GASCo Flight Safety

[bluskis]

Just want to say what an interesting, informative and readable publication Flight Safety has become.

I did not bury this comment in my other topic, as I think they deserve a visible word of praise.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't write for it all that often (and it doesn't pay much anyway) so I've no particular axe to grind- but out of interest what did you think was wrong with it before?

Incidentally I agree that it is very useful, I just don't myself feel the need to add "has become".

G


(And, since I'm in the mood to be slightly controversial, I wonder when a certain person who wrote in the current issue, and in a not too distant issue of Popular Flying about airmanship and being familiar with your aircraft type is going to publically admit to wrecking on take-off a perfectly serviceable aeroplane about 4 years ago that they jumped in with no experience on type, not having read the manual, confirmed that the aircraft could legally be flown by him or spoken to an instructor who knew the type - all ostensibly to help a low-hours owner improve their own handling of it?).

[FlyingForFun]

Genghis,

I don't know the person you're talking about, nor the circumstances of his incident 4 years ago. But could it be that he learnt from the experience, and that it's only because of this that he feels able to write about how important it is to be familiar with the aircraft type?

FFF
----------------

[bluskis]

Ghengis
I have been reading Gasco probably since the first issue. I was even thinking of getting the oldest I have out and comparing it, before your post.

What's different? Well I get the impression as a reader that I am not being lectured to, or threatened, but am sharing common experiences and being reminded of things I haven't experienced, at least lately. All this in a readable style. The necessary AD AIC Eng problem data is still there.

Perhaps the guy you are referring to should have headed his article' I learned.............

[gasax]

Well Blueskis I very much agree!

I was even moved to write to Stewart-smith or whatever the name of the old editor was in disgust at a couple of his 'articles'. In my opinion his lecturing and hectoring tone did far more damage than good. I doubt it every worked on his service underlings, let alone people who are in many cases fundemental better educated blah blah...

Positive reinforcement and changing attitudes is the way to genuinely imprve safety - just look at what happened to GASIl after David Hocking left, overnight it turned from something useful and thought provoking into 'you must do this because the rules....'

[Genghis the Engineer]

Okay, I can see that. John S-S happens to be a friend of mine, but I can see that his writing style could give that feeling of being lectured at. I was just curious really.

As bluskis said, perhaps I'm just hoping one day to see something from him along the lines of "I made a mistake, and learned from it, perhaps you could too...".

G


Who before anybody who knows me jumps down my throat has also bent an aeroplane, and makes no secret of it or the lessons learned to those of my close acquaintance.

[IO540]

There's a nice bit on page 35 of GADIL June 2003:

"while GPS must not be used as a primary means of navigation..."

Does anyone have a reference for this piece of "law" ????

As far as I know it is complete nonsense. The ANO specifies what equipment must be CARRIED in certain circumstances and clearly when doing e.g. an ILS one is supposed to use the ILS receiver to track the ILS... but what about a BRNAV-approved GPS at FL95+ which is supposed to be completely legal though somewhat moot in the UK since one needs to carry all the old kit anyway to do an IAP somewhere...

[down&out]

As I don't own an a/c or fly from a club (I rent from a private individual) I don't get to see GASCo. It sounds like a good read. Can anyone tell me if it is available on the web to download (like GASIL).

I've done a quick search and couldn't find anything.

Thanks

D&O

[Genghis the Engineer]

The current issue makes no reference to a website. It does say however than you can subscribe for £12/pa by sending a cheque to GASCo, Rochester Airport, Chatham, Kent, ME5 9SD.

The actual publication is called "GASCo Flight Safety" (previously known as Flight Safety Bulletin, or FSB). It comes out quarterly.

G

[bluskis]

Mine arrives as a package together with GASIL and the Occourance and Accident listings.

I would think you would get those as well for your £12.

[Keef]

I've heard many tributes to S-S who've said what a wonderful aviator he was.

Yet as editor he laid into me as if I were a naughty schoolboy because I dared to fly IFR in IMC with only an IMC rating. He very forcefully told me (in the magazine) that the IMC is only the equivalent of a "military white rating" and therefore not valid for cloud flying, and much more along those lines. I wouldn't mind being told I'm a lousy aviator (probably am!) by someone who's flown with me, but I couldn't see how he could tell that while sitting at his desk.

I tended to disregard what was written in the bulletin for the rest of his tenure. If he hadn't bothered to read the official definition of the IMC rating, I thought, what value the rest of his writings.

That said, I find GASCo and GASIL extremely enlightening, and never miss reading them.

[RodgerF]

IO540

The UK CAA view on the use of GPS for air navigation is detailed in AIC 93/2002 Pink 41.

[IO540]

RotgerF

Thank you for the link, I found it at

http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aic/4P041.PDF

It states that you can use a GPS so long as it does not replace conventional nav techniques. That is pretty obvious - one always needs a backup, either visual in VMC or VOR/DME in IMC.

It does not say that a GPS cannot be used as a primary navigation aid, and indeed almost everybody who flies modern well equipped planes does exactly that. Anything else is just unnecessary extra workload, and much less accurate.

I do read all the publications I come across, and the accident reports are always interesting. But a lot of the stuff in the GASIL wad which came through the post the other day appears to be written by old codgers who would regard a PA28-140 with a VOR receiver as a "modern" aircraft.