then over the edge you went. There was no turning back from there. The other strip which we occasionally went into was Kagi - now off the main track, but infamous because it was the site where the Japanese enacted the 'night-of-the-lanterns' in full view of the Aussies digging in on the other side of the valley at Brigade Hill. Kagi was notable for it's katabatic winds early am - couple of serious crashes due this. My checkflights into these strips began on 24/4/1967 in a C185, VH-KRD. My last flight was in C180 VH-PNE on 27/1/1970 - the very day my youngest son was born by co-incidence. We moved local passengers and freight to and from Port Moresby - only 15-20 mins away over some rough country. On weekends, we often did Aussie passenger runs with people interested in the Track, the Gap, and we usually landed at Kokoda so they could view the memorial there. So, I boned up on the WW2 history so that I could give them some value. The Track wasn't all that 'popular' in the 60's and the number of walkers we dropped off and picked up could be counted on your fingers in a month. One trip that I made was very memorable. It was 1.00pm, and we were all planning to quit for the day when a call came in for an Aztec charter over to Kokoda and back. I drew short straw - nobody volunteered for a Gap crossing after lunch because the buildups by then were quite awesome. As luck would have it - the aircraft was a non-turbo Aztec C, (VH-COO), which was less fun than the turbo C that was also on line. My passengers made up for it. I had the honour of flying Bert Keinzle and family back to their rubber plantation at Kokoda. Bert was the legendary boss and organiser of the entire WW2 Kokoda Campaign carrier line, (some 15,000 local men). he must have walked that track tens of times and he knew every hill and creek along it. Without this backup support - the Campaign could well have been lost and the war lost. It was a difficult job - we had to climb to 14,000 and clear the ranges east of the Gap - then descend into the Kumusi R valley and fly low level back to Kokoda. Took twice as long as usual - but Bert was pleased to get home in one piece. He owned the airline so time wasn't the object - not hitting the scenery was! Another interesting location was the Myola 'Lakes' which were really just bare, grassy swamps located just under the 'false' Kokoda Gap at 6000amsl. During WW2 this location was a drop zone to resupply troops, but due to the ever present low cloud and rain - these drops were hit & miss efforts. So, the Aussies then built a strip along the driest part of the grassland after the area was retaken in late 1942 and it was used to stretcher out wounded cases using a Piper Cub or a Stinson. We used to fly around there often en route without a load and found several wrecked aircraft still there - mostly tri-motor Fords or Junkers. It was a pretty tight circuit area even in our modern Cessnas so hats off the those WW2 pilots with overloads and real pressure to get through. So, that's a little about this famous battlefield from my experiences. Having walked over some other parts of PNG, I can certainly empathise with our troops who really did it tough. My 'closure' on the Kokoda story was on attending the Brig Potts memorial dedication at Kojonup in 2007. He will be remembered long after his generals.

Refer: p18 of November Sport Pilot I'd like to hear comment from all of you on the pros and cons of this proposal. Lets begin by my stating that I'm opposed to it - unless the pilot has already completed a comprehensive Low Level endorsement. I'd then suggest that if the pilot has been adequately trained in low level operations - that they really don't need any add on operational endorsement. A thorough LL endo will cover most things that an owner/pilot will want to do with their aircraft. Remember that in GA, the LL 'course' (CAO 29.10) has been replaced with a LL Rating under CASR Part 61. From this course, pilots go on to fly low level photography, low level animal tracking, low level stock spotting, low level pipeline inspection, low level powerline inspection, low level tank, trough and bore inspections, firebreak inspections, and low level SAR - generally without much need for on-the-job training. However, for highly specialised survey work, and stock mustering - they do need further training. If you feel strongly about this proposal - rather than flame this post - may I suggest you contact your local Board member with your response. happy days,

Nev, You'd remember the old Lae airport - bet the DC4 used every m of it! The 'Tenyo Maru' was a famous offshore marker for approaches from overwater to 32. It sometimes had to be avoided during overloaded takeoffs using rwy 14 heading out to sea. Lae was a location that 'enjoyed' the very worst of WW2 activity. Occupied by the Japs in 1942, it was bombed and strafed by the Allies every 2nd day for most of 1942 and 1943. After it was retaken by the Aussies, (including my still living father-in-law), the US 5th Air Force moved in and developed the massive Nadzab complex some 30nm up the Markham Valley from Lae. 15 runways for 1500 aircraft. The old Lae airport has long since been closed and all commercial ops are out of Nadzab.

