farri Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Speaking on camera shots Nev maybe that's the go. Instead of black boxes for us they make it mandatory to have forward facing go-pro's hard wired into the system giving a full account of each flight. No offence meant, but I`m getting tired of mandatory this and mandatory that.....As far as I`m concerned, anyone can do whatever they want, if it`s legal, but don`t push it on to those who are satisfied with what they are doing. Frank. 14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 No offence meant, but I`m getting tired of mandatory this and mandatory that.....As far as I`m concerned, anyone can do whatever they want, if it`s legal..... So.......you're sick of laws and are happy for anyone to do whatever they want......as long as they obey the law? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planedriver Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I always respect your professional views Dutch and love your input, but I think what Frank is saying is that many still like very basic flying without all the bells and whistles. I think he accepts that there is an element of risk in the basics which many still like, but it suits some with shallower pockets, who otherwise would be grounded. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Dutchy, Franco is a highly respected risk averse old school rag & tube instructor from way back. You wont catch Franco knowingly breaking any laws . As Planedriver suggests, Franco is saying ... allow those who want to fly minimum aircraft in an acceptable minimum manner, lets not overburden them with excessive mandatory requirements. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Hit it on the head there Planey, our sport existed for so long with the regulator of the day not wanting to know about us, and really wishing we'd go away. Hence in ths country the really stupid and unrealistic limitations by the government of the day, about not flying above 300' , and not crossing any roads. That was designed to limit our growth, or get rid of us. But the strong century-old love of flying and aircraft building saw us continue to flourish as an activity. We did not go away, and as I see it we continue to flourish. Obviously in today's age we must negotiate and accept a certain level of regulation, however we must always recognise when a new regulation is not going to do a thing for us as a sport , and reject it as simply unnecessary. Pilots like Frank have been flying safely with minimum regulation now for many years and continue to do so. To overburden our sport with a new level of unnecessary impediments would be to change the nature of our activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I would never dare to suggest Frank isn't highly respected or would break laws. That wasn't my point at all. As worded it didn't make much sense. I see this a lot on forums tailored towards experimental aircraft when the discussion comes around to the never-ending debate on "how much regulation is too much?" What is "excessive" is very much in the eye of the beholder (and I'm not arguing over what is or isn't specifically). However people need to realise that the general public are extremely risk-averse and particularly so when it comes to aeroplanes. Or more to the point, aeroplanes falling out of the sky. You can't change that. I've said numerous times: improve the safety record or the regulators will come after you - because the general public demand it and they're the ones who vote. That's a fact of life in any sort of aviation, from RPT to RAA. No amount of lamenting it will change it. We're way past that. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Dutchy, I sort of see your point, and I would be the first agree that our safety record could be improved upon. However the majority of aviation fatalities in this country (and most others throughout the world) are, and always will be at the hands of commercial pilots, on an annual basis. Maybe that's an area that needs to be looked at first before questioning additional regulations for a recreation pursuit that only produces probabily less than six losses or so a year. Still well below what we lose daily on the roads in this country on any given day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 So.......you're sick of laws and are happy for anyone to do whatever they want......as long as they obey the law? Dutch, I`m not going to play your game and I certainly don`t have to answer to you! You can think what you like!.....Cheers. Frank. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Dutchy these last few months have been horrific for rec flying and the last year or two commercial aviation has taken its own fair share of hits. Frank is just pointing out that every time someone comes up with an idea they seem to think it should be made mandatory for everyone and we all know that is not always the case. I seem to recall a thread regarding suicidal commercial pilots and the new need for at least two people in the cockpit at all times and that was getting howled down as unnecessary regulations by most if not all commercial pilots. So don't howl down us fellas that are only doing it for fun and trying to keep 'useless' extra regs out. yes safe is good but you can't regulate against every little thing without causing more trouble than you fix. PS I think bushwheels should be mandatory:whistling: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I don't get you guy's sometimes, most people I know want to have some sort of explanation why there was an accident, if a commercial jet goes down the first thing everyone is after are the ATC logs, FDR's & CVR's. On this and most other forums there ends up being multiple pages of speculation on what and why when there is an accident, a large number of commercial and private vehicles these days have camera's of one form or another installed for this very reason. Camera's would go a long way to helping investigators come to a conclusion which