poteroo

As he stated, he has completed his pilot certificate and would like an instructor to check off / familiarize with his own aircraft

In which case, an instructor is able to legally provide dual instruction - providing that the instructor is a current SI/CFI, is endorsed on type, is 90 days current and satisfies themselves that they are competent to provide dual in that aircraft,(61.385 applies). The aircraft should also be fitted with fully functioning dual controls. The question of insurance appears grey. If the aircraft has a current M/R, and it is signed off by the owner - then the aircraft is considered serviceable. It would probably be prudent to ensure that your insurer is advised that the aircraft is going to be used for your own instruction. They are likely to want to know some details of your proposed instructors' experience too.

 

Instructors are the meat-in-the-sandwich here. They may or may not be insured in a particular aircraft. They are often not provided with dual controls. They are often left uncertain of the aircrafts' serviceability because of sparse records kept by the owner/new owner. I have had to draw the line at no rudder pedals in a t/w aircraft and a pilot with 50 hrs total experience on t/w type. In the likely accident report - I'm going to be PIC and that's forever on my record. I'm pretty careful in what I fly dual in these days.

 

happy days,

 

 

Aircraft is said to have conducted a low level pass of the airstrip and clipped the windsock in the process

Hard to believe!

 

What you can't see from 200 ft AGL, (well clear of trees and windshear), in a strip inspection - isn't worth the risk.

 

 

Before going too far with the 'lets include the general public' theme - read the new 60 page CASA Air Display Administration and Procedures Manual. It appears to very much widen the liability/compliance net for Flyins and small airshows. Read it and we'll continue this thread. happy days,

 

 

Yes, my initial opinion was just a stab in the dark, before much information was available. Now we find out it's a 310, and that it's quite possible he could have been having trouble with one engine at relatively low altitude - then fuel management or supply could be raising its ugly head. There's been a 310 SB issued on the check valve in the auxiliary tank vent line - which, if said check valve becomes corroded, it can cause surging and power loss due to air ingestion into the engine fuel pump.010.pdf | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

That's possible, but the time you'd find out if there was an aux or tip tank fuel feed difficulty would be while in cruise. General procedure is to select mains at TOD or at least 10 nm out from destination. Should there be issues at that point, there's time to go for crossfeed, plus divert to a better destination. 310 fuel system isn't simple either.

 

Then there's the other factor of maintaining speed in the circuit area. With a Vmc of 81,(91 more the recommendation), and SE climb of 105, it's usual to not drop below 120 around the circuit. Over the fence is more like 90/95 - which should allow for the landing to be completed even with fuel starvation of one engine.

 

I'd be very surprised if an experienced twin driver allowed the aircraft to be turning at low level if they had already had fuel feed difficulties. Certainly not at speeds under 120, and not, (my opinion only), in the same direction / side as the starving engine. That is always going to yaw the aircraft into the turn and create a chance of stalling the inside wing - usually the left one in circuit. That's not easily recoverable without a lot of air below you.

 

All sheer speculation. Trust ATSB can determine a cause/s. RIP.

 

 

Va is calculated for a reason - to save you shedding airframe parts. Simply x your clean stall speed x 2 and you'll be very close to it.

 

 

Thread Resurrection

 

Thought it timely to talk about turbulence and managing its' effect on airframes after the 2 recent Cessna 210 fatal accidents - one near Darwin and the most recent near Albany WA.

 

It would appear from the reports to date that both aircraft broke up in flight.

 

The Darwin accident involved a strutless C210 which was negotiating its' way around significant thunderstorms. There is a possibility that it encountered extreme turbulence in normal cruise - as we don't know whether it was operating at reduced speed or not. The ATSB findings may determine whether there were other contributing factors, eg making a turn which increased wing loading, or had flaps extended at close to the book Va, and others. It was also apparently lightly loaded - a factor which reduces Va, and increases risk in rough air.

