Jump to content

forexjohnny

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About forexjohnny

  • Rank
    Active Member
  • Birthday 12/17/1962

More Information

  • Country
    Australia
  1. Gee Frank, your lack of comprehension is evident yet your mouth is so big it speaks for everyone. If you cannot understand my comment then I cannot help you.
  2. Did you not read Cosmics reply above? The internet is at your finger tips, do your own research. Start with wikipedia they have a good summary.
  3. Better safty record than anything you fly!
  4. forexjohnny

    Loss of control surface

    Well I do not have any of those so I guess I would circle the area and look for where you crashed!!!! :)
  5. forexjohnny

    Aircraft without radios

    I take tally……of your arrogant term “floppy wing”.
  6. forexjohnny

    Port Lincoln accident

    Yes Jabs and Ag-Cats, well built aircraft that can take a hit and protect the occupants but the best shot in surviving a crash, not even close.
  7. forexjohnny

    Port Lincoln accident

    Well aren’t we a touchy little lot. First of all I am not a GA pilot and never have been. I have been flying RAA for a number of years and was in no way comparing GA to RAA aircraft. In fact I said it makes little difference which you fly because all engines can stop. Secondly as far as I am concerned you are quite welcome to fly over any type of countryside that you desire. If you engine out in the middle of the NZ mountains that is most certainly not going to affect me in the least. These are your risks and your choice and I respect that. What I was trying to do was create conversation about any aircraft and its ability to land on anything but a runway. I am certain that there are those that crash into undesirable areas and happily survive. There are also many that do not. If safety is something that you are interested in then would it not be better to talk about this. I am only interested to learn how others deal with this problem or not deal with it as the case may be. I do not fly fixed wing and my aircrafts STOL ability far exceeds any fixed wing on this forum (at a guess). That is not meant to be “mine is better than yours” just that this is meant to be for recreation or fun so if you are going to fly over terrain that you cannot safely land on than shouldn’t you be using a system like a ballistic chute so that if the engine does stop then there is a reasonable chance that the fun can continue at a later date. John
  8. forexjohnny

    Port Lincoln accident

    I have noticed that many deaths and injuries that occur in RAA fixed wing aircraft appear to occur when attempting an emergency landing after an engine failure. As “Recreational” aircraft they do not meet the same build and maintenance standards of GA aircraft. Even so I do not think this is a major factor as certified engines can also fail. When I fly I only fly over areas that I know I can safely land on which seems to be the mantra for many pilots. But what abilities do these modern day RAA aircraft actually have to land on anything other than bitumen or high grade dirt and grass runways. If your aircraft does not have the ability to land in a paddock without shedding undercarriage flipping over and killing or maiming all on board then why are you flying over it? If you cannot glide to an appropriate site then you should never have been there in the first place. Remember your last flight and then imagine an engine out at ANY stage of that flight where you would be trying to land on ground that was not appropriate for your aircraft. If you wish to fly over water then flotation devices are required. Aircraft that fly over their tiger country should also be require to either have safety devices like ballistic chutes or not be there. I understand that what is tiger country for some is not for others but if you crash your Jabiru/Tecnam etc in a paddock because it has little wheels and undercarriage not up to the job then as the pilot in control you should wear the blame not the engine manufacturer. John
  9. So the standard for a BFR on a PPC is, to be observed from the ground by an instructor who is not a PPC pilot to determine if the PPC pilot is competent. This may solve some problems, still there are may PPC pilots that are hundreds of km's from ANY instructors. How about creating a list of manoeuvres and questions then allow the PPC pilot to demonstrate this list and answer the questions in front of a video camera from the ground and/or in the cockpit. This video could then be emailed to an appropriately qualified instructor for evaluation. John
  10. forexjohnny

