octave

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

My point here is that there is a lot of implied criticism of RAAus and the training and maintainance standards. Calling a VH registered aircraft an ultralight suggests that it is regulated by RAAus and this is not the case. This cuts both ways, GA aviation surely dont want their aircraft being described as and ultralight (even if it could be registered either way). Again I quote an article published earlier this week.

" Police will investigate whether low-flying ultralight planes are a safety issue in the area"

This is why the distinction is important. (again it cuts both ways). I also refer you back to the article "Light plane deaths up by 50%" the main thrust of this article is the suggestion the RAAus training and maitainance standards are questionable. Really I suppose the important thing is the regulatory system under which the plane and pilot opperate. When the media refers to a plane as an ultralight it suggests that the pilot is trained under RAAus rules and that it is maintained under RAAus standards.

Re - "So, the Midget Mustang is an ultra light and some-one needs to apologise to the media for advising them incorrectly."

My RAAus certificate would not allow me to fly a VH registered Midget mustang.

Perhaps if we want to split hairs we could inform the media that a VH aircraft is maintained as a GA aircraft and must only flown by a GA licened pilot and is not regulated by RAAus.

Does any else think I owe the media an apology?????

Cheers

Graham

My intention is not to distinguish between GA RA pilots, many of my flying friends are both. There seems to be a belief amongst some sections of the media that ultralights are much more dangerous than GA aircraft. This is a quote from a news story

" Police will investigate whether low-flying ultralight planes are a safety issue in the area"

full story at

Charity flight 'hero' lost in plane crash - National - BrisbaneTimes

The problem is if this sort of thing is not corrected early is seems to become "truth". The Age article that quotes incorrect stats is still on the net and informing peoples opinions about the safety of all aviation.

Once again my intention is not to be insensitive. It is a sad day when we lose any of our flying friends.

I think these emails and letters play a part (hopefully) in the gradual eductation of the media. I was quite dismayed that the Police Media Unit got it wrong as this may be where the media draws its initial information from, to their credit after I emailed them I received a reply and the press release was fixed within 10 minutes. I think it is also a good idea to make these emails reasonable an not angry or abusive, we to be thought as calm and reasonable people.

Cheers

Graham

Success!!!!!!

This is the email that I sent to the Police media Unit.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to point out that the article on your web site incorrectly states that the tragic plane crash in Mornington yesterday was an Ultralight. This aircraft was a Light Plane and therefore regulated by CASA not an Ultralight which would have been regulated by Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus).

The problem is that light plane accidents are wrongly being attributed to ultralight aviation.

If a plane has a VH rego on it, it cannot be an ultralight

In the interest of accuracy I am hoping that this can be corrected

Regards

Graham

Reply from Police Media Unit

Re: Were you able to do it using words of one sylable or less?

Yep down to single letters ie VH = GA