poteroo

Turbines have been a saviour of both Ag and PNG GA flying. At a huge capital and operating cost though. How we used to drool over the turbine PC6 Pilatus Porter back then. However, there are still plenty of ways to become a statistic: weather isn't any better, valleys no wider, hills no lower, more powerlines and hilltop aerials, and poor operating choices continue to be made. On the downside for light aircraft ops, avgas availability has become such that pilots are tempted to re-route via intermediate stops, or, overload the aircraft to give range. On the plus side, avionics are a world better, and mobile phones have changed communication for the very much better. In respect of the aggie video which began this thread, I can say that I've never flown with a 'poor' Kiwi aggie yet. Everyone of them has been very skilled, and very professional. I thought that one reason for his not using landing flap might just be the amount of debris damage you'd incur with a nosewheel type, (holding the nosewheel up in tail low attitude), as compared to wheeling a taildragger on, ( where full flap was kept higher off surface during the higher speed segment of the landing rollout).

Was told by Avmed 3 weeks ago that I'd better relax and chill - they were looking at 6-8 weeks to process a Class 1 or 2, (with conditions applying). After several requests for ever more detailed reports, my grounding has now run out to 16 weeks. Just when we had more students thru the door than in the last 15 years! Time to retire, methinks. not so happy days atm.

Have had a few adjacents when way out in the sticks. Many years ago, (pre-GPS), I was Marble Bar to Broome direct at 7500 and heard a C310 coming opposite direction at 8500 make a call at the standard waypoint near Wallal, (?). Thinking that neither of us could be so accurate on visual + ADF tracking as to be within cooee, looked up to see said 310 and our C182 cross precisely under/over. Big surprise! Little wonder then, that when I learned how to use them new-fangled GPS things - I learned to track off to one side of the direct waypoint to waypoint track, having watched US pilots do the same with offsetting the VOR radials. In fact, I'm more likely to find a close visual feature and use that as my wpt instead of the designated wpt. I also like to be about 150 ft below the correct hemispherical altitude for my track as it's much easier to spot traffic against blue sky than when level. Just turbulence yer honour! In many years of flying, my closest encounters have always been in controlled airspace. Class D is particularly higher risk due not just to any old students flying there, but due to many international students with unusual English diction & pronunciation. Student judgement of base to final turns with parallel runways was always a time of high concentration for me when instructing there. Out in the training areas it's everyone-for-themselves and only luck that more don't meet up! I've had 2 particularly close shaves with opposite direction and crossing traffic in Class C - (Military released to civil). One wasn't even given as traffic - yet there he was, directly under us, and probably under 500 agl if truth be known!

After a lifetime of flight planning, I have found a workable formula, (= rule-of-thumb), for dealing with wind. Halve the tailwind component that you have calculated, and double the headwind that you calculate. happy days,

The worst damage we seem to incur is with the fine 'blue metal' dust that is created by large sweeper machines being run up/dn taxiways. This stuff causes small nicks in the backside of the propellor. They are obvious if you run your finger along the rear surface because they are sharp edged little divets which are like chiselled up butter - but slice your finger very nastily. When they are cleaned off by a flat file, followed by a light sandpapering, a small indentation remains in the metal blade, and this apparently creates turbulence in the airflow across the rear of the prop = reduced efficiency. It's such an issue here that I run up back near the terminals where the hot mix is very smooth. Airport owners don't waste money on good quality hot mix for the rabble at the GA end! 👎