 

The Albany accident, (a mid 60's C210 with struts), occurred in clear skies with no known meteorological influences. It seems unlikely that this accident was due to any operational factor as the pilot was a highly experienced aggie and would be all too aware of airframe limitations. The loud 'bang' heard by the only witness, (to date), before he observed the aircraft spiralling almost vertically, and the 4 hectare spread of debris, - would appear to point to some unknown catastrophic event in cruise. The fact of there being no recorded Mayday would indicate the event was sudden in the extreme.

 

All pilots need to heed the airframe limits on their aircraft. Read the POH - understand what Va is, what flap does to airframe limits, what turning does to airframe limits, and more. With summer so close - please keep away from storms, slow down when it gets rough, and avoid coarse control inputs. Fly early AM and avoid the rough stuff. If you are flying a very much older airframe - be aware that it could have been stressed many times in the past by unknowing or caring pilots - treat it with care and respect.

 

safe flying and happy days,

 

 

Enough! Enough!

 

If you couldn't demonstrate enough nous to look up both the correct spelling and meaning of the word debacle: then you should be more restrained in your criticism of RAAus and the AA organisers. What a petty, spiteful and ungrateful thread this is! Ian, you should lock it asap. (thread is being edited...mod)

 

 

Back in the 60s when there were lots more firearms about the country - there was an unusual story doing the rounds at Archerfield of a 'Cessna' being brought into a maintenance facility with a bullet hole in the tailplane. Not unusual you might say, given that many outback Cessnas were flown 'door off' while a firearm was being employed in 'culling' duties over the station. But this one was said to be very unusual - the bullet entered from the top and emerged from the lower surface! The pilot was said to have been 'beating up' a farm in some very hilly country down in the QLD/NSW border ranges, where it's not impossible to fly past lower than a house! Quite a good story - but completely unauthenticated.

 

happy days,

 

 

Was just a hypothetical question :)I experienced what Jaba-who is talking about not long ago when we flew a sportstar across from Moorabbin to Jandakot... called the number in ERSA to ask if av gas was available at an airfield we were considering as an alternate, girl on the phone was like "what on earth is av gas" haha here I was thinking I had called an airport but it was actually the council chambers.

I've found that The AOPA Airfield Directory, or the WA Country Airport Directory give about as much info as is available. Another option is to checkout listings for flying schools and for aero clubs. They may not operate a public access bowser - but may be able to help out in a tight situation. With Local Government - ask for the Works foreman - he usually knows what's happening at the coal face.

 

I would rarely go anywhere these days without an empty 20L jerrycan stowed in the baggage area as it does give you an option of landing and obtaining a measurable quantity of fuel from wherever you can land close to a town.... with a taxi service that is amenable to carrying fuel.

 

happy days,

 

 

In America, 600kg LSA is a failure while those 750kg "slug" Vans keep on rolling out the factory en mass, outselling all the LSA models combined, they are the ideal size, power, speed weight combination because the market has spoken, not numbers.

I'd agree with the popularity of RV's, but lets remember that their usual MTOW lies between 750 and 800 kg. That's a very good reason that we should be looking at 800 kg instead of 750 kg - if we hope to include the RV series in RAAus.There actually isn't an 'upper' limit under EXPERIMENTAL category because each aircraft is a custom build and is then test flown through 25/40 hrs and a set of flight numbers are generated from those tests. If the builder/test-pilot is doing their job responsibly, every RV will have slightly different 'numbers'. My own RV9A has 795kg MTOW and stalls @ 44kts.

 

We also need to recognise that their popularity, with 160-200 HP 'Lycoming' engines, has much to do with cheaper fuel over there. Despite there being a 'low' compression engine being available, (with lower HP), do many of these get fitted? I'm told - not many.

 

That's true, but add an effective compliance and enforcement operation, and you'll see abig reduction.

