Low Level Flying and RAA Pilot Certs. Random Thoughts of the Day

[SSCBD]

HiI have been reading some threads about LL flying and training.

 

The thing that burns me to the quick is that for some of us who started flying pre AUF we were not allowed in theory to fly above 300 feet.

 

And let’s go back to the grassroots of how this all came about.

 

Back then everyone was flying Rag Wing aeroplanes, with two-stroke motors, which realistically had a high failure rate. All of us flying back then and single seat not two seat, learnt how to land at 300 feet or below with an engine failure. It was the only option, and we were usually illegal anyway. But no one stopped this the Department of aviation ran up the white flag and that’s how the AUF was really born. Because they could not control us.

 

Yes the big difference between today and back then is there was less weight, and just yourself to kill no pax. Speed was slow but these were a hell of a draggy plane and in most cases with an engine failure the saying of throwing a brick out and following it down was your best glide rate was correct. We flew in a very fine tolerance envelope as well. For example we may have only had a 15 to 30 miles an hour max difference between cruising and stalling. Really.

 

When the drifters and thrusters came out these were fast slick machines, I am not joking.

 

But here is the big difference.

 

Those underpowered high drag very slow, rag wing, low-flying toys we were playing with taught you to really fly and with feel. You felt every gust, bump, you could feel it side slipping. Oh and our rated for climb was earthshattering 200 to 300 feet a minute at best. Why do you ask mainly because we were flying on just 20 hp engines . Most of the time we were happy to fly hundred to a hundred and 50 feet just above the trees, going flat out at 35 miles an hour if that. And we always had a paddock close by in case it went very quiet. We flew dog legs over country to keep those paddocks close at hand very rarely in a straight line. And the ailerons on these things were only really there for decoration.

 

This was pure flying.

 

I am sad to say this is what has been missing in all the arguments with the rules and regs that we have now are based on these aircraft which are really mini GA aeroplanes with the passenger seat.

 

These small stick aeroplanes taught you everything you needed to know about low-level flying, angle of bank in turns, stall speed, turning back after an engine failure was not an option at 300 feet.

 

I would highly recommend, that anyone who has not flow, a drifter, a thruster, or even the new Bat Hawk I saw the other day, to give you some of feeling of real flying low to the ground, and appreciate the stark differences we have in performance in the RAA aircraft today.

 

In my opinion, having flown many hours on all classes of sport aviation, from the bottom end to the very top with re-track gear, constant speed propellers, and the coffee machine in the back, we are trying to make training a one size fits all and do it in the least amount of time and cost for the student.

 

As a person who grew up with this sport from the very beginning and putting my two cents in I would like to see all training done to start with on rag Wing aircraft, basic exams, which would help I assume lower the costs for someone to actually start flying and learn about flying, and then have another level of training and exams for the 600 kg machines with all the whizbang glass screens, GPS and coffee machines in the back.

 

I know a lot of people that don’t want to fly in controlled airspace, some like flying a rag Wing, or light Wing, or Savannah outside of controlled airspace, I also know people that want to fly through controlled airspace and landed major airports which is fine, and that’s the problem with the one size fits all training, and the costs associated and the training level is required.

 

It would not be hard to have staged licenses instead of everyone trying to jump into the Ferrari straight off because some people still like the wind in their hair, and low and slow.

 

All your comments are welcome.

 

This was done on dragon 13 voice to text - sorry for any typos - have to go to the coffee machine now. Thank Christ I don't need a BFR to get coffee.

 

Also - Hi Frank, how's the Drifter.

 

 

[Cobalt]

I asked my flying school why they dont have any rag and tube aircraft as a cheaper alternative for people to fly, they told me it doesn't make it any cheaper because the two stroke engines have to be changed every 300 hrs. Thats about $7000 just for the engine plus whatever it costs to get a L2 to do the swap, as you could imagine 300 hrs would come around pretty quickly when used for training and hire.

 

 

[Guernsey]

A good article SSCBD which brought back many memories. I learned to fly GA aircraft and flew many different types over the years including some very sophisticated fast machines

 

and THEN I MOVED UP to flying rag and tube ultralights as you have mentioned....without a doubt the best years of my life. .

 

Alan.

 

 

[SSCBD]

I asked my flying school why they dont have any rag and tube aircraft as a cheaper alternative for people to fly, they told me it doesn't make it any cheaper because the two stroke engines have to be changed every 300 hrs. Thats about $7000 just for the engine plus whatever it costs to get a L2 to do the swap, as you could imagine 300 hrs would come around pretty quickly when used for training and hire.

Don't believe that line one bit Cobalt - they have Rota 912 these days (which stops my facial two stroke twitch and raised blood pressure - smile). For example the Bat Hawk runs a four stroke as is a brand new rag wing aircraft just arriving into AUS as a trainer. Some Drifters run 912's as well. I was given a dual training $$$$$ ball park with the bat hawk and was around $120 hour ish and $90 ish solo hire.

 

So go back and tell your flying school the news and tell them the crunch the numbers and see if they would get more NEW students to afford to fly and existing ones to fly more. These are fun aircraft guys.

