182 crashed into trees at Porepunkah
Whilst I was extremely confident that a self planned IFR departure was legal, I wasn’t sure of where in the new Part 91 it would be found. It ended up taking quite a bit of digging to find even after I found the definition of an authorised instrument departure in the dictionary of the CASRs.
Ends up at the same Instrument though.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Couldn't agree more. How about one of you good folks dream up a suitable thread title and we can see where it might lead us. Might be a useful vehicle to get into a looksee at the new regs, perhaps, with a view to teasing out any subtle meanings and problems ?
Blue line speed on an Aztec
Light twin asymmetric decision heights
FLIGHT SAFETY article "Twin Trouble"
Last edited by Checkboard; 14th Jan 2023 at 12:31.
Moderator
A lot of good discussion in those older threads (thanks for making the effort to dig out the links, Checkboard - we're all faced with the getting older problem, mate) along with a few not quite correct ideas.
However, as we always have newchums coming up through the ranks, there is a value in revisiting the discussions afresh from time to time. If we can get folks to speak up, we can see some good, and some not quite so good ideas arise which then can be tossed to and fro.
As observed in some of the linked posts, in times gone past we had probably a higher proportion of career instructors than we see nowadays and that had some benefits for the Industry and the newchums coming through the ranks. If I think back to my own early flying, all my instructors were as old as Methuselah and made my dear old daddy look to be a youngster. I picked up the benefits from those old chaps, of course. Chaps like Cec Randall, Stan Hone, Jack Blackwell, Russ Evans, Joe Somorjay, and a few others.
Certainly, we all have stories of less experienced instructors whose knowledge sometimes shows gaps. I recall a tale from a colleague who had to pick up a light aircraft endorsement and I/F renewal post 89. The instructor involved insisted that the "student" (who had a squillion hours on heavies) demonstrate Vmc on whatever lightie was involved. My colleague, being smarter than the average bear, simply held off on the rudder to achieve a higher than expected departure speed. The instructor just couldn't quite figure out what the story was ... "it always goes slower than that !"
One of the problems in respect of performance is that the design certification standards are not routinely in the province of the training operators and that can generate or perpetuate old wives' tales.
If someone else doesn't start a suitable thread, then I may have to gird my loins and do so myself ....
However, as we always have newchums coming up through the ranks, there is a value in revisiting the discussions afresh from time to time. If we can get folks to speak up, we can see some good, and some not quite so good ideas arise which then can be tossed to and fro.
As observed in some of the linked posts, in times gone past we had probably a higher proportion of career instructors than we see nowadays and that had some benefits for the Industry and the newchums coming through the ranks. If I think back to my own early flying, all my instructors were as old as Methuselah and made my dear old daddy look to be a youngster. I picked up the benefits from those old chaps, of course. Chaps like Cec Randall, Stan Hone, Jack Blackwell, Russ Evans, Joe Somorjay, and a few others.
Certainly, we all have stories of less experienced instructors whose knowledge sometimes shows gaps. I recall a tale from a colleague who had to pick up a light aircraft endorsement and I/F renewal post 89. The instructor involved insisted that the "student" (who had a squillion hours on heavies) demonstrate Vmc on whatever lightie was involved. My colleague, being smarter than the average bear, simply held off on the rudder to achieve a higher than expected departure speed. The instructor just couldn't quite figure out what the story was ... "it always goes slower than that !"
One of the problems in respect of performance is that the design certification standards are not routinely in the province of the training operators and that can generate or perpetuate old wives' tales.
If someone else doesn't start a suitable thread, then I may have to gird my loins and do so myself ....
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
An interesting set of videos this one, just stumbled across them.
Quoting AC61.05 9.1.2.3: "Navigation under NVFR may be by visual reference or by reference to radio navigation aids. If visual navigation is to be used then the pilot must be able to obtain visual fixes along the route at not greater than 30 minute intervals. This may require deviation from the direct route to enable the aircraft's position to be fixed over landmarks visible at night (i.e. towns)." Refer ENR 1.1 Section 4.2 "Flight under the VFR".
I sent these questions to the CASA ‘Guidance Delivery Centre’ this morning:
Dear Guidance Delivery Centre
Does an aircraft being operated NVFR in G airspace at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL have to remain in VMC as defined in Part 91 MOS and comply with the corresponding operational requirement that: “Aircraft must be operated in sight of ground or water”?
If yes, does that mean that the pilot in command of an NVFR flight must, whenever operating at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000’ AMSA and 1,000’ AGL in G airspace, be able to physically see the ground or water?
Does an aircraft being operated NVFR in G airspace at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL have to remain in VMC as defined in Part 91 MOS and comply with the corresponding operational requirement that: “Aircraft must be operated in sight of ground or water”?
If yes, does that mean that the pilot in command of an NVFR flight must, whenever operating at or below whichever is the higher of 3,000’ AMSA and 1,000’ AGL in G airspace, be able to physically see the ground or water?
As far as maintaining VMC at night goes, my instructor was fond of remarking that "if you don't like what you see in front of you, turn the landing light off!!"
