For all recreational aviators

[Admin]

Just looking over all the posts in this thread I sat back and had a thought :csm: which was like:faint:

 

Whilst I think the article stinks for the very reason that we are all trying to be "aviators" together as one, and there are many out there all working hard trying to do that, it is very hard to not think in the us & them mindset when there are idiots like this out there. BUT personally I think we need to just consider how stupid the article is, how much of an idiot the writer is and how little the magazine really does care about aviation in Australia given the fact they let the article be published, rather then us as a united group of pilots on this site fall victim of this rubbish and start thinking like it in an Us & Them mindset as well.

 

There certainly are a lot of bodgy GA pilots out there (I have seen my fair share of them) and there are still some cowboy RAAus pilots also (seen my fair share of them as well) but what this site tries to do through peer pressure of what is accepted, and what's not, in a helpful learning way by information exchange, is hopefully a way to bring all pilots together and break down the Us & Them attitudes.

 

We can see it here already with so many users that have flown so many different types of aircraft all coming together under Recreational Flying so let's not support the us & them concept that the article and magazine tends to support but rather show how united we can be against those that do.

 

:peepwall:

 

 

[dazza 38]

I know a lot of current GA pilots who are upset about the article, what i mean is, they are the ones who accept that we are all aviators, (as a example,,my partners nepthew's partner is a training captain for qantas.) She loves RAA, (she flew piper cubs for around 1000 hrs, i know it is not RAA, but she loves the old rag and tube tail wheel a/c) She is a training captain on - 8's out of brisbane. Regardless of what numbers or leters we have on the side of our aircraft.I hope that this article doesnt, 'tar' all GA pilots with the same brush as the author of the article, if you know what i mean.Cheers

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

Exactly Dazza...Goes for me as well. I don't think Nancarrow has written a worse article and in such a small amount of effort not only put the RAA fraternaty off side but also the rest of us as well...The old adage of "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" doesn't even cut it....He has lost the plot and has tried to sensationalise on very extreme cases....the guys a uninformed bigot!!:censored:thumb_down

 

 

[Mazda]

I have been avoiding this thread and I have not read all of the pages and pages of responses, but I think it is time to comment.

 

Doug Nancarrow is a well respected aviation journalist and has been for many, many years. I'm surprised people on this forum don't know of him. I can't imagine he would ever have wanted to inspire such a divisive response.

 

Now on to the subject. No one likes to be criticised but let's be realistic. RA-Aus is the less expensive alternative, and there are reasons for that. The training standards are different. Now that doesn't mean that all RA-Aus students receive minimum training, but some would. It doesn't mean that all RA-Aus instructors have very little experience, but some do. It doesn't mean that all RA-Aus pilots don't have the theoretical knowledge to pass GA exams, but some don't.

 

Some RA-Aus aircraft may be more difficult to fly than some GA aircraft, but some GA aircraft are way more difficult than some RA-Aus aircraft too. Some RA-Aus aircraft may not be maintained to GA standards, but some are immaculate!

 

RA-Aus can't have it all. It is not possible for all RA-Aus students to receive the same level and extent of training as GA pilots at a fraction of the price. Some might receive a similar level of basic training if they are fortunate with the school and instructor, but you can't count on it, and it is simply not possible to do the "extras" without GA training.

 

Every single GA pilot has been trained by a GA commercial pilot, who has passed all those exams and flight requirements, then passed an instructor course of a minimum of 50 hours at the very least. Yes, some RA-Aus instructors are skilled pilots with great teaching skills and some have vast experience - many in GA, commercial charter, flying in the airlines and military - but some are not.

 

Every GA PPL has received some instrument training and can fly in Class C and D airspace. GA pilots have the option of training in aerobatics, night flying and completing a 40 hour instrument rating, and many do. All of them hold an aviation medical. The flying schools must go through the procedure of getting a CASA AOC with significant money and time required.

 

As Ian has said, there are good RA-Aus and GA pilots, and not so good pilots in RA-Aus and GA.

 

It's too easy to point the finger quoting a single incident, but all of us make mistakes. Those who deny having made a mistake are either very inexperienced, or kidding themselves.

 

On the IFR issue, one thing to consider is that IFR GA pilots preparing for an approach have a pretty high workload and would be talking to ATS because they require traffic information and are on full SAR reporting, then transferring to the CTAF and self-separating from IFR and VFR traffic there, and flying an approach where only 5 degrees off track means they cannot continue. If using multiple radios (while talking to ATS and monitoring a CTAF for instance) it is very easy to transmit on an incorrect frequency. An IFR radio call might mention turning inbound on the NDB approach, but of course it is better airmanship to say turning inbound on the NDB approach x miles north west of wherever at x feet so VFR traffic can maintain situational awareness.

 

I'm a huge fan of RA-Aus, but please don't start attacking GA. There are so few pilots in Australia anyway, a house divided against itself cannot stand. We all love to fly and are required to comply with the rules of the air.

