turboplanner

So its how much it costs that makes it good?

We have to different panels at work, one completely glass and one with just the avionics only and I prefer the avionics only panel for readability. Having the engine instruments steam makes it a lot quicker to get the whole picture. The full glass panel has digital round instruments (Tq RPM) and they're the only thing that is harder to interpret than the tapes, due to the lag which is significant and trouble with acute reading.Glass is great but not for everything. In saying that I'll take all glass over no glass.

Acute reading I also agree with; some of the readings are too small for rough air and a busy circuit.

A third issue, when you are renting aircraft, is that some students can't help themselves and change the view to their favourite, which means that if you have limited time, it's like getting into a new aircraft with readouts where you don't expect them and vice versa.

Plenty of the "toy " glass is now certified including the sensor pack in Dynon and some of thir unitsThe amount of info including, wind, aoa, bugs and other alarms and cautions available for similar money makes them a simple decision

The key factor is not about one or the other, it's about quality.

If you have flown a C172 with vacuum driven instruments with their fast response, ability to steady quickly, dials with clear lettering and precise gradations and needles, and then flown one of the RA machines with the usual toy glass, I'm surprised you would be asking that question.

There's a fair amount of head wind there. Without taking it into account you don't get a valid result . You can take off and land behind where you took off from without a circuit if the wind's strong enough. If you land going backwards don't expect to be able to control it. Just ONCE I've needed two wingmen to keep the plane A DH 82 Tiger Moth on the ground after landing it on the wheels,( not 3 point) with power still on.. I had no radio and they had enough nouse to know I needed them. Don't do that stuff intentionally ,though it's good experience, but not real safe. Nev

Where I fly from I don't use radio unless I suspect there are others flying nearby. See and avoid works, especially when local traffic could be on any one of 3 frequencies.

The truth is you CAN'T see beyond your cockpit periphery, and in some cases you get very little warning.

Consider my experience:

I was inbound, tracking in the correct position to a CTA inbound reporting point, and not far off making my call.

Suddenly I saw a Cessna 210 tailplane flash from left to right in the lower part of vision; he missed me by a matter of metres.

His closing speed at cruise would have been around 277 km/hr.

He apparently had misjudged the reporting point, realised his mistake and turned 90 degrees to get to the correct entry point.

His cruise speed was around 277 km/hr.

I had no way of knowing he was there.

If he was 10 feet lower, today I would have no idea he had ever been there, unless I'd seen him out to the right.

If he was 10 feet higher, I wouldn't be here.

I realise that, by a few seconds, neither of us were required to make a reporting call, but he could have made a turning call to alert us to his mistake and both aircraft would have been safe

In the early stages of my training there were quite a few around, and after a couple of years they just sat - they were poison to the people who trained in them.

Macarthur Job wrote up the failure rate, and that about finished them for the major training centres.

It intrigues me that after someone has posted details about structural tail failures, others just go ahead and post these nostalgic stories about how if you mastered them it was good fun; it was more likely to be good flying or good luck.

The flip side of all of this is that RAA is designed to be more likely to result in fatal accidents than GA. That's one reason that the planes are not allowed to carry so many people.

I wonder how to improve the safety culture of an organisation, without the organisation having the ability to throw people out.

This and the base culture provided a very safe environment, and it was all done with volunteers.

I think if you hit someone or someone hits you the odds of getting satisfaction from being right would be slim.Actually the fact that you collided would prove that you didn't do enough no matter what you did.

Even if both pilots are killed, there can be a public liability case brought on behalf of the Estate, or claiming from the Estate; if someone believes someone else did something wrong, and they face a life of difficulty, they will usually sue. Plenty of cases of wives suing husbands.

The table of calls in the CAAP are in fact only recommended calls that should be used, it does not say shall or must.

However, the aircraft you hit or hits you will most likely be the one you don't see.

If you haven't followed the CAAP, you are likely to be sued for negligence, given that safety procedures were recommended and you ignored them.

If you have been following the CAAP then that is your primary defence against claims for negligence.

Just mind-boggling. But the problem is likely to be, that the hangar will be re-erected in some remote farming area, and no-one will be the wiser.Traffic cameras are a godsend to tracking thieves, but they need to know the date the hangar was stolen - and hopefully, not that far back in time, that all the traffic cam recordings have been wiped.