Are we being a bit too pedantic over what constitutes sight of ground/water. I thought it obviously meant you can sight relevant features on the ground, which at night would be stuff with lights. Although apart from the area 3 nm of a lit aerodrome you must maintain at least 1000ft AGL/above obstacles anyway, so you can't be operating that low en-route.
Are we being a bit too pedantic over what constitutes sight of ground/water. I thought it obviously meant you can sight relevant features on the ground, which at night would be stuff with lights.
Although apart from the area 3 nm of a lit aerodrome you must maintain at least 1000ft AGL/above obstacles anyway, so you can't be operating that low en-route.
(I don’t know whether this particular aerodrome was lit and don’t know what the meteorological conditions were at the time. Neither would seem to me to affect the operation of an engine, in any event.)
Soooo... AT night when it's pitch black where are you going to turn to spiral up above? All that terrain is unlit, no obstacle lighting just black at night. Left turn at 500' will put you very close to the hills, if not in them, right turn worse, Straight Ahead to over 3000ft will put you outside 3nm with still 3000+ to climb to LSALT. Not even considering valley effects like planning for downdrafts and such, air will be subsiding down the hill sides in the morning as the temp drops and other wind effects due to the hills. We have tor remember the Military even stuffs this up, the USAF flew a Hercules into a mountain departing an airport in Colorado when they turned too early on departure. And that was with ATC.
PS the hill straight ahead and the ones to the left reach over 2000ft, close to 2500 ft. To the Right that hill/ridge leads up to Mt Buffalo above 5500 ft.
PS the hill straight ahead and the ones to the left reach over 2000ft, close to 2500 ft. To the Right that hill/ridge leads up to Mt Buffalo above 5500 ft.
The following users liked this post:
Who’s arguing otherwise?
Call me a bit too pedantic, but how do you maintain at least 1,000’ AGL above obstacles on departure if there are no lights on features on that ground (and no moon). And then there’s the minor issue of departing unlit aerodromes…
(I don’t know whether this particular aerodrome was lit and don’t know what the meteorological conditions were at the time. Neither would seem to me to affect the operation of an engine, in any event.)
Call me a bit too pedantic, but how do you maintain at least 1,000’ AGL above obstacles on departure if there are no lights on features on that ground (and no moon). And then there’s the minor issue of departing unlit aerodromes…
(I don’t know whether this particular aerodrome was lit and don’t know what the meteorological conditions were at the time. Neither would seem to me to affect the operation of an engine, in any event.)
Of course if you're unlucky enough to lose your one-and-only-engine on climb-out, then all you can do is fly the plane into the crash and hope you get to tell your mates all about it when you get out of hospital. NVFR isn't without significant risks. For that reason no emergency procedures are permitted in flight test for the rating and it's not a good idea to live anywhere close to the extended centerline.
Well.. current NVFR Training is that, to start with, you rotate on instruments and climb straight ahead to at least 500' above airfield elevation. Unless you're in a pocket rocket that can climb upwind above LSALT within 3 miles (which excludes most GA aircraft) you have 2 choices: either depart overhead or on downwind, but either way you're doing a 180 back toward the airfield maintaining the climb, by which point, assuming 500ft/min or thereabouts you're at least 1,000’ AGL.
...
...
That procedure is no doubt intended to get you above LSALT without hitting granite or something affixed to it. However, it does not follow that you’re not required to be able to see that granite or stuff affixed to it while you’re on the way to LSALT (NVFR).
All of which makes sense to me, but none of which determines - at least not in my mind - the substance of the VMC requirements applicable to NVFR operations at or below the higher of 3,000’ AMSL and 1,000’ AGL in G.
That procedure is no doubt intended to get you above LSALT without hitting granite or something affixed to it. However, it does not follow that you’re not required to be able to see that granite or stuff affixed to it while you’re on the way to LSALT (NVFR).
That procedure is no doubt intended to get you above LSALT without hitting granite or something affixed to it. However, it does not follow that you’re not required to be able to see that granite or stuff affixed to it while you’re on the way to LSALT (NVFR).
The design of airfields to CAAP 92-1 is recommended (not a legal requirement), but the onus is then on the pilot to "not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that" is not "suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft" (CAR1988-92), so assuming YPOK meets the requirements of CAAP 92-1, then there will be an "approach and take-off area clear of objects above a 5% slope for day and a 3.3% slope for night operations" at both ends of the runway surface, and therefore (theoretically) there is nothing to hit on take-off unless you've departed into a massive crosswind (exceeding crosswind limitations of the type) that puts you more than 5% off of centerline either way (or you happen to be departing YMEN and due pilot error find a DFO in your way)
It's also worth noting that CAO 29-2 requires "a landing area which meets the general guidelines in CAAP 92-1 and has been approved for night flying training operations by CASA" for NVFR flying training to be permitted. (I'm not saying YPOK complies or needs to, but it's worth noting)
Last edited by PiperCameron; 17th Jan 2023 at 00:47.