    Working Party for 2nd Organisation

    If I might offer an observation. I have read some of what has been going on at the RAA on this site, or at least what has supposedly been going on. As a forced member of this organisation I have no more interest in this organisation than I do in the RTA when I go to renew my drivers and vehicle licence. I would classify myself as one of those that only wants to fly and is not interested in any “politics” of the industry. “But we need this politics and should be actively participating in it to secure our future rights to fly” I here time and again. “BULL” is what I say. Someone on this thread mentioned the FAR103 reg’s the Americans have which basically means the onus is on the pilot to make sure everything including training is of an acceptable standard and thus avoiding all regulation and memberships other than compliance with the regulations restrictions. Calling an aircraft a “recreational vehicle” until it weighs over 254lbs and holds more than 5 gallons of fuel is only a bureaucratic line drawn in the sand because believe me you still need the same skill set to fly it. Sure we are not in America so must abide by our country’s regulations hence my membership to RAA. Do you think my aircraft or I looses our physical ability to fly just because I do not have a piece of paper that says we can. As with most things in life a balanced approach is what is required so checks and balances are a good thing. Unfortunately when people are involved then balance is elusive. What may be balanced for me may not be so for you. For me, I follow this site because I have learnt to find information from any source and then use it to my advantage. Forewarned is forearmed. I see most here fly aircraft that are more closely related to GA aircraft than the original rag and tube ultralights. That is fine, I love most forms of flight but do not feel much comradery from this site when I am told “ I have know idea why anyone would want to fly below 1000ft”. I do not care what you think of what I fly as I am sure you feel the same when some GA pilot says the same of you. IF there was to be a split from the RAA then to me the only interest I would show is if that split developed a group that encompassed and comprised mostly of the low and slow originals of which I feel I have something in common. I would become involved, not for but despite the politics. John
  11. forexjohnny

    Hi

    Hi Kimbo, Good to see more interest in flying from here in WA. I work on my brother-in-laws farms at Carnamah and Coorow so you may be close. It would be great to have more company in the air. I fly an Aerochute but as you can see there are many different aircraft to choose from which are good at some things but not so good at others. Hope you enjoy your journey in to the world of flight. John
  12. forexjohnny

    Ultralight injures 2 in Mackay

    Actually I met a CASA “people” in my area the other day and we had a great chat about flying in this area. Do you really think I do not know that CASA reads this site? They do a great job in very difficult circumstances and I for one do not fear their visits because if you bothered to read, all my flying is LEGAL. This may as well be a GA site because all you are doing is promoting an us and them attitude when clearly the regulations support both. On that note I hope you and your “people” have a really nice day. John
  13. forexjohnny

    Ultralight injures 2 in Mackay

    Aldo, I wrote my comment because I understand the context of this thread. You want to hammer a fellow pilot because he had an accident at low altitude without you knowing the full story. Then you imply that all who fly at such altitudes are irresponsible regardless of their having every right to be doing so. I do not know the circumstances surrounding this accident and I hope both recover soon. I do not condone irresponsible and dangerous flying but clearly dangerous to one pilot is standard for others. The regulations are there to make the playing field level and give each individual pilot the right to determine their risk assessment within these parameters. You may not like it but well quite frankly you are not required to. If flying without a radio is dangerous and all who do so are fools then you swing a big bat at a lot of people including the governing body of this sport that makes the rules. My CFI is a retired senior instructor with the RAAF and I would suggest has far more experience than you yet he has flown for years in his Aerochute without a radio. There are areas and situations where their use is required so I just avoid these. I understand and respect your opinions on these matters but you attitude sucks John
  14. forexjohnny

    Ultralight injures 2 in Mackay

    If you really have know idea why anyone would want to be below 1000ft then perhaps you should exert yourself and get an idea. I fly an aircraft that is designed to fly low and slow because that is where I want to be. My legal minimum altitude is 300ft AGL which is more than enough to clear all power lines and fences here. I have permission to fly below this altitude on a number of farms which I am intimately familiar with (seed and harvest them every year) and know where every power line and fence is. I still do not take this for granted and when I am low I am always on full alert and do not do this with passengers. I drag my undercarrage through the crops and chase roo’s and foxes all the time. I am never above 1000ft and mostly fly between 300-500ft. All of this I do legally and as far as I am concerned with relative safety. You may find me a skylarker that is hooning as well but I call it living and because it does not fit into your idea of safe flying you should consider that I may find your style of flying no safe either. What I do consider is each to his own and as long as it within the law then live and let live. Danger is everywhere, including at 1000ft and above. Try to see things from other peoples point of view and back off the attitude. Declare intentions and CLIMB TO CRUISE ALTITUDE ENROUTE……….Really? I do not carry a radio and am not enroute to anywhere most of the time……Legally! John
  15. forexjohnny

    New

    503, When harvest is over and the heat dies down a bit I will get everyone up here to go for a fly (Carnamah. WA). Kev was here not long ago. Plenty of wide open spaces to fly and over 6000 acres to practice your low level flying as well as cross country between our farms. Fred of course you are welcome but I think the distance will be a problem. It is indeed very good to see the number of Aerochute pilots rising here in WA. I fly alone most of the time so any company is greatly appreciated. John
×