Jump to content

poteroo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,748

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

 Content Type 

Everything posted by poteroo

  1. poteroo
    40 year career as an agric scientist. My flying specs are on this site. happy days,
  2. poteroo
    I'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand the description of SI - please PM me if you need a more specific and nitpicky explanation. Insofar as your hypothetical x/c goes - if I was your CFI, and sent you on a solo flight, you would have a specific set of directions. In that, you would be told whether to undertake a couple of circuits, or missed approaches, at that particular airport. That time would be logged as PIC, XC.
  3. poteroo

    Aircraft being built

    poteroo replied to RJ601's topic in Brumby

  4. poteroo
    Whilst RAAus now have this in the Ops Manual, a CFI may well have a local requirement that they check a couple of students trained by an, (relatively junior), SI - just to keep check on competencies. happy days,
  5. poteroo

    Aircraft being built

    poteroo replied to RJ601's topic in Brumby

    Good to hear things are progressing. Luckily you're closer to Cowra than us and can get up there from time to time. Dynon Skyview have CAN compatibility and so can link to the 912iS electronics - whereas the older Dynon D120, D180 units don't have CAN and so can't be linked up to an iS. One instrument that I'm very pleased with is a PAI vertical card compass. It's very steady, accurate and easy for my students to read and cross check with the EFIS magnetic readout. Worth every cent. We now have 120 hrs up on our Brumby. cheers,
  6. poteroo
    Any flying school brave enough to have a taildragger 'online' for t/w endorsing will need to charge a reasonable fee. Fixing them after a groundloop can be a very expensive deal. (I've had experience with a C180, C170,and a SuperCub with t/w endorsing - and it's really hard on the gear with having to fly x/w ops). There has to be a margin for risk. It's also very costly to have a taildragger available for private hire (= hr building) because of the insurance premium sought. A dual only endorsement isn't worth nearly so much as a dual plus several supervised solo and straight solo hours. This ensures that you are properly endorsed as no instructor is about to send you solo unless they are really certain of your training....a good indicator of its' worth? And a suggestion - ensure that you are taught both 3 point and wheel landings in crosswinds because there are situations requiring one or the other. happy days,
  7. poteroo
    Nothing has really changed. In order to prevent smarties flying legs just under 25nm, then landing and flying another leg just under 25nm - and so on, until they reached Darwin, the last sentence has been added. Of course you will be authorised to fly a solo nav by your CFI, and this is legal. It's no different from the CFI authorising you to do circuits, or to fly out to your training area solo. You will be PIC, and you will log it as solo. happy days,
  8. poteroo
    Sad event for family and friends. Just hope they think before looking for a point of blame in the aftermath. Everyone knows the low flying rules, and whether it's 300 with exemption, or 500 as per CAR 157, is academic. The real danger zone is below 150 ft because it places you at much the same level as major lines. With spraying work, you are below 50ft and that does improve your detection of lines. Anyway, aggies have already had a good look at a map, spoken to the owner, done an overhead survey prior to dropping in to spray height, and use a full hi/lo scan as they go. They don't fly cross country at low level because there is no telling what's ahead, plus it's illegal, it's unnecessarily increasing risk, and it's foolhardy.
  9. poteroo
    Don't take this personally, but I would question the relevance of this 'fast' flight . Flying fast at LL means you shorten the available reaction time to decreased forward visibility, and you increase your radius of turn. It's not what I teach. My syllabus is CASA approved for LL, and I've done 150+ of them. Perhaps we need to shift this to another thread because it might explain, in part, why many pilots collide with obstacles and terrain? cheers,
  10. poteroo
    If I recall, we discussed this POH 'maximum' before. It depends on the wording - generally it says 'maximum demonstrated crosswind component. That isn't necessarily the upper limit - simply what the test pilot did on the day of testing. Companies don't set out to create a high cross wind limit for their POH - rather, they tend to be conservative. However, if you have not maintained your skills since either your PC test, or the last BFR/training session - then you are going to have to adopt other tactics. A diversion to another strip? Land diagonally on the runway to minimise the crosswind component? Use less flap and land slightly faster? Several possibilities but nothing beats prior practice. Dare I mention the old P-P-P-P-P-P acronym? happy days,
  11. poteroo
    Nev, If you are referring to my last post ....... never intended the comment for anyone in particular - instructors in general. Sorry if you read it that way. BTW, my example pics were flown in nil wind, (so allowance for gusts not required). In my experience, pilots have lots more difficulty in landing safely on shorter strips in nil wind, or a slight downwind, than they do with a headwind. Hope you found the pics illustrative of the principle. cheers,
  12. poteroo
