poteroo

I think you're close to the mark Dr Zoos. I'd say a low % of 70+ pilots use forums - they forget what the question was!! However, quite a few that I know use email, and they use a mobile phone plus text messaging. So perhaps we oldies are not really beyond keeping up? happy days,

To the best of my knowledge, the 2 PA-31's in PNG back then were PA-31-310 Navajo, (VH-PNK, VH-PNL). They appear to have been more reliable than the later PA-31-350 Chieftain engines.

Vfe should be IAS because it is a structural limitation on the airframe. Flaps are intended for lift augmentation and better visibility at lower IAS - not as speed brakes. Most POH contain wing loading limitations. For most LSA and GA aircraft - LF as below: Nil flap + 3.8 to -1.9g Flap full +1.9 to -1.0g In other words, when you extend full flap, your aircraft has its' airframe effectively weakened - resulting in the necessity to fly at a lower IAS in order to keep Va valid. Va = Sq rt LF x Vs, so for nil flap your Va in a typical LSA would be 1.95 x 45 = 90 approx. (some manufacturers have quite unbelievable Va's quoted and clearly haven't used this formulae) but, when you use full flap, with say Vso 0f 40, then your Va becomes much, much less and so you need to keep your IAS much lower than the Va quoted in your POH (in turbulence anyway). BTW, the hot,high and heavy would rarely apply in Australia. Very few locations at more that 4500 amsl. In PNG, with a number of locations above 7000 amsl, and the usual correction of +3000 ft ....you could be dealing with a TAS/IAS difference of from 10-20 kts. Your approach speed in a twin at 85 IAS feels alarmingly fast - so in those cases it is a consideration, (although we always flew on IAS - the PNG 'P' charts took care of the rest). happy days,

Was out on the Nullarbor last week on a whale survey. Avgas at Caiguna was $3.15/L and at Nullarbor $3.20 or so. Made Albany and Esperance look cheap at $2.35/L. Needed 140L on one fill and the bill was over $600!! After that, I couldn't afford food from the roadhouse!! happy days,

I have recently attended a CASA presentation and found it quite underwhelming! The subject matter was relevant enough - but the presentation left a lot to be desired. With 'Flight into non-VMC' and 'Unauthorised Low Flying' accidents for discussion there was plenty of opportunity to present us with a new line of approach to improving safety in these fields. Instead - it was the same old 'thou shalt not' approach. Since when has prohibition ever worked? There was no emphasis on improving pilot training via expansion of the basic syllabus - which indicated to me that our regulator just hasn't accepted that 'education is superior to regulation'. What's everyones' opinion of the relevance of these seminars?

SAAA and RAAus are going to merge?

Instructing isn't just about teaching a student the fundamentals. It's also teaching them to think about all of the variables involved with each flight. Eventually - they are off solo. Each and every solo is another stressful event for the caring and cautious instructor. It's not a lightly made decision. I feel empathy with every instructor whose current student suffers an accident. Our society is inclined to look for someone, or something, to blame for every aviation accident and incident. It begs the question though - why are we so much less concerned about the carnage on our roads? It's not as though the flying instructor doesn't already feel devastated. Many never instruct again. I hope in this case that the instructor is not crucified and is given full support.

Present day Western society is reverting to the old fundamentalist, religious beliefs of the dark past. A well fed, comfortable, over-educated society, with too much time on its' hands - which opposes scientific progress. University courses slanted so that students can avoid the basics of maths, physics and chemistry. Not worth the paper they're printed on! The over-regulation reflects the poorly founded fears of our society in respect of science - as well as the over-supply of law graduates. happy days,

1.Camel pic on cliffs between Nullarbor and Eucla 2.Airstrip pic is Israelite Bay,(YISB) which is big whale location. Old Telegraph station in foreground. Strip is about half way from Caiguna to Esperance via the coast and usable up to C210 size.

