68volksy

The GFTC GA school shut down around 12 months ago now (just checked and the AOC has been removed from CASA's website also) so not sure how much they plan to make out of that... Wouldn't be surprised to see it rise again if a CFI comes by who's willing to take it all on. Based on what I've seen and heard RA-Aus must be supported for their actions in this case though. They gave them a very good run, almost 12 months to sort things out, and provided plenty of assistance. They did what they did only as a last resort it would seem.

Goulburn Aviation also has a Sportstar for hire (can't be too much different to the P96?) A student has recently turned up with a GA registered Tecnam and there's talk of it coming online also. I think it's a P92 though. I've been told by several people that GFTC is no more... If you're interested in RPL or PPL then I can highly recommend the Canberra Aero Club. They've got a nice 172 for $200 per hour wet based in Canberra (save $ in driving?) and are a great bunch of happy aviators.

Read the coroners report Yuri - it was the treatment of the engine by the aircraft's previous owner that seems the most likely cause of the crankshaft failure.

Certainly don't think that it's dying - just changing. People, generally due to a very limited amount of thought, often point to the reduction in the number of flying schools as an indicator of General Aviation dying. They never seem to consider the impact of the growth of the aviation academy, cadetships or university flying courses. The schools and some clubs have indeed been closing but this can be pretty much 100% attributed to the growth in the large "Academy" and the movement of almost all commercial training to these places. The schools used to all have a backbone of guys doing commercial courses and simply building hours but this is all done through an airline academy or university nowadays. Basically i think we've seen a big split in the industry so the small schools and aero clubs are seeming a little more lonely without the commercial hour builders. This has however allowed many schools and clubs to refocus on flying purely for fun. I think this will allow for a gradual growth in those interested in flying purely for fun over the next decade or so.

I think Forbes Flying Club have been running (or at least taking a fair bit of the burden off Council ) their local aerodrome for many years.

An instructor issuing an RPL is signing off that you are competent to fly all aircraft up to 1500kg max take-off weight. You would simply not be able to prove competency in this if you were flying a thruster. The instructor has a responsibility to assess competence and this could simply not be done if there was a big variation between the types. If you have a good history with that instructor and time in heavy aircraft under your belt it might be a different matter... Another consideration by the sound of it for those converting is the candidate proving competence with what maintenance is allowed to be done by the holder of an RPL and ensuring they understand the responsibilities they're accepting when they sign the maintenance release.

Not sure about the transfer of registration but you could certainly have built the aircraft under the SAAA as VH experimental and get full access to all GA priveleges if you also had RPL or PPL. And builders can still maintain their aircraft under VH experimental. Culture of SAAA is a little different also - they're very passionate about the building of aircraft. RAA also has to cover the "factory-built" pilots which have an entirely different set of wants and needs.

There are now 4 students at the Goulburn/Canberra school doing their RPL. Most are keeping their RA but with Canberra and Sydney so close and the comfort of heavier aircraft they seem to have simply thought "why not". At least 2 who were doing PPL have taken the drivers licence medical option and are going RPL. I'll be one more going down the RPL path as i've never bothered taking PPL test and with having passed my GFPT i'll get the RPL. Then I can go flying any day of the week in any GA aircraft I feel comfortable flying without needing to try and book the training aircraft on a day the instructor is working to sign me off (which is utterly impossible). 25 miles gets me a fair way on a nice day and the navs etc. can be ticked off over time. It's put a smile on my dial.

Absolutely devastating. Sounds like we've lost a true gentleman of aviation. Also sounds pretty certain that something truly catastrophic must have occurred to catch out a man such as GW... My thoughts go out to family and friends and the Moruya aviators.

How have others been faring with this blasted wind? It right picked up and threw around a 182 out at the airport last weekend. Had it doing pirouettes on its wingtip! Luckily an instructor and her student were nearby to play the good Samaritan and jump on a strut to stop it tumbling across the airfield. Looking at the forecast and the weather might be moving in again tomorrow...

I think most on this forum are trying to do their best. "the majority of us RAA people don't want the extra expense and are happy to increase our risk by a small amount to save money which is often the difference between flying or not flying" - that's exactly the point of RAA and i'm all for that. If everyone takes responsibility for their actions and any potential damage to the public is minimal then it's all systems go! The issue is when an RAA pilot puts a 14 year old into the seat beside them and it's only at the coroners inquest that the parents learn the pilot built and maintained the aircraft themselves with little to no oversight and the ill-fated passenger effectively signed away any and all rights to any form of compensation whatsoever when they boarded the aircraft...