Whatever the wind, pilots face a dynamic situation which differs with airport surrounds. AWS is only for your guidance, and all pilots need to get out and learn how to manage the weather from cues that exist at the time of operation. The humble windsock can provide a lot of info - but it's little help if you fly straight-in approaches, or cut into the circuit on base, and lower than 1000agl to boot. If you fly directly over the windsock which is relevant to the into the most into wind strip, you should be able to observe the lateral sock swing. The greater this is, and the speed at which it happens, will help you to judge the possible cross-wind variation. Then, as you fly the circuit, or if you very sensibly fly an upwind, (ie, slower g/s), leg, you should be able to note the up/down sock movement, and the speed of that. This vertical 'flapping' will help you to anticipate the gustiness to expect in the flare. Of course, there are other cues that you should seek out, such as waves on dams, tree movements, dust movements, and the 'ripple' effect of wind passing over older crops and ungrazed country. Your instructor should be teaching you all this stuff during your navexs. Managing wind and low level turbulence is helped by a pilot learning to fly the aircraft intuitively and always in balance - but with eyes outside and brain engaged. Again, don't expect to be crosswind competent until you can manage in flight turbulence, at normal approach speeds, without fixating on instruments. You have to use your feet, hands, eyes and brain to keep the aircraft in the required attitude and approach position - without getting yourself into a high risk out-of-balance situation. Until a pilot can fly in balance - how on earth can we expect them to be able to employ çross-control' techniques to offset crosswinds? It needs good instruction and lots of practice. happy days,

I've used Merredin since around 1973, and it is located on a previously wind eroded, infertile tract of land which, as Onetrack noted, will only allow for stunted tree/shrub growth. So, the 800 ha has no value to a local farmer for cropping anyway, and the lack of internal fencing and water would preclude its' use for commercial stock : plenty of skippys though! It's also well outside the Merredin town boundary so as a location to live domestically, your services would be limited. Once China Southern established the flying school, it was not easily accessible to outsiders. You required 'prior permission' and depending on the liver status of the CFI in residence, it could be quite problematic. I had several stoushes over access. Would it be attractive for a flying school? I could never understand why it was built in the 1st place - Cunderdin was a far better proposition. Others have tried to establish flying schools in the WA wheatbelt and they just don't prosper! Wagin, Narrogin, York, Northam, Cunderdin and Wyalkatchem have all closed up. Too far from main population,(Perth), weather too extreme, no reasonable local accomodation plus quite a few coastal schools in existence, eg Bindoon, White Gum, Bunbury, Busselton. The only possible reason for a remote flight school in WA is to get out of the Jandakot traffic melee' and it has to be on a larger scale, ie, for international students, and big numbers of them too. I think we've seen the last of these. The larger building is the ex school, and the others are, I think, former on site residences for instructors, who mostly vamoosed to Perth on the weekend. It isn't large enough for use by anyone other than a few 'weekenders' and then only in the cooler months. Certainly no immediate quick startup site for quarantine. The place is blazing hot for 4-6 months of the year, and sure isn't a tourist destination. The Yongah Hill location just west of Northam offers far more potential for quarantine as Northam does have a decent hospital, and population, and the land already belongs to the Feds. Main Highway at front door, water supply ditto, and less than an hours drive from Perth. A few new buildings and in you go, lucky people!! happy days,

Yes, not only a low hours pilot, but his transition training must have been inadequate if it didn't include crosswind ops. Surely this would have been covered? Much less likely to happen in Australia where a signoff by an instructor implies that the endorsee or checked pilot has met the 'general competency' rule. This rule also catches people who have not conducted/experienced, an adequate BFR/AFR.

That's almost certainly no exaggeration as all 3 of the Milne Bay airstrips align with the Bay N & S coasts for the reason that there isn't enough 'flat' land at the head of the Bay which would allow N - S direction takeoffs. Add to this a line of steep mountains on the N side over which an approach would be more than hazardous. I flew in/out of Gurney several times during 1967-1970 in both C185s and in PA-23-250 Aztecs. Taking off into the east, ie toward the water, the Aztec wheels had barely retracted when we were over water. The runway was totally 'Marsden' matting in the 60's, but had sunken in places, and made the most frightening rattle under the aircraft. I always had visions of those steel sheets unhooking, and ripping the tyres to shreds. Happily, they stayed locked up - just as the Allied airstrip builders originally fitted them in 1942. The weather in the Milne Bay area is usually atrocious - low ceilings, rains every day, and that hasn't changed in the interim since WW2.

