Bandit12

I dabble in statistics a little.... Are the stories being embellished? No doubt some are, and some are also no doubt doing the rounds as hearsay and coming back much more dramatic than when originally told. Are the numbers just plain wrong and unrepresentative of Australia? There is probably a good argument to suggest that there is enough differences to question the generalisability of the data - such as the differences between LSA maintenance requirements and RA-Aus rego categories (and that is ignoring GA regoed aircraft). There are a number of people here who I believe have shared very genuine stories of their own experiences with Jab engine failures. There are also a number of stories of incidents where occupants have walked away unharmed, supporting the stats above of low fatalities in Jabs (and the crashworthiness of the airframe design). We face two intrinsic problems when it comes to accidents/incidents in Australia. Firstly, there seems to be little or no real data and reporting of incidents which would allow for real analysis of accident trends and correlates. Secondly, our flying population is so small that invariably you need many years of data to perform any real analysis, and that still may not offer an adequate sample size to look at accidents by specific make. So we have to rely on US data, and it is too big of a stretch to say that US data applies without a lot more proof. In another thread, I posted an analysis of fatality rates per 100K flying hours in Australia over a decade, and showed a statistically significant difference between GA and RA-Aus, with RA-Aus being twice the rate of GA. But with information so scant, the reasons why are just guesswork, not science.

Sometimes there are adverts for leasing aircraft with minimum hours per year at a fixed hourly rate dry. Maybe that is something worth thinking about. Or approach a reputable school with an offer for XXX hours per year guaranteed and see what price they do.

Likewise anyone who learnt stalls in a Tomahawk is probably going to handle a messy stall better than someone who learnt in Warriors. A little bit of trickiness is probably a good thing for a trainer. But not too much of a good thing....

Any decent investigator will tell you that it is not just about figuring out the why, or what happened. It's also about excluding all the other reasons that might explain why, and for that a trip to the site could be quite valuable.

Most of the bike forums I have been involved in have been very active in regards to accident discussion. I think the discussion would go on just as much if there was a proper reporting and feedback provided to members because it is in human nature to question why things happen.

....reckon that Barnaby Joyce might have a thing to say about that, given that he can trace his lineage all the way back to Sir Joh, and there was definitely no goat involved. "What's wrong with being involved with a goat?" asked......

I doubt that many prospective employers will care about your exact mark. They will however care about whether you seem to know your stuff in person. Congrats on getting there though!

A word of warning for any aspiring CPL pilot - make sure you get the Class 1 medical before you start training. I have known two people who were mostly through their 150hr CPL course when they went for the Class 1 and didn't pass. Some things can be disputed and worked around, but it isn't easy.

Good point Volksy - hours in a 182 are probably the most useful for a new CPL. But I suspect that ongoing costs would hurt the pocket much, much more.

I saw a number of the Lancers at the Boneyard last year, some already chopped up into pieces. Seeing it on the ground reminded me of them all carved up and forlorn. Less than 3% cost of aircraft in damage - that is a pretty rugged aircraft.

It is very nice to hear that there are people who are concerned enough to call it in. All up a good outcome!

...good time can be had by all. That's not to say that a good time is always had with the Harlot, who is known for.....

And if you get stuck on a question, move on (if you can) and come back to it later.

....a rather attractive young man came up to him and said....

I'm no instructor, but agree wholeheartedly. Early success is a remarkable motivator when trying to learn anything new.

This thread and many more like it are why I love recflying.com. Interesting aviation topic, plenty of technical explanations and an auld Auster to boot - where else can you get stuff this good! I was thinking from memory that all of my C172 time was zero flap for standard take off and 10 degrees of flap for soft/short-field, but I am a little rusty. I did watch one accelerate on a grassy strip before pulling on full flap to break the ground contact and balloon over the trees at the end of the strip, followed by sink into ground effect again afterwards. Looked very hairy and would not want to have been on the inside at the time.

Can't help, but it looks like a gorgeous little aircraft!

What concerns me as well is the lack of "incident" information. The current system involving fatalities, police and coroners is unlikely to change. But for every person who dies, how many more have similar incidents that didn't result in an accident and injury/death? There is a lot to be learned from a review of incidents involving less injury/damage or no injury/damage as well. Is there a self-reporting mechanism for "I accidentally flew into cloud today but got out of it" or "I lined up in front of another aircraft today, causing it to go around" type of incidents, where events can be looked at from a learning perspective rather than a punitive one?

I remember doing accelerated spins in the Pitts S2B, and the speed of rotation was beyond what I could comprehend. Almost to the point of making it very difficult to identify direction of rotation, compared to a standard spin. I had only recently got my GFPT and so it was a big shock to see just what the ultimate mismanaged recovery could end up looking like.

Nope...Daz is known as the "Home Wrecker" around Nerang - he charms all those ladies with offers of taking them higher than they have ever been before!

It seems like so much of the heartache could have been avoided with a few better decisions, and a little more open communication. For example, the news on the RA-Aus site could have read like this: Forgive the language as I am neither a publicist nor perfectly familiar with the way committees at this level work. However, I can't see that it would take more than an extra day or two to do this, and no one would feel that they were being deceived. Maybe some on the committee wouldn't have agreed, maybe they would have argued, dragged their feet, and the funding ended up taken away. But at least there would have been open communication, and elected representatives would been given the opportunity to do what they were elected for.

And 100 years on, people still can't agree whether it was legal. Doesn't bode well for RA-Aus then, does it!

I grew up in Murgon, always happy to see some pics of the area. Looks like a great day for it!

I see much more grief over: 1. The person chosen for the job 2. The way the person was chosen for the job than I see about the need for a more formalised structure to ensure quality safety standards. It seems few people are unhappy about the concept, but the way it has come around looks like just another underhanded betrayal (it may not be but doesn't feel right). At least the position is under review in September, but I would think they would do themselves a favour if they changed that to a temporary position that ends in September, and have a more formal and transparent recruitment process in the mean time.

Good man, that is another possibility. I'm just wary of putting ideas out there that sound factual when most, if not everyone has no real idea.