Simple answer is no - 8000 RA-Aus pilots lives do not matter. It's a bit brutal but that was the whole purpose of RA-Aus when it was setup - that ultralight pilots would look after themselves, take responsibility for their actions and any possible harm to others would be minimal. Just because it's grown outside of its original purpose and now sees itself largely as a means to avoid CASA does not mean the entire world should bend to its will. I think the logical reason the ATSB will not touch many ultralight accidents in the near future is because the whole investigation would prove entirely useless. Look at the Sierra accident. The ATSB asked for training records -utterly lacking. They then asked for a copy of the pilots certificate - utterly lacking. Then they looked at the construction of the aircraft - once again utterly lacking. If RAA had kept its records in order, the training organisation had kept their records in order, the manufacturer had some quality controls in place and the maintainers had seen some apparently glaring issues then there would actually have been a paper trail for the investigators to follow. If you read the report - the only report the ATSB has actually done on a recent ultralight incident - along with the result of all the recent CASA audits and it's staring us all straight in the face (although most are too scared to admit it). The majority of RAA pilots/instructors/manufacturers and maintainers simply do not care. That along with the strong and vocal "anti-oversight" parade... That's why it's RPL for me - at least i know the school i train with will be thoroughly audited, the aircraft I fly are designed to high standards and well proven, they'll be maintained by qualified personnel and the whole lot of them will keep very thorough records. I'm all for those that want to do things differently but as a taxpayer I do not feel any obligation to pay for investigations into their misadventures.

This whole ATSB thing keeps coming up. If anyone wants the ATSB to investigate crashes then fly GA.

So sounds like some people are proposing that CASA give more money to RA-Aus? Looking at a simple logical progression: CASA has outright responsibility for Aviation Safety in Australia and is funded by the Government to do so. CASA has full rights to administer aviation safety as it sees fit within the confines of the various laws and regulations. CASA some years back is approached by a small organisation who proposes to CASA that it has the capacity to look after the safety of its members itself. Its operations are very simple and straightforward and any possible public harm is seen as absolutely minimal. CASA agrees to allow this organisation to operate and for many years things sail along smoothly. The organisation grows organically for some time but is then faced with a period of rapid growth built entirely on the ability of a new range of pseudo-GA aircraft. The organisation now sees itself as a true challenger for and an alternative to having to deal with CASA. BUT it is CASA's responsibility to administer aviation safety. The organisation is now wading into waters that are thoroughly patrolled by CASA. The organisation is demanding more money from CASA in order to support its operations as they have grown to such a significant size that funds from its own members cannot support it. BUT CASA has serious concerns about the organisation. The organisation has failed to do a great many things that it promised CASA it would do in order to properly administer Aviation Safety. SO CASA has lost its trust in the organisation being able to do what it says it will. CASA now finds itself obligated to spend a great deal of its staff's time and resources trying to sort out the organisation. This oversight appears to now be a constant requirement - resulting in the team that oversees the organisation growing in size and resources. So CASA is effectively already providing a great deal more funding to the organisation than it did all that time back. Now the organisation could ask CASA for more money. Many of the organisations members also appear to feel that the organisation is entitled to this money. But once again - it is CASA's responsibility to administer aviation safety and it has full authority to do so in whatever manner it sees fit. If/when the organisation asks for more money then CASA will have to sit down and decide where that money is going to come from. CASA is currently experiencing a tightening of its budget and staff cuts are taking place in some areas.CASA is already funded and has a staff of 702 people to administer aviation safety. It has all the staff, systems and resources it needs to fully administer RAA in-house. What would you do if you were in the CASA directors shoes and were asked for more money from this organisation? Would you take the ammunition already in reserve - there's more than enough to get the necessary political and public support - and shut down RAA althogether? Would you sack some staff (and incur substantial redundancy costs) in the CASA office to make more money funds available to RAA? Or would you perhaps move a few staff around within the CASA office and look at other options? It's not an easy question - does RAA really want to ask it?

When weighing up CASA costs versus RA don't forget to factor in the commercial side of things. Every GA school in the country has to renew their AOC every few years at a cost of $400-800. Then the instructors need to renew their licences every couple of years which is often with CASA staff at a cost of an extra $400-600. Basically they're charged $160 per hour that it takes a CASA officer to look over things or drive out to visit them. I would assume all the GA maintenance organisations and LAME's are the same. Interested to know the monetary contribution to RAA of those that make money from RAA? From what i can see there are a quite a few manufacturers/importers out there for one thing who've made a great deal of money for themselves from the existence of RAA...

Be very wary of the simulator training - the basic simulators anyway. Many instructors find that those who have spent time on flight sim actually take a lot longer to learn to simply fly the aircraft. Basically if they have a lot of time with simulators it takes a lot of time to get them in the habit of ignoring the instruments and simply looking out the window and flying the plane. I had a lot of trouble with this in the early stages and it wasn't until we did an hours circuits with the ASI, VSI and turn indicator covered up that i broke the habit!

Archer 3 would be my choice. You're smack in Bonanza and Cirrus territory also though. I think Mooney would be too much of a bitumen baby for some of those outback strips if you're touring.

