FlyingVizsla

I worked through the chat room issue with Ian on the phone. When I hit the webcam icon the chatroom disconnected and the security system sin binned me for doing an illegal action. After resetting me we tried the whiteboard and got a similar mess. Ian now has a demonstrated trail to show to the software providers. Milz, that's probably what happened to you.

Looking forward to the chat working again. In the meantime, post us on how the flight goes in the morning.

Sue

:welcome:Milz,

Rankamateur and I currently hold the crown for breaking the Chat room. When I clicked on the Webcam icon I got turfed out and the security system on the RecFly site sin-binned me for 3 hours. I think Rank was a second or two ahead of me, so I am blaming him. Ian is working on a fix. He has started by taking the webcam icon off the chat room so I can't wreak mayhem again.

Would be great to chat. Tell us what you think of the Tecnam. And the first flight!

Sue

According to the article: Pheonix Arizona to Dallas Texas = 832NM in 18 hours 21 mins (18.35hrs)

832/18.35 = 45.34Kts Slow

Sue

just after I talked to you I clicked the button to try video chat again and killed it exactly the same as before. Tried ever since to get back into the site and only just now got in. By the time I tried the refresh you suggested it was dead.

Sue

Read Col Jones' pre-election brief - there was someone with National, high level experience and the skills we need. Failed to win a seat. Unfortunately the hoi polloi of RAAus don't realise we need these skills and, my observation is, that they vote more along the lines of "hours / years flown" in my "type" of aircraft. Even the local footy club doesn't vote in the highest scorer as Treasurer. The campaign needs to focus on why we need these skills now.

We don't necessarily need an aviation lawyer, but we do need people who are sufficiently aware of the issues to contribute to the discussion before a decision. We need people with a good grasp of ethics (when to put it out to tender, no under the counter deals, being fair to all members, transparent decision making, sufficient information to members etc).

I have been on many committees, usually asked to come in to salvage the Titanic, and it is my observation that many catastrophic scenes could have been avoided with a little knowledge.

First job - educate the RAA members as to why they need these skills.

Sue

Andy.

Plenty of adventurers here.

How's the flying in Finland?

Sue

My vote is to have the accidents/incidents area and the Aust Governing Bodies area as separate individual post areas as they were previously. Both of these areas are/were very important to improve Australian recreational aviation safety and governance. They are IMHO far too important to be mixed in with other issues.

Cheers

 

John

Ian - Sorry I didn't think to raise this one earlier. I guess we all thought the status quo was OK and it would only be tinkering around the edges for the changes. Will be more diligent and thorough next change. I liked most of the changes, particularly for the international members.

Sue

Good onya Childers! We missed it again this year. Must make it in 2014 to catch up with the Club (we are members) and other forumites.

Sue

are you using 2 units ??

My employer provided me with a GPS with a chip that displays our routes and info. That's a Navman and it started failing within the year - screen pixellated, took 5 mins to reset, freezes regularly. Can't take the heat and vibration. I use it on some of the roughest roads in Qld. However when on the bitumen it performs well as a road map. No doubt, with an aviation info chip (tiny SD card) it could do flying.

For flight planning we used to use Sentinel, but he lost the password and didn't upgrade. The RecFly with OziExplorer gets you the charts as well, with the full program on your PC and a mini one on the GPS. We have a Garmin as back-up, which is now getting rather old. My pre Y2K Trimble worked fine for about 12 years (it was free out of a plane wreck). Now spoilt with colour sat or chart images, planning overlays etc and wouldn't go back to using a brick with external antenna and keeping the plane symbol in the centre following a line.

We bought the RecFly 7" GPS with OziExplorer and that has satisfied our planning and flying. It can also be used as a road map. I find it intuitive, easy to use, but my husband, who has never gotten into the IT mindset does struggle sometimes. If you are not computer savvy the OziExplorer software can be confusing and there is not much help literature with the RecFly GPS.

As my experience with flight planning and modern GPS is somewhat limited, all I can say is that RecFly - OziExplorer works for me.

Sue

We have the Rec Fly 7" GPS. It has a street map program too. I have not used an ipad so I can't compare, but this has viewers for Word, Excel, Powerpoint, ebooks, pdfs so we can put basic docs on it. It has games, pictures, music and other stuff. We have OziExplorer installed and have it on our PC. Do the planning on the PC, then download the routes to the unit.

