Jump to content

Roundsounds

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,068

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Roundsounds

  1. Roundsounds
    I'd suggest RAAus must be involved in the development of the Part 149 MOS. - Firstly, has the organisation has experience in the field they can provide valuable input - secondly and more importantly, to influence the development t of the MOS so it doesn't contain any unreasonable requirements. It's too late to try and change the rules after they've been developed. I have experienced this in the Part 61 reg's, there are organisations who should have made subject matter experts available during the development of the various Part 61 MOS, instead we are now trying to repair things with exemptions and 61.040 approvals.
  2. Roundsounds
    It would be refreshing to have a choice as to whether ultra light aircraft operate under: - CASA or - a committee run/not for profit organisation or - a professionally run commercial organisation I have no knowledge of who/what ELAAA is, but if they fit into the 3rd category I reckon they'd get some followers.
  3. Roundsounds
    Maybe have the instructor demonstrate a couple now that you've done a few. Also helps to have the instructor "think aloud" telling where they're looking and what cues they're using. Never underestimate the value of a good demonstration.
  4. Roundsounds
    As mentioned by someone earlier, entry into a side slip is normally effected by banking with aileron and preventing the turn with rudder - in that order. It looks like the reverse order was used here, yet no comment by the instructor? https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-4of7.pdf Refer page 8-10 The radio call by the instructor following the simulated engine failure was of little value, "glide approach 28" - but from where? Base, overhead, mid downwind and was this for a full stop or touch and go? Also the habit of keying the mic to acknowledge the Bonanza's inbound call is annoying at best and proves nothing.
  5. Roundsounds
    The only comment I'd make about Dick's excellent hand starting article is in regards to #6. Pulling a prop backwards to clear oil from cylinders is not recommended, as it potentially moves the oil into the intake manifold. When the engine starts, this oil may be pulled back into the engine resulting in conrod damage.
  6. Roundsounds
    Like the CAAP says, if there's a risk of collision use the radio. However, the vast majority of airports in this country don't have the situation you described with regards to humps in runways. The starting point with reference to radio calls should be as recommended in the CAAP, supported by additional calls only if required to avoid a collision. I simply don't understand the proliferation of a continuous commentary of an aircraft's progress inbound and/or in the circuit. It's unnecessary and dangerous.
  7. Roundsounds
    Maybe read CAAP 166-1(3), page 22. Your version of "basic calls" seems to differ from those recommended and if there's a lot of traffic you suggest making more calls?
  8. Roundsounds
    CAAP 166 is a good start, the table on page 22 lists the recommended broadcasts. Page 22, para 7.3.6 effectively says other calls should be made to avoid the risk of a collision when one exists - this doesn't give permission for teaching verbal diarrhoea. I cannot see how a call clear of the runway serves to avoid a collision. My take on this poor RT use is most flight instructors are now trained at towered airports, so simply transfer those calls on top of the CAR 166 calls. The AIP Book is the primary source for when and what to say, whether that be Class C, D or G airports. if you're uncertain of the rules, it might be worth reviewing that info.
  9. Roundsounds
    Yes, the AIP and CAAP 166 provide direction on the required calls. There is a radio exam and practical assessments during flight training. The problem is flight training providers have decided they know better than the regulator and teach their own version of RT, the theme seems to be the more calls the better. The use of traffic displays on various EFB devices seems to be trendy, this worries me too. The attitude of no calls heard, no traffic displayed on EFB=no traffic is dangerous. Pilots of bug smashers need to maintain a proper look out as their primary means of collision avoidance, just take note of the lack of scanning for traffic in the plethora of video footage posted online - there's rarely any scanning happening.
  10. Roundsounds
    The purpose of the call once clear of the runway and runway strip is simply to establish comm's with SMC at a Towered airport. It's got nothing to do with advising ATC of you being clear of the runway, that is established visually (or ground radar at some airports). Therefore, this call has no purpose at a non-towered airport.
  11. Roundsounds
    Yep - I flew in from the north and made the following calls: - 5NM inbound, -joining downwind for touch and go (behind another aircraft already on downwind), - then base calls on subsequent circuits. Seemed to work ok and satisfied CAR 166. The most useless call that's appeared in recent years would be "clear of runway". Why make this call?
  12. Roundsounds