Several stories in fact. Which section should I post them into?

Never full time after moving from PNG to WA in Feb 1970. But yes - some charter, some ag, considerable wheatbelt in course of R&D job, lots private, and lots instructing. (largest segment of instructing is low level and tailwheel endos). RAAus since only 2006 - a relative newbie with these. happy days,

On 10th November 1965, I successfully completed a 4:10 CPL flight test out of Brisbane Airport,(Eagle Farm as it was then known). My DCA examiner,(Capt Tom Drury), personally signed off all my paperwork, issued my CPL on the spot - and later that night I was on the Electra back to Port Moresby. Yes, today it's 50 years since becoming a 'professional' pilot. At the tender age of 75, I'm still involved in both GA and RAAus, and still meeting the standards. No 'S' plates yet I hope! Aviation was alive and well back then. Within 4 days I had been given a check flight on both a C182 and C185, and offered either a full time or part time job with either company. On the 16th, I flew my 1st charter flight in a C182. There were plenty of jobs - you just needed to be there! I learned lots about flying and myself over the next 5 years in PNG......but that's another story! happy days,

Which staff Keith? If you have that 'attitude' about Operations staff attending an event, then who do you suggest? CASA? And what do you mean by 'fun'.......... some good old fashioned illegal low flying done by the great untrained? Perhaps a few, (non aerobatic of course) wingovers and stall turns? Give us a break! As for 'recruiting' pilots - that's primarily a job for the FTF's because their business depends on training new pilots. I don't think any CFI's would be unhappy about RAAus Ops staff turning up for a local flyin or other aviation event. Be nice to see them on our own turf actually. If we know they're coming, it can be used for local promotion of flying training - a win for everyone. I reckon you're way off track here. happy days,

Sometimes it's sensible to cut short the backtracking and commence the take-off roll well before reaching the runway threshold. It's not illegal. The main proviso being that you have more than your minimum take-off distance ahead. We do this frequently here on Rwy 32. There's no valid reason to use 2000m of runway just because your school says you 'should' use all the available runway. Common sense! As was said in earlier posts, the aircraft entering the circuit should have been listening out since 10nm and certainly should have been observing on ground movements with joining the circuit. Again' common sense should apply - slow down, fly slightly wider,call the taxying aircraft. Insisting on ones right-of-way has no place in a good safety culture. It's no different to merging lanes on the highway - there'll always be the bully who pushes in, and if you don't defer to them it can become nasty. happy days,

No. A 'club' meeting is members only and therefore private. You could have your offer in a club magazine and it would be safe - providing that said publication wasn't distributed beyond bona fide members. Word-of-mouth via other members isn't public advertising. You'd be wise to check that the clubs' insurance covered passengers who were obtained in this way. happy days,

Uber Air? The FAA will drag this through the courts for years. No doubt, CASA and their legal team will be right onto this. It would not surprise anyone to see a sneaky amendment to the CASR's or CARs being slipped through before the US courts hand down a decision. One contentious section of 'cost sharing' is - just what are the permissible components of 'cost' as it pertains to a private flight? If you were to cost out a 300hr TT private owner, who so happens to own a Beechcraft 36 Bonanza worth $180,000, who insures it fully, but flies only 50 hrs pa - then the 'cost/hr will be massive due to insurance of say $8000 and depreciation of at least $18,000 pa. So, before operatings - we have a per hour 'annual' cost of $360 + $160 = $520. By my reckoning, that 36 is likely to be 'costing' at least another $300/hr for other costs. Share with 3 others and it will be 'costing' $200/hr/person. Hard to see where this private owner will actually be able to compete with a charter operator using a similar aircraft such as a C210 - given the usually much higher annual utilisation of the charter aircraft. Would you rather fly with the private pilot or the probably higher time, more current, CPL in a charter category aircraft? As we all know, trying to 'fit in' with friends on a flight to the same location is usually hard work. Trying to do it with complete strangers could be much more challenging. Meeting the expectations of your 'cost-sharers' could prove beyond the abilities of many pilots, and could result in some unhappy endings. (Think Angel Flight of recent times). I think the 'uber' concept has possibilities, but both CASA and the aircraft insurance industry might have strong reservations.