I was browsing through my very old pics today and spotted this one of the memorial to Fr Joe Walachy, who left this world way back in 1965. On my 1st tour of PNG, (as an agricultural officer = 'didiman' ), I had met Fr Joe when he was flying into several Ramu Valley strips in the Madang district of PNG. I was based on Kar Kar Is for 4 months relieving the officer there, then was posted to open up the service out of Aiome. The Catholic Mission, based in Madang, serviced many strips in the Ramu, including Aiome, Atemble, Josephstaal, and Annaberg. In early 1964, armed with a fresh PPL, I visited Fr Joe at the SVD hangar on the then rough, coronous Madang airport. I generously offered to 'help out' with the flying load so that Fr Joe could have some time off. This was a very good offer, because I had a TT of 120 hrs, and 4 hrs on a Cessna 180, and none on anything heavy - so flying the Mission C206 was going to be a pushover! Fr Joe looked me straight in the eye and said: I'm going to save your life, and anyone else who might be with you, by refusing your offer. My reasoning is that you just don't have the experience needed to get safely from A to B in PNG, and even should you manage to get there, the airstrips are far, far, far beyond your skills to handle at this time in your career. Fly around the coast for a while and you'll learn. And good luck in your career. After gaining my CPL in 1965, I cracked 2 part-time jobs flying coastal out of Port Moresby, and learned the craft in a much safer location than the Highlands. I went on to become a C&T pilot, and gained the coveted ANO 28.1 Allover Exemption for charter flying in PNG. But Fr Joes' luck ran out in mid 1965, when he crashed a C206 N/NW of Goroka. The search for him is detailed in Jim Sinclairs PNG trilogy, Balus 2, p91-92. The wreckage was 7500 amsl and on the side of the sheer rockface on one side of the Asaloka Gap. Fr Joe was no novice CPL. He had a TT of near 20,000 hrs, of which 19,000 hrs had been flown in PNG. And believe me, the 'mission' airstrips were far below the aerodrome standards enforced by DCA, (now CASA), for commercial ops. With winter coming up, let this remind you that going into IMC is fraught with risk, and even the most competent and experienced can, and do, make mistakes.

Correct. Remember too, that the owner of the strip may not be a pilot themself - so take care with this. Focus on approach obstacles, windsock location, surface condition, fences etc, ie, the physical risks. The operation al considerations, eg, crosswinds, you have to assess on-the-spot.

Ask the RAAus flying school at Muchea. Could be one hangared at Bindoon, Calingiri, Northam. Have pretty much been superseded by faster, full cabin types because of distances, winds in WA. Also, the 'market ' is much more developed these days, and also is heeled enough to be able to acquire higher priced types.

The logbooks need to be reconciled with the ADs and SBs in force for the serial number of the particular aircraft. Some compliance inspections might also be signed off into the M/R so look these up too. (should all be stored in back of airframe logbook). A consideration with RVs is in fact the aerobatics that may/may not have been done. In my experience with RVs and many, many RV owners: quite a bit of DYO áerobatics' takes place out of sight out of mind. G knows whether airframes are overstressed. As well, particularly with RVs, who knows whether they have been pushed thru turbulence at way above Va, and are suffering some damage to parts of the airframe. This flying too fast for the turbulence level is a lot more frequent than we'd like to believe. Not all pilots, indeed, pilot/owners, are responsible. Then there's the question of heavy landings. They certainly happen with tailwheel models of RV, and don't appear too often in M/Rs or airframe logbooks. IMHO, there is widespread under reporting of any of these possible causes of airframe damage. Not disagreeing with KGW, but if you are not really familiar with an aircraft make or model: then you have no show of appraising it's handling. In the case of RV's - my best advice is to take a well experienced fellow pilot with you. It really helps if they are a LAME or L2 as well. As with all flying - it comes down to total experience + experience on type + currency. happy days,