in effect would assist in learning's for everyone, assist in bringing closure to the family members and friends left behind, but I suspect it may also show that we are not as well trained or proficient in aircraft operation as we would like to think we are. I also don't like mandated regulations but until we are not the lead story on the 6 o'clock news several times a year then mandated regulations will continue to happen. Frank, Rag and tube as it was 30 years ago is gone in this country forever be grateful (I am) that we are still allowed to fly the same types today. It is time to move on. You no doubt have a wealth of experience to pass on, that experience is just as relevant in today's recreational flying situation as it was all those years ago. Aldo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I bought a car safety camera from Ian's shop. It cost $30 and records for up to five hours if you buy a big memory card, in high definition. It can be set to record in a continuous loop. Works well in the aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I bought a car safety camera from Ian's shop. It cost $30 and records for up to five hours if you buy a big memory card, in high definition. It can be set to record in a continuous loop. Works well in the aircraft. Probabily wouldn't give you much after its been sitting in the ocean for two days....even if you did find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Dutch, I`m not going to play your game and I certainly don`t have to answer to you! You can think what you like!.....Cheers.Frank. I'm not asking you to "answer to me" and I'm not asking you to "play a game". I'm stating the reality as it is, and suggesting that reality needs to be managed by us (the pilots) better. Complain about regulation all you like, but until you stop dropping from the sky, the regulation will continue. Endless whining about the regulatory regime will not change anything. Altering the accident rate will. There is no disrespect intended, but to suggest that I'm trying to do either of those things was pretty ridiculous to say the least (despite others seemingly wanting to have two bob's worth on your behalf). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I don't get you guy's sometimes Aldo That may be so but I don`t get you guys sometimes, also..... Did you read anything in my post #51 to suggest I`m saying not to fit cameras or any other device...Fit whatever you want, just don`t make it mandatory!...I can remember a time when fitting transponders was being considered, mandatory, for everyone, regardless of airspace category! until we are not the lead story on the 6 o'clock news several times a year then mandated regulations will continue to happen.Aldo I don`t subscribe to the 'WE' mentality! Frank,Rag and tube as it was 30 years ago is gone in this country forever. Is it really? Frank, It is time to move on. Aldo Move on to what?........I thought we were all supposed to accept each other and be one big happy family, regardless of type of aircraft each of us chooses to fly. Frank. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I'm not asking you to "answer to me" and I'm not asking you to "play a game". I'm stating the reality as it is, and suggesting that reality needs to be managed by us (the pilots) better. Complain about regulation all you like, but until you stop dropping from the sky, the regulation will continue. Endless whining about the regulatory regime will not change anything. Altering the accident rate will.There is no disrespect intended, but to suggest that I'm trying to do either of those things was pretty ridiculous to say the least (despite others seemingly wanting to have two bob's worth on your behalf). Dutchy I didn't think anyone was suggesting any disrespect on your part towards Franco. Perhaps the eagerness on the part of some of us to explain Franco's comments was taken the wrong way by you. I am sure pretty much all of us agree that altering the accident rate will shift the regulatory focus. Accident rates unfortunately are largely caused by a combination of deficient training and human factors; which of itself indicates deficient training. If we (collectively) can improve on both we can probably determine our regulatory future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I don't get you guy's sometimes, most people I know want to have some sort of explanation why there was an accident, if a commercial jet goes down the first thing everyone is after are the ATC logs, FDR's & CVR's. Not sure who "... you guys ..." is Aldo, there is a reason when the paying public die there is a higher degree of accountability. In RAA aircraft usually the maximum casualty is two and both knew and took the risk in flying. Cameras are a great idea, a camera was instrumental in determining the structural collapse of the DH82 on the Gold Coast year before last. The issue was not the camera, but the mandatory suggestion. Rag and tube as it was 30 years ago is gone in this country forever be grateful (I am) that we are still allowed to fly the same types today. It is time to move on. You no doubt have a wealth of experience to pass on, that experience is just as relevant in today's recreational flying situation as it was all those years ago. Not sure what world you live in Aldo, or maybe it was simply an emotive slip, but rag and tube are here to stay, I own one in each category. If you knew anything about the simplicity of real rag & tube you would know that many of them are cheaper to own and operate than many other more complex GA aircraft and they typically have bugga all ADs to comply with (compared to most aluminium GA types). They have easier inspection and fix issues in the SIDs area as well. Take one trip to Luskintyre and you will soon realise there is a world of rag and tube alive operating and strong. Not to mention the very active RAA rag and tube brigade. The Drifter has to be one of the most popular and most fun ultralights you could ever fly. I highly recommend having