antzx6r

I actaully heard it the other way around. My instructor is currently doing the theory for ATPL and he recons the RAA BAK and certificate are harder than the ppl equivelent. I'm sure the commertial stuff gets quite complex tho.

Keeping RAAus training to just the basics is what gives "ultralighting" it's image as a half baked pilots licence. The fact is that lighter aircraft are getting faster, more complex and yet, safer construction. Training for this is a good thing. Rag and tube is and will always be integral in the sport. But you can't say it has to be simple construction-slow flight or else go to GA. Same for endorsments (ie CTA). It's a just an extra (that you don't need to spend the money or time on if you don't want it by the way) that will give a lot more people access to the sport and others access to some other areas of flying. I think it's great. Those that are into the basics still have it. No extra cost or training. You're not loosing anything. Those that want faster complex flying but don't want the jumping through hoops from casa can do the extra training, pay the bucks and follow they're dreams too. Everybody wins. Nothing personal J, but I feel that the people who say it should stay basic are usually the ones that have done the hard yards(and big bucks-thanks casa) and gone all the way to commercial just to find out they're driving big buses in the sky, and come back to their roots so to speak. Nothing wrong with that but they expect others that want more(not A380s, just faster and further) to go through what they did. Hard yards, big bucks. A bit of the "In my day..." syndrome. Flying takes many forms. My 2 cents. (maybe 3):big_grin: Ant

I don't really agree with this process. I think the organization you join to fly should reflect the type of flying you wish to do. I don't know if this is how CASA see it but GA seems to have become a bit of an intro course for those heading for a cpl or atpl. Hence the number of pilots sticking their certificate in a draw. Not because keeping it is all that expensive but aircraft hire is. And casa seem to provide more for the commercial side than the private. Or introducing manditory things like ADSB which is great for commercial (the cost is just offset to the customer or claimed on tax) but devistating for the PPL (for recreation). Personally, I think the type of flying for recreation could be expanded to extreem slow or extreem fast(jet even), carbon fibre electronic or motorized hanglider, getting from a to b or going up for a barrel roll or two... So long as it's recreation based. Rules and restrictions will obviously have to come into it, and the expence should reflect the activity. But the decision to go with one organization or the other shouldn't (in my opinion) be based on your buget. If you want to train for the A380 or just charter work go for CASA. I you want to play, build or tour, go for RAA. That's how i'd like to see things go in the future. Am I dreaming??? i_dunno Ant

Hi farri, I see the idea of being governed by "the man" or just that a large organization making legislative decisions on your behalf as being dangerous. But I'm not sure what it is that you want. Is it that you would prefer to just pay an admin fee for the licence and rego and organize your own insurance (or not) and stuff the mag subscription? Because I can kind of see, that if say, you only wanted to buzz around your own property at lower levels in a single seat slower type, and never see any other traffic at like an aerodrome or something. Then sure that would be attractive. At present tho, Like the others have said $160 is not really blowing the budget just yet. And it does give this sport/lifestyle a more responsible image to the landluvers. I do see a danger of this fee blowing out. And maybe we just have to remain vigilant about keeping that fee where it is. Or maybe we could make the "extras" optional or something. I'm a relative youngster I guess and like others I know roughly where we came from as a sport, but as for the early days of the AUF before the "change of management" I've heard mentioned, what was the direction then, that doesn't seem to be now? Ant.

I think so yes, but on googling to find out what that is, there's a lot more to it than just push the stick and prey. (I suppose I guessed that already)

My uncle's name is also Ant and hence I got "little Ant" and he got "big Ant". I'm decidedly bigger now. But I still get "little Ant".i_dunno :off topic:They call this an endo (gone wrong) A mate of mine did this on his ZX9R not long ago. He said the red light got closer and closer till he had make the decision to go "A" over "T" in preference to rolling into heavy traffic on the front wheel. I think maybe the better decision would have been to go a little easier on the throttle wrist action back up the road a bit.

