octave

GDay Youngmic Yes I was really posing the question to those that are sure that is clearly illegal, then there is a clear remedy. But this is not my view, I was playing devils advocate Cheers

Great point, I did have to do a downwinding land whilst training, it was an engine failure drill, I set up for the nearest runway it happened to be downwind. I think my instructor wanted me to experience the gound rushing past me without me freaking out. It was aworthwhile experience and although I wouldn't choose a downwind landing I am glad that at least done 1. In terms of legality if a downwind landing by an RPT is illegal it would seem a simple matter of reporting it to CASA maybe even video evidence, the problem with this is that I am not sure how much of a service this would be to Rec Aviation. It is easy to say RPTs are just trying to save money but a government faced with airlines cancelling marginal routes and the cocerns of rec flyers mmm I wonder who would win. If the incident stats show more traffic conflicts because of the whole downwind straight in then I would be all for strict enforcement so I am happy to be conviced but it should not be a "we have to so why shouldn't you" argument. It should be on safety, efficiency and yes even cost.

Perhaps ERSA should more be more specific about actually happens at each airfeild. When REX does do a circuit which it does when the weather is bad it is much harder to keep an eye on it, their circuit is huge (they avoid flying over town -noise considerations). Anyway I think the important points are to see and be seen, listen and talk, treat the downwind end of the runway with the same restpect as final (after all we do this on a nil wind day - also at my airfeild we have to windsocks about 1 km apart that can indicate totally different wind directions, whilst learning my insctrutor would say, check the windsock, which one I would reply) now about that kipper

"Octave - you're still focussed on your own airfield, but what would happen if you decided to fly into Tamworth, where the local procedures might be more formal, then on to Toowoomba where they might be different again - becomes difficult to observe the whole sky." I am not saying that we have our own special way here that is taken for granted, I think you making more of what I said than I actually meant. We do not have special procedures. Giving way to REX is a courtesy we often extend, it is never taken for granted. Many pilots visit my airfield especially from Canberra, they dont seem to have any trouble. What I am talking about is not against any reg. It might go like this REX reports inbound 10 miles straight in approach (there is nothing I can do about this, I can't make REX do a circuit) REX might then ask about local traffic, I report that I am doing circuits on the cross strip, ON REXs 3 mile call I might report that I am extending my downwind or I might even report that I am depart the circuit perhaps go outside the training area maybe practice my turns, REX repports he has landed, I re enter or resuime the circuit. Of course legaly I could continue my circuits, the scenario would then be REX making a missed approach. If as you suggest I flew to Tamworth I cant see what the problem would be, I would do what I do here make inbound calls, monitor radio for other traffic inbound or in the circuit, and most importantly LOOK OUT for traffic in the circuit, upwind and downwind. Th fact is that a straight in approach is legal, for pilots to arrange seperation in CTAF is legal and encouraged (CASA Document -Operatioans at Non Towered Aerodromes) I can more understand concern over RPTS landing downwind, although this doesn't concern me too much. Re -"or must angle into wind to see the final path due to airframe configuration, thus masking the down wind approach angle, then gives a lining up and rolling call and rolls on to the runway just as a high speed local arrives for a downwind landing." I was taught , when approaching a runway or runway intersection, to make a sharpish turn right to check for aircraft on final followed by a sharpish turn left to check for aircraft who might for whatever reason be landing downwind. Just like a nil wind day when there may be no defined circuit direction until someone asserts one. Of course it would be easier if REX didn't use my airfeild but if they cancelled there south coast run the airfeild would become a housing estate.

Good questions, I am going the following. It was what I was taught by 3 different instructors at my airfield also the following - From RAAUS 2.4 Non-standard circuits Special procedures for joining on final apply at CTAF® aerodromes only, where the carriage and use of VHF radio, confirmed to be functioning on the CTAF, is mandatory for all aircraft — including ultralights — operating within the vicinity. Aircraft joining for a straight-in approach must be established on the straight-in approach heading by five nautical miles from the airfield and broadcast that fact; in addition, the aircraft's landing lights and anti-collision lights must be switched on. The straight-in approach option is available to any aircraft operating at a CTAF® aerodrome, but should only be utilised by aircraft whose approach speed is much higher than the norm; e.g. RPT aircraft. An aircraft on a straight-in approach must give way to aircraft already reported established on base or final approach. The straight-in approach is often made on the longest runway, not necessarily the into-wind runway. and also from CASA Operations at Non-Towered Aerodromes Many pilots operating VFR automatically give priority to air transport IFR and larger types of aircraft but this is a matter of courtesy only. There are no rules that grant IFR aircraft priority over VFR aircraft at non-towered aerodromes. So it is aknowledeged that we can give way to larger faster aircraft. Apart from this I don't really feel safe turning onto final knowing that there is a SAAB turning base I would prefer it where I can see it. Just my humble opinion