The book says the hours count but your friend should remain very aware of what potential employers are looking for if he's going through to CPL and would like to get a job in aviation. Many GA employers will simply ignore RA hours. Same goes with parachuting hours. If he's after employment in charter, instructing or RPT then he'll basically be needing a good amount of navigational hours in GA aircraft. Any hours spent in RA are wasted dollars. Employers for these positions aren't looking for someone to fly an aircraft - pretty much anyone can do that. Employers (well ones you'd want on your resume anyway) are looking for experience with heavier aircraft, planning and executing a flight safely in accordance with all regulations, along with a mature, considered and safety-first approach.

You do get a lot of life out of a GA airframe though. Take the Warrior as an example - at 50,000 hours there is a mandatory wing spar inspection. Not a replacement - just an inspection! The cost comes down to finding a good LAME. There are plenty out there that will allow you to work on your own aircraft under their close supervision also. Take the wing walk repairs for example - a lot of the time in that is removing the old rivets and getting the old walk area out - something that most people would be able to handle doing themselves under a LAME's supervision. If the aircraft was RA registered the repairs would be either completely ignored or the job would be done by the owner. The whole argument about which is cheapest to maintain goes out the window if we start comparing paying a qualified LAME with doing the work yourself.

A very interesting discussion. I'd very much like to see some figures on depreciation of RAA aircraft. My feeling is if we put 5,000 hours on a 182 which already has 5,000 hours you'll still be able to sell it for the same price you bought it for. Be interested to know what a tecnam with 10,000 hours is selling for? Does the depreciation on the RAA airframe offest in any way the extra maintenance costs on the 182?

And the owner is out there actively photographing and notating whenever an ultralight aircraft uses the strip. One pilot on the weekend took off on 08 which was all fine however an hour later when they returned they were looking at a 15-knot blustery crosswind on 08 so chose to use 04. There were no other aircraft anywhere in the sky or taxiing and the pilot felt they it was a safer decision. Not long after one of the owners minions advised that they were under notice. Unfortunately Goulburn can be a very hostile environment unless you're renting the airport owners ultralights, jumping with his skydive operation or mowing his grass. If this flying thing wasn't so enjoyable most of us would have well and truly given up by now... On a positive note i'd recommend looking a little very closely at Canberra - especially with the RPL coming up. For $2,500 per annum you get parking, all landing fees and the wonderful little Gate 3 "Clubhouse" with toilets cleaned twice per week, tea/coffee facilities and a wide verandah with one of the best views in aviation today.

Attended all 3 days. As far as Fly-ins go it was one of the best you could ever attend. Great airport, great facilities, great food/coffee available from a couple of tents from the early hours well into the night and most of all a GREAT group of passionate aviators with which to swap stories and share in the whole aviation experience. Many seem to be commenting on it as an airshow and in that regard i certainly agree that attendance numbers were down and the exhibitors didn't have much new stuff to show. One thing though - the aerobatics shows were great. From where i sit Natfly is straddling the divide between airshow and fly-in. I think those that went expecting an airshow are probably right in feeling a little disappointed whereas those that were expecting a Fly-in seemed to have a great deal of fun and loved it.

I'm hoping the schools around the place will start looking at some of the very nice GA 2-seaters that are coming onto the market - the Diamond DA20 for instance. 138 knots, 20l/hour - even a rotax if you're keen. At $220k new not really much more than a Tecnam and with a proven record behind it in the US in a training environment. Even a few of the old 150/tomohawk's might start getting a clean-up. More bums on seats will help the bottom end of the GA market for sure. I don't think RA-Aus has anything to fear. They may lose a few members but at the absolute very worst the organisation will find themselves back where it all began - low, slow, and grinning like loonies...

Good on you TK! I've been to the last 3 Natfly's and must say that the layout of last years event was brilliant. Bringing it all together really created a much more festive atmosphere. Food was great. One thing i'd love to see more of is flying displays. Just simple things like the display aircraft popping out for a few circuits every now and again. Maybe the displayers could provide some commentary also? I also agree with the other suggestion to get a vintage car/motorcyle club or two along and on display as others have mentioned above. My last suggestion would be something for the kiddies!! A jumping castle (Jumping Beans in Wagga) and some rides maybe? Face painting? I noticed there were a few lost-looking kids and non-flying spouses wandering around each year and I think it would be nice to show we're thinking of them.

Just for information I know our flying school requires all RA-Aus aircraft to have $2 million public liability and we strongly suggest all aircraft are owned, operated and maintained by a company. This provides a level of cover to people injured and limits the liability of the owners. Insurance cost is around $2,600 per annum (with $60-80k hull coverage). All student pilots and instructors are then covered by RA-Aus for public liability purposes is my understanding. The school then holds its own Public Liability and hangerkeepers insurance on top of this. The GA aircraft have the same requirements however the Public Liability for them is included in the policy also - $500k -$1 million per seat. Cost is around $3k per annum for $70-80k hull cover. Also all owned and operated under company structure. The beauty of having a good accountant?