I've owned 13 aircraft over a 44 year period, and only once did I make the mistake of buying one with 4 seats to cope with children. Apart from a couple short hops around the wheatbelt, we never did get to do any long 'family' trips because the kids developed their own interests and were not so interested. They later learned to fly, but not in the 170, 180, or 182 for very sound reasons. In hindsight, get a 4 seater, and remove the back seats so that it becomes a lovely large baggage compartment. In an emergency, you can layout the sleeping bags and camp the night until the wx blows thru. Kids grow up, and if flying isn't their thing - they'll make your trip misery! My advice is to not consider a retractable, especially the ancient stuff. Something like a PA-28-235/6 is a great load carrier,, does 130KTAS and has vg range. In the high wings - nothing beats a C182 for load and capability - same performance. Both of them are thirsty and you'll wince every time you refuel: but, they are far cheaper to maintain than RGs. Next - do you really need to be IFR? It's really a nonsense to think that as an amateur pilot with an IR that you can get through any weather. Wrong, there's a lot of wx where the wise and prudent pack it in, and stay overnight, even if it's inconvenient. Boring holes thru winter fronts, and summer monsoon stuff is strictly for those who have to do it. If you get over the IFR desire, then you'll have money to fill your tanks instead of spending it on avionics, radio techs and probably a complete rewire of the aircraft anyway. As for NVMC, well, you need to consider it to require near IFR skills, as it can be very, very scary when you lift the nose on takeoff at Woop Woop and there is nothing but black for the next 100nm. If you really want to night fly, go get an IR to start. happy days,

Trevor was a longstanding PPL who had owned a Cessna 177RG some years back. I'm not sure that any valid conclusions about his piloting skills should be drawn from his turbulent final years with CBH. Agri-politics is not for the faint hearted, and WA farmers have very strong loyalty, and opinions of, the grain handling company which they all collectively own. I'm sure that in this, and every, investigation: the pilots' state-of-mind will be well covered. Let that take place before we speculate. His property is located SW of Pingrup and the crash site is nearby. The country is open, with many large cropped paddocks and only some trees along road and paddock boundaries, or in a few small road and nature reserves. The wind fairly whistles across this land, and ahead of any approaching cold front, the NW gales take some handling skills. Again, let's wait to hear from on site witnesses and local residents about the weather at around the accident time of 2:30pm. RIP Trev.

USAF view of aircraft ID.

From an instructing viewpoint, I'd tend toward agreeing with you. If we in RAAus have an inflexible rule for GA to RAAus conversions, then it makes a mockery of CASAs Part 61.385 General Competency Rule. IMHO, CFIs should have the authority to sign off on GA conversions, when the pilot has demonstrated competency, not just in flying that particular aircraft, but in their knowledge of RAAus rules. The hours required is a bureaucratic make 'work' rule and defeats the purpose of having competency evaluations. The 2nd part of your statement seems to be incorrect. CASA do recognise all of the RAAus theory exams, and the training that is done up to cross-country endorsement and passenger carrying in our RPC, only requiring 2 hrs IF, aircraft handling competency, and essentially a BFR in a GA aircraft to be granted the RPL. From there the pilot needs more theory exams + flying for the PPL. The inference that I read into your comment is that the 'recognition' is one way, and thus unfair. I agree. happy days,

Illustrates just how the COVID lock-in, (to Australia), has created a pool of money for use in pursuits such as recreational flying, bush-bashing by 4WD, caravanning, and also for property in the country/coast. ($68b ?). With the Feds now talking mid 2022 before international travel begins, it looks like the boom will continue. In 15 years, I have never had so many student prospects booking TIFs, and so many beginning their RPC training. If it wasn't for the fact that I'm nearing/probably at, the end of my instructing career, I'd be looking for another junior instructor. Once seeding is finished, and with no overseas travel prospects, the demand is likely to increase. Interestingly, not one of my 8 'new' students, (in 2021), is heading towards a flying career - all are simply recreational or private/business use. Smart students, because it will take many years for the industry to absorb the thousands of airline/charter professionals who are currently out of a job.

