David Isaac

ha ha, sorry i missed the que Ranky ... LOL. On ya Kaz ..... I'll get there one day.

I suspected that ... a known problem and a bloody dangerous one.

Steve, What was the preliminary info on that tragic Caboolture accident?

I am hardly a very experienced C180 pilot, nevertheless I had lots of short field practice in my conversion and the following parachute ops. I would not have used that technique doing a STOL comp. I would have come over the fence hanging on the prop, full flap, stall warning active in the hold off. Slammed it on in three point config and applied firm braking keeping the tail on the ground. His started out looking alright in the three point config, not sure why he raised the tail, less control there. He may have had a brain fart moment for all we know.

hadn't thought of that Nev, easier to refuel when sitting on its nose LOL.

I saw a guy tip a C180 on its nose and stay there in front of fuel bowser many years ago at Cessnock, just by hitting the brakes too hard. Very embarrassing.

Exactly Richard. Hard to believe that some one with 1700 hrs experience on type didn't react fast enough. I am sure he has pondered that many times since the incident, poor bugga. Mind you if he had reacted in time the tail would have hit the ground with unbelievable impact, but they are very strong. Damn nice aircraft, I have a few hours in them doing parachute ops, they are my personal favourite tail-wheel aircraft. I actually thought it was a C185 because of the extra little window till I saw the accident report that gave the type as C180J and Potaroo kindly explained the difference.

Ha ha, ducking for cover are we. LOL

Nothing wrong with accepting the exclusion and that is exactly what I will do if I cannot find a company that will accept the risk. It is only income protection not a death cover. I already have death cover on existing policies that do not exclude aviation.

My problem arose because I disclosed the aerobatics, if I had not, aviation would be covered but limited to not more than 50 hrs per year.

ha ha ... you will keep sweetheart ... LOL

The main wheels are way forward of the loaded C of G in taildraggers. You have to provoke what happened to that guy.

Unfortunate for someone with 1700hrs on type, that is a lot of C185 time, he would certainly know the aircraft. Maybe the seat moved forward and the seat belts were loose ... trying to think of what could have gone wrong with someone with that experience. Nice looking 185 and a lot of money to fix, especially that prop strike.

Col,what has that got to do with Rat's statement or question?

It is not just an RAAus issue, it applies to all recreational aviation which includes PPLs.

I think that they think they are pretty good at modelling. As I said I have not had this problem before and I have always declared my flying activities and aerobatics and only had the one problem in 1997 which was resolved with my letter. So either the risk profile has changed or there needs to be more competition among insurers.

Yes we have had a few professional deaths Nev, but they all involved extreme aerobatics at low level, usually display. I made it clear to the insurer the aerobatics were recreational and not below 3,000' and not of a competition nature, limited to loops, rolls, stall turns and spins. It was accepted in 1997, so what has changed since 1997? Has the risk profile increased?

Just had private aviation excluded by insurers for my new income protection policy because I disclosed I do recreational aerobatics. The following underwriters have excluded private aviation cover: AIA Life Asteron Macquarie Life OnePath TAL Zurich Australia Life Limited. Back in 1997 I had aerobatics excluded from a 'Recovery cash' life policy, so I wrote to the insurers detailing that pilots properly trained and endorsed in aerobatics are arguable higher skilled than those not trained and endorsed and that the risk was no higher than general flying. (we are talking about recreational aerobatics, not low level display). My letter to the underwriters in 1997 detailed the CARs and requirements and was successful in having the aerobatic exclusion lifted in the policy back then. It was accepted in 1997 but not now in 2014. This policy is income protection only, no death cover, and this time they are excluding private aviation activities completely allegedly because I disclosed the aerobatic activity. I have attached the letter I wrote in 1997. Has anyone else had this experience? I would value any opinions on this as I find it staggering that in spite of my letter that the underwrites are excluding all recreational aviation activity. Acrobatic exemption from cover.pdf Acrobatic exemption from cover.pdf Acrobatic exemption from cover.pdf

One would hope not. Typical aero club competitions such as spot landings etc are covered by insurance, one would hope this would fall into the same category. It is a pseudo training exercise of sorts.

Its looking real good Scotty, well done, I must make the effort to drop in next time I am up your way.

Pity really that there was some obvious abuse, because used properly it should have been productive. But as usual a few (there was only a few) can ruin a good intention. There were a few that used it appropriately.

They are not in the strictly STOL category, but with the right technique they can be short fielded well and with a good payload. They are not super STOL like the highlander, or Hornet I would think so it was a landing at at least an ALA, just a little cocked up.

Hi Frank, I actually read Don's comment as not being against the use of the 'unhelpful' icon, but suggesting that if it is used, some explanation would be constructive. It has been used on me four times and I am none the wiser as to why. So some explanation would be of benefit as I am sure none of us are intentionally 'unhelpful'.

I thought I heard the news article state or imply low level aerobatics?

Slow up the video and look where the elevator goes as the tail starts to rise. Damn shame to do that to a nice C185