ERSA - up to scratch?
I looked at ERSA in more detail yesterday and I'm wondering if I need to carry the previous edition as well and then compare them to look for anomalies.
Firstly, I suspect that we have an editing/page formatting problem. The Lienster mistake looks like a simple accidental deletion to me.
To put it another way, the formatting is just stuffed, for example the entry for YMEN (Essendon) starts on the bottom of a page, and the airport diagram starts "Naked" with no elevation, code or lat. long. overleaf (FAC m 23 and 24). That's a safety hazard for those unfamiliar, in that they could misread/ spend too much time.
Yet then go to page 27 and they do it again with YMMB!....and leave a gap of two or three inches below! So the "paper saving" by starting Essendon on m 23 didn't save anythin, it just f***ed up the entries for two of the busiest airports in the country! Students and persons unfamiliar will waste precious time flipping pages like mad instead of looking out of the window - not good enough.
The entry for Swan Hill YSWH page S 18 starts on one page, but the diagram is on the opposite page so that's OK.
Firstly, I suspect that we have an editing/page formatting problem. The Lienster mistake looks like a simple accidental deletion to me.
To put it another way, the formatting is just stuffed, for example the entry for YMEN (Essendon) starts on the bottom of a page, and the airport diagram starts "Naked" with no elevation, code or lat. long. overleaf (FAC m 23 and 24). That's a safety hazard for those unfamiliar, in that they could misread/ spend too much time.
Yet then go to page 27 and they do it again with YMMB!....and leave a gap of two or three inches below! So the "paper saving" by starting Essendon on m 23 didn't save anythin, it just f***ed up the entries for two of the busiest airports in the country! Students and persons unfamiliar will waste precious time flipping pages like mad instead of looking out of the window - not good enough.
The entry for Swan Hill YSWH page S 18 starts on one page, but the diagram is on the opposite page so that's OK.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok while we are ERSA bashing. The conversion table for AVGAS of litres to kilograms is wrong. A litre of 100/130 does not weigh 0.72 kg.
How can the regulator approve a publication, for 15 years that I know of, with incorrect fuel conversions. Yes I have advised them of this in the past.
How can the regulator approve a publication, for 15 years that I know of, with incorrect fuel conversions. Yes I have advised them of this in the past.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh silly bloody me...
and that's the figure (Avgas 100LL & 100/130 SG of 0.72) I've been using for only around, oh 30 years or so now... and a it's figure that I'm sure will be fairly familiar to damn near everyone here.
Perhaps you would enlighten us tio540 as to what SG figure we should have been using? Your original post is a little light on the detail! Personally I would appreciate references too, as every reference I've checked in just the last few minutes still suggests 0.72 is an appropriate SG figure for Avgas 100LL & 100/130.
Perhaps you would enlighten us tio540 as to what SG figure we should have been using? Your original post is a little light on the detail! Personally I would appreciate references too, as every reference I've checked in just the last few minutes still suggests 0.72 is an appropriate SG figure for Avgas 100LL & 100/130.
Originally Posted by from Wikipedia entry
Properties
Avgas has a density of 6.02 lb/US gallon at 15 °C, or 0.72 kg/l, and this density is commonly used for weight and balance computation. Density increases to 6.40 lb/US gallon at -40 °C, and decreases by about 0.5% per 5 °C increase in temperature.[4]
[4.] MacDonald, Sandy A. F.; Isabel L. Peppler [1941] (2004). "Chapter 10. Airmanship", From The Ground Up, Millennium Edition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Aviation Publishers Co. Limited, pp. 265, 261. ISBN 0-9680390-5-7.
Avgas has a density of 6.02 lb/US gallon at 15 °C, or 0.72 kg/l, and this density is commonly used for weight and balance computation. Density increases to 6.40 lb/US gallon at -40 °C, and decreases by about 0.5% per 5 °C increase in temperature.[4]
[4.] MacDonald, Sandy A. F.; Isabel L. Peppler [1941] (2004). "Chapter 10. Airmanship", From The Ground Up, Millennium Edition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Aviation Publishers Co. Limited, pp. 265, 261. ISBN 0-9680390-5-7.
Last edited by RadioSaigon; 21st Jun 2008 at 00:15. Reason: added just one reference
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to this http://www.pnggas.com/pdf/mobil/avia...ide_tables.pdf the correct figure is 0.695kg/litre. I'm only guessing, but perhaps the difference is in the fact that today nearly all Avgas is Low Lead.
Last edited by vans; 21st Jun 2008 at 00:45. Reason: Add text
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RadioSaigon
Hi there, glad I created some interest. First Wikapidea is not a reliable source, don't rely in it.
Anyway the SG (Specific Gravity), used by the ERSA applies to 80/87 octane, where 80 applies to octane rating for lean mixture, and 87 octane at full rich mixture. This has an SG of 0.72, at ISA or 15 deg C as an industry standard.
When Australia adopted the 100/130 octane Avgas the SG changed to 0.71, where 100 octane is the lean octane rating, and 130 octane for rich mixture octane rating. 100/130 Avgas is a higher grade of fuel, hence is lighter than 80/87 Avgas. The industry standard for 100/130 octane SG is 0.71 at ISA or 15 deg C.
This is the figure that should be used, not the 0.72 conversion that the ERSA and all other CASA publications use.
In reality, because Australia is warmer than 15 deg C the SG will be nearer to 0.69 or 0.70. But you still need to use 0.71 SG as this is the STANDARD figure for performance calculations.
So there you have it, just because you have done it for 30 years, doesn't make it correct. The difference is small but it does matter.
Hope that clears up any confusion. I just wish instructors would teach the correct figure, and CASA could help by publishing the real numbers.
Hope I didn't bore you too much.
Hi there, glad I created some interest. First Wikapidea is not a reliable source, don't rely in it.
Anyway the SG (Specific Gravity), used by the ERSA applies to 80/87 octane, where 80 applies to octane rating for lean mixture, and 87 octane at full rich mixture. This has an SG of 0.72, at ISA or 15 deg C as an industry standard.
When Australia adopted the 100/130 octane Avgas the SG changed to 0.71, where 100 octane is the lean octane rating, and 130 octane for rich mixture octane rating. 100/130 Avgas is a higher grade of fuel, hence is lighter than 80/87 Avgas. The industry standard for 100/130 octane SG is 0.71 at ISA or 15 deg C.
This is the figure that should be used, not the 0.72 conversion that the ERSA and all other CASA publications use.
In reality, because Australia is warmer than 15 deg C the SG will be nearer to 0.69 or 0.70. But you still need to use 0.71 SG as this is the STANDARD figure for performance calculations.
So there you have it, just because you have done it for 30 years, doesn't make it correct. The difference is small but it does matter.
Hope that clears up any confusion. I just wish instructors would teach the correct figure, and CASA could help by publishing the real numbers.
Hope I didn't bore you too much.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting discussion -worth it's own thread? Should stop the drift anyways 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Capricorn
Age: 57
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I just wish instructors would teach the correct figure, and CASA could help by publishing the real numbers."
Wouldn't it be nice if CASA would help by taking AIP off ANSA and making it relevent to AVIATORS, and not DESKTOP PUBLISHING REQUIREMENTS related to PROFIT for GOVERNMENT, ie TAX ON AVIATION.
Wouldn't it be nice if CASA would help by taking AIP off ANSA and making it relevent to AVIATORS, and not DESKTOP PUBLISHING REQUIREMENTS related to PROFIT for GOVERNMENT, ie TAX ON AVIATION.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it be nice if CASA would help by taking AIP off ANSA and making it relevent to AVIATORS, blah blah...
And the content would be no different, just more complicated...