That's true, and is why Vans have been opposed to the fitting of higher HP engines to RVs. Provided that a pilot is aware of this, then you're forearmed. As I noted earlier, the most important reaction to approach to TS, squall lines, or likely/fcst rough conditions is to slow down. And do it early. Va in RVs is quite a few kts lower than their usual cruising IAS, and they take precious time to get slowed.

Reportedly, that was indeed the long term lease price which the local Council agreed with China Southern. It then made Merredin nearly inaccessible to GA/RAAus because of the restrictions applied by China Southern in respect of times/conditions for flying in. Local aero club faded away. But, the positive from CS departure is that Merredin now has 2 sealed runways, and sealed dispersal areas. That alone is worth several mil. Whether the buildings will be left isn't known. I'm not sure that the local Council were responsible for any of the upkeep costs while CS were in residence there - but they will be now.

Pretty sure they are NOT. In fact, I'm unsure of whether the factory has completed any for sale in recent times?

Sorry, no knowledge re this aircraft. You are really talking apples-to-oranges here: low wing + Lycoming v high wing + Rotax. Quite different aircraft.

Looking through various threads, I found this query from nearly 12 months ago. No responses, so thought it worth describing our experiences with over 1000 hrs of flying a Rotax 912ULS version of the Brumby R610 high wing: 1. the engine has pro's and con's in that it's smooth, quiet, fit-for-purpose....... but not cheap to maintain in a flying school environment. I mentioned the problems that Brumby struck with the 0-233 Lycoming some years back. It was an ambitious effort, but at least they have now settled on a more standardised model. 2. the airframe is vg for training - spacious, comfy, cool,well ventilated,good ergonomics,good vis, relatively stable in flight, ...... but fast our aircraft is not, and that's fine for training. 3. however, we have a spanking new R610 here for a private owner, and this aircraft is around 5-8 kts faster than our 2016 model. I think you could plan on 105KTAS comfortably. It seems to be all in the Whirlwind GA propellor, (which has replaced the previous Sensenich). 4. IMHO, a bit of tweaking in the airframe might just add another 5 kts to it. This wouldn't be weighty, or expensive. More anon. 5. In terms of BEW, MTOW and load availability - the R610 suffers in comparison to most other makes in this market. It's fine for myself at 73kgs, and my students of varying weights - because we only need to carry fuel for each mission, and no baggage either. So, easy to stay under MTOW. But, it's comforting to know that the extra weight is in the structural area, and the aircraft is strong. Would it be possible to lift the MTOW above 600kgs? : well, possibly, but why bother? It's always going to be a compromise with weight limited aircraft, and I think that we just have to match the aircraft to the purpose. If anyone wants to discuss specifics, you can always PM me on this forum. cheers,

.................. and @ 150-160 KIAS, you are into cloud very, very quickly. At this speed, it's likely to be rough air flight, and that certainly upsets the balance of the non- IFR pilot. Slowing the RV aircraft down to 90 kts reduces the rough ride, and allows for a less frightening turnback.

Very, very fast in an RV7/7A. Because of the seating position, and the cutaway of the engine cowling, pilots don't realise that the RV is actually in a greater nose down + angle-of-bank than they perceive. Believe me, they get away very quickly! (1500+ on RVs and lots of test flying & instruction). Given that the normal cruise IAS is somewhere up near 140 KIAS at 7-8000 ft - you are really 'chancing your arm' when the aircraft has a Va = 123 KIAS. Remember, this is only if the MTOW is at its' maximum allowable - anything less, and the Va is less than the 123 KIAS quoted. It seems unlikely that with a single crew, this 7A was anywhere near MTOW - so its' Va would likely have been far less than 123 KIAS. RIP.