Unless CASA takeover all of RAAus 'operations' - then it couldn't happen because RAAus doesn't have the legal powers to conduct much in the way of 'compliance & enforcement'. Only CASA FOI's have such power, and they would have to be directed to become active within the RAAus pilot group. In any case, the 'big stick' approach hasn't worked in the past. An improved training syllabus , with more recurrent training requirements, is probably a more effective approach.

 

happy days,

 

 

I think the weight increase has been totally stuffed up by RAAA because they pushed it to 1500 and added the stupid CTA into it as well so it all becomes too hard for CASA

Couldn't agree more. 1500kgs was always going to prove 'a bridge too far'. The horses have been frightened with this obvious ambit claim. 800kgs would have been smarter, insofar as allowing ex GA types into RAAus. It would have included all the C150/152 types with 757mtow, and the majority of VANS RV's, (my 9A is 795kgs mtow). It would however, create a uniquely Aussie category of aircraft......but, who's counting? We already have several CASA inspired unique Aussie rules.

 

Insofar as CTA is concerned - that's quite a different argument for CASA. It is really about safety, rather than convenience, and the argument should have strictly pursued that line. Learning CTA rules and doing an endorsement is well within the capabilities of an RPC, and aircraft can be brought up to 'CTA' standard by the application of $$$. Running with safety alone should have been an easy 'sell' to CASA, and I am amazed that RAAus couldn't achieve it.

 

happy days,

 

 

Your best help will come from getting people who know the design to look at it.

Spot on! I strongly recommend buying or building a type that is popular and there are local examples. 'Orphans' can prove very costly! If it's an RV - there is a lot of knowledge about: in building tips and test flying tips too. happy days

 

 

as most stall/spin accidents happen too low for it to be used.

Yes, and mostly are avoidable if the pilot has been trained to fly the aircraft in balance at all times. I encounter a disturbingly high number of pilots who skid the aircraft during left turns, (as onto final). This is a surefire way to spin 'under' and at 500ft or lower = no recovery likely. As you can guess, I'm a proponent of lots of 'co-ordinated' flight practice for students. If you can't fly 'in balance' - then it's difficult to learn how to fly intentionally 'out-of-balance' - as in slipping for height loss, and in crosswind ops.

 

happy days,

 

 

FWIW I back off in bumpy conditions so I'm 30kts below Vno - just over 100kts in the 172, and my 'wet finger' rule is if my bum is separated from the seat and/or I can't hold within 50ft I turn around and go home.

Va for a C172 varies with weight - as does Vs. The range is from approx. 103kts @ full gross wt down to 88kts @ wt with jockey + minimum fuel. Quite surprising.

 

happy days,

 

 

he RAA management see the RPL as a serious threat to membership numbers.I think this is the real reason behind the cta/mtow push........

It was an inspired decision by CASA to name the old GFPT, (aka RPPL), the RPL. It completely muddied-the-waters in the 'recreational aviation' sector, and validated a public perception that a licence trumps a certificate. The fact that you must hold a 'real' (CASA) medical, in order to hold a 'real' pilot qualification, (a licence), has undermined the authority of all RAAO's, and RAAus is now in an invidious position. What Machiavellian policy is behind it is beyond mere pilots to understand: probably quite clear in Canberra?

 

 

Innt

 

Yes, I'm missing something here too:I found the G force vs perceived effect (light pitch/yaw to near loss of control) enlightening.

But I'm not able to make any (similar) subjective connection with the table of vertical gust speeds.

 

Would that not be useful if that is what is used to calculate Vn speeds, or am I missing the point entirely?

To really connect all the terms, I have read Turbulence-The Aeronautical Forecasters Handbook, from BoM. I have a digital copy for anyone who is into this stuff - but beware - it's heavy going in places.

 

From this book, on p5 - Table 1 connects IAS variation to vertical gust fps to G load to aircraft reaction:

 

Intensity IAS variation vertical speed G load aircraft reaction cockpit reaction

 

light 5-14 kts 5-19 fps 0.15 - 0.49G slight little

 

moderate 15-24 20-35 0.50 - 0.99 rapid bumps,jolts strain on belts

 

severe >25 36-49 1.0 - 1.99 large changes, objects off floor,

 

loss of ctrl forced into belts.