Detail...? Um, A stall, being the point at which relative airflow over the wing fails to produce lift due to an increase of AOA irrespective of speed, is also attainable in positive G, negative G, inverted or staight and level. So straight and level or in a slight climb, push on the stick untill the wing stalls. Prey. Not recomended unless in an Edge 540 (or similar) with the proper training.

Not sure if I have this right, but are you refering to a negative G stall push over such as the when you enter one of those forward tumbling aerobatic manouvers? (Sorry, don't know the terminology)

Hence the old saying "fly by the seat of you're pants"

Tony, I see what you mean about the ease factor of the wing down approach. In my crosswind stage of training I was getting quite frustrated with the crab approach. I couldn't get my head around the hold off, rudder, aileron, power off, wing down, all at seemingly the same time. I asked my instructor if there was anything wrong with lining up the runway with rudder earlier on finals just because it seemed too much to deal with. Little did I know I was instingtively wanting to use a wing down approach. I nailed it in the end tho. I might play around a bit with wing down the next windy day and think more about personal preference rather than my instructors. (Love these forums!) Ant

I think a lot of instructors seem to teach the crap approach hence most newer flyers crab without thinking too much of it. (ie is there any other way) On thinking about it tho, it stands to reason that you would want to fly in balance for as long as possible. For comfort as well as performance. And as mentioned earlier, its a little easier to line up and get the approach line consistant in a crab. adjust power as necessary and kick a little rudder in if you're high. The only reason I can think of that you might slip in from higher on final is if you're not sure about how much crosswind you have to deal with and if your rig can take it. Is there more to it, am I missing any advantages of a slip approach? Other than wanting to lose height in the approach... Ant.

What is "CSU", and can the proposed Ops manual be viewed anywhere?

Ops Manual Forum I had big plans on getting there with my x country almost complete, but the weather let me down. One thing I really wanted to attend was the ops manual forum. Did anyone catch it and could you give us a brief run down??? Did it fill us in on what's new like endorsments and restrictions etc.? Cheers, Ant

Good little tribute to RAAus in the latest Aus Flying mag. (Ask the Expert) Interesting thought on medicals was GA pilots seeing RAAus (with no medicals) as a "way out." His reply to that being "if a pilot has a medical condition that would influence his ability to fly then it would be very foolish indeed to operate any aircraft, whatever the registration!" I'm wondering if this is how most RAAus pilots see this? i.e. Is it the cost or the fear of failing the medical? There does seem to be a large number of elderly RAAus pilots. Absolutly no disrespect to all those wiser pilots out there. The incident and accident record of RAAus speaks loud and clear that this is not currently a problem. But it's just a concening observation. And maybe some kind of standard check up from a local GP on a semi regular basis (without casa's little admin fee dumped on top) wouldn't be such an evil thing. I'm a little naive about this, so please correct me if i'm off base.:black_eye: Cheers, Ant

Me too. We should have started a post on the event beforehand! I was there also. Sad I missed the Slarti Cheetar too. It's been wooing me into the idea of homebuilt since its birth. No doubt if I'd seen it, I'd be sold, hook line and sinker. (From what i've heard) I think I might have seen you tho. When the catalina was wheeled out a guy with wristband, ASIC and a nice SLR was being hassled by the commoners behind the fence. I had to laugh. People are funny. Great day tho. Good size turn out.

I also hire a Tecnam with BRS. I never really thought too much about it before but since starting nav training I consider it an added comfort. Two things worry me in flying. Stuctural failure and going down in tiger country. Tiger country isn't so bad because you can avoid it. The BRS just means I don't need to fear it so much. But structural failure can be a hairline fracture somewhere that can't be preflight checked. I like the idea of always having options. In my view the advantages outweigh the freak misshaps. So the plane flipped and dragged the pilots causing death. You could stubb your toe and bleed to death too. Its the old addage "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it". It's not like I'll never fly anything without it either. It's just another comfort, like gps or radio for a mayday call. It's not a must have. But an extra chance for survival. Ant.