'Crowd funding' is a very cool concept and can work well where the convenor actually has something of value to create or develop. If someone was to post on here that they had begun development on an advanced wing design, or a new fuel injection concept or maybe even a way to reduce skin friction - then many of us would give it a look. But as we all know, inventions of use to aviation are few and far between, and if they do show promise - are usually already under a provisional patent. Once this happens - you don't need crowd funding, you will have a visit from one of the biggies with a cheque to help you retire to the Cayman Is. However, a persons education is a very individual and personal series of events which would be considered to be either your own or your parents responsibility in life. There are many cadetships, scholarships and other no strings attached sources of untied money for education - you just have to find them. Because of the oversupply of pilots, and the low wages available at the entry end of aviation - there are not too many sources of this funding. In Australia, we have a system of government funding of many educational courses, (VET FEE HELP), which require you to repay all or a proportion of the cost of your course after you get a job and begin earning over A$57,000 pa. Or, you could reach a private contractual arrangement with a prospective employer in the aviation industry, wherein they will fund your training up to CPL/ATPL, and you then repay them out of the huge salary that will be yours upon entering aviation. As many of the previous posters have suggested - why would anyone fund education when the applicant has shown neither aptitude, nor application, in their thinking about it? Many have suggested doing it the tried and trusted way - work hard, save your money, and become involved with aviation at your local level. There are plenty of people who will help a young pilot along but they prefer to help the motivated young pilot who lives down the road. As was said by an Aussie ex P.M........ there's no such thing as a free lunch! happy days,

Tanami pump works a treat for me too. No power problems as I use a small foot pump - good for out bush - lightweight - no static problems either. The hose can be inserted into a filter funnel if you like. I needed 3m hose to have some slack on a Brumby high wing. It takes me just under 2 mins to transfer 20L PULP from ground level into the aircrafts tank. Sure beats juggling a jerrycan while perched on a stepladder.

Exactly. Given that many RPC pilots will eventually move on to an RPL - the sensible plan is to ensure they have done 5 hrs solo x/c, and have done 2 hrs IF, (assume you are able to do this with full attitude insruments in your 24- rego aircraft). This ensures 'recognition' of qualifications and allows the GA CFI to simply do a BFR plus the paperwork. RAAus will eventually take over all 'recreational' flight training up to 1500 kgs. CASA just haven't revealed the master plan yet! happy days,

Rudder is the most useful control in turbulence and we teach its' use for this very early in ab initio training. It makes keeping wings level on approach a heap easier to achieve and allows the student to focus on their aiming point without 'snaking' all over the place. Couldn't agree more with his sentiments. Wish he'd summarised the article though, so the take-home message was emphasised. happy days,

More than a little truth in that article! The fact of anyone in authority being able to observe your behaviours is quite a deterrant - think: police near traffic lights, water police boat near launching ramp, person in high vis vest on full security airport. Pilots are not really different to anyone else in that they will slavishly adhere to even the most obscure regs and rules when with an instructor and especially during a flight review. Sometimes it's so excruciatingly done that one is tempted to say ' for Gods' sake, lets focus on the important stuff'! All this when, unbeknown to them, you've probably observed their 'normal' performance in the past. I'm not convinced that any additional publications such as 'Clear......." are likely to achieve any more than what ATSB,CASA, or anyone else has done. And that is, unfortunately, not very much. CASA wouldn't be running endless annual safety seminars on these same subjects if they had 'sold' the safety message successfully. Weather and fuel are constants in many accidents - so ...are they being taught well enough? What has been done in the past has not worked as intended. A new approach is needed. It's now time for our regulators and administering bodies to not only embed the safety messages into the syllabus of training, but widen the physical syllabus so that low level handling, and instrument flight are part and parcel of every pilots' training. This will also require instructors to be upskilled - so be it. happy days,

Reg 166 is clear on this - anyone on a straight in approach is not considered 'circuit traffic'. So, no matter how close in they are on final - they still don't have any right-of-way. (but, we teach our students to 'give way' if the student is still on downwind when the straight in aircraft calls ' 3 mile final + intentions') If on a reasonably spaced base leg - then student to make call they are now on early/mid/late base - and continue approach. All of this traffic spacing depends on each pilot being absolutely honest about their location. It's very disappointing to sometimes hear a call from a larger charter or RPT as being ' 3 miles' and it then takes them 3 minutes to reach a half mile final position. (given most are not travelling much under 120KIAS). That's plain outright bluffing the little guy. On the other hand, I would chastise a pilot who elects to speed up their downwind and turn a very early base leg, continuing at speeds way above Vfe just to try to assert priority over a heavy on straight in. We can't have it both ways!