 

extreme >25 >50 >2 out of control - damage likely-injury likely

 

I recommend this book to interested pilots.

 

I found the following article from Vans Aircraft quite informativehttps://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf

Yes, the high altitude stuff in regards to VNE and TAS isn't likely to be of great relevance in Australia because we are usually well under 10,000 ft - whereas in the western states of the US it's not unusual for RV owners to cross the Rockies at 13,000 - 14,000 ft. Many RV's have O2 and many RVs have 180HP and above engines. They also fly at 75% power everywhere.

 

The article on HP choices for RV9 series RVs is interesting. I 'disobeyed' VANS by fitting a Superior IO-360 to mine, and the dyno tests showed 190HP. (it has both injection plus EI on one mag). Now, on reading his article you'll note that he is talking about 180 HP engines being flown at 75% power, (and because most US aircraft are CSU fitted as well - his story includes this performance enhancer as well).

 

But, I believe VANS misses the point here. He is not recognising that Va is calculated on the published positive load factor,(3.8), and the actual stalling speed clean, (Vs). With a Vs = 49KIAS in my 9A, and then x that by the sq.rt. of 3.8 (=1.95), I calculate a Va of 96KIAS. This quite a lot lower than the 106KIAS that is evident in the V-n diagram shown in the VANS article.This has nothing to do with HP per se. But it does have a deal of relevance for flying an RV9A in Australia. For a start, we don't usually fly at 75% power because avgas is much more expensive in Australia, and it's often a long way between refuelling stops. So, the average Aussie 9a is flown at lower IAS than in the US. When they start quoting 156KIAS, and we are more often looking at 130 KIAS at 8500' - there is quite a difference.

 

And, from talking with other 9A owners with higher HP engines, I find that most use them mostly to enhance rate-of-climb performance - not trying for higher en route cruise speeds. Most seem to target a particular KTAS for cruise, eg 140,145,150, and then set up power and lean to achieve. So, the probability of sustaining damage due en route turbulence is lower here than in the US scene.

 

If you look at the numbers published by VANS - you'll see a Va of 112 given. It's shown as a blue line on their analog ASI gages. How did they derive this?? It's a long way above the Va that I derive for my 9A, and mine is based on the real life stalling numbers as I measured them using real life weights. (Sure, I'm using IAS instead of CAS, but the differences won't be much and my ASI was found to be quite accurate on test). Why would this be? Whose numbers do I believe? Mine of course - because they are the more conservative. Using my numbers allows me to traverse some rougher air than I might otherwise tackle, allowing for the skirting of stormy areas and frontal and trough lines at my <100KIAS self imposed limits.

 

I realise that these examples using RV's are some way from the average RAAus aircraft doing 90-100KTAS - though the principles remain the same. Just because you cruise at 85KIAS doesn't mean that you can ignore your operation in turbulent air. Have a look at your Vs at usual weights, then x by 1.95, and you have your Va. My guess is that many of you are in for an awakening - you'll end up with numbers in the 60-70KIAS range and that's not surprising because you can't have low Vs and high Va unless the aircraft has been built stronger than + 3.8G.

 

happy days,

 

 

Our training area ends along the south side of the Stirling ranges - 27nm from the airport. Another good obvious geographical feature is Mt Manypeaks some 23nm east and Denmark town the same west. So, the advice to pilots here is stay inside those locations. Given that they are often without GPS, it seems practical and sensible and I have never had a pilot arguing the toss over it. But, some pilots obviously want to split hairs.

 

One RPPL from Perth is reported to have been pinged in Darwin when he made a meal of getting a clearance! Now that's a lot of consecutive 25nm sectors!

