nomadpete

Thanks for the offer Frank.

I just wanted you to know that you are doing a lot for recreational flying. As well as the forum regulars, there are probably quite a few lurkers - and they should be impressed with driftering. It is the kind of flying that should be bringing more converts over to learn what fun real flying can be.

Good onya Frank.

Keep up the good work.

I don't knock Landrover. My Landy lasted 50 years of abuse before needing rebuilding. And unlike modern counterparts, it can be rebuilt. So should be good for another 50 years. Maybe some of the more modern ones aren't so good. Not many Asian vehicles can match that.

My understanding is that the aircraft were designed to a higher MTOW but were limited to 480kg due to the CAO at the time. How any "legal" training was done in these aircraft or others (Skyfox etc) is beyond me...

That was all hearsay

That debate (succession planning) has been going for quite a time now. Same problem with the gliding movement.

There's little to be gained by asking the converted. The really hard demographic group to survey, is the vast numbers of folk who wouldn't dream of taking up sport aviation.

Whenever I go on a evangelistic spree, people just glaze over. How can I inspire imagination and adventure? All I can do is show my enthusiasm. I think that Frank does more for our flying future than anybody else I can think of.

Entertainment is now all about easy options and short attention spans.

(Aaaah,. What was I on about?.....)

There is little incentive to get involved in anything that is challenging. Except maybe the physical sports, but then again even that has succumbed to the easy option of performance enhancing drugs.

I am hoping that RAA are attempting to address the whole MTOW issue for Lightwing.

My GA-912 is limited to 480kg but that makes it a single seater. It was clearly designed to be a two seater training aircraft, but at the time it was first registered, the law limited MTOW to 480kg. So I'm stuck with that at present.

I hope sanity prevails

Perhaps another aspect is the issue of mortality. Those (grey haired old gits) who played with Grasshoppers and such in their adventurous youth, are now only interested in building nice solid, safe aircraft that they dreamed of when they were young and invincible. Not many of the 'simple, cheap, easy to build' aircraft are being built now.

So when a younger person sees an old bugger building a complex, years-to-finish work of art, they understandably turn away.

Add to that our current risk averse nanny state, and is it any wonder that the old fashioned kind of adventure from when we were young has died out?

Good luck Scre80

Keep up the passion.

Nothing compares to flying.

So, you are saying that philanthropy ( funding learners) is not the cause of our price increases.

In our new brave new world, the user pays.

We already knew that.

For all those crying about the good old days, you can still fly your home built single seat weedhopper. You still have that right. But the reality is that the vast majority wish to fly relatively sophisticated plastic fantastic fast flying machines. The new world is set up to accommodate the risks and liabilities associated with that 'turn key' expectation.

When, or if, the majority of flyers start building their own 'affordable, safe' flying machines (this is what AUF was), no doubt the RAA (or whoever else) will morph to support that.

So far, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

By definition, affordable is not going to be fast, nor turn key product.

When the baby boomer bubble bursts, we might see a return to affordable bare bones flying. Then the regulators will have to adjust. And that includes RAA and any 'competitor'

Ok. Doesn't have to be in Kingston-by-the-sea.

Anywhere south of Hobart will do us

Might even incentivise some builder to finish his CH701.

But I'm just keen to see the finished product :-)

Greetings Breece,

Welcome.

You'll be especially popular if your back yard is about 800mtrs X 30mtrs, flat, and facing the prevailing wind.

Wind turbines? Recreational flying?

Last time I looked , wind turbines didn't do much flying.

They are very graceful though - all turning in synchronism.

Using solar power is silly, why not design a capsule that uses the heat of reentry to smelt it all on the way back? Done and dusted!

I didn't say I thought it was an unreasonable charge. I do appreciate that RAA need to recover some of the expenses incurred.

In previous years, it was possible to achieve the same result as the new MARAP process by engaging a CAR35 aeronautical engineer to assess the modification. Now we have a new system. Just jump through the hoops, pay the money, get the approval, and go flying.

But the smelting fumes wouldn't be a problem in space. I'm pretty sure those exotic metals would be worth more than cast iron or coke cans. And you could use solar power to melt it all down.

I'm writing a letter to Elon right away.

Just like spacelab. It's about time Simsmetal sent up a scrap collection skip bin.

BP,

I'm doing the MARAP thing right now to fit a Bolly three blade prop to my Lightwing. Give tech Man a call and ask him directly about the process. If it's been done previously by someone else (MARAP), for the same prop on the same aircraft type with the same engine, he'll probably offer you a cheaper deal and simpler process. Just ask.

How long ago was that?

Well, you have raised a point. Next of kin are always a problem. Often troublemakers, especially in-laws.

Point 2,

It's rather rare that adventurers find themselves dead in anyone's back yard, so I'll discount that point. Also, most (useful) rescues are focussed on retrieval of living adventurers. In many cases, money is wasted on rescue where the 'victim' would have made their way home eventually anyway. I realise that might not always be he case. But, from experience I've been force rescued twice even though I told the rescuers that "I'm fine I'll just be home a bit late for dinner." In neither case did I call them out, or indicate there was an emergency, they had heard where I was and came after me anyway. Although it was convenient to have my boat towed home, it was a totally unnecessary expense on their part.

That high risk sport of which you speak is considered by many to be 'stupid'.

Part of our risk management includes providing for rescue if needed, by carrying PLB, notifying flight plans, etc.

However there are times when an unusual adventure should only be undertaken at one's own risk entirely. I support the idea of signing a 'DNR' equivalent. (Do Not Rescue.)

If people didn't do stupid things the recue people would be unemployed . I thought that was their job rescuing people not complaining having to it .Bernie .

By 'adventure' I mean the concept of dreaming up and undertaking an unconventional, perhaps unlikely activity/location/journey/whatever. In the old days one started with the dream (even if others considered it stupid), then assessed all risks, then minimised them and got on with it. If it went pear shaped, one accepted their fate without expecting the world to jump to one's rescue. It seems that in our brave new world, we are now expected to take on responsibility for the safety of our potential, perhaps unasked for, rescuers as well as our own risk.

If I want a rescue team to be a part of my personal risk control strategy, I think I should have the option to opt in (or opt out) to the rescue process before undertaking my adventures.

Yes, Receiving two channels.

Generally Tx operates on the primary channel. Main and standby channels both receive. Sometimes called 'dual watch'.

I have a (illegal to transmit) Vertex hand held that has this feature, and it would be a great asset to be able to monitor Area frequency whilst also operating on Unicom (for instance).

Looks nice. Does it have dual watch function, Ian?

Welcome to the forum.

Good luck with your lessons. It's a worthy challenge, as well as a lot of fun.