Suggest people post photos of the hangar, showing its shape and any distinctive features that might be obvious in a dismantled state

If they've taken it to Brisbane to sell to one of the steel recyclers there should be records; in Victoria Registration numbers, descriptions, and weights are databased, probably the same in Qld.

If rebuilt, someone will notice it eventually.

Agree with frank m on attitude flying. Using three core VFR instruments it's possible to execute a controlled turn out of imc.

If you look at the IMC training syllabus, and the continuous ongoing currency training flights required, you can see what it takes to match the way the airline pilots do it.

It's worth reading Motz's words from five years ago in the thread "Fatal Trike Accident at Cootamundra"

"Terribly sad news. A couple of old club members, and committee members. Thoughts are with the Family and friends.

Frankly, ive had a gut full. Im not here to point fingers at deceased people. But I am going to point fingers at the rest of us. WTF is wrong with us.?? What sort of culture have we nurtured, where a pilot of reasonable experience, can take off into the dark FROM NATFLY.. From the bloody busiest RAA gathering in the country. Witnessed by hundreds of pilots, and no doubt the powers that be in our organisation. WTF????

I am beside myself with anger at the moment, and alot of it is pointed at myself. While I have tried my best to enhance the safety culture from within, I have clearly failed. I know of 3 possible IMC incursions on the way to natfly, all by pilots I have had significant dealings and influence on. It appears I have been beating my head against a wall the whole time.

But for ANY pilot to conceive the idea of embarking on such a flight with the whole RAA watching clearly means the culture of aimenship and safety has gone to the dogs.

One of my instructors attended the "office" at Natfly to ask about printing up some weather for his return flight home. He was met with a Blank stare, and told to remove the weather printed (off the wall) some 8 hours before, and told to copy it. He was dumbfounded that apparently he was the first person to ask for printed weather. The first person, at a well attended flyin. Is it still the LAW to carry printed copies of the WX???... The blank stares, mind you, were given by high ranking RAA officials.

Some of the accidents and incidents of recent times in Australia really do begger belief. Weve had People running tanks dry and crashing with the other tank full. We have had instructors running out of fuel on TIF's, we have had people stall and spin into water after engine failures.. We have had people letting go of controls to shut doors and crashing. And now, to top it all off, we have a pilot take off into the dark while hundreds stood back and watched.

Im over it. Ive failed. I give up.

Andy out..."

As I recall, this trike had a car headlight fitted to the front of the trike.

I think this is about the 8th Radio thread I've seen, and nearly all contain "what I do" posts, and each radio thread has gone off in a different direction.

However, there is a standard, which everyone is supposed to be trained to.

The standard is based on an improved level of transmissions developed after the lessons of WW2, where it was shown that lives could be saved if the words were made more recognisable under poor radio reception.

For example, in the circuit, if a standard phrase is used at a standard point by everyone, then if a radio is not transmitting clearly, everyone can often recognise what was said and where the person is just by the number of syllables.

Another example, is that standards phrases and phonetically enhanced words are more easily understood under poor radio conditions and that can save lives.

The organisation which look after communications is Airservices Australia.

Airservices Australia has around 3,500 employees (compared to CASA, around 1,000)

Here's a link to their website: Airservices

Radio procedures are contained in the AIP (Aeronautical Information Package), here's the link to this 916 page document:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/aip/complete.pdf

Like CASA, Airservices don't seem to be able to make it simple with things like a comprehensive Index, and page numbers.

Radiotelephony Procedures are in Section 4 GEN 3.4-11

To get there in under 20 minutes, I would suggest you click on CRTL+F and in the search field which pops up, type Radiotelephony Procedures, and you'll go straight there,

and be amazed at all the detail on phonetics for alphabet and numbers, standard phrases, and your obligations in communicating with ATC.

I think we are talking about different stories

Interesting and probably true but I do like to hear at least a downwind call. If you have two aircraft not transmitting because they have not heard any other radio traffic then surely the potential for a collision exists?

I don't think you can compare a few idiots in four wheel drives to most of the decent people that fly, it's a pity we can't land there because it's a great spot, in the middle of no where

The problem is the behaviour of people in the past, and not just at her station. Cattle dogs have been shot, diesel has been stolen from tractors. On one occasion I passed a group of 6 4WDs - about 15 people making a brew of morning tea; they were parked and had a fire going at a tank, after shooing away about 200 cows.

turboplanner, edited..mod

 

I know for sure that GFA and RAAus have introduced lots of new rules in the last few years as has CASA. Part 61 for starters. Otherwise known as a "charlie foxtrot".

