poteroo

Just Google 'fasting diet' or '5:2 diet' or even 'Michael Mosely diet'. There are a couple small books out as well. In practical terms - you lose the visceral fat accumulations, and soon start taking up the belt by a couple holes. I've gone from just fitting into size 34 jeans to easily into size 32. Sounds like about 6 months should pull you back from mid 80 kgs to high 70's. Between the bride and myself - we now have 22 kg more disposable load in the air. happy days,

Ben, pax lie outrageously about their weights. beware!

You could be right there. 77kg is pretty close to 12 stone, (168 lbs), which was always a sort of benchmark. If it's now 86 kg - then it just shows we are all growing. If we want to 'fit' into the 600 kg LSA - then it's going to need some crew weight reduction. I've reduced my weight from 83 to 73 kgs over 18 months by just using the 5:2 'fasting' eating program. Cheap, and a little bit 'painful' - none the less - very effective. cheers,

Somehow missed filling in detail on the c185 pic above. It's VH-VNW, an A185F with an IO-520 300HP Continental driving a 3 blade Hartzell CSU. Standard takeoff configuration of 20 deg flap at Yallingup, WA, 2013. At risk of offending, insulting,slandering,libelling or otherwise......... a real mans' plane! happy days, below are pics of two of my early day mounts in PNG.

'Standard weight' was 75 kgs for a male and 60 for female back in the 70's - if I remember correctly? Sometimes I don't! In any case, the Regs require that we use 'actual' weights and not rely on so called 'standards' anymore. The tongue-in-cheek in my 1st post was to intimate that, as a society, we are becoming heavier. happy days,

And it continues to grow!!

Max was both a great pilot and a good people manager. He was a real stalwart of ag ops in Australia. Did my Ag2 with him in 1971, and held my breath a few times as Max put the C180 into some very 'iffy' ag strips around Wyangala Dam. Hazeltons had an ag operation which was ahead of its' time at Cudal. Night lit runway, most aggies NGT VFR rated, LAMES met all the returning ag aircraft - rectified anything required o/n, then had the aircraft daily'd, and running, when you were ready to leave at 1st light. Great training experiences there! happy days,

They help, but cannot prevent a ham-footed pilot creating a buffet in the cabin by flying out of balance. Never heard of the CO issue - but as I always fly with full fresh airflow directed towards me - probably avoided it. Have never heard of a CO detector card indicating the presence of CO in any Cessna cabin, ever. Might be an issue in cold climates where heaters are left on full chat all flight? BTW, CO is the bad stuff. CO2 is the good stuff that makes plants grow faster than Canberras' debt! cheers,

That would comprise less than 5% of C172's on the Australian register, happy days,

aha! But look at the hours flown for a better indication. happy days,

Sorry Dave, maybe I'm confused. I was talking about this type of moose stall.http://generalaviationnews.com/2013/06/30/beware-the-moose-spiral/ The classic low, slow, looking back in a turn.. In Alaska it happens so much while guys are looking at wildlife they named it a ' moose spiral. Or moose stall' What we call a 'mustering stall' is the same as the 'moose stall' It happens when the aircraft is turning steeply and slowly around a fixed point, (more often in wind), and where the pilot is asked to 'lift your wing' so that the pax or cameraman can see the target. In nil wind - it's easy to fly a constant angle-of-bank turn, and remain in position over the target. In a high wing, this keeps the target 'under' the wing, and provide the aob and balance remain constant - it's as safe as you can make it. However, once a pilot applies 'top' rudder to yaw the aircraft enough to lift the inside wing - then the IAS decreases rapidly, and if the aircraft stalls, it rolls 'up' and out of the turn into a spin. The nose drops alarmingly and recovery requires a lot of clear air! The opposite of the 'mustering' or 'moose' stall is where the rudder is applied excessively in a turn, causing the aircraft to stall in a 'skidding turn, then spin 'under' or into the turn. This is more likely where the pilot is trying to increase the rate of turn, (usually base-to-final). It can occur during low level ops but is far more likely if the aircraft is being manoeuvred around a point in winds of 15-30 kts and the pilot has not the skill to fly a varying angle-of-bank turn to keep the cameraman with a constant view of the target. If you are very low, the spin can't develop further than the nose dropping rapidly 'into' the turn. This doesn't always happen - it's entirely possible a pilot can just allow the nose to fall into a left hand turn as power is applied - and in a split second the aircraft impacts nose and left wingtip. Aircraft not stalled or spun - just 'uncontrolled descent' into the water. Low level manoeuvring around a ground target is incredibly dangerous unless the pilot can fly variable a-o-b turns in gusty, windy weather, and never have the stall warning squark once. It requires very good power and balance co-ordination, and is something which needs to be practised often. A 30 min session at 150-200 ft, x 60-70 KIAS doing 30-45 aob turns - in wind - is essential every 2 months or so. LL endorseed pilots still need to practise. The endo is not a skill that serves you longer than 6 months really.

