turboplanner

Agree, there is no point IMO pulling the power at 50 feet with a lot of runway available. It has to be pulled on up wind and at a point where making it back to the runway is simply not an option.

I also don't think practising base on images or location will help, because in an EFATO your available time is also in seconds.

The EFATO threads are always muddied by people referring to situations which not "Engine Failure After Takeoff" as it is meant, but forced landings in the circuit. One person recently claimed four EFATOS, but three of them were just forced landings.

In the forced landings you do have some alternative options and you do have some time to plan. EFATO doesn't mean five minutes after take off.

The EFATO is going to occur some time on your climb out heading before you turn crosswind, and in that sector, the nose is pointing upward, and you may have some rudder on to counteract engine torque - not a good starting point for a glide, so control action needs to be instantaneous.

Therefore your reaction needs to be subconscious.

Therefore you have to imprint the subconscious rather than practice "thought out" EFATOS based on low level situations alone.

I was lucky enough to know the value of "subconscious imprints" from racing and it saved my legs a few times, and I was even luckier that my first GA Instructor did the same.

His training was "engine off; stick forward, land ahead between the objects" and you picked the objects after the aircraft was stable, and every time we did it he imprinted that message. In every case he chose a point at maybe three or four hundred feet where you might be tempted to try elsewhere than straight ahead.

The reason it needs to be imprinted into your subconscious is that if you have to think, firstly there's too much delay, secondly you may commit to an impossible scenario.

In twelve years of racing, I've experienced many different reactions to an emergency.

In some, where I had some slight indication it was coming, I just made a routine safe decision.

In one or two unusual ones I froze in terror and wasn't able to avoid the inevitable, but the safety equipment took care of it.

In one I spent three or four seconds of "This can't be happening" to diagnose a broken radius rod which could have sent me high into the air.

But in most cases I avoided the routine crashes because my hands and foot had already acted before I could think and stuff it up.

People feared those 912s even then.

Is

The Wagners got really lucky yesterday, there was a big storm that came in yesterday and missed the airport by a few hundred metres and an hour after the 8F left. Imagine if it had hit when that 747 was landed.Everyone would have been "quickly put that plane in a hangar" and the Wagners would be "there are no hangars, apart from the one the we build for our beech air and it won't take a 747"

 

 

 

Maybe you could book a flight to China with the next lot of meat?

Great day for Australia, it's taking a tonne of Inverell meat to Hong Kong

If it's that bad, the critical thing is to go right through it and make sure there are no self-interest clauses, or different clauses which might cost members more money, or otherwise give them grief.

I guess if you think that those charged with investigating corruption should put to a Court both the evidence favouring the prosecution and that favouring the defence if it is in their possession, then you might think that investigators who fail to do this have acted a tad unfairly especially if they have also hidden it from the defence.Have a look at the way in which our esteemed aviation authorities have conducted themselves in the Quadrio, Lockhardt River and Pel-Air matters and have a think about how donations to political parties, concealment or just plain failure to look for evidence and friends in high places might have been detrimental to the fortunes of the accused in each case.

 

Why blame the lawyers and the Courts? ICAC, ATSB and CASA are creatures of Legislative Government so perhaps it's the politicians who should be held to account along with their employees.

 

Kaz

Nor did I say they were not required; just that some people don't understand the complexity, and some don't want to admit that flying is not an option for them.

The DAME system has always been precarious as Facthunter and others have been at pains to repeatedly point out. Recent events have made things even more difficult.

You would want someone in first class health for RPT and Charter, and not much less for someone flying over urban areas.

Here, once again are figures published by RAA.

CASA not only have these, but the failures before and the failures after, because RAA published them without any restrictions, which is commendable.

For those who continue to belch false information that there is no breakdown by engine type, have a look at the breakdown by engine size as published by RAA, which every member has had a chance to see.

EXX22.xlsx

EXX22.xlsx

EXX22.xlsx

They have a clear set of disqualifying issues on thier website...but what they really need is a clear set of guidelines to get back from those disqualifying issues....They also need a path where people like me who have basically been bludgeoned with bureaucracy can ask for an independent assessor to slap the bastards with some common sense....and just like every person in the real world, when they have staff members who consistently fail to meet acceptable standards...they need to be seriously retrained or sacked!

You've mentioned a couple of times regretting not taking advice to lie to CASA; the ones who promote this are the ones they have to deal with, and minimise the legal fallout. You should study a notorious pilot who flew long after he was incompetent to fly; study the comments from the same industry pilots who lambasted CASA for "Knowing he was medically unfit" yet, knowing he was flying without the appropriate licence, but doing nothing to stop him.