 

happy days,

 

 

And the rougher it gets .......... the faster you want to get there and down again"moderate" turbulence in a forecasts seems to be a loose term meaning "we arent sure"

If you are flying an aircraft with a 'G' meter, (and most EFIS units have these as standard), then the following applies to Turbulence:

 

Very Low: - < 0.05G - light pitch, yaw & roll

 

Low: - 0.05 - 0.2G - choppy, cobblestone effect

 

Moderate: 0.2 - 0.5G - uncomfortable bumpiness

 

Severe: 0.5 - 1.5G -abrupt bumps, difficult handling

 

Very severe: > 1.5G - aircraft thrown about, near loss of control.

 

But, when you consider just the vertical gusts, (as do the engineers with their Vn diagrams), then the following applies:

 

Weak: 5-10 m/sec

 

Moderate: 10-15 m/sec

 

Strong: 15-25 m/sec

 

Severe: >25 m/sec

 

I am lucky enough to have Dynon D-180 EFIS/EMS in both my RV and Brumby so can measure the amount of turbulence on any one flight. It is instructive for both myself and student because it allows for some level of 'quantification' of the conditions that we've just experienced. I have always planned to advise my LAME of any severe experiences that we have in the aircraft and that would be backed up by knowing the 'G' numbers. Standalone G - meters are not that expensive anyway, and anyone who flys close to ranges and in the hotter parts of Australia should consider one.

 

happy days,

 

 

My flap extension max speed is 60knots but on a rough approach I leave them up until down to 50ish just to add a bit of an extra buffer

Very sensible: and it's because the calculation of Va is dependant on the square root of the load factor x the clean stall speed.

 

The LF of most RAAus and GA aircraft would be 3.8 nil flap......BUT.......only half that with flaps extended! With a lower Vs1 than Vs, and a LF only half that for unflapped flight - the sensible thing is to use nil flap if it is exceedingly rough in the approach.

 

Va = 32 x 2 = 64 knots which would feel terribly slow to me compared to Vno of 95 knots.

The Auster is very tough and these calculations may be less applicable to it because we really don't know just what standards they were originally built to handle.

 

Notwithstanding, I would be getting well under Vno of 95 whenever it became seriously rough. If not for the structural failure reasons, rather for the reason of maintaining controllability without losing it. A 'target' IAS of half way between your Vno and Vs would place you in a safer spot I'd think.

 

happy days,

 

 

61.385 is a GA requirement to be competent as defined by the manual of standards. I would suggest this does not apply to RAAus pilots so the two hour fix by GPS would be for GA only

I think it probably does apply. You would need to have it 'signed' into your logbook though, and the instructor would themselves need to have been found competent to use GPS under 61.385. Then, the instructors' instructor would need to have been signed off under 61.385. Then, that instructor would..............ad nauseum.

 

 

There is another thread running in the European section, but I believe that this is such an important subject that it should be re-opened here in Training.

 

As an instructor who has conducted many, many Flight Reviews over many years, I can confidently state that the knowledge most pilots hold about 'safe speeds' in turbulence is frighteningly low. I've had pilots tell me that anything under Vne is fine. Others have stated that as long as your needle is below the yellow arc on the ASI - you're fine. Very, very few understand the relationship to gross weight and stalling speed of the aircraft. Very few recognise moderate turbulence when they feel it. It's no wonder that aircraft breakup in flight!

 

Aircraft which spend more time at low altitudes are known to suffer greater stresses in the airframe. Low level activities such as mustering, ag, and survey create lots more need for airframe inspections. I've heard some truly terrifying stories from maintainers about tailplanes virtually 'flapping' after thousands of hours mustering.

 

I've had some real frights with turbulence. After several, my legs barely supported me after landing! Australia might have an absence of high mountains, but it consistently has ambient temperatures 15-25 degrees above Standard - and that means lots of thermal activity. Diurnal heating should always be in mind when selecting altitudes - sometimes a little more headwind is better than an uncomfortable rough ride.

 

So, to start with - who knows the load factor limits of their aircraft, both clean & flapped? Who uses a G-meter to keep an eye on things? Who knows the formula to calculate Va. Is Va close enough to use as a proxy for turbulence penetration? Who adjust their cruise speed to suit the turbulence experienced?

