LETTERS

SPORTPILOT

LETTERS LETTERS

WRITE IN: We love to hear from you! Get in touch with us at

editor@sportpilot.net.au or on Facebook & Instagram @sportpilotmagazine

Want to take home a SportPilot cap?

Our featured letters from each edition will receive a SportPilot peak hat, perfect for those sunny days in the sky!

RE: A Hidden Gem (SportPilot 99) Dear Editor,

I just read another article mentioning traditional steam driven gauges (flight instruments). There are the airspeed and vertical speed which work off differential air pressures and the altimeter which works off air pressure compared to an adjustable reference pressure. There’s the attitude indicator and directional gyro driven by suction, and the turn bank indicator with an electric gyro and a balance ball that works on gravity. Where is the steam? There are also engine instruments that work off temperature and pressure probes in relevant places. If there is any steam present, they do not work, such as if there is not enough water in the cooling system the gauge will read normal while the engine overheats and “cooks”. Where again is the steam, in a properly functioning system? Or is “steam driven gauges” just a stupid term used by idiot trendies to mock old technologies?

Ken Glascow

Editor: Hi Ken. The term “steam gauge” gets thrown around here and there as a somewhat tonguein-cheek reference for the standard “six pack” of flight instruments. This is in comparison to “glass” cockpits which, on reflection, isn’t exactly the most straightforward name either. You’re right, steam gauges don’t actually run on steam, but the six pack isn’t full of beer either! The beauty of the English language I suppose…

RE: Going Ballistic (SportPilot 100) Dear Editor,

The article starts off by asserting that John Nixon “suddenly lost oil pressure” at 5,000 feet above the Gilgandra district, and that he landed by BPRS “within one minute of the oil gauge indicating the problem.” It goes on to say that John and his passenger were extremely lucky their aircraft had a BPRS fitted.

I beg to differ, as too would the poor written-off aircraft, if it had a voice. To start at the end of the story, the aircraft was substantially damaged (though the engine was already destroyed) as the result of electing to use the BPRS instead of making an emergency landing in the numerous large flat paddocks below. Some have supported using the BPRS instead of conducting a forced landing on the ludicrous notion that the SR22 does not have a steerable nose wheel so couldn’t land safely. The only valid argument I see is that at a likely landing speed of around 60 knots, you will have problems if you find a hole or a rock or some such - but that certainly isn’t a case of probable death - rather, the probable outcome of a competently executed forced landing in

ALTO 912TG

The home of ALTO Aircraft.

Forgiving, easy to fly, all metal, 110 knots cruise, 290 kg carrying capacity, and extremely affordable

Rob Hatswell, Ph: 0428 527 200 www.aeroedge.com.au

this case was no damage to aircraft or occupants. As it was, whilst the pilot suffered minor injuries and the aircraft was substantially damaged, it is understandable that the pilot may have elected the more certain outcome, after the series of poor decisions that got him to that point. He stated afterwards that he believed a safe landing would not have been possible, due to features such as contour banks that were not visible from the air. As both occupants emerged with little wear and tear from the experience, it is difficult to fault the decision to use the BPRS, though for those sympathetic to aeroplanes, somewhat less difficult. The pilot should not be pilloried for his human failings, which we are all subject to, but neither should the false notion that the BPRS saved the day after a “sudden loss of oil pressure” be propagated. If the pilot was that concerned about a forced landing in what can only be called almost ideal conditions, would he have allowed the situation to deteriorate for hours without landing to evaluate it, lacking the confidence the BPRS gave him? I doubt it.

I am not against BPRS, far from it, but they are not the panacea that some would have, nor are they without their own factors reducing safety. I support MTOW concessions for the weight of BRS installations, precisely to prevent their weight being exchanged for fuel. Nonetheless, they are best employed for structural failures, emergency “landings” in bad country and by passengers in the case of pilot incapacitation, rather than as the pilot’s first option for a forced landing.

Paul Saccani

Editor: Thanks Paul. There’s been a lot of debate about BPRS in the months since SportPilot 100, and we’ve decided to do a follow-up on the article to assess it from all angles. Check it out in this edition. As our letter of the month, you will be receiving a dashing new Australian SportPilot Cap.

Brumby

620 Outback

• Titan 180HP • Tundra tyres • STOL performance • Manufacturing NOW! Call for details

610 Evolution

• Safe & easy to fly • 100+ kts @ 18l/hr – 6 hour range • 135L useable fuel