When I say "I would assert my right of way if I needed to " I mean for safety reasons. I don't have a problem with RPTs making straight in approaches as londg as it is safe. I think my airport is only safe from being sold off as long as REX finds it financially viable to run a scheduled service. A circuit at each stop would be costly. I was always taught when entering the runway to check upwind and downwind, likewise when turning final to check for aircraft landing downwind .

To make it a bit clearer, the custom is our custom not the RPT pilots custom, they don't assert the right of way, we give it to them. This is usually met with gratitude, even a "thanks Gazelle *** after they have departed. I would certainly assert my right of way if I needed to.

I much prefer it when REX makes a straight in approach (as is the usual practice at my airport). Since the local custom at our airfield is to give way to REX, a straight in approach seems to be the least troublesome solution, and to me a lot more comfortable and even pleasurable to vacate the circuit area (always happy for an excuse to spend another 4 or 5 minutes in the air). Once REX makes its 10 mile inbound call, and states its intention to make a straight in approach it becomes quite an easy matter to stay clear of the main runway alignment for 4 or 5 minutes. I would much rather be in this situation than to be in a circuit with a much faster aircraft doing a much larger circuit.

Is this the same accident? Two injured at Benalla Airfield ultralight crash | The Australian

I was taught to check the runway whilst on the move, in fact making somewhat of zig zag turn in order to see any aircraft on final. The angle at which the runways intersect at my airfield (and the Gazelles high wing) means that when you can see one end of the runway you can't see the other end. Coming to a stop would require turning to the right, stopping, moving off and turning left, stopping and then making a call. I recall - just before my first solo, approaching the runway intersection, I turned to the right to look for any aircraft on final, I swung around to the left to check the other end of the runway only to see a 172 on final to land downwind and no radio calls! I think the lesson here is to do what ever you have to do to make sure you get a clear view of both ends of the runway and of course a call before entering.

Yep that is what I do, just could't find it in black and white. Cheers

How would you depart? The runway points out to sea (east), I wish to fly north, I can not get to circuit height by flying the runway heading and still maintain the capacity to glide back to land. Many pilots seem to depart from xwind. The document "Operations at non Controlled Aerodromes" only seems to mention maintaining runway heading until at least circuit height. love to know what you all think.

I flew briefly in the the late eighties and after a break of 18 years started to learn to fly again. I thought my previous experience would make the process much easier, it did help of course but maybe not as much as I had hoped. The good news is as you get further into your training that past experience seems to help more. I remember getting into the aircraft with my instructor and feeling overwhelmed and not knowing what to do first, I felt that my previous experience should have made the basic skills easy for me. I think I struggled with all of the things you mentioned. Try not to be to hard on yourself and do hang in there, the doubt and uncertainty you feel now will pass. Cheers Graham

This looks impressive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfCwChAg6lE"

And here is another poor quality article Ultralight trend takes off | The Courier-Mail The exact weight of a plane is of little importance, the most important safety aspects are standards of training, maintenance standards and the regulations that we fly under. To the public the word ultralight means poorly trained pilots in poorly built planes and who can blame them. The public dont look at the actual statistics all they respond to is picking up the paper a seeing that another one of those dangerous ultralights has crashed again. The Paul Bibby article talks negatively about the proposed weight increase. If this weight increase goes ahead we will under scrutiny (and rightly so). It will be interesting to see how the media interprets a Cessna 150 incident. I think it would be reasonable for the public to read ultralight aircraft and assume that the pilot must be one of those under trained ultralight pilots, (in the public mind) this to me seems a little unfair to GA pilots. I am still a little puzzled about the whole under 45knt requirement for RAAus, I think someone else suggested that was untrue, anyone know? Maybe if we have trouble with the definition it should hardly be surprising that the media has trouble. Cheers Graham

I agree, should be positive and negative feedback. its about a gradual education. cheers Graham

I want one. I wonder how it would be registered HGFA, RA, GA, or RTA and if your have an engine failure could your call the NRMA?

