turboplanner

Just when you think you have it all covered, not flying in the lee of mountains, avoiding storm clouds, flying below the structural cruise speed etc. here's my experience flying my Sonex with a friend near Mount Gambier early last year:It was a warm summer day and the sun had been heating the ground up but cloud had moved in from the sea forcing us down to about 2000 ft AGL, so we were bumping along copping both turbulence from the clouds as well as thermals off the ground. Speed was backed off to under 110 knots when we passed over a pine plantation, much darker than the surrounding country, and hit a "wall". There was quite a loud thump and we were thrown up against the seat belts, head-sets dislodged and ipad hit the canopy followed by relative calm and an uneventful landing, although I was pretty careful to avoid other pine plantations. Maximums recorded on the G-meter were +6.9, -0.5

 

The relevant figures for the Sonex are:

 

Flight load at MAUW: +4.4g, -2.2g Vne 171 knots Va 109 knots Vc 118 knots

 

And that's how easy it was to exceed the allowable flight load by 57%.

Given the high regard for the pilot and glider, perhaps an incapacitation with a twist, however Post #2 quotes a Police officer certain that a mechanical error occurred.

What is the process for GFA accident investigations?

Are the results published, or is it the same as RAA?

Looks pretty good to me, in fact if I have to do an outlanding this would do me nicely .... Bob

Have any rag and tubers worked out whether there will be a compliant engine to continue their sport?

Well let's get the slapping over with; he may not have fallen on the stick as some people insist, but do we at least know that he collapsed from a heart attack?

That's not hard to understand it's the lowest common denominator that causes most of the problems.

I have to say, that's not only very disappointing, but a rather pointless decision IMHO.Having come from a GA background, I believe I am FAR more likely to have a takeoff or landing incident in a LSA than a slightly heavier GA aircraft (or a 900KG LSA for arguments sake).

 

Many modern LSA are built to fit in this arbitrary 600KG LSA Rule. To achieve the standard 2 Seat (Adults), 100HP, 4.5 hours fuel criteria, they have to be built by very light construction.

 

The 750KG (or pick a number, 1000kg) enables stronger gear, slightly thicker skins, more metal plates / bracing at joints, stronger spar. IE a stronger built aircraft design.

 

It appears most of the modern LSA (especially Factory Built) are 600KG MTOW, with stall speeds around 27-35KTs. This requires approaches around 40-55Kts to achieve your landing speed (around the 30KT-ish mark).

 

Not surprising a 15-20Kt gust on the typical summers flying day will have a lot more affect on that LSA on approach at 45Kts or about to touch down at 30Kts, than say a heavier aircraft approaching at 70kts and reducing to 45-60Kts for touchdown.

 

So my personal experience is, you are more likely to be involved in a takeoff or landing accident / incident in a 600KG LSA than a more solidly built 750KG (or 1000Kg LSA).

 

And before everyone says, they should go fly a GA plane then. I think many that have lost their medical, or that are required to jump through ridiculous hoops to renew their Class 2 will tell you why. Remember, in a couple of years time, perhaps it will be you that loses your Class 2, or requires 6 monthly medicals with specialists tests to keep it.

 

I've just been reading about some having to do expensive sleep apnoea? tests because they are considered at risk?, or was it because they had a neck size larger than 42. ???

 

Someone trying to create a regular income administering these pointless tests to give someone a Class 2 to fly their 2 seat, 800 Kg RV-XX.

 

In regard to the argument, you are more likely to survive a crash in a LSA because they have a stall speed of 45KTS or less, firstly, I'm sure there are plenty of 750KG aircraft out there with a stall speed of 45Kts or less, and I would also question whether you may have a better chance of surviving a crash in a more solidly built 900KG aircraft (particularly Cockpit) with a stall speed of 50KTs, rather than a very lightly built aircraft with a stall speed of 45KTs. (I don't have proof, just surmising based on some LSA accidents fatalities I've read).

 

Strangely though, The same people that cannot fly a 2 seat aircraft over 600KG, or those that have failed a Class 2 medical, can all drive on the open road a couple of meters off oncoming traffic in their 3500KG V8 4WD, with more likely casualties should they become suddenly incapacitated.

 

Many amateur pilots would still drive their cars on the road when feeling unwell, but would mostly likely decide not to fly that day.

 

I don't agree with their decision, or arguments against it. Stifling bureaucracy gone mad, yet again.

 

How the hell did PPLs manage to survive flying small 1-2 seater SE GA aircraft in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s without all this bureaucratic rubbish.

750 kg MASS PRODUCED aircraft operate happily today, with a higher safety record than the lightweights, within the CASA system, and without any bureaucratic angst. Most big flying clubs keep one of two for people who want a lower hourly rate to keep currency, or in the case of the C152 Aerobat, to play in the bottom end of basic aerobatics.

As an example, the C152 weighs 490 kg and has maximum TO and landing weights of 758 kg.

The Cessna landing weight is important, because it's a foolproof aircraft; you can forget your holiday home keys, remember just after you took off, and go round and land again. If you take a design up through the existing models, you may well have the extra excitement of having to flight plan your fuel burn for a safe landing, and that will be different for pax, and baggage weight.