I'm sorry to make more noise, but since June 2010, CARs have increased from 325 to 351 currently; that's less than most large companies but it does seem to worry people.

Someone working in the Mines or in manufacturing who has been through the ATO process could probably help you to understand Part 61.

 

As for "supervision" how do you supervise when someone has just taken off in a single seat aircraft and disappeared over the horizon?

The Self Administration Organisations have the duty of care; it's up to them to develop their own policy.

 

I know some "trained instructors" in both GFA and RAAus. In GFA they have a very poor record of smashing gliders, and injuring and killing students. Last weekend at Gympie is the most recent accident I know of. I won't go into the circumstances but from what I've been told by one of the repairers quoting on the wreckage it should not have happened. You might like to look up the nasty accident that happened on April 1, 2012 at Ararat. I know of one accidents in RAAus where the instructor was out of his depth.

GFA and RAA are both self administering organisations and they may well introduced their own rules and policies. If you have a beef with their safety why not take it up with them; they have the primary duty of care for their operations? Why let this go on to the point where CASA has to step in with ramp checks or other audits?

 

All of the following organisations are self administering; there's very little point in lumping all their rules and all CASA's rules in a big bucket and having a general spit.

 

CASA currently oversights the following self-administration organisations:

 

• Australian Ballooning Federation (ABF)
   
   
  
• Australian Parachute Federation Ltd (APF)
   
   
  
• Australian Skydiving Association (ASA)
   
   
  
• Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association (ASRA)
   
   
  
• Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL)
   
   
  
• Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA)
   
   
  
• Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA)
   
   
  
• Model Aircraft Association of Australia (MAAA)
   
   
  
• Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus)
   
   
  
• Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA)
   
   
  

 

 

 

Looks like there's some more noise coming too: Self-administration rules are changing

 

As for your suggestion about passenger training, how do you expect the passenger to stay current enough? In any case it was just one example of rule making stupidity, particularly as it is impossible to enforce.

As you say it was a suggestion.

 

From my ignorance (really) perspective, there seems to be a temptation for inflation of access, which will cause inflation of requirements. I already think people should fly with radios and artificial horizons if you have a plane with a cabin, so maybe I'm the last person who should post here.

The irony is that in the big Cities, private GA is being pushed out of CTA, and doing quite well side by side with RA, helping to secure those peripheral airfields.

A predictable response.

Yep. Thanks. I already have that in motion. A few of us in here should do the same. :)

CASA, GFA and RAAus don't have safety cultures. They have rules cultures. All sorts of rules, many of which are counter productive to safety*, others make no difference and the really important ones are hidden in the noise. The organisations are operating under the misapprehension that more rules = more safety, with a notable lack of real world success.

Earlier this year someone (I suspect from O/S, put in a confidential safety report to ATSB about the GFA run World Gliding contest at Benalla, saying that the GFA had a negative safety culture. GFA and CASA both responded. GFA with much verbiage claiming thy had a "risk mitigation process" (amounts to: we have rules). CASA went along with this farce.Anyone who launches 116 sailplanes from one site in an hour or so is accepting a much larger than usual risk of a mid air. There were two, one with minor damage, one where two gliders destroyed, two bailouts, two pilots injured, airlifted to hospital by helicopter, all at vast expense. The farce is that each participating country was allowed to have two pilots in each of 3 contest classes. One pilot per country and hold the 3 contests at different times and places and you have truly got a risk mitigation process. There are other ways too. Unfortunately egos of the organisers and the blue blazer brigade who sanction these contests, like to have LARGE numbers attending as it makes them feel more important.

* Consider the rule about touching the controls. Your passenger, who you may fly with nearly all the time, is not allowed to be taught to fly straight and level by you and is not allowed to "touch the controls". What absurdity, what block headed stupidity. If you lapse into unconsciousness what is your passenger going to do? The "how to fly and land" course is going to be very short. CASA would rather have the passenger (and you) die, it seems.

You espouse a safety culture, and the backbone of that is to get your ego under control, let trained instructors do the training.

The cost of paying an instructor to train a regular passenger how the fly straight and level, how to turn and descend, and how to do a rough landing, is a very small part of your total cost of flying.

Fly Tornado, is that a photo of Sussan Ley on your profile?