Only downside was the charger blew up, but there are other ways to charge it. Husband, who is not particularly good with computers hasn't worked out how to plan and download to the unit. He also got himself lost driving when he got off route and couldn't work out how to get it to recalculate getting back to it (it keeps saying "Off Route" where as mine automatically directs you back). Otherwise, he seems to handle it well, both in the air and in the car.

Sue

I think RAA missed a good opportunity with Human Factors. Approach was far too simplistic. The exam had answers that contradicted the health education messages from reputable health organisations and relied on you having read the text. No one told us there was a text, and there was one term mentioned in the text/exam and in no other HF books I had ever read.

I had read extensively on HF and found it a fascinating subject which greatly added to my knowledge of how I would deal with a crisis, how others react & interact, the rouge pilot, sensory illusions, instrument layouts, chains of errors, etc. I did a lot of this with my HF in my PPL and continued on after.

The people who got something out of it were the ones who did a group session with their school and covered subjects of importance that were ignored by the exam and text.

Sue

I was annoyed that it was "Sue" who made so many HF mistakes in the text and featured in the exam.

Age is a factor - just finished doing a statistical submission to keep our hospital and ambulance - here's what I found for the former Bauhinia Shire (Springsure - Rolleston district in Qld)

16-24 year olds are 8.53% of the population but were the driver/rider in 27.7% of crashes which involved a fatality & 38.3% with serious injury

60+ year olds are 18.61% of the population but were the driver/rider in 20.5% of crashes which involved a fatality & 12.8% with serious injury

This is a sparsely populated area of 23,600km2 with two towns (pop 830 & 80) and 2 highways traversing it, more gravel road than sealed, low traffic numbers. Less than 2% of fatalities / serious injury involved hitting another vehicle, the rest were mostly leaving the road, overturning or hitting an object, followed by hitting an animal, caused by fatigue followed by alcohol, wet road. Men outnumber women by 58% to 42%, but men account for 62.7% of crashes.

The most dangerous - Wednesday, between 2pm-4pm & 6pm-8pm, May, 16-24yr old driver, male, ute.

The highest casualty number was for 17-24year olds.

These statistics will be different for other areas. Because traffic is quiet and there is no public transport, a lot of our elderly still drive, and because we are a farming area a lot of young people were driving on farm long before they were old enough for a licence.

Does this translate to flying? Who knows.

Sue

(0.245% possibility of being a causality in my area)

Saw this article in our local paper - guess the journalist fished around for a picture and came up with this fixed wing model which hardly looks capable of carrying a payload of herbicide with spray bars and 3m rotor disk.

http://www.cqnews.com.au/news/weed-war-goes-remote-control/1835255/

Sue

He got his on Thursday I finally got mine tonight ..... and I am not letting him read it.

Sue

His arrived, still waiting for mine.....

Sue

Nev is alluding to CAO 101.28, AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS — AMATEUR-BUILT CATEGORY AEROPLANES

1.1

(3) that has a maximum take-off weight not greater than:

(a) in the case of an aeroplane other than a seaplane — 544 kg; or

(b) in the case of a seaplane with a single seat — 579 kg; or

© in the case of a seaplane with 2 seats — 614 kg; and

His assumption is the J160 540kg MTOW is the empty weight and the pilot's weight is in addition, up to the CAO max 614kg.

Example - 614kg (max) minus 540kg (Jab weight) = 74kg max pilot weight allowed

This isn't correct. If the J160 = 540kg MTOW, that weight won't go up to the maximum for registration (544kg).

A correct example - the CofA says MTOW = 540kg. The empty weight = 295kg. Add the load - Pilot 110kg, pax 75kg, luggage 20kg, gear 10kg, oil & fuel 50kg = 560kg OOPS! Have to leave something at home.... On a lighter note this did happen and the guy said to me, we'll take the 20 litres in the jerry can ....

Sue

Here is a précis of weight in aviation:

EMPTY weight - the aircraft unloaded

GROSS weight - the aircraft loaded (people, fuel, luggage)

MTOW - what the Certificate of Airworthiness says is the maximum GROSS weight (above) that the aircraft can take off with.

MTOW is also constrained by the RAA & CASA regulations. For example if the RAA category says MTOW = 544kg (CAO 101.28), then the RAA registered aircraft is limited to 544kg, even though the CofA says 750kg which the VH registered aircraft can fly at.

