ExJourno

There's other factors I'd worry about before the fact he isn't flown a Foxbat... Ticks in my book would be... - he checks the manual - takes the plane for a fly - ensures he is familiar with specifics of your aircraft - all the above are done before he starts teach you I look at it this way... a quick famil is all you need to jump in another plane in our class of flying. Your Pilot Certificate doesn't say "allowed to fly a foxbat only"...

Let's assume 500hrs is a year... Office/hangar lease $40k to $80k Insurance (not the plane.... professional indemnity, liability and general business policy)... $2500? Phones/Net... $2400 wouldn't be unreasonable. Admin/accountant $2200 plus Xero at another 900 Marketing.... $20,000 would be easy to spend. Pay yourself (or a CFI) modest wage... say $64000. Plus.... electricity... general office expenses... non aviation equipment like printers, a computer... radio... oh, and loan interest plus capital payments. Doesn't leave a huge amount for actually running the plan

Different planes... Australian Lightwing GR912t though Coominya Flight Training is circa $155hr and $60/hr ground training time (both plus GST). Hire is $135 plus GST. Prices were current six months ago.

I disagree with you. (In reply to Admin) They didn't die to allow others to fly on at all. They died. That others learned from their mistakes or misfortunes and/or things then changed to ensure others didn't suffer the same fates is not a result of sacrifice. A sacrifice would be if a pilot went out and deliberately demonstrated a circumstance knowing it could kill them and did so specifically to create that learning and/or change in operations. If this was news media, to describe it as you have would be called sensationalism. Words are powerful things. They should not be mis

How did anyone make the "ultimate sacrifice" so others could enjoy recreational flying? Have I misread you? It reads as though you infer some have died to allow others to fly on.

This is from a document that dictates no specific height for deployment, but suggests 2000 may be the minimum safe decision alt... somewhere else it stated 133kts max demonstrated for deployment... 500pages... Sorry, couldn't be bothered wading back through to find it again.

Ahh damnit I typoed. They are not really a first plane, it was meant to say. Mate, if you properly read my comment you'll see I said twitchy and added that this means responsive. Contrast it to some planes needing bigger inputs versus the smaller inputs required for similar movement in the cirrus. Trimming... you can refer to my note about pondering over whether it had been bent at some stage. I was there and saw this happen first hand:. When the GPS failed, the auto-pilot went too. Perhaps it was not dependent on it, in which case they failed simultaneously. Let me be clear - the G

Have been in an SR22... They aren't poor handlers, they are, however, at least the very early ones, twitchy. Or, in other words, responsive to inputs and really a first plane. The one I've been in was cruising at 165kts. The SR20 models were slower, I believe. I can say I did watch a pilot get very tired flying one of these a relatively short distance when the GPS failed rendering the autopilot useless... He had to work hard and it never seemed to just settle, I've often wondered if this plane had been bent at some stage. I do like them. However, I know of one too many that have had

It seems like some think it was the turn back that caused this. And there was a comment about a similar circumstance. I refuse to give the comment the credence of quoting it - but I will say it is remarkably bold to presume to make inference around skills and experience in such a way without full information being available. One thing is certain. Something went wrong. Whether it was error, failure, mistaken estimation or other, it will be surmised far better by those with direct access and that means those privy to the investigation findings. It is almost never as simple and often nor is it

Went back for looks, FT. Up until the current Wellcamp website went live, the initial marketing site contained a similar list on what might be suited to operations/facilities at Wellcamp - it was behind the SITEPLAN tab. This was up all through this year and, unless I am mistaken, late in 2013 as well. It was also put, even back then, that negotiation (by any industry sector business) could be entered into for infrastructure to be built specific to the need and those facilities leased by the applicant. You may notice the list included "Aviation training and support industries". Reg

Surely you are taking the piss this time... surely.

HAHA!!!!! Do not.... I REPEAT.. do NOT allow Facebook to charm you over. Just don't. The Chinese do not know how lucky they are! The point was, however, which I would imagine most/many would have cottoned onto, is that joining groups to see only posts within those specific groups is pretty much a function similar to the groups of Facebook.

Have you met Facebook?

Not quite... at certain times when a particularly painful twat won't stop their twatiness, they are blocked indefinitely.

Um.... FT... I thought the idea of a training facility (at the large jets level) was noted back at the start? Meanwhile... commentary about light aircraft access to Wellcamp was never a blanket 'no'. There was a statement that public access by private flights at the lighter end of the aviation was not happening - in context, this was in relation to an assertion Wellcamp could allow Toowoomba to close as all operations including private flights generally could come across. That point was clearly articulated as not an option as Wellcamp was not going to be a free-for-all facility (not free as