 

Let's work together and share the air, not attack each other without good reason.

 

 

[Neville75]

we are all trying to be "aviators" together

We can see it here already with so many users that have flown so many different types of aircraft all coming together under Recreational Flying so let's not support the us & them concept that the article and magazine tends to support but rather show how united we can be against those that do.

Thanks Ian for the reminder that we are all aviators, and that the "us and them" concept is not healthy. It matters not whether numbers or letters are painted on our tails!

 

As a PPL student, who has learned much from this forum and its participants, I cannot accept that someone would discriminate against a pilot's abilities and skills based on what aircraft that person happens to be flying.

 

On my first two solo circuits sessions at my home CTAF airfield, I have had nothing but absolute courtesy from QLink RPT, helicopters, charter planes and jabs - certainly no "my planes bigger than yours" arrogance. I was certainly the most inexperienced up there on those days. Thankfully Doug wasn't in the air that day.

 

I'm curious to know from the author what superior skills and training I am receiving as a GA student over those doing RA?

 

Furthermore (please correct me if I am wrong) but wasn't the cirrus pictured (SLS) involved in an engine failure accident recently? If so, kinda ironic perhaps?

 

 

[shags_j]

MAZDA: noone is hitting out against GA Pilots. Only that there are as many poor GA pilots as RA pilots.

 

The real key is that we feel offended by the words of the author and I believe that even after reading your post his defamation of us is unwarranted.

 

 

[jetjr]

I havent heard much criticisim of GA here excepting ingrained attitude problems and I think everyone agrees theres ordinary pilots AND schools on both sides. The concept that all GA schools are perfect is rubbish too.

 

What I was upset about was the generalisations that ALL RAA training is a cut below GA and same for pilots. This elitist garbage is what turns young keen people away from GA flying as something to spend money on. Hopefully RAA picks them up.

 

All the options you suggest are there for RA pilots too - get your PPL, Parrallel path training remember, Plenty of RA pilots either have or had them anyway. You dont automatically get CTA endorsement in PPL, it takes extra training.

 

SO what he could be saying is pilots with more training of flight hours are generally better then that maybe a more reasonable statement.

 

In his example he may be comparing IFR pilot with thousands of hours to a Student RA, or recently solo'ed pilot without much more than 20 hrs.

 

Interesting is the editors section he laments the loss of GA schools.

 

With attitudes like his contributors its not that suprising. Does anyone buy a car from a dealer who flogs the opposition with unfair and incorrect statements?

 

Have a read of these 2 articles

 

http://www.australianflying.com.au/blogs

 

Interesting comments too, I too had similar experience.

 

Biggest criticisim is of editor letting this go to print.

 

 

[shags_j]

What's the hour differential between a ga pilot to get PPL and an raaus pilot to obtain xcountry

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I've not heard about two sets of Rules?

 

A strange and unhelpful article at best. The author seems to imply that RAA Pilots operate under some separate and inferior rules. If so, then I've not seen any evidence of them. I was given a copy of CASA's "Visual Flight Rules Guide" to study for my RAA Pilot Certificate.

 

In my meager experience, it seems that GA Pilots have outnumbered the RAA Pilots who have radios but don't use them. Why this is, I cannot fathom. I've even observed a GA Pilot doing a right hand circuit at a left circuit aerodrome, despite there being plenty of traffic in and out to demonstrate the fact. No, there weren't parallel runways.

 

When I started training, I perhaps naively thought that Pilots would be a special breed, who would be careful to abide strictly by the rules, as a means of minimising risk. I have now discovered that there are a percentage of ratbag pilots flying around, just as there are car drivers on the road. The author obviously has a dislike of RAA and is casting around for excuses to air his opinion. I doubt he will garner much support.

 

Everyone makes a mistake occasionally, in the air as on the road. Using and demonstrating good airmanship and flying (driving) defensively, helps make allowance for another's error. Striving to continually lift ones own performance should be everyone's goal.

 

After all, it's not much consolation after an accident to be able to blame someone else.

 

 

[John Nooyen]

I hold both RAAUS and GA pilot ratings.

 

I assure you all that the standards are almost Identical for VFR.

 

This article is an illl informed piece of dribble.

 

 

[Guest eland2705]

I have just read through this whole thread again. I was wondering if there was someone who would be able to pen a suitable article (in rebuttal?) and submit it to the Editor of Aust Flying to publish.

 

I would hope that such a piece would not so much address the GA/RA argument. Rather to reinforce to the general reading public that RA pilots are required to ..... (insert suitable content here) whilst flying aircraft that are .... (insert suitable technical specs here) and thereby achieving .... (insert suitable outcomes here).

 

Unfortunately I am too new into RA and far, far too long out of GA (a Rhodesian PPL holds no water at all today in Australia) to be qualified to pen such an article.

 

My 2 cents worth anyway!