 

I'm seriously interested - lets talk.

 

 

see no reason to fly over country that I can neither land amongst or glide clear of! I only do tiger stuff if I can glide clear of can see a suitable spot, otherwise I take a little longer and go 'round

I've done the trip Laverton (WA) to Yulara (Ayres Rock) a few times. You can fly direct over double tiger country, or go via Warburton Range and be over a frequently used road for most of the trip. The difference is about 15 minutes at 120 kts - or your life perhaps.

 

I'm also reminded of my yellow streak when looking at my logbook entries for crossing Torres Strait. The 4 ferry flights I did from PNG to Aus were via every island between Saibai and Horn Is, (and that was in the days before most of them had strips).

 

happy days,

 

 

Second to not flying from ANY runway which does not give you EFATO space, this is a brilliant technique to build into your subconscious.

Agree. Where it really is tiger country - the circling climb to cruising level is prudent. Out in the real inland regions, a circling climb with an overhead departure is a smart way to ensure you depart 'on track', and with an engine that has already run for several minutes more under power without any disturbing noises or indications. happy days,

 

 

Its refreshing to read a true account of this process - it is often said around town that this process is quick and easy and that the standard of training is very similar and in only a few hours you'll have your RAA to PPL conversion complete, but for me it begs the question why did it take me slightly over 45 hours of training compared to the 20 odd in RAA license process - I often thought maybe I had been ripped off getting a PPL - maybe not!

IMHO - you appear to have been. But, you're talking a full PPL, with Class D and C CTA privileges - bound to cost more than RPL, which after all is the old 'country PPL'.

 

Because we run both schools 'back-to-back' here, and both CFI's are GA Grade 1's with >10k TT, and both instruct in both schools, I think we have a reasonable transfer of pilots. In the RAAus school we actually do IF time in the EFIS equipped Brumby, and in the cross-country endo we fly the same routes/times as do the RPLs in the c172. Our RPCs appear to take only 5-8 hrs of C172 time to complete their conversion to RPL. The 172 is a very easy aircraft to fly after you've been learning in an RAAus type with the same yoke & throttle layout.

 

happy days,

 

 

Going through the same trials again late today, good 15 knot cross wind gusting 20 on second lesson of circuits in my 182. Horrendous landings ( compared to the sport star on a calm day) I am hoping for no wind on my next early morning lesson. There is a lot more going on especially when learning to operate in CTA at the same time.I would like to show the instructor I can do a lot better. With 80 plus hours up on RAAus aircraft, I was thinking it would not be so tricky to get on the ground, the flying bit is fine I find that part quite easy.

Good luck with it for both of us

Clinton,

 

Are you flying a C182 or is it a C172XP with CSU? You've given both so far.

 

These heavier Cessnas tend to be very forward CG when flown only 2 up and no pax or baggage. I've done several thou hrs in them and many, many endorsements. My best bet is loading it up by adding at least 20-40kg in the baggage compartment: which brings the CG aft and gives you more trim range. With that loading, you will be able to land it on the mainwheels and avoid the near 'wheelbarrow' landings that are common with these types flown for endorsing. Get out your load chart and load it up legally. I've managed 26 kts xwc in the 182 but that was really trying! Have found that 20-30 deg flap is more than enough. 10 deg for t/o on hard surface is necessary, especially loaded to gross.

 

If you find that the x/w is such that you run out of rudder, then perhaps use more flap plus carry more power to improve rudder command. I found that the C182 was more likely to be 'limiting' in aileron command than rudder, and all you can do about that is fly the approach and roundout slightly faster. There comes a time when you just have to admit defeat and land the aircraft more into wind - whether you do this by orienting yourself 10-20-30 deg 'accross' the strip, or use the grass flight strip on the diagonal, or, (when really desperate), the taxiways look good. Whatever it takes!

 

happy days,