a fly in one. If you VH experimental register one, it also aerobats very well. But I am certain you know all this and were perhaps taking the p1ss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Complain about regulation all you like, but until you stop dropping from the sky, the regulation will continue. Endless whining about the regulatory regime will not change anything. Altering the accident rate will.. When you are looking in the wrong place, you will never find the right answer.....What you have said, was being said, way back when I started instructing, so why is it still being said thirty years later? Possibly, the biggest cause of all accidents is the stall......To use your words, when the aircraft 'drops from the sky', what the camera will record, is a terrified pilot heading for the ground and the impact....Will the camera survive? Havn`t instructors been teaching how to fly the aircraft without stalling and what to do if and when a stall occurs??? Another common reasons for accidents, is engine failure.....What is required when the engine stops?.....The pilot having the skill to keep the aircraft flying and to land it safely.... To be able to land it safely, there needs to be a safe place to land, within gliding distance. How many pilots here, regularly practice for engine failure?....How many pilots here, choose only to fly within gliding distance of a safe landing area? I`ll start by saying, I do to both. Frank. Ps,If you think that what I`ve just said is ridiculous, that`s fine by me! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Dutchy I didn't think anyone was suggesting any disrespect on your part towards Franco. Perhaps the eagerness on the part of some of us to explain Franco's comments was taken the wrong way by you.I am sure pretty much all of us agree that altering the accident rate will shift the regulatory focus. Accident rates unfortunately are largely caused by a combination of deficient training and human factors; which of itself indicates deficient training. If we (collectively) can improve on both we can probably determine our regulatory future. Perhaps it was, and yes I agree entirely and wholeheartedly on your second para there. However the proposition that I'm trying to make someone "answer to me" though? I mean for me to think I could get any pilots to do that in an aviation/policy debate should be enough to have me committed to a lunatic asylum! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robmus Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I thought this thread was about a crash near North Stradbroke, it seems to have wandered off to a different topic. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Not sure what world you live in Aldo, or maybe it was simply an emotive slip, but rag and tube are here to stay, I own one in each category. There you go, someone who knows! Goodonya David. Darren Jones, is a guy I instructed, not long after I obtained my AUF CFI rating.... Darren has been an RA-Aus CFI for some years, he is also a commercial pilot rated for certain amphibian aircraft..... He`s trying to establish a flying school up on the Atherton Tablelands..... The aircraft he has chosen is a rag and tube, Bantam.....I took the photo a few days ago when Darren paid me a visit. Frank. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I thought this thread was about a crash near North Stradbroke, it seems to have wandered off to a different topic. At this stage, is there really much more to be said about it? Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Havn`t instructors been teaching how to fly the aircraft without stalling and what to do if and when a stall occurs??? Apparently not always, given the number of fatal stalls. Another common reasons for accidents, is engine failure.....What is required when the engine stops?.....The pilot having the skill to keep the aircraft flying and to land it safely.... To be able to land it safely, there needs to be a safe place to land, within gliding distance. Apparently not always, given the very public examples of fatal failures How many pilots here, regularly practice for engine failure?....How many pilots here, choose only to fly within gliding distance of a safe landing area? Apparently not all, given the fatalities where engines have failed over forests where there was never a chance of a safe landing 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Can't always blame the instructors, they teach the pilot skills to survive during the training phase to licence test, if you don't practice when out on you own its your fault entirely when it goes pear shaped. I bet there are plenty of pilots both GA, RAA & HGFA out there that just sit there fat dumb and happy when flying around from there last BFR to the next. We as pilots are in control of our own destiny, practice may not always save you but it will give you a better chance when things go pear shaped. Alf 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 By the way! I forgot to mention stall practice earlier.... How many pilots here regularly practice stalls, or, do you simply fly along hoping you will never need to recover from a stall?...Done any recently, with a passenger on board?....How about stall in the turn?......Have you been taught, if so, do you practice regularly? I practice stalls often. Am I saying, I`m holier than though?...Absolutely not..What I`m saying, is, the more you practice the better you should become at it.... Being proficient at identifying an impending stall and being able to recover safely, practicing engine failure procedure and remaining with gliding distance of a suitable place to land, should help decrease the accidents...Oh!....One more..Learn to stay on the ground, when the weather is not suited to flying. Frank. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 .Oh!....One more..Learn to stay on the ground, when the weather is not suited to flying.Frank. Page 43 in the last RAAus magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now