antzx6r

Fine, this is a quote from the reply Lee sent to Mr Bibby regarding His story. Paint it the way you please. That's dirty pool. And regarding getting the last say, I will be carefull not to quote anyone and this is from memory so forgive the vague nature of this post, but I believe Miss Corby just came out of a court case not long ago accusing one of the news stations(I can't remember if it was 7, 9 or 10) of slanderous claims. She won. Give the media an inch and they take a mile. And they think they can get away with it too. Sloppy journalism has no excuse and can lead to litagation(big word:blush:) It's in publishers interest to send these guys back to school before a repeat of the Corby case springs up. MHO

That is utter BS! You don't print "RAA refused to return our calls and emails" when you sent them after hours the night before the issue. He may as well sent them 10 minutes before. And regardless of the dirty pool he's been playing. What the hell happened to objective reporting??? That's like interviewing hitler and writing a piece about the good in communistic government and ethnic cleansing. Followed up with Churchill refused to answer our calls. Unethical is an under statement.

I stared training in a Jab and we did wing drops. The lazy jab mushes a wing down to 50 degrees or so and the nose doesn't really drop with it. Later I moved on to the Tecnam and as part of the convertion we naturaly did some steep turns and stalls and yep, a wing drop or two. Oh my!... A matter of milliseconds and we were seriousely nose down and seriously wing droped! With a great big canopy full of terra-firma. It probably wasn't as bad as I remember it but it sure shocked the sh:censored: outa me! If I had my first real life enter into a spin like that I'm guessing that just like all the other poor lost souls I too would have frozen with the stick jammed all the way back into my gut and stayed that way to the ground. I'm doing the training.;)

Ha ha.. That artical was actually from september last year so maybe (with any luck) she's been fired already. :big_grin:

This is right. ATSB and CASA both at least have a representative who can say "sorry we can't comment on that at this time." RAAus just don't return calls and emails. Maybe it's because they don't want to get caught up in a discussion with a professional at leading the questioning to somewhere distastefull. But they still need to say yes this is what we are about, no we can't comment on that. It may not be pretty, but at least it gives us a more professional 'face'. A trained PR guy is definately what RAAus needs. Surely out of the 8000+ members there must be someone with some experience.

Same counter really. A 20 hr with 5 hrs solo RAA pilot is equivelent to the same minimums for a GFPT level GA pilot. The nav training comes in the second part of the training for PPL as does an RAA pilot with the xcountry endorsement. The difference leaving the medical, which I think is only nessesary when going to commertial ops anyway to tell you the truth. You are much better off teaching people why they need to be healthy and why not to fly when you're not well (HF syllabus). And then there is the very minimal instrument training, which I also see as a mistake in GA syllabus. If your going to train them, train them and give them the rating. Why give them a taste and let them think they can handle IMC when they quite odviously can't. (see 178 seconds) Airline pilots know they are going to get the same seperation they get from private GA ops when RAA enter CTA. They might complain about half trained pilots but they know its just a 'looking down their noses' type thing. They do the same with every thing thats not a glorified bus. The cap and the stripes on they're shoulder have gone to they're head.

Jets carry alot of speed and inertia so a pull up will get you a quite a bit of height. Also, and maybe someone with RAAF training can add something here, I think generally the proceedure is for low level ops to get to a safe height for bail out. So if you're low and fast (which you shouldn't be) and there is no where to put down right infront of you then yeah, pull up get a look around for a soft spot and glide there. But you will waste alot of energy in induced drag from the pull up. So if you already have height to look for a field you're way better off just holding alt till the speed comes down to VBG.

I can see mervs point here also. If you have to get a distance then best glide is it. Its pretty hard to keep an aircraft exactly on best glide when your keeping the field in sight, making calls, playing with radio and tx, briefing pax, and going through trouble shooting checks. If you set up your glide based on VBG + 3 or 4 knts to get to your 1/3 point then you can still adjust the glide when you get close. Not just with flaps and/or side slip on short final but if the wind is stronger than you thought, your coming up short, you have the 1/3 of the field and you have a bit of nose up to stretch the glide just that extra bit to make it there or jump the fence or treetop. That and your not relying on keeping the aircraft exactly on VBG to make the field. It sounds smart to me. Unless of course you are already stretching your glide to get to the field you chose being that it is the only one around.

10 Litre!?! Thats about an hour or 80+ nautical miles in one of those isn't it? Ant :thumb_up:

Presumably airline pilots and controllers would have the intelligence to know the difference between RAA registered aircraft and GA registered aircraft. They also know that this is not going to lead to aircraft without radio and transponder roaming around their airspace. They have all the correct information. If they are still against the CTA endorsement it is because they have a prejudice for RAA aircraft despite their record for safety. No it is the public that are being fed the BS by the media. And they will believe it even if it is complete fabrication. The media rain supreme and no-one can touch them. It's what makes politics such a hard game.

I'm with matt on this as I suspect most pilots are. But just because the media make their mulah on news which they rate as worthy based on the numbers from ratings doesnt give them licence to colour it the way they think to get those ratings. That sort of reporting belongs in gossip mags not news. News items need to be informative and accurate. They have to be able to back that accuracy up with facts. They don't bother checking facts anymore and they write as if they have an opinion which is wrong. thumb_down

That's a good point. At the moment the only time ultralight gets mentioned is after a tragedy. Someone needs to leek to the media a positive story. Maybe on a successful fly-in like Natfly followed by a short history of the sketchy sport growing to the safety conscious organization of pilots it is today.

You're right DJP. And that just gives another example of CASA leaving a definition incomplete and confusing. Now some poor fool will go out an buy a Mustang kit thinking they can register it RAAus. I know the media can justify calling it an ultralight and in court my argument would not stand up. But come on... where do you think the angry mob are going to point their burning torches when they get sick of low flying "ultralights" (CASA definition)? Is that fair?

The mustang II looks significantly cheaper and it has great performance and style. I don't know if their builder support and ease of construction is the same as Vans. They claim around 1000hrs but you know what claims are like... I think the reason there are not as many around is simply that Vans have marketed themselves really well. Does anyone know any mustang builders or know what the kit is like?

There was an article in Flying magazine about a couple of mates building RV9As for themselves. One went all out spending US$100k and the other only US$30k. But the point I'm thinking of is given the above, if you have a good mate that wants the same (or similar) aircraft you can split the cost. Two work more than double the speed of one. (Provided you keep your minds on the job at hand) And you build it in less than 700 hrs each. The only outstanding factor is you still need to find the space for two kits side by side. I'm not sure if you would need to go into any bigger production than that to get the time down. My point being that two would bring a large percentage of the time down three would bring it down a lesser percentage than two. And four a lesser percentage again. Plus the confusion factor will be raised the more cooks (Ha ha... I almost spelled that slightly wrong. But that fits too. ) you have in the kitchen. And then with the 51% rule, you actually need to document with pictures the process you went through. That would get harder the bigger the production. Up there for aussie ingenuity though. :thumb_up:

Don't think i'm drawing a line in the sand, us good them bad type of thing. We can improve. But CASAs job is safety authority. For us and VH. I just think they should be doing a better job instead of pointing the finger.

Is this example on there? (hoax-slayer) Or are you just saying that you think its a hoax and I should post it there? Because I know it looks unbelieveable, but technically these types(edge540, extra) do hold altitude in knife edge and almost hover on prop lift. Even with the wing still on (asuming digital altering), the pilot is still doing a knife edge to a landing. Or is it a total manufacture???

I get your point Davidh but meanwhile RAAus get all the blame for CASAs responsibilities leading to our demise. And the public do get the distinction but it relies on the catch fraises. "I can't believe you fly them ultralights. They fall out of the sky all the bl:censored:y time!" You are right, they don't care about registration bodies, they just here ultralight and run screaming. Why do you think we changed our name from AUF to RAAus?

There was a conversation similar to this about climbing to within 300ft of circuit height before turning xwind. As I understand it, the hard and fast rule is to climb to 500agl before xwind and circuit height before downwind. And the advisory circular was just that, advisory, in order for slower climbing aircraft to be at circuit height by downwind. So like Ken says, The rule from RAAus website is the rule. Advisory circular is advisory.

I just watched one six right and what they did to meigs field. Do they think that pilots are like rebel bikers and will keep using the field if they don't vandalise it? Furroughs along the runway(hard to see) is like setting booby traps for trespassers. So uncivil!!!

I'm still not sure if this is for real. But it sure loks real!?! --- LINK

Well it is a pusher thrust type... I wonder how hard it would be to give it a tricycle conversion? Why ruin a good design I guess.

Ha ha... You guys got that in while i was ranting. A great idea. Although there are many threads on the subject.

Ultralight = 45knts stall I was about to add the same detail. I think it's around 50knt flapped and 53 clean for the Midget Mustang. Great plane tho. I want one. But that aside, Octave has the principle idea that is the real problem CASA/Airservices never thought this 'ultralight' thing was going to take off. And now that it has, there has been a pattern of making RAAus the fall guy for what is wrong with Class G airspace and CTAF airfields. Soon we will be gaining a higher weight increase and access to CTA. I suspect that this pattern will continue there. I was talking to a YAK pilot at the great eastern and he was saying there is a threat of CASA either grounding or (more likely) off loading to a self moderating system like our own. This is purely my own thoughts, but I can see CASA taking all recreation based aviation out of there hair but still under their 'power' so to speak. And then with all the bad press pointing squarely at us, having us grounded as a whole. Leaving only airlines and training facilities for airlines still in the air. I know it sounds very 1984. But this is how politics works. And don't think for a minute that the guys at the top are beyond this kind of dirty pool. Call me crazy, but thats my nostra imput. Don't cry to me when it all comes down. :black_eye: So our only counter for this movement is to redirect the blame for the 50% increase in accidents to where it belongs. Back at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Get the major reform they need so badly. We are not sqeeky clean either. We need to weed out the bad eggs and keep vigilant with training and recency and aircraft maintanance. But we can't let the public continue to think that recreational aircraft and pilots are a dangerous hazard that should be grounded the first chance they get. Apologise...? What for. Media need to shape up. PS. This has nothing to do with the sad loss of our brother from Tyabb. He was as recreational as we all are and will be missed I'm sure. Please do not read this as an us and them thing. It's not. It's a call for media to get it together, for CASA to act like an 'authority' and not a political party (give us a safe environment) and a call to get aviation back to where it was at it's peak, a growing industry with passion. OK... stepping down now. Peace out. :thumb_up:

That's good, although the damage may be already done I'm afraid. I wrote this to Sunrise this morning (first I heard) after they also labeled it an ultralight. Adding that there have been over fifty accidents in the past 3 months. I know you guys are normaly very accurate with your news stories so I wanted to point out that the aircraft that sadly went down is actually a light plane under CASA registration recognised by the VH rego call sign. I know this seems like a technicality, however by calling it an ultralight you are linking it to Recreational Aviation Australia (a seperate registration) who have had an extremelly good record for safety having only had one fatal accident in the last year in which two pilots sadly died. So this kind of bad press (so to speak) is quite damaging to a growing organization of safe recreational pilots and aircraft. It may not seem like much, but it would be great to see you guys make the clarification that know one else does. Thanks in advance, Anthony The only response to this was that emails are unlikely to be followed up on due to the number recieved. They did pull the story off air not long after I sent it though. Maybe thats the best we can hope for... eh? Other reports have been quite good despite this though. An experienced pilot doing all he could to stay clear of onlookers, though sadly losing his life in the process. A real hero. It's upsetting to see home owners on the news complaining about the low flying, only concerned with they're property values and such. Humanity is lost when money is involved.