 

 

[Cobalt]

I agree your quoted figures are great however i cant see how they could be that low, the bat hawk is still quite expensive to buy and not much different price wise if not more expensive than a good second hand jabiru that a lot of flying schools would be using. Considering it has the same engine as most other raaus aircraft and would require the same kind of maintenence, insurance, hangarage etc why is it cheaper to run on an hourly basis just because of what the wings are made of?

 

 

[SSCBD]

I agree your quoted figures are great however i cant see how they could be that low, the bat hawk is still quite expensive to buy and not much different price wise if not more expensive than a good second hand jabiru that a lot of flying schools would be using. Considering it has the same engine as most other raaus aircraft and would require the same kind of maintenence, insurance, hangarage etc why is it cheaper to run on an hourly basis just because of what the wings are made of?

The numbers came direct from the importer.

 

 

[M61A1]

Don't believe that line one bit Cobalt - they have Rota 912 these days (which stops my facial two stroke twitch and raised blood pressure - smile). For example the Bat Hawk runs a four stroke as is a brand new rag wing aircraft just arriving into AUS as a trainer. Some Drifters run 912's as well. I was given a dual training $$$$$ ball park with the bat hawk and was around $120 hour ish and $90 ish solo hire.So go back and tell your flying school the news and tell them the crunch the numbers and see if they would get more NEW students to afford to fly and existing ones to fly more. These are fun aircraft guys.

The 912 Drifters are amateur built, and are not allowed to be used for training.

 

 

[SSCBD]

The 912 Drifters are amateur built, and are not allowed to be used for training.

Thanks and I stand corrected on that one.

 

 

[Cobalt]

The numbers came direct from the importer.

I presume higher more realistic figures wouldnt be an attractive selling point.

 

 

[Cobalt]

However i don't disagree with your original point sscbd, we do need more rag and tube stick and rudder type aircraft online at flying schools, but we need to find a way to make them cheaper.

 

I have just returned from an 8 year break from flying, the reason i stopped was because it was getting too expensive for me to fly at the time, the only reason i came back was because i have a better income now and can afford my own aeroplane now however upon returning after 8 years was suprised to see the flying school prices had almost doubled.

 

 

[M61A1]

I would really like to see some rag and tube pylon racing. I've seen video of it with X-Airs in Portugal. I reckon it would go well with Drifters too.

 

 

[Geoff13]

For example the Bat Hawk runs a four stroke as is a brand new rag wing aircraft just arriving into AUS as a trainer. I was given a dual training $$$$$ ball park with the bat hawk and was around $120 hour ish and $90 ish solo hire.

I have been doing the Maths on the Bathawk with exactly that in mind. I believe that those figures would be not to far off the mark. At $64k factory bulit with a 120hp motor I think they would make a great low priced trainer.

 

However. They run a Camit motor and as we all know Camit are no more so I am not to sure where that will leave the Bathawk.

 

Immediately its resale value is probably going to plummet, and that is one of the major factors in a 3 year costing.

 

Sad but I really did see it as a potential low cost trainer.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Get RAA to approve it. Good Luck.

 

I have been doing the Maths on the Bathawk with exactly that in mind. I believe that those figures would be not to far off the mark. At $64k factory bulit with a 120hp motor I think they would make a great low priced trainer.However. They run a Camit motor and as we all know Camit are no more so I am not to sure where that will leave the Bathawk.

 

Immediately its resale value is probably going to plummet, and that is one of the major factors in a 3 year costing.

 

Sad but I really did see it as a potential low cost trainer.

Yes true, but I would expect Bat Hawk will replace it with a Rotax 912 is my guess as they will need to produce the aircraft anyway.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Get RAA to approve it. Good Luck.Yes true, but I would expect Bat Hawk will replace it with a Rotax 912 is my guess as they will need to produce the aircraft anyway.

Yes but that will put another $15k on the price to get the same horsepower, thats a 25% price increase with the relevant increase in associated costs.

 

And weight could also then become another problem.

 

They could also go to the Jabiru that could be another story.

 

 

[AussieB1rd]

SSCBD great article

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks for putting in the effort SSCBD. I've been lucky over the years to experience a wide range of aeroplanes including many U/L types with crude aspects to the full retract and C/S props and instruct in both GA and U/L's, (which is where you really see the limits when the pupils take you there) plus heavy 4 engine Pistons and twin aisle Jets, turbo prop business twins etc. No seaplanes so must attend to that one day.

 

I do not really know what the average RAAus type person wants. I know what SOME OF THEM WANT. and I also know that money is not always available to the level aviation often tricks you into getting into for a lot of participants. If you have plenty of spare cash you have a very large choice. Most don't . The AUF was originally existing around some pretty basic types many of which owners would build and teach themselves to fly. My first AUF flight was in a Thruster SB 2 seat at Mangalore at about 1986 when they first came out and training was able to be performed in this type of plane. 300 feet was the height limit and it was an airshow so plenty of audience.