Who can blame them for just covering their bases.

Especially when Port Douglas is just four hours and $139.00 away.

One of the understated reasons why GA RAA are diminishing... Why would i fly to say Nth QlD when i cant land near Port Douglas or Cairns and have to put up with CASA bs to do so at a higher cost....

If someone called downwind at a country strip, and I was waiting at the threshold and needed to backtrack, I would probably wait it out, but that's very much a judgement call depending on the airstrip, traffic etc. The reason I would wait it out is that both aircraft would be arriving at the downwind end of the runway at about the same time.

Some people are sticklers (pricks) for radio procedure and would cut off their right arm rather than make a communicative broadcast.

What I was alluding to before, was that of you call XXXX runway xx for xxxxx, as someone alluded to before, landing aircraft have priority.

If no one else has called and your call includes ENTERING, you own the runway, so if a collision occurred, or the other aircraft submitted an incident report, you've removed any doubt about who screwed up.

The key decider here is whether you called "Entering and backtracking Runway XX", which would have been before all this developed.

Update. After a quite a few flights I've sorted out my new harness, cut off the excess and melted the rugged ends to stop fraying. The straps are nice and wide and I've added lambs wool pads between the metal buckles and my hips. While flying thru rough air it's reassuring to be able to pull the shoulder straps tight without the waist straps being pulled up above my pelvis.Biggest disappointment is I didn't follow Oscar's advice to get one with "pull-up" adjusters on the waist straps. Now I know what he was on about. In a narrow cabin it's almost impossible to pull the belt down enough to get it firm.

Did you check whether there was an Overlay KM?

While it might seem quite novel, one alternative is to actually study the Planning Zone conditions for your City/Municipality.

Where people are building houses, if the zoning is "Residential" they are lawfully building them there.

If there is an Environmental Overlay for aircraft noise, and that would take into account climb out and both left and right circuits, the Council Zoning is likely to be Industrial, Public Use, or some other zoning where noise is not an issue, so you can't build houses there.

If an airfield has been in use for the requisite number of years, it has "Existing Use Rights", and these cannot be taken away by complaining people who built their houses under the flight paths. Despite this, as we've seen on this forum, airfield owners have been silly enough to engage with residents and freely give away their rights to the extent that the airfield becomes useless.

Similarly some Councils have taken notice of complaining residents and called for mediation meetings, or proposed new zoning "which will be more equitable. These effectively are illegal for an airfield which has existing use rights, but instead of simply saying "We have Existing Use Rights, so will not be participating and will not accept any decision to water down our rights", some owners have been silly enough to participate, and have signed off on impractical solutions which helps kill the airfield, or gone along with rezoning, not realising they have no existing rights once the rezoning occurs, and then must accept the decision of Council and will get no more sympathetic view from QCAT, NCAT, VCAT etc.

So it's simple enough:

If you have an existing airfield with existing rights - stay out of the discussions, hire a Planning Consultant and let him do his job.

If you are buying land to build an airfield, remember that these things can fly as well as taxy, and apply for an Environmental Overlay to cover the full circuit for noise production.

Having said all that, the motor vehicle driveby noise limits have been coming progressively down to the point where motor cycles, aircraft and Jetskis are starting to stand out as offensive, so expect the Federal Government to eventually move in with Design Rules.

Getting a funny for straight facts is a measure of how low some people will go.

Good grief. I go bush for a few days, and yet another alleged 'Jabiru engine failure' thread erupts, without facts and promoted by the Usual Suspects.When we all look at this, we see actually three posters bashing away at their drum: Asmol, FT, Bull. Heck, even Turbs, Merv and Deadstick have withdrawn from the fight...though in several of those cases (and another I won't bother to mention), there would be some serious embarrassment if all of the CASA action against Jabiru engines becomes public knowledge. FT and Bull don't have skin in the Jabiru-owning game, we don't know about Asmol.

 

So., about three people in Australia vs. the 1300 owners of Jabs. post their opinions.

 

Why do we bother to take issue?

I certainly have not provided CASA with any information, and I backed my claims up with official RAA published data.

12 1/2 years for manslaughter is the highest penalty I've seen for culpable negligence - nearly double the previous cases I've looked at.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-21/trucking-boss-peter-colbert-jailed-for-drivers-death/6714506

Hi, thanks for all the feed back.From my understanding all the complaints come from one person , A Mr KING , who lives approx. 1 km to the Nth not N-E as the council said.

