skippydiesel

3 hours ago, Garfly said:

Theatrics aside, Skippy, landing lights on final are very often visible before the airframe that they're stuck to.

This is a big help for anyone about to enter who might have missed the call.

Not to mention, for tower controllers everywhere.

"In your dreams" my friend.

More likly you/the pilot have made that last look/check, straight down the runway & slight up, the glidescope,  before entering the active - WOW!!! that aircrafts lights shows up realy well. REALITY! the aircraft will be on final, perhaps a kilometer away,  silhouetted against the sky, you would have seen it anyway. This is a classic  bias reinforcement story. 

As for the tower - In most instances the tower will have a perfect view of landing/circuit traffic, light on/off. Also, if they are not asleep,  will know in what direction to look, with or without radio calls to assist. On final, the tower will be viewing, the aircraft, at some point, against the terrain (lights show up beautifully) So the combinator of knowing where to look, the all important obligatory radio calls (giving location/intention) is all the tower need in Day VRF.

😈

Nothing to do with aviation , sorry. 

Can't help but give you this little gem of Americanisation:

• Within Amazon, the parcel dispatch facilities are known as "Fulfilment Centres"

This explains that warm tingly inner glow I get when receiving a parcel from Amazon🥵

The way I "see" it is that we all expect/hope that lights will somehow improve airborne visual acquisition of another aircraft.

Our experience on the ground tells us that a light will grab our attention; of another vehicle, indicators, danger, traffic controls, room occupied etc, etc. A further reinforcer of this, is how well aircraft/lights can be seen from the ground - people forget that most often they know where to look first because they hear the engine(s) and/or they are a pilot, so look to the circuit, then the is dramatic view of an aircraft on final (again a known location/direction) with is landing lights on - what an entry!!!

So it goes against this experince/intuition, that they just don't work very well iday VFR conditions.

Many/most can't (?) separate their terrestrial experince from what happens in the air. Their expectation is so strong, they reinforce their own bias, by relating a story/event where suddenly they saw the other aircraft because it had flashing lights - in reality it is most likly they saw the aircarft & its lights at the same time, after their attention  was drawn to it location by a radio transmission.

59 minutes ago, RFguy said:

You can see a good flashtube strobe  at least 1nm in broad daylight... 

If you know where to look😈

Rgmwa -

I have attempted to give what I feel is the empirical rather than the emotive position.

The subject of aircraft lights always attracts strong support - its a no brainer good thing - right? 

Someone reading this "thread" need to know that despite the apparent safety benefits, the reality is a long way from what might be expected.😈

I think all four are brokers ie not insurerse. In the event of a claim it is the insurers who pay out or not, in in hole or part.😈

On 28/12/2024 at 5:49 PM, Blueadventures said:

Foxbats can be $240k and $120k second hand, info from Foxbat about 3 weeks ago.  I forget the price of a new Jab 230 but over $150k from memory.  Factory built Nynja is about $135k (includes freight and duty) Prices are getting up there.

Just my opinion: Foxbat's are grossly overpriced, for what is a very ordinary aircraft. Many others with similar characteristics, can be had a much lower price, new or preloved. Once again a triumph of marketing over reality. 😈

As I keep saying, I like lights, so support your decision to fit them. Unfortunatly I think your rational, for doing so, is just a wee bit suspect.

"I saw him because he had his wingtip strobes on and he was against a fairly dark land/sea background at around 5:00 pm."

The above statement supports my position - for lights to be effective ie seen by a pilot in the air they must be viewed in marginal light conditions and/or contrasting background - not your typical day VFR environment. Further; On the day in question when was "last light" in your part of Australia?  Given the light conditions described, were you flying in day VFR?

I would speculate: Most, if not all aviation authorities would not hesitate to legislate, for day VFR aircraft to have lights,  if there was a sceric of evidence to show that such laws would have a significant posative impact on safety.😈

2 hours ago, rgmwa said:

I was flying back to Jandakot south along the coast in the late afternoon some years ago and knew from his radio calls that a Mooney was approaching from my right at the same height on his was back from Rottnest Island. I saw his strobes much more quickly than I would have been able to see him otherwise at that time of day with the sun getting lower in the sky. I was easily able to avoid him but decided then that if I ever built a plane, I was going to have lights on it. I agree that most of the time you don't need them but if it prevents an accident or a near miss just once in your flying career, I'd say it's money well spent. 