As a couple of you have said, what looks like a good idea to build a slightly bigger aircraft, beefing up some components, hasn't taken into account that a bigger heavier aircraft will need additional strength just to get to where you are today, and you may not be able to make it stronger. It's also likely to need a more powerful engine just to get the same performance.

So now you are heading towards the $200,000 to $300,000 mark as the market gets going and people still want the higher level performance......but you are still only at the level of the old C152, with its thousands of hours of development design, which has given it decades of life.

And most club members leave the C152s at home when they want to go touring.

It would be well worth the excercise to look through the GA aircraft models on hire today. You'll find the models that were around 30 years ago have all gone because they were not economically viable.

With what's left, you'll see the steps up in cruise speed and weight carrying, and the incremental power increase that's required.

You'll see that even the six seaters, can only take five at full range or with full baggage - nothing different to what is in RA now.

You've already seen the substantial drop in numbers as the aircraft costs of today have moved beyond private ownership for many.

While there is a noticeable difference in takeoff and landings due to the lighter weight, this applies to the four seater market; a C152 is not a lot different to a Jab.

If the push is coming from GA pilots who are no longer medically fit enough to fly in GA, it might pay to take a look at the flying freedoms currently available in RA before trying to invent a GA wheel in your comfort zone.

The lurid stories tend to indicate that there is a group of people who should be hanging up their goggles, but who are determined to keep flying when in reality they are not fit enough.

The driving licence standard is open to abuse, and when you go through the fatality figures you'll see one here and there where the aircraft just fell out of the sky.

One of the changes I can see coming is a tightening of the medical standard away from self-reporting, and within the DIRD system, which covers Air/Road/Marine licensing, I can see it going to the same level as B Doubles, which is close to Class 2.

With the RAA CTA push, I can see an argument for a medical level of Class 2, and if you want to talk about bureaucracy, that's when RA could inherit the Class 2 medical for all operations.

The question is, do you feel lucky?

That's a bugger as I've been living in hope for a 750 kg weight limit giving us greater scope in types of aircraft, diesel motors down the track maybe and some creature comforts like better seats,Brakes and possible aircon and not being so skinny on the luggage we can carry when travelling etc, not asking for much am I

Just been watching the Q&A for RAAUS on FB live. MTOW looks like CASA has shelved it..typical wankers...I think because they have the CTA involved as well in the proposals..and its all too hard for the dweeb brains in CASA. So RAAUS are looking at a new category called G aircraft over 600kg and stall greater than 45 knots.......well what about if the stall speed is under 45knots but not greater than 750kg?...where does it all end. I think this is a feeble attempt to do anything....the answer is thats called RPL ....WTF. Cant anyone make sensible rules any more

As I understand it, this was a dream by a tiny few from RA, and didn't have the backing of a majority of members.

Calling CASA wankers seems a bit odd; who suggested this?

then heavy handed (and short sighted) 'green' legislation and advisories came in that only focused on certain types of emissions that favoured diesel engines and now we have to put up with disgusting clouds of regeneration exhaust all the time.

Particulates have been reduced in Motor vehicles by 97% since 1992, and prior to that were being visually reduced by means of on-road compliance and enforcement using the Ringelmann visual scale.

I think recirculation is the term you want, and what happens there is the particulates about to flow down the exhaust and out into the streets are recirculated back through the high temp exhaust area to be burnt, leading to a substantial reduction of particulate emission. An alternative is to inject a small amount of urea into the exhaust (AdBlue) which destructs the particulates.

The Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) reduces power and burns more fuel, whereas the Urea Injection is downstream from the engine, and is so good that older and dirtier design engines pumping out more power and burning less fuel can be used for the same result. The downside to Urea injection (SCR) is that, like a two stroke, you have to buy it, and you have to remember to fill the tank.

In both cases, what comes out the exhaust is invisible, so the story about disgusting clouds, which appears to have come from an amateur Melbourne discussion earlier this year is bullsh!t.

now I see the UK has banned the sale of diesel cars in the future.......lots of friends I have there are feeling confused because they'd actually been lead to believe they were doing their bit for the environment.

Europe actually has the toughest emission controls apart from California, and, for example in Italy, when a Police Officer pulls you over he'll attach and instrument to a plug on the outside of your car and get a reading of it's recent history, including its emission levels.

I am no expert but I think us blaming the title for the nonsense in this thread is a bit rich.

I posted the regulation key points in #80 - no ban on two stokes.

Yet the vitriol continues on even though its totally irrelevant.

For example, the emission of Nox and particulates causes cancer in Cities and towns. Remote power stations, coal burning or otherwise don't.

There's no intent to field hop; the 25 Nm is an RAA rule, and if RAA were really operating on safety from the top down, they should already have reacted by now, and removed any chance of untrained pilots aiming for loopholes.

I'm really annoyed about this thread and seeing it every day, I love 2 strokes, they are uber light, powerful and as clean as any 4 stroke, but the title just impresses on people that just because it's a 2 stroke then it must be bad, otherwise why would the words "2 stroke" and "banned" be associated.