If you are referring to me here let me just say that I did not contact the paper but the police media unit. The police media unit then checked on how this tragic accident was to be investigated ie as GA or RA and only then changed their press release. cheers Graham

Re "How about a 'young eagles' day there and get every kid's butt from withing 200ks into a RAA aircraft." Good idea, as long as people think that RA aircraft are relativelysafe.

A recent quote from a news paper article Police will investigate whether low-flying ultralight planes are a safety issue in the area I cant see why adding the word ultralight makes this story more "entertaining". I think the average member of the public would assume the only safety issue here is low flying ultralights and not other aircraft . Doesn't this seem to suggest that ultralights are a particular safety issue? I personally have no problem with just using the term light aircraft or recreational aircraft. Here is a quote form article headlined Ultralight death toll spinning out of control -by Stephen Lamble - Head of School of Communication, Associate Professor, Journalism Why use CAR "There is no single Australian Government register containing data about the death toll per flying hour in ultralights. But an in-depth analysis of official crash statistics and news reports gathered from different sources shows that in the years from 1992 to 2007 an average of 7.25 ultralight pilots or passengers were killed for every 100,000 hours flown." There is the old saying that today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip wrapping on the other hand we have an academic journalist using news paper reports in an "in depth analysis" of our safety record. I can't see that the general community believing that our training standards are low or that our aircraft are inherently unsafe could possibly good for the future of recreational aviation. Cheers Graham

I dont think the general public should necesarily know the fine details of our hobby but our reputation with the public could be important. With airfields gradually being sold off perhaps in the future we will be trying to establish new faclities. It would certainly be more difficult to establish new airfields for ultralights if the general public believe that ultralights are more dangerous than other aircraft. Most of the time I dont care what others think of ultralight aviation but I do think we ignore public opinion at our peril. We can only fly because governments allow us to, if they thought there would be more votes in abolishing the ultralight catergory then I am conviced they would. Ultimately it is the public that tolerates our flying.

This is why we should care about media stories about ultralights. extract from "Why use computer-assisted reporting methods?" by Stephen Lamble Why use CAR "There is no single Australian Government register containing data about the death toll per flying hour in ultralights. But an in-depth analysis of official crash statistics and news reports gathered from different sources shows that in the years from 1992 to 2007 an average of 7.25 ultralight pilots or passengers were killed for every 100,000 hours flown." So here we have a journalist drawing conclusions partly from news reports. Wether or not a 450kg plane is or is not technicaly an ultralight, if it is VH reg, the fact is that RAAus has nothing to do with setting maintainance standards or pilot training standards. I am not suggesting that our safety standards or beyond question, we should all be striving for a 0 fatality rate, and anything we can learn from any accident wether be hot air balloon, glider, GA our RPT is important. In these times of airports being sold off it could become increasingly difficult to find places to opperate from. It seems to me that our public reputation could be crucial in the establishment of new facilities or the continued operation of existing faclitcies. Again this is not an us verses them, it does cut both ways, many RA pilots are also GA pilots and most importantly the loss of any fellow aviator is a tragedy. Cheers Graham

I think the word ultralight is used to push certain buttons in the reader. The perception is that an ultralight is much more dangerous. We could just ignore this and allow perception to grow but politicians are easily swayed by public opinion. Re "making a big deal" I sent a polite email to the VIC Police Media who were very happy to check the facts and then change their press release, they thanked me for bringing it to their attention and I thanked them for changing the press release. No big deal. The fact that the public doesn't know the difference makes it all the more important that the news they get is honest and accurate, this also means taking the good with the bad. The annoying thing is that in a period where ultralight safety has improved the public perception does not seem to have taken that onboard.

Does that mean that my RAAus Pilot cert allows me to fly Any Aircraft under 544kg (including VH Reg)? thats certainly not my understanding.

Yes I would agree with that