Due a local pilots' mishap - I was offered this 40 hr TT gig. Helps to be retired and available! We used a C172 with standard 189L usable fuel tanks and a 'crew' of 3. One recorded the GPS co-ordinates and whale details, while one photographed from the open LHS window. We flew 100 Kts cruise @ 65% for 28-29 LPH, reducing to 65-70 KIAS for photography at 500ft amsl. On the Nullarbor, this places you near on clifftop level. Some legs were 4-5 hrs and were real bladder marathons. WA Museum do this survey every year in August to September. It involves flights both ways along every nm of coastline - all bays and all points. Mostly 1000-1500 ft, but down to 500 ft in WA, and 1000ft in SA. Our Permits from DPW had strict rules on heights and disturbing our mammal friends. Sorry I can't use any pics of the whales, (and there were hundreds) because they are copyright to the Museum. 99.9% of the whales were Southern Rights - many with calves afoot. happy days,

Steady on people! CASA, as is their wont, invariably make things more complex than need be. In the real world, use some common sense. A 10nm call, plus a 'joining leg' of circuit call with intentions is the minimum you should be using. You might call on base or final if you hear more traffic taxying. You would call 'clear of runway' when there is other traffic in the circuit. Use your radio sensibly, and avoid rabbiting on that you are 5nm, 3nm,then every leg of the circuit - plus ask everyone else for their position when you should have been listening instead of transmitting. With 'straight in' approaches - be damned certain you know the wind or a nasty surprise may await you. And, don't ask other traffic what the 'duty runway' is - there's no such thing. Add the 'straight-in' intention to your 10nm call and only make a 3nm call by which distance you'll be slowing for approach and can see if you'll fit in between other traffic (you don't have right of way over base and final traffic no matter how much you call). For departures - decide on the most expeditious runway/strip for departure so as to avoid a runway backtrack to the furthest end of the airport. Call taxying for....' ' plus your intended runway/strip. Keep off strips or runways until you are ready to go. Call when you enter a strip/runway with intentions. You really don't need any further calls. Less is more! If RAAus aircraft want to mix it with GA and RPT - then our radio work has to be up to a standard. happy days,

Called the 'false horizon effect. To counter this your aim point is further up the strip, plus you carry a bit more speed &/or, less flap - in order to avoid stalling too early in the roundout. Once you touchdown - brakes are not usually necessary on the strips with >5% slope - on the steeper ones you actually need to dump flap and add heaps of power to get to the top parking bay. Go-rounds are possible - but only from a certain point on the approach to each and every strip. This you are taught during your 'route & strip' endorsing, (x5 to each strip & each route for commercial ops). happy days,

Very true. The weather is still the same, the mountains just as high, the valleys still the same width, the gaps still as scary, the strips still as steep/short/soft/rough. Modern day turboprops are so much more reliable and perform better at altitude. Compare those lovely Twotters to what we used in the 60's. happy days,

I'm not sure of your meaning here. What I was alluding to is that the term 'recreational' has been given many meanings. However, in respect of instructor starting points - how can CASA allow 'recognition' (for the RPL) of the RAAus RPC when it's trained by a PPL level instructor - yet the RPL requires a CPL start point and the full works of a GA instructor rating? If there is acceptable equivalence between the PC and RPL, then surely they need to reassess whether the RPL can be taught by similar 'level' instructors. CASA have now moved to allow 'PPL instructors' under Part 61, although they will only be allowed to conduct 'flight activity' and 'design feature' training, ie, any training for which a flight test is not required. If they set out to muddy the waters - then they've been most successful.

All of which is sound too. Water often doesn't get pulled through to the filter until the engine is close to full power. Hence, the engine runs quite smoothly during the run up and power checks - but falters after a few secs at takeoff power. One lesson learned in the tropics was to stand on the brakes and run it to full power for at least 30 secs. This only after the engine had been started, run for 5 mins, and fully pre-takeoff checked. The principle was that you'd be off the strip and well airborne in 30 secs so if things were ok on the ground - than it was ok to go. There are a few limitations on full power runups - but it used to work for us. happy days,