This person complains about road noise, boat noise ,farm noise and aircraft noise plus others things.

 

I personally went to see him to talk about the aircraft but he insisted that the council was the correct way.

 

I am currently going through the right to information from the council to confirm that it is still him making the complaints.

 

My airstrip was built before the Caboolture one. It is 960 metres and runs N-S.

 

All my neighbours have no problems with aircraft activities.

 

The big stick attitude of the council is what concerns me. They could have just noted a sensitive area and asked pilots to avoid when possible.

 

I have had a personal conversation with a council staff on my property explaining the free use of the airspace above my property, but still this letter came out. I guess some people can't be told and just want the last word.

 

More to the point I want my friends to be able to drop in and not be threatened with a fine. And YES who is going to dob them in?

This one may be simple to fix.

Caboolture Airfield was established previous to 1965; If yours was there before then, and has been continuously used as an airfield, then it probably qualifies as an Existing Use Right which legitimises it in its original purpose (aircraft operating from an airfield are expected to produce a typical amount of noise), regardless of any newer Planning Schemes or Zoning.

If that is the case, and the person from the Council who approached you was a Planning Enforcement Officer, you can provide evidence that you have Existing Planning Rights, and he can then tell Mr King that you are entitled to make the noise, end of story. If he wasn't from the Planning Department, I'd recommend asking for a meeting with the Planning Manager, showing him your evidence, and he will advise whoever spoke to you that he can't take action because the operation is lawful.

I haven't got the time just now to search the Queensland Planning regulations, but I did find that the Queensland Local Government Act 1936 was amended in 1975 to include a clause protecting existing lawful non-conforming Uses.

If this personal approach fails, then hire a Planning Consultant who should be able to fix it.

Well, my question was regarding PFLs over a property which has granted permission. Does the local government have any say in that if the wheels never touch the ground?

Does the council have the right to regulate what happens in the air above it? To what altitude?

But you can't land without the wheels touching the ground and then you are in the definition of an airfield, and the definitions can be very restrictive. For example in Victoria, if Motor Racing is prohibited in the Zone that knocks out all the hoons and trailbikers, even if they are not racing, because they are called up in the Motor Racing definition.

Hi, I have a private airstrip on Sunshine Coast QLD. Can local council stop my friends from landing? When I have given permission to land on my strip.regards Geoff

You need to find out what the Zoning is on your property, which can be done on line.

Then you need to look up the Uses in that Zone

These are State regulations, and the following link is for the Victorian Rural Living Zone (RLZ)

This shows that an airfield is not in the list which can operate without a permit, and is not in the prohibited list, but falls into a category where you are required to apply for a permit.

http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/230292/35_03.pdf

This is a link to

http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farm-management/business-management/planning-applications-in-rural-areas/rural-zones-explained

If you can show you have been operating the airfield for more than seven years, you may have Existing Use Rights, in which case no one can tell you to stop using it, or make you do anything different to what you've been doing for seven years.

In either case, since, having been brought to the attention of the Council, the end result is that you could be shut down, I would strongly recommend you contact a Planning Consultant who will verify your Zoning, verify your Use Status and give you a strategy.

If you've been doing endless circuits and buzzes over the neighbours' homes you can pretty much kiss it goodbye unless you have Existing Use Rights, because you can bet they will have photos and diarised times. If you've just been using it occasionally, staying clear of their houses, the Planning Consultant will advise the best strategy to follow. Public campaigns don't count for much because if there is strong opposition it will usually make its way to QCAT where the Member is likely to do the analysis on whether it's a permitted Use or Not, and whether to direct the Council to issue a Permit or not. (which is why I suggested looking it all up in the beginning.)

It all comes down to what a resolution is, what a decision is and what the board individuals think of the distinction, or lack thereof, between these.......

I'm convinced a public forum like this is not the format to get any meaningful result because it is not possible to stick to a single subject until all fully understand all aspects and all can debate it and all can come to a consensus. Also, because forum posts are brief, too many people get confused and diverted without a proper explanation, and a fuller understanding of what is actually meant in the post. Just recently an another thread I posted some actual facts and was greeted by possum sounds in the next post because the person had had no education or understanding on the processes I was talking about. In addition, there are people with their own agendas for their own benefit who fire up as soon as a discussion starts to gather momentum in a positive direction and shoot it down.

So I don't think this is the place to get too excited about definitions and detailed qualifications.

There are many things that need to be commercial in confidence, the legal reality is that any contract between RAAus and any other commercial entity needs to be protected....

Again, a forum is a very frustrating place to get into detail if you want to start getting precise.