MTOW is also recalculated downwards when conditions dictate - eg rough weather, high airstrip, hot temperatures, etc.

Maximum Landing Weight - can be different to MTOW ie you may be able to take off weighing 500kg but only land at 450kg (an issue if you are only doing circuits or short hops).

So - a good exercise for any pilot - read the Pilot's Operating Handbook for the aircraft and the Certificate of Airworthiness for the Weight data. Work out the weight of fuel, oil. Weigh the gear - first aid box, water, fire extinguisher, tie downs, maps, ERSA, etc. Now add pilot, pax, luggage and calculate how much fuel you can carry.

See the VFR Guide (you can download from CASA http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90008 )

Also see CAR235 & CAO 101.28 (when CommLaw comes back on line - presently down for maintenance)

RAA Technical manual on RAA website

Sue

Same here - still waiting ..... Will be next week perhaps.

Sue

Welcome Wolf.

Flying & building are two of the things that keep us young! Nothing like tweaking the features to suit. Husband and I are a mismatched size, so we built the front seat for +6' and the back seat for 4'7" (something I can't do to my C152). Looking at another build soon, most likely the Sherwood Ranger, after we finish a couple of projects (roll on retirement!!)

So I hope you enjoy all this and get lots of help and encouragement from the forum - I know you will.

Good luck & blue skies

Sue

Step 1: The statistics for accidents can be found here http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/safety/intro2.html

Or go to Resources, Tutorials, scroll down to Safety, RAA fatal accidents.

Step 2: The flying hours, number of landings etc for RAA aircraft each year can be found here http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/general_aviation_activity.aspx

Step 3: Find someone who can do standard deviation calcs

Step 4: Interpret results

Job's half done already, however only for fatalities. The difficulty lies in gathering statistics for accidents and incidents - although they are supposed to be reported, not everyone does, or does it with sufficient detail, and RAA does not release it in sufficient detail either.

Sue

Virgin operates ATR-72 turbo props into Emerald Qld - so the "jet" had props. As for landing on another runway - there is only one the "jets" can use, the cross strip being too short, so perhaps they used the other end of it. My guess - given the level of journalism - is that most of this was gleaned from Farcebook comments.

Bit of a media beat-up methinks. A jet coming in to land did a go-around to avoid a light plane taking off. ATSB not interested.... This news report is all I know of this incident.

http://www.cqnews.com.au/news/pilot-praised-for-mid-flight-evasion-in-two-plane-/1801363/

Sue

Hey Zoom,

When I was looking at RAA aircraft the biggest shortfall I found was lack of "luggage" space. If you are going 300km it is probably to stay overnight, or for work - that is needing to take clothes, books, laptop etc? Some aircraft I looked at had a big area, but it was severely limited by weight.

MTOW is another issue. This didn't concern me until I married and discovered my flying plans had to include an extra 105kg + 20kg boots & bags. Now can't fly full fuel and have to do an enroute fuel stop. He is tall and finds the leg room uncomfortable for long flights. So consider comfort too, and if you can alter to suit. And if there is a "significant other" you may have to compromise on the expectations.

Speed isn't everything. The difference between a 90kt and 100kt cruise over 300km is 10 mins. Think of it like this - take off 5 mins earlier, and get in 5 mins later - hardly makes any difference. I like slow, you get to look at things and appreciate flying. Speed is variable - but there is an economical cruise speed which may not be the speed quoted.

Go any time - consider your need to fly - if for a set timetable, then you need to consider a plane that can handle weather better, so you don't have to stay on the ground if it is a little bumpy, windy or wet.

Try flying a few - great fun & educational.

Sue

Compliance costs - have to subscribe to AIP, CARs, ERSA, WACs, CAAPs etc. Provide adequate learning facilities at airport - rent, lease facilities - some operators - Councils - charge a fortune, landing fees etc. Read the Ops Manual and CASA requirements. All adds up to big dollars.

Sue

I reckon they've done some photoshopping around the canopy too. It could be a large R/C scale model, or just a modified picture of the full size one, but it is definitely not real.What I can say for certain is that the propeller blades cast no shadow, the "grain" (for want of a better word) of the plane's image is different from the man and the light source for man and plane are on 2 different angles.

 

If you reckon this plane is real, I have a flying hotel to sell you....

 

It was an April Fools Day stunt to promote a hotel booking site - see http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/hotelicopter.asp