It's just a little touch of revisionism by the regulator. They were the ones who couldn't leave well enough alone, and just had to fix something that wasn't broken in the first instance. When we had only the PPL course - it was broken up into an RPPL, (Restricted PPL), which was achieved by a full blown flight test, and then you did navigation in order to 'cancel' the restriction which was typed into your PPL licence. The RPPL allowed a pilot to carry passengers within the training area or within 25nm (?). Then the make work brigade in CASA decided to call the RPPL a GFPT - which was no longer a licence, and required you to continue being signed off by an instructor. You could bypass it, and many did, by doing your navs and then sitting the 'full quid' PPL. There were many issues with this brilliant bit of fiddling the old RPPL. It made extra work for instructors,(thanks CASA), and achieved nothing of value for pilots. So, when CASA came under pressure to modify medical standards, and provide a 'level' of PPL which would allow all we old fogies to continue to fly our SAAA experimental category aircraft - CASA hit upon a thinly disguised re-introduction of the old RPPL. But, in case there were still a few oldies with sound memories, they fiddled further with names and minor requirements. Now we have a medical which isn't worth the proverbial 2 bob, (as Nev stated - you need a Class 2 if you have any significant problems), and an RPL which they have unbelievably equated to an RPC. ('recognition' is such a wonderful weasel word). Their pirating of the term 'recreational' raises my ire every time. If they are going to segregate flying by way of activities, then why have weight limitations on aircraft within the licence or certificates? If I had the money, I'd probably be doing my 'recreational' bit in a Beech Baron - which would be recreational when I used it on the weekend, but commercial when I logged in with a charter flight on Monday. What makes my Brumby any more recreational than the Baron when flown by the same pilot for the same 'recreational' purposes? What makes my Brumby remain recreational when on Monday I use it for fully recompensed flight training - surely a commercial activity? It's a major blunder as it fails to truly recognise the category of flight to which each aircraft is applied. Everything old is new again! A familiar theme in Canberra. happy days,

Running low on fuel is one of the very worst experiences one can have as PIC. Your gut tightens up, and your brain jumps from one solution to the other. You say to yourself ... if I get out of this, I'm going to become a reformed pilot......! I won't describe the incidents, but they were early in my professional career - when I was prepared to stretch things to prove just what a genius was running this show. I had so little left on one occasion that I entered the circuit at 4000ft.....just in case. It prompted me to take a great interest in range and endurance charts for my engine, and how to set up power using every instrument available - in those days, MP+RPM,Fuel flow, EGT,CHT,OT. Having your LAME check that your tacho is accurate was one lesson that I learned early - although you can now check this yourself with an optical unit on top of the panel. Becoming more adept at selecting for favourable winds is a huge help in stretching fuel - what a boon is GPS!. Flying perfectly in balance also an essential -so be sure the ball you are using is really accurate and use your trims. I'm pleased to see it mentioned that someone saw problems ahead by flying on one tank in a C172. If Clyde Cessna thought this both necessary and safe - he'd have written it into the POH. You minimise potential mistakes by flying on BOTH. Fly in balance and the tanks usually drain uniformly. Enough said. happy days,

This is my very 1st twin - a 1966 PA-23-250 Piper Aztec C. It was ferried from the USA direct to PNG where it went on line with StolAir in Port Moresby. In early 1968, after I'd flown the customary 500 hrs PIC on Cessna 185's, I was promoted onto twins with only 800 hrs TT - can you believe that for rapid promotion? My endorsing pilot was Capt Cec Randall, a former TAA Captain with over 18,000 hrs, (and whose disappearance in PNG during 1969 has never been resolved...but that's another story!). The most difficult item with these C models was hot-starting the Lycoming IO-540 engines. We flew with cowl flaps fully open for most of our coastal work because of the short hops involved. That kept the CHT's within bounds. A great load lifter off relatively short strips and an honest 160 kts aircraft. happy days,

VH-DJU on its' delivery flight to PNG in 1964. I got to fly it in 1967 after it had been bingled, repaired and onsold to StolAir in Port Moresby. My 1st C185, and a very sturdy ship it was too. The cargo pods were standard for all PNG C185s as they allowed you to load lots of small, but heavy, items closer to the CoG. Which allowed us to fill the 3rd row of 'national' seating - with fare paying 'nationals'. After arriving in PNG, it had the cowl flaps extended by several cms to improve engine cooling - which was always a consideration when climbing up to 10,000 ft to clear a gap or weather, or both. We also had 8.00 tyres fitted for PNG as strips were invariably softish. I retain a real love of these aircraft as they demanded a certain amount of skill, and always, constant respect for directional control. happy days,

The aircraft may have changed to larger and faster types - but the weather surely has not improved, nor have the valleys become any wider, nor the passes any lower over this time. RIP.