I voted yes also. I've thought the same thing before. On the scale of madness issue, I guess I fall in the insane basket. I've come off the mcycle a couple of times, breaking a couple of things and spending a couple of nights in the 'ER' (freakin' 4 wheeled metal coffins) and yes I still ride. Sill have all my fingers and toes tho. Had the odd nervous couple of seconds as a student pilot. ("Where did that twin say he was?!?... Think I might extend my downwind 4 a bit...eek") Lovin every minute of it now tho. The navex stuff gets those... " F:censored: ! I LOVE THIS S:censored: " sensations of the first TIF, first solo, first everything I guess. Especially just to see all the early stuff pulled together to give you the end result. The reason you had to get into this flying thing to start off with... Freedom Baby YEAH! I think two wheels has the same feeling. ...And surfing as well. In my opinion crazy is a bit strong tho. If it was the adrenalin, I would say yeah Nutter! But I hate being scared or freaked out like say bungee or other xtreme activities. It's the escapism or spiritualism?... I don't know. Not Crazy tho. Crazy pilots don't live long and often take others with them. So anyone out there with a wild streak thinkin' Top Gun, "I feel the need..." Forget it! Go and get suited up for a jump. But if you're lookin for the same feeling as the early morning green room sessions or no traffic on the putty road. Well... Go and take that TIF! It's everything you thought it would be! :thumb_up: Ant

Mazda's point on see and avoid is definitly a key point. When it comes down to it your eyes have the last say on decission making. And people do strange things quite often. This morning as I ran through pre-start checks, a C152 "over-flew" YHOX at what looked like 500agl. then started low lev ccts. Cloud cover was around but not that bad... And a student chopper was in the area doing first solo as well. As I fired up the radio I realised he was quite good with radio calls. So not so bad, but I still lined up and climbed to 1000 then made a downwind call "downwind 16 1200 hoxton park". I think he followed after that. On a side point can someone tell me how to quote a section of a script(not the whole thing). :;)3:

Yeah, thats a good point. I suppose CASA needs to be seen to be making flying travel "safer". The only changes i've heard is an artical in Flying about prostate cancer recently. Stating that its no longer a flat cancelled medical if diagnosed. Its probably a good idea if everyone went for a class 2. Just to get a good check up.:ah_oh: Sorry guys...

I think casa's viewpoint seems to be as simple as less weight - less damage if things go pear shaped. That and we did call ourselves Australian Ultralight Federation in the early years. So you can't blame them for being confused. The point made earlier about safety advantages in higher MTOW is a strong one. I agree with the 750kg MTOW mainly because I fly light because its cheeper. I think a lot are the same. I got to first solo in a 152 aerobat before switching to RAA, and the stability of even that small amount extra weight was very reasuring in the early stages of training. (I imagine a 150 wouldn't be too different) The complexity of twins and IFR flight as well as the carriage of more than two POB are personally what I think warrants a move to a class 2 medical and extra training of PPL(+endorsments). Weight dosn't add compexity, it just changes your critical V speeds. I plan to get my ppl anyway when funds allow, mainly to get that stability in my flying again. It would be nice not to have to...

Ha.. Yes not great I guess. I started in 02 with Syd Jab (only some UAW), then moved to Port Macq and started GA training(only up to solo). I then moved back to Syd and continued up to Solo and some forced landing etc. I then messed myself up in a motorcycle acc. and hadn't flown 4 ages. Just picked it back up again now and getting ready for pre test. So years - yes. I know the school well. Training area - not so much. I still have to look quite hard for the chook sheds and brick pits. I just know that Camden is marked CTR and surrounded by a blue dashed circle on the VTC. Hence not gospel. But thanks for the info. Good forum.

Don't take this as gospel, but I'm pretty sure that because Camden is controlled, only GA operates out of it (for now). I fly at Hoxton. Have done for a few years. I find them great.;)