, 20 October 2012 9:50 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
Surely the important thing here is to clear any ground fixed obstacle on
approach by a safe margin. That will vary according to the circumstances
At 06:31 AM 21/10/2012, you wrote:
Hi Terry, hello all
A lot has now been said about the 50 ft rule but I'm surprised that
no one has pointed out that this can be
outright dangerous.
Alan Wilson pointed that out.
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - design manufacture of quality soaring
They were planning to, with indications from CASA that this would be
allowed. Then CASA did a backflip!
-Original Message-
From: David Long Cath Lincoln
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:06 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50
in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
Hi Terry, hello all
A lot has now been said about the 50 ft rule but I'm surprised that no one
has pointed out that this can be
outright dangerous.
Consider the case where a heavy open class glider (touching down at 55
On 19-Oct-12 11:11, Mike Borgelt wrote:
At 06:16 AM 19/10/2012, you wrote:
But in any event is
the rule
necessary? We all know the advantages of not
hitting the far fence at 5 knots over going through the near
fence at
-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
On 19/10/2012, tom claffey to...@yahoo.com wrote:
Aviation uses feet for height, metres for horizontal distance and knots for
speed - deal with it!
The teenagers I teach with the AAFC have no problems with it.
Tom
The only problem with the this is the way it's
F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
Hi;
Irrespective of whether it is 50' or not I find it hard to believe
-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
Hi Tom;
I am 62 years old so I have no problem dealing with it. But I am not
that old that I do not remember that I was once young.
Recreational flying - and gliding
From: Peter F Bradshaw p...@exadios.com
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
Hi Tom;
I'm not sure what you mean by second officers but I'm
At 07:55 PM 19/10/2012, you wrote:
Hundreds of thousands of young people staying away from gliding
because of feet and knots?
Just how many TIFs does your club do? ;)
There are many reasons for low numbers of new pilots but units are
not one of them!
[old mumbling instructors may be!]
Tom
.
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
Hi Tom;
I'm not sure what you mean by second officers but I'm guessing that
you are not talking about glider pilots. In any case the people you need
to talk
On 19/10/2012, tom claffey to...@yahoo.com wrote:
So put your proposal to ICAO.
Tom
I wish I had that much power. Given the choice, I'd keep Feet etc, but
introduce a plain English option to run in parallel with TAFs /
NOTAMs etc. Something in a simple table format that takes a student
pilot 10
I thought the RAA is introducing a controlled airspace endorsement.
Dave Long
On 19/10/2012, at 6:43 AM, Al Borowski al.borow...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/10/2012, tom claffey to...@yahoo.com wrote:
So put your proposal to ICAO.
Tom
It's entirely possible for a pilot to legally fly in
It was done a decade or so in the USA. You could log on to DUATS - Direct User
Access Terminal Service - and choose plain language weather briefing.
Unfortunately, plenty of things were rost in transration, with multiple
choices given for their own translations.
Really shows how silly the
Surely the important thing here is to clear any ground fixed obstacle on
approach by a _safe margin_. That will vary according to the
circumstances and the pilot's experience and competence. This
discussion has demonstrated how quickly things can be confused by
getting hung up on units of
OK,
the junk we keep.
Further digging and I found the inserts of an older instructors manual.
The diagram is not the same, it is simpler and has no indication of the
50ft clearance but the equivalent paragraph I referred to below has only
been slightly edited in the 80s version. The sentence
Hi;
Irrespective of whether it is 50' or not I find it hard to believe
that the figure is given in a system which people under 40 have no
heuristic knowledge of.
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012, Mark Newton wrote:
Hi folks.
My google-fu is failing me, but at least one of you can probably
help.
I've
...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Peter F
Bradshaw
Sent: Friday, 19 October, 2012 2:24 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
Hi;
Irrespective of whether it is 50' or not I find it hard to believe that the
figure is given in a system
: Alan Wilson a...@ozemail.com.au
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
Ah the 50' rule. It has been around for more years than stated and has
been
in Australia.
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 50' obstacle clearance rule
Hi;
Irrespective of whether it is 50' or not I find it hard to believe
that the figure is given in a system which people under 40 have no
heuristic knowledge
At 06:16 AM 19/10/2012, you wrote:
But in any event is the rule necessary? We all know the advantages of not
hitting the far fence at 5 knots over going through the near fence at 50
knots. Those who don't are not around to tell!
So, clear all obstacles is the key, and land as safely as you
On 19/10/2012, tom claffey to...@yahoo.com wrote:
Aviation uses feet for height, metres for horizontal distance and knots for
speed - deal with it!
The teenagers I teach with the AAFC have no problems with it.
Tom
The only problem with the this is the way it's always been done
approach is we
At 12:53 PM 19/10/2012, you wrote:
On 19/10/2012, tom claffey to...@yahoo.com wrote:
Aviation uses feet for height, metres for horizontal distance and knots for
speed - deal with it!
The teenagers I teach with the AAFC have no problems with it.
Tom
The only problem with the this is the way
HI Mark
I may be able to help re the 50 ft thing. Back in 1986, at the
pre-Worlds prior to the Benalla 1987 Worlds, a French competitor hit a
power line 4 km from the airfield flying at or over Vne, removed the
tailplane from his glider, and was killed. Between us, the GFA (Mike
Valentine
Hi folks.
My google-fu is failing me, but at least one of you can probably
help.
I've long accepted that the rule for obstacle clearance is 50'.
However, the GFA instructor handbook describes it as a wingspan,
and the B certificate oral exam calls 50' a recommended minimum,
so I'm trying to
Great pickup.and for a 15 Metre aircraft the two are one and the same;
and possibly this is where the history lies as documents were edited by
different
authors; it obviously requires clarification.
SDF
On 15/10/2012, at 13:17, Mark Newton new...@atdot.dotat.org wrote:
Hi folks.
Hi Mark,
As a general comment, making mandatory rules for obstacle clearance for
aircraft without a throttle lever seems a bit silly. If I'm faced with
missing a tree by less than a wingspan or hitting the fence at the end
of the paddock I know which one I will be choosing. And why would
On 15/10/2012, at 13:12, Tim Shirley tshir...@internode.on.net wrote:
As a general comment, making mandatory rules for obstacle clearance for
aircraft without a throttle lever seems a bit silly.
Agreed! Nevertheless, my received training and my experiences at various
gliding operations
*So I *think* it's true that there's a widespread believe within GFA that
there's a rule which mandates a 50' obstacle clearance minimum, and I'm
trying to find out why :)*
If the rule called for somehting less than 50', say 5', there would be no
room left for pilots to break the rule!
*Kevin
29 matches
Mail list logo