 

 

[Foto_Flyer]

As Mazda stated, Doug Nancarrow has been around for a long time in aviation journalism, and is generally well respected. While not being very impressed by the way this article was worded, i can't believe that someone who is usually quite supportive of all sectors of aviation in Australia would be purposely trying to cause offense or denigrate a sizable part of it. I hope that it is all just a case of one big misunderstanding that will be corrected and clarified in the next issue.

 

To answer your question, shags, according to a friend of mine who runs a GA school, an average student should be able to achieve a PPL in around 55 hrs, if done full time. For RA it is around 40 to 45 hours under the some circumstances. So if you take out the Sim/Instrument component in GA, it's similar! (Of course this is an average for a full time student, some may do it quicker and some will take a lot longer!)

 

 

[Mazda]

Shags for GFPT a GA pilot needs 20 hours including 5 hours solo and 2 hours instrument time. It isn't a licence, the pilot is still a student pilot and requires a dual check at least every 15 hours. Students can fly night circuits.

 

To achieve PPL, the minimum is 40 hours of flight time including 5 hours in command general flying, 5 hours in command cross country, 2 hours instrument. There are specific requirements on the lengths of the navs.

 

They are the minimums, the real hours each person takes will differ.

 

 

[XAIRVTW]

I'm GA pilot & RAA, where do most GA pilots go when they cannot pass their medical RAA. Wether GA or RAA we are all prone to mistakes no matter what level of training you have completed.

 

Cheers

 

 

[horsefeathers]

I'm only a very junior RAA student pilot, but one thing that strikes me about this article is that it smacks of the VERY common attitude prevalent in all occupations when a once exclusive technology becomes more accessible to the great unwashed.

 

I saw it first hand in the IT industry, when the high priests who in white lab coats tended their room sized machines came across PCs. You see it with doctors saying there will be disasters when nurses learn more and become "nurse practitioners" instead of just doctors handmaidens.

 

You see it now when some GA pilots feel that their profession, which was once exclusive and only available to the anointed ones, has now become accessible to anyone with a car licence, for heavens sake. They appear to feel threatened, and lashing out seems to be the common human response.

 

Having said that (and got that off my chest), I am still left wondering about the motive(s) behind the writing AND publication of said article. Is it just to stir the pot, a pre-emptive strike due to the release of the avation white paper, sour grapes, or something else?

 

Cheers

 

 

[Kenchhidu]

...it smacks of the VERY common attitude prevalent in all occupations...

I encounted the same problem whilst volenteering with the RFS in central west nsw. The (paid) town fire brigade would show up in there bigger, fancyer truck and think they ran the show. Our training was substancial as was our experience. I see GA in the same light. They should accept our position by there side (not behind) or else "the fire will keep rageing", so to speak.

 

 

[monty]

I encounted the same problem whilst volenteering with the RFS in central west nsw. The (paid) town fire brigade would show up in there bigger, fancyer truck and think they ran the show. Our training was substancial as was our experience. I see GA in the same light. They should accept our position by there side (not behind) or else "the fire will keep rageing", so to speak.

Very well said Kenchhidu.

I have seen that attitude myself on a number of occasions. I only hope it can change.

 

Monty

 

 

[shags_j]

Shags for GFPT a GA pilot needs 20 hours including 5 hours solo and 2 hours instrument time. It isn't a licence, the pilot is still a student pilot and requires a dual check at least every 15 hours. Students can fly night circuits.To achieve PPL, the minimum is 40 hours of flight time including 5 hours in command general flying, 5 hours in command cross country, 2 hours instrument. There are specific requirements on the lengths of the navs.

 

They are the minimums, the real hours each person takes will differ.

So given this, I know the minimums for RA for XCountry aren't really there but realistically:

 

20 hours to pilot certificate

 

+10 for Passenger

 

+10 for xcountry endo.

 

So close to 40hours.

 

 

[Spriteah]

You do have to like the irony that the aircraft presented as so much better than the RAA stuff has an engine failure and then uses a chute to land safely. Were those chutes designed for the ultralight market?

 

Link here: Light Aircraft Crash in Whitsundays - PPRuNe Forums

 

poking the bear.... :big_grin:

 

jim.

 

 

[shags_j]

Made me want to stand up and cheer Mat. Well written.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Very well written, Mat. You have said it all!

 

 

[Spin]

First class letter Mat, well done. I would hope that the editing hasn't done too much damage to points you are getting across.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

HALLELUJAH...

 

 

[GraemeK]

Beautifully written piece Mat! Captures the issues very well.

 

I had been about to subscribe to this mag, but Nancarrow's article turned me against it - along with the stuff about static port blockage in Jim Davis' article - for an experienced GA pilot he sure is confused on what happens when the static port is blocked, maybe he needs to go back to school and repeat his BAK ..... Dangerous, especially when novice pilots are looking for guidance.

 

 

[monty]

We need more blokes like you mat!!

 

Extremely well written and I think the thoughts of most aviators out there.

 

I applaud YOU.

 

Well Done Mat

 

Monty