    Pilots should know what numbers their aircraft will stall at in its' current weight and configuration. It's never going to be the 'book' quoted figures. Pilots should be taught how to establish Vso - but Vso with a certain amt of power added to keep the aircraft stable in approach - but 'behind' the drag curve. In the above case - adjust power with full flap and stall the bloody thing.....only then can you x 1.3 and have some realistic idea of the safe late final approach speed. If you can't, or won't, teach your students how to do this, then I question your instructing bona fides. happy days,
  13. poteroo
  14. poteroo
    Agree in principle for all normal flying. Certainly not acceptable for Low Level flight. Training @ 150-200 ft agl dictates a more immediate recovery than 25o ft. Part 61 M-O-S spells out other competencies.
  15. poteroo
    And Northern boundary as well. Gives some support to the visual reports from the Maldives which sounded pretty credible at the time. Biggest low flying aircraft around there would be a DHC-6 Twin Otter floatplane so they must have seen a different aircraft alright.
  16. poteroo
    It will be interesting to know just what caused the cabin smoke. An engine fire may not lead to this, because of the firewall sealing via grommets, whereas an electrical fire aft of the firewall will. A C210E is a mid 60's model, and the chances of an 'electrical' would be higher on my list of possibles. Cabin smoke is a real panic inducer, and one of those events where you need to conduct a couple of immediate 'vital actions'. I'm curious as to whether the landing was achieved under power, or deadsticked? Maybe ATSB will glean some useful facts out for us before posting their report? A good outcome tho.
  17. poteroo
    Hangarage has been in short supply at Albany Regional Airport for over 10 years now. There have been no sites available for at least 6 years, (plenty of space tho'), because the landlord seemingly cannot make a decision about whether it wants to be a landlord or not! Our landlord has also been tardy in recognising that the entire hangar area has a drainage problem, much less fixing it permanently. As a consequence of this procrastination, many owners have migrated to Denmark, where a number of new hangars have been built in the past 5 years. There has been 'talk' for years about a mass migration to a new, small aircraft location - but with an expanding City of 35,000, the surrounding land has become expensive, and the smaller farm owners less amenable to any form of noise. The 'going' rates here seem to be from $90/month for a smaller aircraft up to $140/month for a C182 size. Full security airport requiring ASIC, plus gate card for vehicle access to hangar area. Original 20 year leases all expiring, and hangar site lease rates have jumped from $1.80/m2 to $9/m2 on only a 10 year lease with many 'picky' conditions. Lessees must pay for their own power connections. No water service. happy days,
  18. poteroo
    Right on! Students need to manoeuvre on the ground using power,(=judgement), well before brakes. On landing - use/teach 'aerodynamic braking' by arriving at stall speed and holding the nose high attitude until elevators ineffective- then use brakes only if necessary. Given that brakes are not so effective on many types, it's best they not be applied until the aircraft slows...probably well below 35-40 kts. (I think the big boys use thrust reversal plus spoilers 1st - then brakes last when they have weight on the wheels and the slower speeds avoid overheat. Same principles apply). It should become a point-of-pride to rarely ever use your brakes. happy days,
  19. poteroo
    Have seen a wedgie cave in the leading edge of a T6-Texan,(Harvard), so far that the drag made it almost impossible to fly. Over the Darling scarp east of Perth - managed to get it back to Jandakot for repair. (PIC was a verrry experienced driver).
  20. poteroo
    One of the major gripes we hear in this industry is where inexperienced CPL's fly-for-free so as to gain experience. So, in effect, the charterer of the aircraft is only paying for the 'hire' of the aircraft. But the aircraft is operated under a charter AOC, and so the operation is legal in CASAs' eyes. You can see where this is heading........? happy days,
  21. poteroo
    In the accidents section, Ultralights posted: 'a combination of regulation saturation and a shortage of decent training in advanced aircraft control from career oriented instructors' I can certainly agree with the regulatory comment, but I cannot really comment on the final 2 points because I just don't know exactly what is meant by the terms: decent, advanced and career-oriented. Poteroo
  22. poteroo
    Probably not the thread in which to have a debate about the adequacy of training, or the competencies of instructors generally. I think we should transfer over to the 'training' section and expand there. That's not to say that I agree, or that it isn't important. At the professional end of the industry, we are being regulated to exasperation, we are suffering regulation fatigue,(Part 61 is the last straw for many), and yet we seem unable to influence the accident or the fatality rates. Poteroo.
  23. poteroo
    Really liked Seattle - 'feels' a friendlier city than most in the US, but Vancouver is also vg. Try Union Lake, (mid city Seattle), and be awed by the seaplane traffic from the terminals there. They really know how to do it! happy days,
  24. poteroo
    Dynon Avionics is located in Woodinville, a SE outer suburb of Seattle. If you are into avionics - an interesting operation to visit. happy days,
  25. poteroo
    I think you missed my point about the excrutiatingly long list of competencies that the flying school quoted for the BFR, and the fact that 'spotting' (a euphemism for mustering btw), LL was involved
×
×
  • Create New...