GASIL
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 913
Likes: 1
From: somewhere in Oz
I did actually figure out that they must be on about EFATO - but how does a trite phrase like that improve the community's knowledge on such an important issue?
I'm with gasax all the way on this one. GASIL reads like an opportunity absolutely wasted by the CAA. Even the Safety Sense leaflets at the back of LASORS make rivetting reading by comparison.
It could be a publication that everyone waits impatiently for it to appear, but no - instead it's a lecture from the headmaster that falls on deaf ears.
It's not as if there are a dearth of topics to be covered. You only have to read PPRuNe for a few weeks to find that out.
A
I'm with gasax all the way on this one. GASIL reads like an opportunity absolutely wasted by the CAA. Even the Safety Sense leaflets at the back of LASORS make rivetting reading by comparison.
It could be a publication that everyone waits impatiently for it to appear, but no - instead it's a lecture from the headmaster that falls on deaf ears.
It's not as if there are a dearth of topics to be covered. You only have to read PPRuNe for a few weeks to find that out.
A
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
At the risk of stating the obvious, it depends on the length of the runway and the headwind.
I have departed from airports where I was at 1000ft AGL before coming off the end of the runway. I think it was Cardiff but it would be the case at most big airports. In such a case, a 180 back would be rather easy, and if there was plenty of headwind it would be easier still.
I have an article from the USA which analyses the problem accurately and finds that if doing a maximum performance takeoff (i.e. runway just long enough) then a LOT of headwind is needed, plus a 180 turnback done at close to the stall speed (that would take a lot of balls and skill). But most of the time (one hopes!) people aren't doing marginal departures.
GASIL is written in the patronising tone of so many CAA "documents". This puts off anybody with more than half a brain. Almost certainly someone ex UK military. I wonder how long it will be before these retired ex RAF navigators will retire?
What is much worse is that it puts out loads of personal opinion which (by virtue of it masquarading as an official CAA publication) is made to look like an authoritative statement on the law. A lot of that opinion happens to be dodgy.
I have departed from airports where I was at 1000ft AGL before coming off the end of the runway. I think it was Cardiff but it would be the case at most big airports. In such a case, a 180 back would be rather easy, and if there was plenty of headwind it would be easier still.
I have an article from the USA which analyses the problem accurately and finds that if doing a maximum performance takeoff (i.e. runway just long enough) then a LOT of headwind is needed, plus a 180 turnback done at close to the stall speed (that would take a lot of balls and skill). But most of the time (one hopes!) people aren't doing marginal departures.
GASIL is written in the patronising tone of so many CAA "documents". This puts off anybody with more than half a brain. Almost certainly someone ex UK military. I wonder how long it will be before these retired ex RAF navigators will retire?
What is much worse is that it puts out loads of personal opinion which (by virtue of it masquarading as an official CAA publication) is made to look like an authoritative statement on the law. A lot of that opinion happens to be dodgy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It could be a publication that everyone waits impatiently for it to appear, but no - instead it's a lecture from the headmaster that falls on deaf ears.
There is write up relevant to the desceinding without a procedure thread which is interesting. The case of guy who was tracking TO rather than FROM on his VOR. His candid comments are also a recurring event that I think is relevant to anybody who thinks they got it all sussed (how's about that for condescending 
)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Absolutely fair point HWD; however it costs a lot of money to publish and mail out this mag and IMHO it is wasting an opportunity to modernise attitudes in GA.
It's exactly the same with the CAA safety presentations. In fact I wonder if they are done by the same man... can't remember his name but he's well known. Ex RAF I believe.
One can take the charitable view that the UK average PPL annual time is 10-20 hours (I read that on the internet so it must be true) and constantly reminding them of the most basic errors is where money should be spent. If that is the case, it's no wonder pprune readers find it a bit of a bore since I would bet most of them are well above that annual figure.
But aircraft owners will usually be doing a lot more hours (otherwise why own something) so mailing such a "don't forget to rotate when you take off" magazine to them has got to be a waste of resources.
It's exactly the same with the CAA safety presentations. In fact I wonder if they are done by the same man... can't remember his name but he's well known. Ex RAF I believe.
One can take the charitable view that the UK average PPL annual time is 10-20 hours (I read that on the internet so it must be true) and constantly reminding them of the most basic errors is where money should be spent. If that is the case, it's no wonder pprune readers find it a bit of a bore since I would bet most of them are well above that annual figure.
But aircraft owners will usually be doing a lot more hours (otherwise why own something) so mailing such a "don't forget to rotate when you take off" magazine to them has got to be a waste of resources.