    Today did some circuits at Cessnock. A locally based aircraft made the following calls: -10NM inbound - 5NM inbound -3 NM inbound - descending on the dead side to join crosswind - joining crosswind - turning downwind - turning base - turning final - clear of runway - crossing runway. The only other traffic at the airport was us doing circuits, it would seem this was an aircraft on a training flight. To me this is not enhancing safety in any way. If you have 2 or three of aircraft inbound making these calls, plus a few in the circuit there's no room to make all of the calls and you lose track of who's where. Remember too, this CTAF frequency is shared by a nearby ALA where training also takes place. (Maitland).
  13. Roundsounds
    An interesting article from Avweb: It's Time To Raise The LSA Weight Limit - AVweb Insider Article
  14. Roundsounds
    Ben87r: Refer to CAAP 166(link below) Page 21 states the content of a broadcast, which includes intentions. A broadcast immediately before entering a runway (line-up call) would include intentions- ie for circuits, departure to the west etc, upwind departure for Dubbo etc. hence no need for a departure call. Page 22 contains a table of recommended broadcasts. https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/166-1.pdf Uneccessary broadcasts can result in a safety issue when a non-towered airport gets busy. Put 4 or 5 aircraft into a circuit all making taxying, lineup, downwind, base, final, clear of runway calls there's no room for inbound traffic calls. It's also difficult to maintain situational awareness with constant radio chatter - there's a tendency to "tune out", a bit like a nagging partner or whinging child. It also promotes a mindset of reliance on radio for traffic awareness, remember radios are not compulsory at all airports, radios fail and errors result in incorrect frequencies/selections. Lookout is you primary means of traffic separation, radio only assists.
  15. Roundsounds
    - I'm not sure why a departure call would be required? The line-up call would include intentions. - Also, what circumstances would "required on the day" dictate calls for each leg of the circuit? I'm not having a go at you, just trying to understand the thought process?
  16. Roundsounds
    His name, on Faceplant.
  17. Roundsounds
    Whilst on the topic of RT, has anyone who learnt to fly say more than 20 years ago noticed the increase in calls at non-controlled airports? People chip me if I don't call turning downwind, final and clear of the runway! Taxying/line-up and base call are all I would routinely make in the circuit area. Inbound I'd make a call at an appropriate distance, then with intentions as to how I plan to join the circuit when I've decided. Any other call would only be on an as needed basis.
  18. Roundsounds
    Oh dear....
  19. Roundsounds
    I see the Tech manager have a rant about CASA processes on another forum.
  20. Roundsounds
    https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/aip/general.pdf Pages 3.4 - 53 and 54 Runway designation L/R is required if parallel runway op's in progress and discrete frequencies are not in use. Sounds like an extract from the following Monty Python script: Now, before I begin the lesson, will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your clothes down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you write your letter home, if you're not getting your hair cut, unless you've got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you've had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you. Now...
  21. Roundsounds
    Maybe there needs to be a new chapter added to the op's manual banning crashing?
  22. Roundsounds
    some time ago I put a scenario to CASA regarding the application of 61.385 to single seat aeroplanes. I put it to CASA that if a pilot were to explain the systems and operating procedures and handling characteristics to another pilot not familiar with the aircraft prior to them going flying, would they need an instructor rating? Answer was yes. I then finished the description of the scenario - the aircraft was a single seat Yak 50. The pilot explaining how to fly the Yak now wouldn't need an instructor rating, 'cause they wouldn't be flying with them! I summarised the conversation in an email and asked for confirmation of my understanding of their answer - that was last year, still no reply! Figure that one out.
  23. Roundsounds
    A few comments: 1. The scenario given earlier was based on a pilot with minimal experience. Should a pilot have extensive experience on similar types, read the POH and learn the SOPs for the type there wouldn't be a problem jumping in and flying. That's why it's left to the pilot to determine if they're competent. 2. The glossy .pdf documents CASA publish about the new regulations do have a legal standing in court. The regulations are interpreted based in the intent. CASA publish the glossy brochures stating the intent, the courts would/must interpret any vague Reg based on them. 3. At the end of the day if a pilot goes flying in a new type and nothing goes wrong, they must've been competent? However, if they bend said aeroplane or worse still injure a pax, they're going to have a very tough time in court proving they were competent.
  24. Roundsounds
    It's not that simple, if you read the references in my post you'll see CASA have all but mandated training on not only aircraft types, but avionics, flight instruments and anything else considered to be unique to a particular aircraft.
  25. Roundsounds
    Maybe have a read of CASR 61.385 and the associated General Competency rule brochure. https://www.casa.gov.au/file/131276/download?token=kzbe519K It isn't legal to simply jump into a C210 with only C172 experience, aside from the design feature issues, 62.385 requires instruction in such cases.
×
×
  • Create New...