The first task was a short field take off with an obstacle clearance climb. The flight manual (and it is also marked on the pre take off check list on display in the aircraft) says that we should use 10 degrees of flap, hold on the brakes, apply full power, release the brakes, rotate at 51 knots and climb out at 56 knots until clear of obstacle. After clear of obstacle lower the nose, take up flap and resume normal climb. Not everyone had the correct technique, some using 20 degrees of flap (ok for a poor surface take off and no obstacles to worry about), others putting forward their own ideas. Just a word here on the holding on the brakes with this type of take off; this should only be used on a good surface as serious prop damage can result if the surface is gravel or covered in stones or loose blue metal.

Cockpit checks were not too bad, but it still puzzles me why pilots don’t use the checklist in the aircraft. That way, nothing is forgotten.

The short field landing (approach speed on final 61 knots) could have been much better with only one pilot touching down on the mark. The secret is to have the aircraft set up early, keeping your attitude constant and using power to control your rate of descent. What caught most pilots out was that there was little or no headwind and instead of extending downwind a little to compensate, most finished up too high and too fast on final approach.

Instrument flying was not too bad, but only one used the heading bug to help.

The emergency landing was ok, but very few cleared the engine on descent, a must when we are practicing these procedures.

Most got some of the load and balance and take off chart correct, but no one got it all right. Don’t forget if you should get a CASA ramp check, you may be asked to produce both of these to prove you are not overweight and in balance, and the runway you intend to use is suitable. No one used the 8 pounds allowance for engine start up, run up and taxi. (You need all you can with a full load.) The aircraft was in balance, both zero fuel weight and maximum take off weight, but I didn’t see any paper work to see how this was arrived at. All but one was correct with this answer. The exercise is an interesting one and certainly points out the difficulties with light aircraft in their ability to carry a full compliment of passengers and baggage, and still have sufficient fuel for anything like a reasonable trip. My calculations showed we had 117.3 pounds available for fuel, which equates to 74 litres or a total endurance of 2.1 hours (based on 36 litres per hour). This means that after we allow for 45 minutes reserve, we have a flight time of only 1.4 hours (1hour and 25 minutes).

The problem with the take off chart is that no one used pressure height, which is the criterion to be used and instead used aerodrome elevation. I assumed that all would use Bathurst as the aerodrome in question and I apologise for not mentioning this in the questionnaire. The aerodrome QNH was to be obtained from the aircraft altimeter on the day (simply read it off the subscale with the elevation set) and was 1018 hps. To convert to pressure height (which is 1013 hps), we simply multiply the difference of 5 hps by 30 feet giving 150 feet, and then because the pressure height is lower we deduct the 150 feet from the aerodrome elevation of 2435 feet. This gives us a pressure height on the day of 2285 feet (say 2300 feet). As we don’t have a figure of 2300 feet on the chart, we have to interpolate between 2000 and 3000 feet. We can do this by taking three tenths of the difference between 1380 feet and 1515 feet (40.5 feet). This gives a take off roll of 1420.5 feet (1380 plus 40.5) less 10% for a 10 knot headwind gives an answer of 1278.5 feet as the take off roll. Once again to be absolutely accurate we could deduct 11% as the wind was 10 knots and not 9 knots, but I wouldn’t go to this extreme.

Congratulations to the place getters on the day, who were Kingsley Picker on 56 points first; Glen Thompson on 55, second; and Peter Ticehurst 54.5 in third place.

Jerry Trevor-Jones.