The aircraft may have changed to larger and faster types - but the weather surely has not improved, nor have the valleys become any wider, nor the passes any lower over this time. RIP.

Have a look at the 'last update' on some of them and you'll find that some are > 10 years out-of-date.

Have a look at the 'last update' on some of them and you'll find that some are > 10 years out-of-date.

Rectangular circuits needn't be too wide if you continue the upwind climb to 700-750 ft agl before turning crosswind. This shortens the crosswind leg and allows for an earlier turn downwind. With high wing aircraft - we teach keeping the strip roughly 'half-way' up the strut. With low wings - perhaps at the flap/aileron location? We graduate pilots onto a 'racecourse' pattern for 500ft agl circuits as a way of training them to keep the strip,(or intended landing area), in sight in marginal visibility weather,(should this be needed in their future flying). The climbing turn is initiated at 300ft agl and the 180 turn completed as the aircraft is rolled out on downwind. The approach is commenced from abeam the threshold by slowing the aircraft to Vfe + beginning a descending turn toward the threshold - which will remain in full view. Full flap is applied during the descending turn and the aircraft rolled level by 200 ft agl. It's also prudent to slow the aircraft considerably the closer to the strip you fly, and to reduce your IAS with flap extended so that you make a minimum radius turn onto final. The nose of the aircraft needs to be kept down, and power adjusted, so that it isn't nearing a stall risk. In the low level course, these circuits can be taught down to 150-200ft agl with pilots who have a good grip on their aircrafts' handling. We do teach a 'tactical overhead break' in RV's - starting with echelon right, using 2 sec intervals. The use of a 3 or 5nm 'initial' tends to require a few minutes and sometimes this can't be done due CTAF traffic. Luckily, at our home airport, we have runways wide enough for landing elements,(pairs), in formation - so we usually 'spread' the formation into a number of 'line astern' elements on entering the 1st circuit leg. The overhead breaks only look great if you are in similar aircraft, moving fast, and pull a positive 45 aob from the upwind leg. happy days,

Rectangular circuits needn't be too wide if you continue the upwind climb to 700-750 ft agl before turning crosswind. This shortens the crosswind leg and allows for an earlier turn downwind. With high wing aircraft - we teach keeping the strip roughly 'half-way' up the strut. With low wings - perhaps at the flap/aileron location? We graduate pilots onto a 'racecourse' pattern for 500ft agl circuits as a way of training them to keep the strip,(or intended landing area), in sight in marginal visibility weather,(should this be needed in their future flying). The climbing turn is initiated at 300ft agl and the 180 turn completed as the aircraft is rolled out on downwind. The approach is commenced from abeam the threshold by slowing the aircraft to Vfe + beginning a descending turn toward the threshold - which will remain in full view. Full flap is applied during the descending turn and the aircraft rolled level by 200 ft agl. It's also prudent to slow the aircraft considerably the closer to the strip you fly, and to reduce your IAS with flap extended so that you make a minimum radius turn onto final. The nose of the aircraft needs to be kept down, and power adjusted, so that it isn't nearing a stall risk. In the low level course, these circuits can be taught down to 150-200ft agl with pilots who have a good grip on their aircrafts' handling. We do teach a 'tactical overhead break' in RV's - starting with echelon right, using 2 sec intervals. The use of a 3 or 5nm 'initial' tends to require a few minutes and sometimes this can't be done due CTAF traffic. Luckily, at our home airport, we have runways wide enough for landing elements,(pairs), in formation - so we usually 'spread' the formation into a number of 'line astern' elements on entering the 1st circuit leg. The overhead breaks only look great if you are in similar aircraft, moving fast, and pull a positive 45 aob from the upwind leg. happy days,