Porepunkah Departure Procedures prior to 8am
Logically speaking, if your initial NVFR rotation and climb to 500' is required to be on instruments (to mitigate against them aforementioned somno-thinghy effects) then it does indeed follow that you're not required to be able to see out for at least the the upwind portion anyway. Remember, we're not talking about taking off from the neighbour's paddock.
The design of airfields to CAAP 92-1 is recommended (not a legal requirement), but the onus is then on the pilot to "not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that" is not "suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft" (CAR1988-92), so assuming YPOK meets the requirements of CAAP 92-1, then there will be an "approach and take-off area clear of objects above a 5% slope for day and a 3.3% slope for night operations" at both ends of the runway surface, and therefore (theoretically) there is nothing to hit on take-off unless you've departed into a massive crosswind (exceeding crosswind limitations of the type) that puts you more than 5% off of centerline either way (or you happen to be departing YMEN on 18 and due pilot error find a DFO in your way)
It's also worth noting that CAO 29-2 requires "a landing area which meets the general guidelines in CAAP 92-1 and has been approved for night flying training operations by CASA" for NVFR flying training to be permitted. (I'm not saying YPOK complies, but it's worth noting)
The design of airfields to CAAP 92-1 is recommended (not a legal requirement), but the onus is then on the pilot to "not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that" is not "suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft" (CAR1988-92), so assuming YPOK meets the requirements of CAAP 92-1, then there will be an "approach and take-off area clear of objects above a 5% slope for day and a 3.3% slope for night operations" at both ends of the runway surface, and therefore (theoretically) there is nothing to hit on take-off unless you've departed into a massive crosswind (exceeding crosswind limitations of the type) that puts you more than 5% off of centerline either way (or you happen to be departing YMEN on 18 and due pilot error find a DFO in your way)
It's also worth noting that CAO 29-2 requires "a landing area which meets the general guidelines in CAAP 92-1 and has been approved for night flying training operations by CASA" for NVFR flying training to be permitted. (I'm not saying YPOK complies, but it's worth noting)
'Fly Neighbourly Normal aircraft operations are 8am (Sunday 9am) until 8pm. Departures prior to 8am (Sunday 9am) are allowed but aircraft must immediately fly away from the airfield and valley to reduce noise and should not return before normal operating hours'
Logically speaking, if your initial NVFR rotation and climb to 500' is required to be on instruments (to mitigate against them aforementioned somno-thinghy effects) then it does indeed follow that you're not required to be able to see out for at least the the upwind portion anyway.
The design of airfields to CAAP 92-1 is recommended (not a legal requirement), but the onus is then on the pilot to "not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that" is not "suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft" (CAR1988-92), so assuming YPOK meets the requirements of CAAP 92-1, then there will be an "approach and take-off area clear of objects above a 5% slope for day and a 3.3% slope for night operations" at both ends of the runway surface, and therefore (theoretically) there is nothing to hit on take-off unless you've departed into a massive crosswind (exceeding crosswind limitations of the type) that puts you more than 5% off of centerline either way (or you happen to be departing YMEN and due pilot error find a DFO in your way)
It's also worth noting that CAO 29-2 requires "a landing area which meets the general guidelines in CAAP 92-1 and has been approved for night flying training operations by CASA" for NVFR flying training to be permitted. (I'm not saying YPOK complies or needs to, but it's worth noting)
It's also worth noting that CAO 29-2 requires "a landing area which meets the general guidelines in CAAP 92-1 and has been approved for night flying training operations by CASA" for NVFR flying training to be permitted. (I'm not saying YPOK complies or needs to, but it's worth noting)
(I did have yet another "I thought I'd seen everything until I saw..." moment, as a consequence of the content of CAO 29.2. I thought I'd seen everything until I saw a legislative instrument purporting to mandate compliance with a document which, in its express terms, is advisory only. You'd think that by now I'd have learned that humans have a boundless capacity to create paradoxical complexity.)
CAAP 92-1 (and CAAP 92A-1) are, as far as I am aware, now defunct. I assume their content is now 'somewhere else'.
(I did have yet another "I thought I'd seen everything until I saw..." moment, as a consequence of the content of CAO 29.2. I thought I'd seen everything until I saw a legislative instrument purporting to mandate compliance with a document which, in its express terms, is advisory only. You'd think that by now I'd have learned that humans have a boundless capacity to create paradoxical complexity.)
(I did have yet another "I thought I'd seen everything until I saw..." moment, as a consequence of the content of CAO 29.2. I thought I'd seen everything until I saw a legislative instrument purporting to mandate compliance with a document which, in its express terms, is advisory only. You'd think that by now I'd have learned that humans have a boundless capacity to create paradoxical complexity.)
But don't worry, it gets worse. All I can find on the subject is CAR1988 Part 9 Aerodromes... and around we go again.
So, have we established yet that you (legally) need lights to take off at night at an uncertified aerodrome? And if so, what's the ultimate reference in this new mass of legalese that is the MOS's and Part god-knows-what?