The problem with stories like this is that Rgmwa already knew, in which direction to look for the Mooney, THANKS TO GOOD RADIO COMMUNICATION. His assertion "I saw his strobes much more quickly than I would have been able to see him otherwise at that time of day" is completely undermined by his good listening & the Mooney pilots transmissions. How can anyone possibly know that it would have taken a longer/shorter time, to see the other aircraft without empirical study.

We would all like lights to be a wonderful safety feature  but it just ain't so for day VFR.😈

Media is reporting, officials speculating a  bid strike causing undercarriage to fail???? Taking advice from the Russian????😈

" I notice a NO FLOW of fuel in the fuel filters"

I do not understand this statement.

Is there an electronic fuel pressure sensor/read out, involved or is this some sort of sight glass with a fuel flow indicator in it?😈

43 minutes ago, rgmwa said:

None of the above are required for VH day VFR, but they are a nice-to-have and anything that makes you more visible is good, particularly in the circuit. 

The point is, that there is little evidence that lights "....makes you more visible...." in day VFR conditions, when being viewed by a pilot in the air.

Sure people on the ground can see you "....in the circuit", how does this significantly improve airborne safety?

I agree "   they are a nice-to-have".😈

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

I'd opine that anything you can do to enhance your conspicuity - no matter how small the effect - has to be worthwhile, despite Skippys opinion that most lighting is worthless.

I am not against aircraft light, I like them for their aesthetic show off appeal.

Safety is always a hot topic, almost all will have their opinion and personal standard (comfort zone).  In the real world we all make judgements constantly/risk assessment - can I get through the lights, when they have turned orange, start across the pedestrian crossing as the red light goes on, walk outside in a thunderstorm, ride a bicycle on a public road, etc. etc , ad infinitum.

My point is, at what stage do you say this is not a cost effective enhancement??

Onetrack will install his lights to get that last drop of perceived safety - great.

Me - One day, if I am feeling a little richer than today (after Christmas) I may install lights for the shear fun/bravado of them - they do look good. Fun aside , my transceiver & transponder(s) confer real safety benefits, not just for me,t all other aircraft in my vicinity.

Forget the pretty lights -

• All aircraft should have a transponder with a listening channel capacity
• All aircraft, operating in congested airspace, should have a functioning transponder. Preferably an ADSB IN/OUT bluetoothed to something like Oz Runways

 😈

1 hour ago, Lyndon said:

Thanks. I'm happy to pay a little extra for peace of mind. Pretty important stuff. 

Lyndon 

More power to you!

Just don't get too peeved when you see an identical fitting at,say, 1/2 the price from an automotive supplier. The example I gave of AN fuel line fittings is something you can inspect yourself - unless certified aircraft, why pay for a piece of paper that in no way improves the quality of the product, its efficiency, durability or safety in use.

Other "things" may have standards that you can research eg oil /coolant/fuel hose - I guess if you feel it's necessary to go the extra certified aviation paper mile you will do so and if it somehow makes you feel more confidence in your work - great!😈

"............I am guessing that it didnt come with release paperwork either..."

Important if you are building/maintaining a certified aircraft - otherwise just more costly fire lighting material.

I have purchased "stuff" from automotive performance supplier, at a much lower price, than an identical looking product, from an aviation supplier (with documentation) at higher cost. 

Example AN fuel fittings from: https://automotivesuperstore.com.au/aeroflow?srsltid=AfmBOoqy1ftIqkGp6QZrWnhDnTNelL8m1Jj5vjy8SUTp1DaI39HtiVXK

😈

Disagree all you like - Aircraft lights show up very well against a contrasting background. Most often this will be when viewed from the ground, leading supporter to point out how well they catch the eye.  In normal VFR conditions it has been demonstrated time & time again, they have little/no effect when viewed from the air (by pilot)

Ground based vehicles/hazard warning lights, are almost always viewed against a background.

The studies that have been done on this topic, relate to GA /certified aircraft. Some of the experimental LED systems deliver much higher lumens (?) than the certified equivalents however this is not going to significantly change the research, which is about the human eyes lack of ability to see airborne objects, from an aircraft.

Supporters will wax lyrical about lights delivering enhanced visibility at dawn/dusk, mist, etc - all non VFR environments. 

I like lights and wished they were a more effective system for enhancing visibility BUT a wish isn't a fact.

Cant speak for VH/GA however as RA is still strictly VFR the answer is - No lights of any description/function are not required.

