Garfly

And in this vid Viking defends itself on the relative weight issue.

No need for apologies Red, but neither is the issue giggle-worthy This PPrune thread shows that (even in Old Blighty) various opinions are abroad as to how times ought be recorded. Show of hands - Logging Engine Hours ?? - PPRuNe Forums WWW.PPRUNE.ORG Private Flying - Show of hands - Logging Engine Hours ?? - Evening All.... What is the Correct way of Logging Engine time ? (Can anyone point me to the CAA Rules regarding this ??) For the past 14 years I...

And, heck! I've seen an old Thruster in Cowra do better than this!!!

Lots of nostalgia available on the Chris Conroy YouTube channel:

No argument there. I think we all agree.

Yes, for sure, an ATD is totally necessary for one's own log keeping. I just meant that if you're flying with no plan in the system it doesn't mean much to anyone else. In which case, the only estimate that counts (for others) is the one we give inbound at 10 miles.

Yeah, it can be quite a while between chocks-away and taking-off, so our intentions might best be held back till later in the piece. That way, any significant others with some interest in our plans, are more likely to be inside the zone and listening in. In the old days of VFR flight plans and full reporting, an actual time of departure was required by the system to start the clock on the schedule submitted. But in our uncontrolled, NOSAR/NODETAILS world, I guess a (local) departure call just needs current position (or circuit leg) altitude (passing and on-climb) and track (or first waypoint). As far as I can see, declaring an ATD (almost always 'this time' anyway) in a CTAF context is a vestige of other times/other systems. Anyway, I'm not saying departure calls are even necessary; it depends. Which must be why law makers limit themselves (uncharacteristically) to 'recommendations' when it comes to comms at uncontrolled fields.

While TCAS may be better, the cost of those systems makes it impractical for small aircraft - even for commercial IFR operators, let alone recreational types. A few years back the charter industry was squealing about being forced to put in ADS-B OUT gear - a far cheaper option than full TCAS. Yet, with the current rebate program even recreational types can get, let's say, 75% of the TCAS safety function for, what?, 5% of the cost. (By carrying approved EC IN/OUT devices.) In their own Mangalore report, the ATSB opined that had either or both aircraft carried even such basic ADSB IN/OUT gear then it might all have been avoided. Also, the Coroner's Recommendation # 1 has something to say on the issue of "Departure Calls" which have been discussed here recently in other threads. From the CORONIAL INQUIRY INTO THE MANGALORE AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT Recommendation 1: I recommend that CASA develop and disseminate educational material for the aviation industry aimed at reinforcing the importance of accurate departure calls being made by pilots in command of aircraft. It is a matter for CASA to determine the process by which the educational material is disseminated to the aviation industry. Recommendation 2: Airservices, in anticipation of harmonisation of operating requirements for Brisbane ATSC and Melbourne ATSC, provide additional training to ATCs on managing and responding to STCAs within 5 nautical miles of aerodromes with similar aircraft movements to Mangalore. Recommendation 3: 80 Airservices should consider providing additional training to current and prospective Air Traffic Controllers on the use of velocity vectors in Class G airspace. It is a matter for Airservices to determine how this training is developed and facilitated. Recommendation 4: I recommend that the ATSB, AMSA and CASA continue to work together to promote the voluntary update of ADS-B technology in Australian-registered aircraft. It is a matter for the ATSB, AMSA and CASA to determine how to best promote this initiative in the aviation industry. Recommendation 5: I recommend that CASA conduct a cost-benefit study into the feasibility and potential benefits of requiring the installation of ADS-B IN devices in IFR-certified aircraft. Recommendation 6: I recommend that the Minister for the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure give consideration to expanding the ADS-B rebate program to extend to Australian registered IFR aircraft.

Yes, the quote was from a reliable source. The reason for it? The thread was discussing how to interpret published ADS-B data in connection with the accident.

Yes, AAK is still very much up and going strong at Taree. Ole Hartmann (the owner) has been in Europe for a month or so but I've heard he's on his way back and should be contactable in coming days. This is the email: [email protected]

Another tragic miscalculation of take-off performance: Report_ERA16FA161_93027_7_30_2024 8_11_03 AM.pdf

Yes, neither proscription would be acceptable, at all, to Goldilocks.

But I think Skippy is only arguing for the Goldilocks mean: not too much, not too little. Just-right for the given situation. Nothing proscribed. Makes sense.

Ah, okay, sorry, misunderstanding. I thought you were referring to Gryder's video where he really did fly opposite direction to everyone else on purpose, to prove a point.

Nobody claimed that either. Dan Gryder (love him or hate him) conducted a controlled experiment on a YouTube video wherein he tried to show how reluctant pilots can be to simply speak up and negotiate with each other to obviate even obvious possible conflicts. The implication was do not do this at home.

Maybe an unmissable "DOOR" warning light on the dash, then - at least for those side (or rear) hinged canopy types. In any case, all these caught-on-cam incidents make it super clear that flying the plane and staying calm(ish) are top priorities when chaos breaks out aloft.

And another mea culpa vid urging us to take "Hatches, harnesses secure" seriously.

That's a fantastic flight to have done. Shows that it's possible - even with a slowish steed. Kyle Gardner did the west-east trip in the same type a few years back and made this video:

Another sometimes useful "incorrect" usage is repeating the call-sign near the end - as well as the location. It may take a couple more seconds but can save more time and confusion on follow up queries. Rigid formats definitely have their place but so does context/common sense.

Final Report video from ATSB: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcoUR3XUuTs

Yes, speed ain't everything as this clip is at pains to show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuKFhfEOosg When I listen to local RPT pilots negotiate safe passage down among the unwashed and uncontrolled, I'm often impressed by their professionalism; unrushed, patient radio work with each aircraft they deem a possible threat. The comms alone can seem like a full time job, so lucky there are two of them up front. Anyway, as Gryder advocates (in the vid posted in the other circuit issues thread) they carefully engage each significant other to obviate ambiguity. If the RF is too chatty for that then the policy seems to be to hold away until it's clear. I often hear them breaking off their preferred straight-ins to join the circuit if they are in any doubt. In other words, it's not just a matter of declaring one's position/intentions and barrelling on in as if 'protected' by having 'followed the rules' ... or even just the recommendations.

Some busy circuit work, Dan Gryder style: