antzx6r

I will be. But for more than just CTA. Theres the ability to carry the whole family, build and fly aircraft like the RVs and tigermoths with aero capabilities and to not be restricted by last light. I love flying RAA but I find myself wanting those few restrictions lifted. PPL is the only way to go for me i'm afraid. Off topic a little but I've heard that not all schools accept RAA training completely. As in, the hours are no problem but they feel the need to start you from scratch with the entire syllebus, taking as many hours as for a zero hour student. Surely much of the ab-initio should be more of a BFR type thing or just to get checked out on the type and the guts of the training be more on what is lacking in RAA. Can anyone tell me if there is an 'RAA trained' friendly school in the sydney basin area? I don't mind being thorough with the training, but at around $200/hr I don't want to be stuffing around for 5+ hrs ($1000) on secondary effects of controls and climbing and decending turns etc. I agree to a point. The hypo dude, as a willfull violator will not stop if the punishment is just an inconvenience. The offence, if the said thruster was without a mode c, is comparable to drink driving IMO. He's made a stupid decision that has the potential to kill inocent people. A sound thinking person has the nads to talk to ATC, settle on a safe apropriate sollution. Be that to turn around, land in a field or (and more likely) to cut through the edge of the step with all involved perfectly aware. Personally I think the guy needs to know how serious the situation is and 3 months off for bad behaviour is not enough. Aviation based community service!! Again, totally different situation for a genuine mistake. Some retraining on navigation and the seriousness of CTA violation. Grounding is not right. The guy needs more practice, not less. 2 cents :thumb_up:

Thats funny. While this duscussion was progressing I was thinking that would be an easy logical distance/time/eta check and was going to give it a try next flight. But no-one has ever mentioned it before. Any reasons this is not common practice? Or does the 10min / 10mile standard just date back to early days?

On the issue of a secondary GPS, I'm thinking of getting me a cheapy (no maps) as a a backup that will give me a simple track to hold if I can't position fix and get worried I'm completly lost. Primary Navigation with wizz, map and watch. Some planes I hire have a GPS and then my own hand held cheapy with the waypoints programed in as a last resort. Is this wise or should I think about spending more to get a map based one? I know as navigation goes you really need the map based units but as a simple insurance policy in the bottom of the flight bag, what do you recon??? Ant

Ha... probably. Tho I'm thinking more the type still at home in they're 30's, think they've 'made it' when they get a fully sick wrx, can't hold down any job except maybe maccas(and stay there long enough to become manager), you know the ones. The ones that get the 16y/o's(or at least they thought so at the time;)) pregas then deny ever knowing them. Just should have been drowned at birth. Enough venting.

If you remember back before that young girl died on the highway north of wollongong, rocks were being thrown at cars from overhead walkways with out accidents happening. Fences were put up, things were done but the little buggers just didn't get the seriousness of it. Now they do... We don't want it to wait till some small d?*k fool figures on hitting a small passanger plane on short finals leaving the only pilot unable to do anything but apply power and hope the aircraft settles in a balanced level climb till the dazzle where's off. Hands up who wants to be in that situation. thumb_down

I see what your saying. It just seams like the the headmasters are putting the year 11 students in as teachers of the year 7's while building knowledge for the HSC, because they don't want to fork out the cash for profesional teachers. Teaching needs to be a career, not detention.

I think it will force the airlines (the real 'takers' of the industry) to invest in more ATPL focused training schemes (like REX cadets) rather than just relying on self funded students strugling to get there any way they can forced to build the hours elsewhere, then when they finaly get there, put them on the bottom rung yet to prove themselves. Pilots seem to be treated like 'its a good racket so you have to go through hell to get it' Thus the reason it's seen as a rich mans game. It costs an arm and a leg to train yourself with no garantee of a good paying job at the end. Especially if your goal is just instructing. The push is toward airlines anything else is a hole in your wallet. That whole mentality needs to change. And it doesn't help that jet pilots look back at training and feel that because they worked for peanuts building hrs, everyone has to do it. Its like a disease. The pilot poachers need to practice some sustainabilty. And leave instructing to pilots who love flying, love teaching and love building pilots not hrs. Sorry that soapbox is really good!!!

Very true. I think we almost have to take GA as an example of what not to do, sort of. (Sorry if that offends anyone) I just mean in the experience department. As i've been looking at the various ways to make flying my career, I've noticed a few things. Jobs in GA are viewed as just a stepping stone to ATPL work as an hrs building exercise. Thus they work for peanuts, never get that good at it and often work beyond casa's max hrs per week. Great for building hrs, great for employers. The trouble is, this includes instructing which is the worst place for someone to be, who's biding they're time to get to somewhere else. They have no pride of being any sort of mentor. The training of new pilots needs to be a career of its own. I think one of the best things casa could implement is excluing instructing hrs from the 500 (or whatever) needed for airlines employment. Make instructing a career of its own. That way the quality of instructors would be better, they'd be payed better and people like myself who don't want an airline job but acually want to work with excited first solo students etc. and see results of building good airmanship, can choose instructing as a career and not be turned off because there's no way to earn a living doing it. Its madness really. Every other "dangerous" job earns "danger money" (skyrise window cleaning for example). And pilots earn nothing till they work in the safest part of the industry. :confused: Figure that one out. I'm just hopeing that by the time I get there, things are better and I can at least pay the bills as a "career" instuctor.

Congrat's again ultralights. I'm looking to head in that direction myself. I've only about 15hrs PIC so far tho. Just completed x-country. In a nut shell, whats involved in the course? Any flying, how many hrs, what training manuals to read up on, etc. Cheers Ant.

Rudder design This is interesting, tho off topic a bit. Not just for the people intersted in aeros but safety also. Obviously we are taught to recover well before a spin is fully developed, but I quite like the idea of owning an aircraft that can be recovered from whatever trouble(perish the thought) i've managed to get myself into. I suppose you just have to look at the edge and extra, but what kind of design is a good design in this respect? Or is it a case of the more rudder you have, the more you have to be 'on the ball'. (wow, thats both metaphorical and literal. small things-small minds )

I agree. I've done only 15hrs in GA training in a C152 aerobat. And compared to a Jab, it is incredibly stable. And thats just doubling(roughly) the weight. However I have heard you yourself say Ian, that you wouldn't let just any low time pilot in the Starlet. There is just a little transition training involved.

That's incredible... I just checked the RAA members market and there is an RV4 RAA rego'd. Who'd a thunk it? Now there is an aircraft that can get you into alot of trouble if you don't know how to treat it. If you have the self control not to get crazy with it, it's a quick x-country with way more usable load ability than technicaly allowed. Plus with the +/- G capabilties it's got to be some fun. :thumb_up:

I'm not sure the rv4 can be raa rego'd. Do you know of any? MTOW is 681kg and Stall is 47knts. In Theory, with the second seat empty, the MTOW lowered by 81Kg may bring the VSO down. Not sure if its as simple as that tho. The rv3 is a single seater and falls inside the numbers. Is this what you ment? Still not sure if it is "approved" tho. I was keen on that, but then thought, all that aerobatic ability and the numbers on the fuselage say strictly no aeros! I don't know if I could live with that...:confused:

Those are some heavy thoughts seal. We do have to remember that this is a community forum, not an accident investigation board. Some sentiment is needed. Discussion is good but treat the incident like it was a part of our family lost(which it is really). True, we almost never have the facts completely correct, but then neither do ATSB. Only the supreme one knows exactly what happened. So give the pilot benfit of the doubt and discuss the situation and what you would have done, or what you've been told to do, etc. It's education we want here. Leave opinions of the pilots actions out of it. We don't really know what happened in that cockpit. Seal is right in that some of what a family member might read here is going to be a bitter pill. But then death is a pretty distasteful pill on it's own. All you can do is be gentile. Spread the love people. Ant

Hmmm, very true. And if anything, the idea of keeping things simple just makes these cowboys think 'well its not real aviation, no-one's policing me. I'll do what I ruddy well like!' A little heavy handed casa like discipline is a good thing. (What am I saying!!!)

:black_eye: Please don't take this as argumentative... but I have a very healthy respect for my life and I fully intend to be not just licenced, but well trained and very disciplined when I venture to the aerobatic world. (Not that I'm not now in RAA) Just because us starry eyed dreamers mention these higher performance aircraft doesn't mean we intend to skip all the training and take off at mach whatever and go inverted at 50ft for the climbout. Again, I'm truly not being argumentative. Just saying... yeah? :yin_yan: Ant

I've always loved the fighter style of tandem seating. So the RV3, 4 and 8 are my weaknesses. The 3 seems to be ok even prior to weight changes, (MTOW 1100lbs / 51mph) but only single seat. The 4 is a smige over stall speed and will need the weight change to qualify(MTOW 1500lbs / 54 mph). And tho the 8 is back down to 51mph stall but the weight blows out to 1800lbs! Not even close... So frustrating! But... even if they did qualify, their aerobatic abilities would be null and void(?) anyhow. So I think i'll just go and join the casa circus. Hopefuly someone takes on the light plane regulation from casa soon enough. SAAA maybe??? Ant

Interesting that the POH reads more like a training manual. I guess it was more common for people to buy an aircraft and then learn to fly it. Trial and error. Error being fatal. No wonder aviation has such a reputation of crazy men out to test the rules of gravity to the limits (and beyond). Thats why they call them pioneers I guess.

As an interesting follow on from Tonys first post, I've just finished reading an article in the latest issue of Pacific Flyer called "A Macchi has gone in". Very interesting read on this very same idea that the "Pro's" are not infallable and some times let ego's stand in the way of future safety. Also interestingly somewhat similar to the caribou accident above. As a side thought, I notice the pilot tries to turn the aircraft at the top of the climb (like a lazy 8 of sorts) my question is, being that an elevator problem is holding the aircraft in a constant nose high through the climb out, if he/she was to roll the wings over earlier could the aircraft be held in tight turn with full power till the problem is discovered and resolved. What is the prefered correction from this type of elevator malfunction (if there is one)? Cheers, Ant.

HPD's coment on the wife back at the field... This is true to a certain extent. But technical discussion full stop would be hurtfull for a family member to "overhere", so the only remedy is to make the topic taboo thru the grieving period. This is unlikely to happen in any circumstance. For instance in your own example, tact would hopefully prevent most from mouthing off so to speak. And the first thing on most sane persons minds would be to offer condolences and support. However you can't tell me that you spoke absolutly nothing of the accident for days after. So I fully agree with Tony, discussion is good. Both for grieving and for future safety. Tact is the key however. So coments like 'another avoidable accident', even if true, are a bit strong for comment here. If you feel you need to get that kind of thing off your chest, pick your audience. Stick to things like 'sad to here of another respected aviator going down'. And if you want to remind people of their role as a pilot. Try to use the information with positive intent instead of demeaning the actions of the deceased. ie. 'Remember, all the experience in the world does not give you a get out of jail free card. Keep those safety margins nice and comfortable. The unthinkable can happen to all of us. Gust in the wrong direction, sun in the eyes at the worst posible second etc. Be safe. So like HPD says, these are open forums. Treat it like worst possible ears to here this are probably listening. Like you wouldn't discuss way a roo's head reacts to a 3030 shell with your 3 year old daughter in the room. It's just not on. But with the mates, you want to compare hardware and learn. Thanks Tony, This is long overdue IMO.

Translated, thats "Get a life you racist "

Hey Shayne, I use Flight sim x, and agree with previous post that it is very taxing on PCs. I run a core 2 duo with 3 gig ram and 8500 GT video. Still only just get 13 - 17 fps on medium high settings. I upgraded from FS 02 and am considering downgrading back to 04 (or flight sim 9) untill PC hardware becomes more affordable. The addons are great tho. You can find just about any aircraft online. I might also check out xplane at some point. Sounds impressive. Off topic a bit, but how many hours did the conversion from RA to GA take (to date)? That's my next move also. You here a lot about GA to RA but not the other way around. Cheers Ant.

Ultralights, Do you run FSX on Leopard? I've heard it can be done somehow. If so how does the graphics hold up. I owned an old IBook laptop with tiger for a while. Apart from the fact that so much software comes out for PC only, the apple was AWSOME. Everything just worked. No conflicts or configuring graphics. Internet was just a case of 'plug it in and go'. It would be great if FSX could be set up on MAC... Ant.

I am sorry J430. I really didn't mean to direct my comments at you personally. I ment to disagree, and to approach the global impression the public and GA pilots have of RAA. Limiting the training we get and keeping us out of CTA, is like saying "it's not a real licence - stay out of our way". Your right, it needs to be segragated as one type of flying or the other, but not real flying and half baked, untrained, cowboy flying. The reason the name was changed(appart from the stigma of "ultralight") was that we stand for the recreational side of flight, not the career/business side. That doesn't mean we have to stay basic as it were. I studied from Aviation Theory Centre material for RAA training. Dealt with all aspects of MET and flight planning, using only ded reconing and some VOR/NDB. My instructor said here's a GPS, this is what it does. Don't use it for training. My intent is go on to aerobatic and build. So at the moment, that means GA even tho it's for recreation... do you see my point? I don't want to cut any corners. I want to be as professional as it gets. It would just be great if you didn't have to proceed on a course for ATPL just to do some loops etc. Just a thought. :big_grin: Ant

The CASA regs hav been changed for RAA I believe. Maybe one of the other more Tech minded members can comment here. But I think RAA have been set up in the past like exceptions to the rules. (I heard it put that way once. a bit of a laymens way of putting it I know) As for MET, this is covered in more depth with cloud types and their effects, pressure systems, wind and turbulence types etc in the x-country endorcement. I think most see this as the logical next step and really just part two of the basic certificate. Pressure height and dencity height etc. is covered in the BAK tho. Some things are definatly not covered tho. Like loading, mainly because you can't really load most RAA aircraft. It's left to the pilot to make sure they are familiar with the POH including Loading. Ant