As for IBobs inference that lights will somehow assist in See & Avoid, the short answer is also an enfactic No.

In air to air (pilot looking out) lights have been found to be completely ineffective, except when viewed against a contrasting background eg dark cloud.

Having said the above, I do like lights, for their esthetic/look at at me, appeal.😈

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

I will be as old as Methuselah before I see a European-built aircraft that can be described as "affordable" in Australia. A lot of people forget there's a thing called "old money" in Europe, where a substantial number of the population have pocket money to burn on "toys", that would buy a luxury waterfront mansion on the Gold Coast. This market is very attractive to small aircraft manufacturers, where the primary input is what we called "cubic dollars" (not cubic inches) in speedway racing.

1 hour ago, BurnieM said:

Price is in the ballpark.

 

A 4 seater Sling TSI with Rotax 916 is over AU$500,000.

 

Sling 4 seats should be compared with GA 4 seat aircraft, not RAA 2 seat.

Do your homework: a base specification A factory built ATEC Faeta 912 ULS, T tail, Max TO 600 kg, Empty weight 300 kg (nominal), 2x50L wing tanks, would set you back well under $200,000 Au, about 6-9 months ago (no longer agent, so a bit of a guess) I would expect the kit to be significantly less. Au Dollar plummeted since then.

Nothing wrong with Sling aircraft, however they do have an excellent marketing department. In many ways the aircraft version of a Harley, 90 % advertising. The Faeta using same engine, (very similar in appearance) cruises 15 Kn faster, Stalls 11 Kn slower and has a higher "payload"

The word aspirational comes to mind. I believe this to be a marketing term, meaning BS😈

Hmm! Thats two civilian airliners, in recent times. They must be immensely proud of their military capabilities😈

My T tail Zephyr had a relativly small (to my eye) horizontal stabiliser (with elevator) and a large rudder.

Aesthetically I didnt much like the concept but grew to appreciate it. Great rudder and elevator authority, right down & through the stall - couldn't ask for better. X wind landings/TO handled with ease.

Aside from aesthetics, why do most gliders and a few small powered aircraft have aT tail, while most do not?

On 03/12/2024 at 9:22 AM, T510 said:

Hope you are going to offer a tail dragger option

ATEC are supposed to have made one, special order, tailwheel variant of the Faeta (original T tail). Last I heard, a few years back, it was for sale in Greece. ATEC were very disappointed in the ground handling characteristics of the aircraft & are said to have vowed never to build another.

No expert; I have been told that a tail wheel varent, of the same nose wheel aircraft, may have a small cruise speed advantage, for a significant ground handling penalty. Further; A well faired fixed undercarriage, will usually come close to the same cruise speed, as an equivalent retractable, without the weight and complexity penalty of the latter.

3 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

The Oaks has Camden aircraft passing overhead ! .

spacesailor

 

True! Unfortunatly all too often at, even below, circuit height. ERSA sais not below 2500 ft, the most pedantic overfly at 2500 ft - so aircraft inbound to, The Oaks/Camden, at same altitude - not good!

1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

Unless you know other aircraft are in the circuit and therefore the runway in use through listening on the CTAF frequency for that aerodrome you should always overfly at 500 feet above the aerodrome & observe the conditions like wind sock and possible obstructions like animals, aircraft, mowers, vehicles, trees etc before letting down on the dead side to circuit height after making your joining call. While this is not compulsory it is always advisable even if the last aerodrome you were at is close and conditions do not appear to have changed.

 

I do this every time I have been away more than 10NM from my home aerodrome. Kangaroos seem to like the grass there and not just at dusk & dawn and any animal that has died becomes a mecca for wedge tailed eagles. The sea breeze can arrive and change the wind direction 180 degrees in less than a minute when before it may be less than 5 knots to 15-20 knots in the opposite direction.

Like you, I overfly prior to landing however I am usually well over the 500 ft minimum above circuit height - more in line with 1000 ft. Reason; not all pilots are so disciplined to be at circuit height +/-

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

Has anyone considered the radio in the Cessna may have failed?

Of course.

If transmit &/or receive failed and you intended to land at a CTAF, I think an overfly, well above circuit height, to visually assess aircraft activity & circuit direction may have been the prudent  choice, rather than a join at circuit height, to what may be the up/down wind leg.

There are several possible/legitimate circuit joining strategies at The Oaks, the most common is to join X wind from "the dead side" which is over The Oaks town itself.😈