You just don't get it do you?.......I'm not making any excuses for those actually caught operating their vehicle while impaired (and not just alcohol), throw the book at them, but leave those who didn't actually do anything dangerous alone.

So in order to catch people who had not yet offended, you move the goal posts to make offenders of those who try to avoid offending?I am all for keeping impaired drivers off the road, but making offenders of non-offenders should not be happening a in a free country.

People who think like you will be responsible for taking this country from first world to a third world dictatorship in a generation or two. We're halfway there now, and you seem to be proud of that.

You may think that is acceptable but in reality, it's plain f*cked up. It has absolutely no effect on me as I don't drink, but the intent of the law is to keep drunks off the road, and you have perfectly illustrated what people mean when authorities ignore the intent and screw people over by using the letter of law as it was never intended.Someone who sleeps it off in his car is greatly preferred over someone who decides to drive, why punish them? It doesn't do anything to improve the public's perception of the enforcers.

I'm not really certain what you are getting at when you say "someone is in difficulties", I have no difficulty in understanding the regs, I just happen the think that they are overly restrictive, and on the road that our authorities spend too much time policing things that make money with no improvement in safety.

 

The law has one job...that is to provide safety for the innocent, if it doesn't do that, it's just another impingement on everyone's liberty. Laws that are designed to make the regulator's job easier at the expense of freedom should never be acceptable

When on-road alcohol testing came in, people had thousands of reasons why it was never going to happen to them;they cold hold their liquor, they knew when they had had enough etc, but the constant weeding out of offenders reduced the roll buy thousands of people per year, the biggest reduction in fatalities other than seat belts.

Among the remaining rump of offenders were those who (a) fell asleep at the wheel, ran off the road and stayed there until they regained consciousness, (b) those who decided to sleep it off (in their estimate of the time) in cars and ten drive, while still impaired.

Often those people, when coming before the Courts are found to have a regular history of convictions, and are an utter frustration to the rest of the community.

Your comments indicate you have no idea of what the law was intended for, and no idea of the lives that are saved.

Beware the Sex Offender Registration and WWC Acts!Kaz

Correct, but they were done DUI.

You are talking about at least two cases where innocent backpackers in converted vans, with no keys in the ignition were charged with Driving Under the Influence?

I'd be happy to ask a few questions from a qualified person.

That may be the case elsewhere TP, but I've also heard of people getting done for just being in the vehicle in QLD, one was a backpacker in the back of a converted Van.

I hope for his sake he stayed 1 metre clear of the bik

What has happened to the ATSB link? I click on it and get an Umbraco "replacement 404" blank page.So I go to the ATSB website and search for "AO-2017-094" investigation, and it tells me there are no results for my search?!

Yes, we know what the intent of the 25 NM reg is, I am suggesting that it could be safely extended a bit.In regard to the intent of QLD traffic regs, it doesn't seen to matter what the intent is, there is always someone who will interpret it in a way that suits them. For example I have seen a few examples of people losing licences for sleeping in their car after drinking, which would seem to a sensible thing to do, yet they get punished for doing the right thing. There many examples of harassed motorcyclist after VLAD laws were introduced, and laws designed to stop stunting on motorcycles, resulted in riders being fined for stretching their legs, until it happen to a motorcycle cop.

When someone is in difficulties with the aviation authorities and the road authorities, it' starts to send a clear message.

Yes. Vic is drowning in red tape. You can be booked for using your phone in a McDonalds/KFC/Hungry's drive through, or not wearing a seatbelt in a shopping centre carpark.

They have also removed the right to urinate in street nexr to a horse trough.

We've given some very good reasons.

Maybe it needs a tap on the shoulder and some mandatory retraining to get the message through

Don't know how that is relative Col, actually as far as vasectomies go wasn't there a couple of yobos that did their own at home a year or so ago? (They may have had to get infection fixed by a pro later but that's not the point:wink:)

M6 while I agree that the limits in some areas (for example western NSW) could be further I think the 25nm is adequate especially if you consider some coastal or hilly areas.

 

On a different subject the whole Nav by DR only is a bit of a joke to me especially considering the majority of rec pilots are only flying occasionally and nowhere near enough to keep DR skills up to scratch and a lot of us are using ozrunways or similar so DR skills are definitely not practiced sufficiently to be competent in them. Imo electronic Nav aids should be part of the syllabus.

 

Yes yes of course the satellites can be switched off and all our batteries could die but seriously the odds of that are much less than miscalculating wind drift and ending up miles off course anyway and if we can't find a strip or do a precautionary landing safely then we shouldn't be flying.

I'm not talking about navs of several hundred miles, just extending the 25 NM limit a bit.Though, to answer your question, I did take enough interest to study, and practice within my allowable limits, so that when I did my XC, it was nothing new.

Just replace "radius" with "distance" in the first line of the regulation, and there is no confusion about just how far you can go from your original point of departure.As always, it's the poor wording of regulations, laws and instructions that leads to confusion, errors and accidents.

Clarity is a great feature of American training and instruction - even down to using comic-style instructional books!

 

I think the OP needs some comic-book style of instruction!