 

Things have changed a whole lot since then, and there seems to be no limit to people's expectations of what we should be doing. This concerns me somewhat as to how complex it will become and that carries with it cost and effort to meet the standard. As an example airlines are not going to welcome anybody who stuffs it up and becomes a hazard potentially in "their" controlled airspace, any more than if the "someone" was another airline, so when it happens expect fireworks. From my point of view having thousands of hours in controlled airspace, while it's good for airlines it's not particularly FUN and it's a lot of effort to keep current and not get noticed adversely. All you really need is transit arrangements, like a special VFR clearance through a zone or to an aerodrome you might want to use frequently.

 

We need to define our aims. We don't want all out electrical systems to have to meet IFR levels of output and reliability. We don't want to have to have our engines looked at by None except LAME's, and have a standard failure rate of not more than one in 10( ten) thousand hours. That's pretty impossible to achieve There can be unintended consequences of being given extra privileges. If we want more allowable passenger carrying surely there must rapidly come a point where WE are really GA. Is that what members want? IF we were pilot only we would have a better case for relaxation of the rules. You could argue there is no one else involved so... I'm not suggesting we go that way but I'm making a point of the principle. Nev

 

 

[farri]

Also - Hi Frank, how's the Drifter.

Hi,To you also, my friend, from the early days, I`m very well and the Drifter is also! Did a solo in it,this morning.

 

All your comments are welcome..

As you know from our recent phone conversations, I have plenty of comments, but I reckon they wouldn`t be welcome by some on this forum!

 

Frank,

 

Ps, For all of you out there! SSCBD played a big part in establishing the AUF and flight training!

 

 

[farri]

I do not really know what the average RAAus type person wants. I know what SOME OF THEM WANT. Nev

Nev, It`s likely that a lot of the current RA-Aus persons, don`t really know what, they themselves, want! What I want, hasn`t changed in the last 30 years and I`ve had it, for that long!

 

This morning I took a look at the "Incidents and Accidents" site on here and it occurred to me that the majority of the accidents and the fatal`s are occurring in the modern LSA, with the modern training methods and regulations! What we really need is less accidents and not more regulations, in an attempt to reduce the accidents! An open and honest debate, is a good start.

 

Frank

 

 

[Marty_d]

What I want and what I can have are two different things.

 

I'd like something that cruises at 200 kts but stalls at 20, has a range of 5 hours on its electric motor and recharges in 15 minutes from a standard power point, and retails under $30,000.

 

(Don't think it's going to happen, just yet.)

 

 

[Methusala]

I am like Farri, I only want access to a small amount of free air space in which to fly. I have access to this but, on occasions, I would fly to a local (200kms) air gathering. I liked to fly to Moruya and other airports. Moruya has RPT's and we could easily listen and hold out of the circuit for the small amount of time it took to do a straight in. Never had a problem. However, with increased surveillance of such get-togethers and the requirements to carry a full flight bag I don't bother anymore. I simply enjoy flying the T300 and the Kitfox locally.

 

 

[M61A1]

What I want and what I can have are two different things.I'd like something that cruises at 200 kts but stalls at 20, has a range of 5 hours on its electric motor and recharges in 15 minutes from a standard power point, and retails under $30,000.

 

(Don't think it's going to happen, just yet.)

You forgot: an open cockpit for slow and when it's warm, with a closed cockpit for when it's cold and/or windy, a side by side cockpit so you can talk to your pax, tandem seating for when you don't want to talk to your pax and enough luggage space.

Oh, and $30k is a bit exxy, don't you think?

 

 

[facthunter]

Tandem when you want to see out of both sides.

 

Couple of planes I'd like to build.. Fokker tri plane replica (3x 7 cyl Rotecs) (Should still lift 5 people easily.)

 

Bleriot replica. (A hurricane Pilot I used to fly with a lot, told me things went bad after they got rid of wing warping)

 

For me on occasions. Carbon Cub (Just to brush up on stuff)

 

Dream on... But you have to sometimes... Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

You forgot: an open cockpit for slow and when it's warm, with a closed cockpit for when it's cold and/or windy, a side by side cockpit so you can talk to your pax, tandem seating for when you don't want to talk to your pax and enough luggage space.Oh, and $30k is a bit exxy, don't you think?

I didn't want to seem greedy...

 

 

[spacesailor]

The amount of training we do now for a RAA cert, could put us in a VH plane,

 

To fly circuits around your home base in a single-seater low powered plane, Thruster or drifter shouldn't entail the same cert/licence to Passenger, cargo, CS prop and or turbine motor, that is on the basic exams at the moment.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Yenn]

You can fly tour thruster or Drifter around the patch, without passenger or C/S prop now.

 

If you are alluding to having to know something about those things I think that would be a bonus. I was always looking to find out as much about flying as I possibly could when I was a student pilot. From what I have seen it is those pilots who have no interest inwhat makes it all work are the pilots to avoid. They seem to think the rules don't apply to them and proceed in a thoroughly selfish manner, with scant regard to safety or other peoples felings.