If the aircraft has a 'door off approval' - then there is a constant,small degradation of performance - which is increased by any out-of-balance flying. In a lightly loaded C172, this isn't any particular concern. It's more usual to remove the window limit strut screw, and allow the RH window to float up against the bottom of the wing. At around 70KIAS, it holds up there quite steadily - allowing your photographer to shoot into clear air without any noticeable degradation in performance of the aircraft. Right hand turns are actually safer as the extra power which should be used in any slow, low level turn does not roll the aircraft into the turn - rather, it tends to roll it level. So the nose drop effect you encounter in a powered left turn is quite dangerous - but RH turns are 'safer'. These power effects are more marked with increased HP engines, eg, the 230HP in C182's. Pre-emptive power use and in balance flying are essentials for safer LL flight. You'll be taught these in any good course. happy days,

The Inter-Tropic Convergence Zone has truly huge storms. They can be just as bad in the morning as late in the day because they move offshore early am, so it's difficult to divert around them. The radar plots for the day of this accident show some very large cells over the Java Sea. Tops can exceed 60,000 ft in this region, so climbing is less an alternative than diverting around the cells. On 'Black Sunday' in 1943, the US 5th Air Force lost 38 aircraft in PNG as they had to fly through part of the ITCZ. A British RAF squadron lost 8/16 Spitfires flying through the same wx in Burma in around 1945. The ICTZ is a truly frightening monster and pilots earn their keep at this time of year in our North. happy days,

Yes, Certified aircraft have often been approved for over MTOW operations because the manufacturer has provided the regulator with hard numbers to establish the safety case. (probably not even available in LSA). Another example is what used to be called 'agricultural overload' which was a 15% increase over the normal category MTOW. It was widely applied to C180 aircraft spreading superphosphate fertiliser where the permitted ag overload was around 185 kgs. The C185 fitted with a Sorenson spraying kit plus underwing booms had an overload of around 220kgs if memory serves me. However, there's a lot more to flying the aircraft in 'overload' situations. Tyre pressures may need to be increased to the very top of their permitted range. You need every help to gain lift quickly - a good headwind, downslope too. These things you learn in ag work, and are trained for low level emergencies in heavily loaded aircraft. The RAAus PC has none of this training - which is a very good reason to not press your luck by overloading. happy days,

Bernie - many comments on here are made tongue-in-cheek by pilots with all different senses of humour. Don't take them too seriously - ask your instructor, or, better still, your CFI, to verify facts. The oft used throw-away line about keep loading until you can just close the doors is one which I was told by senior pilots back in 1963......... it's an industry wide quip. I did once use it inappropriately in 1982 - the year that BFR's were introduced for all GA pilots. I rocked up to a small country airport in my C182, and experienced my 1st BFR with a Jandakot based CFI. 'How much load can you fit into it?' was the question. Answer - 'until you can't close the doors - even more without the back seats'! He wasn't sure how to take it initially, but a grin plus a quick calculation and reference to the AFM charts saw a relieved composure return. happy days,

Photographic flights are really difficult to manage. The customer often doesn't inform the pilot of his requirements in a pre-flight briefing. So, the pilot is hit with orders to 'do this, do that' while in flight. Far better to sort these things out beforehand. Pilots need to be firm with photographers - saying 'no can do' is important if the pilot believes the requirement is either illegal, or is beyond the pilots' capabilities and qualifications. And, for very obvious reasons, the pilot should fly the aircraft and not become distracted by involvement with the actual mission activities. Pilots need to be very careful about taking on low level jobs if they are not at least 90 days current with flying PIC at 'real' LL. The risks are greater - the lower the pilots actual LL total experience too. None of the above may be relevant to the above accident, but it needs to be discussed because these accidents just keep on happening. RIP.

Bit unfair to RAAus editor, who is publishing what's written by contributor. Editor isn't the fun police either. If we need to vet every contributed article and edit out anything remotely near an infringement of a CASR/ CAR/CAO/ - then heaven help freedom of expression. Isn't this where the issue over Section 18 and the Bolt case becomes important? Readers should always be aware that there is a general disclaimer for content in every flying magazine - which you have 'accepted' by virtue of purchasing it. happy days,

One picture is worth a thousand words.

Getting to be a circular argument here. Where we started was with pilots complaining about the lack of available load in LSA. Many of the 'new' LSA's start off with a reasonably 'light' BEW - until new owner Joe Bloggs decides to install a parallel suite of analog gauges, 3 x GPS, 2x COMS, an ADF, 2 ELB's, a set of Alaskan tundra tyres so he can land on river sandbars, and a 5-axis autopilot to ease the workload on 2 hr flights. Then the load problems begin! We learned back in the 90's that if you wanted a faster RV - don't load it up with junk! Build it light. happy days,

Or, rent, buy, or borrow an aircraft with a huge range. Plenty of those in RAAus. You just need to shrink the crew somewhat to allow full tanks to be carried at under MTOW. Simple, really.

Almost certainly not. But then, you didn't crash 50nm short of Warburton Range did you? And how many 'officious bystanders' watched as you unloaded the empty 'special auxillary tanks' at Woop Woop International? Some times, you've gotta do what you've gotta do. My very 1st Chief Pilot explained this to me in 1965. " If you carry extra fuel, but are over MTOW - a ramp check will probably 'forgive' you, but if you run out of fuel over the Owen Stanleys - you'll go down as pilot error ". happy days,

It will be no surprise if yesterdays C172 crash in Tasmania turns out to be due to loss of control at low level. If it was flown under 'Aerial Work', ie a commercial operation, I'd suggest there's going to be some serious questions raised by CASA.

I'd be happier to see BEW plus MTOW. happy days,

This came up on a thread about 3 months back. With our non-aerobatic aircraft, Va = Vs x sq.rt of +LF max. So with LF = 3.8 and Vs =45, your Va = 88 KIAS. It seems there's a lot of confusion between Vno (bottom of yellow/top of green),and Va. It needs to be considered that Vb, (turbulence penetration speed),is lower than Va. Several sets of numbers that I've had quoted to me claim very high Va - 'because our aircraft is built strongly and so can be flown fast through rough air' Really? happy days,