68volksy

The Hindenboob!

It's true I am talking more about the motivations behind bringing the case however I personally see the motivation for bringing a case as a very important part of the case itself. These cases are brought by someone who feels they (or the public) have been wronged by the system. My feeling is if they were to feel supported by the system then they would not bring such a case.

Absolutely right that the importer is not a defendant. Looking at the bigger picture i'm feeling that the plaintiff is simply looking for someone to do something. There seems to be no legal avenue (thanks to the way the legislation is drafted) to pursue the importer and no-one of authority has been seen to have done anything whatsoever about the actions of the importer or the findings of the coroner. The question in my mind is whether CASA/RA-Aus have willfully endangered the Australian public (or at the very least failed to properly educate them) through the creation of such an environment. If RA-Aus or CASA had sought to sanction (or at least investigate) the importer in some way over all of this then my guess is there would be no case currently being brought against them. The fact they've simply pointed to the "fly at own risk" sticker and walked away has made a lot of people very angry. Either way the fact this case is being brought is necessary for the RA-Aus fraternity in my view. The findings of the case will hopefully outline exactly what risks we are all taking on when we start that engine.

The other occupant was a pilot and owned his own sting aircraft - not the one that crashed. What I see as the true motivation behind these cases all comes down to the attitude of the aircraft importer during the coroners inquest and the findings of that inquest. Give it a read and you may find the motivation to fight this all the way to the highest court in the country. I personally am very proud that at least one member of our community is not taking these deaths and laying down. What's most curious is that RA-Aus and its members seem to be focusing all their anger towards the party bringing the case. The actions of the importer/manufacturer have been utterly ignored in absolutely every way. In my view it's them that RA-Aus and its members should be truly angry towards for bringing this all about! I'm not aware of even the most basic of sanctions or even audit activity following from the recommendations of the coroner. Those recommendations and the coroners findings are very strongly worded.

Remember that CASA and the pilot are involved also. At the top level it all seems to boil down to the passenger of the aircraft not being made aware of the risks involved with the aircraft. Basically whether or not the "Fly at own risk" sticker and all associated legislation actually satisfies the responsibilities of CASA/RA-Aus/RA-Aus Pilots to the general public. It's a good case and very interesting in my view. It really highlights the fact that flying and maintaining your own aircraft is one thing but putting someone else in it is another thing entirely. The importer seems simply to have been protected by the "Fly at own risk" portions of the legislation. Another area that could probably do with some amendments...

The best approach in my opinion is to fly with a few different instructors in the first few hours to get a feel for the one that you prefer. Then up until just after first solo stick with the same instructor if you can. If things aren't working or you're not learning at an appropriate pace a professional instructor will look for assistance from other instructors and maybe get you to do a lesson or two with others in case they're missing something. That's what you pay the instructors good money for. Then after first solo if you have the choice then fly a few hours with one or two highly experienced and mature instructors. They're all individuals and all will teach you to look at things a different way. I did half a dozen lessons with an older guy who had 30,000 hours on light aircraft under his belt. Whenever he touched the controls it really showed me just how nicely it was possible to fly an aircraft. He also had a very kind way of treating the Warrior that I think came from the 20,000-odd hours he had in Warriors and Archers.

I thought i did the Woodlawn mine flight in the Gazelle but it may have only ever been in the Warrior... Everyone raves about the Victor One flight!

Not necessarily picturesque (or very far) but I love flying over Woodlawn mine and the wind farm. Currandooley homestead is quite the manor and Lake George still has some water in it too...

Well the aircraft are certainly looking a little bit like GA aircraft... If we go back to rag and tube and max height of 500 feet i'm sure CASA would be happy to start looking the other way.

Love the Suunto watches. Got one with altimeter, compass and heaps of other crap. Well-priced too around the $200 bracket. Has a great big face with HUGE numbers on it so it's easy to read.

Sounds like Goulburn airport before one little girl Gazelle looked at the other little buy Gazelle with a glint in her eye! Welcome PA28. Or should that be P28A?

My only comment would be that RA is really only cheaper if you own and maintain your own aircraft. If you're not interested in buying your own aircraft and doing your own maintenance then you'll be stuck with hiring anyway. With an RA aircraft hiring can be an absolute minefield due to the massive variation in maintenance standards between all the organisations that hire aircraft. Basically they can write their own rules about most maintenance issues. You've got to consider all these things when making the decision and remember the "it's cheaper" statement comes with a massive caveat. If you can find yourself a nice little two-seat GA aircraft for a cheaper rate you'll be onto a winner in my view. You'll find plenty of 150's or Tomohawks out there for hire for $150 an hour or less. All with current maintenance releases and 40-50 years of proven reliability - something i personally value highly.

Well the airport fees for one of the local flying school's aircraft at Goulburn is currently up to $3800 for this financial year to date. Really gets my goat when just down the road at Canberra it's a $1200 flat rate... No toilet facilities (new owner locked them so he didn't have to clean them), no terminal building, no drinking water...

You're never too old!

It's just my impression but the pilots that have been trained in "crash" courses honestly believe they're the best pilots out there... Anyone who is looking purely at "how many hours to licence" or "how quick can I get my licence" should be treated with extreme caution. They're so blatantly out of touch with the world of aviation that they should probably be sat down and talked through it all over a few cups of tea. Avoid at all costs the schools that promote the "crash" courses in aviation! The only thing they're after is dollars. For me getting a licence is a by-product of simply enjoying flying, aircraft and sharing the passion with others of a similar mind. I have also learnt a great deal whilst right-seating with other pilots during fly-aways, day trips or local flights - an activity that is all too often forgotten at many schools.

Hi Ivan, That makes sense. Enjoy the Jabirus and best of luck with it all!

Hi Ivan, Welcome to the forum and glad to hear things are progressing nicely. From your picture it looks like you're flying a Gazelle down at Wollongong? Wasn't aware of anyone training in Gazelle's down that way -thought there were only Jabirus?

An alright way to build hours for free without a CPL is the good old jump plane pilot. Find a parachuting school with a decent reputation that's using some decent aircraft, hang around for long enough and you'll start building some good hours. Find a drop zone that uses constant speed props and 120-knot plus machines and the log book will start looking quite nice for a future employer. Because low-hour CPL pilots are a dime a dozen nowadays there's a lot to be said for getting to know a potential future employer also. Even if it means sweeping the floors at the local maintenance shop. A local year 12 student here spent some time sweeping floors at a local charter company maintenance shop and got himself some nice right-seat time ferrying Conquests/Titans/Metros to and from the maintenance location. Not sure if it went in the logbook but it shows that the idea can work.

No point trying to save money with the CPL stuff in my opinion. If you're looking for employment down the line with a charter company or GA flying school then don't waste any money whatsoever on RA hours as they are of no use to a future employer. I've talked to a few schools and charter companies around the place and they all pretty much ignore RA-Aus hours entirely. If you're looking at getting into the airlines then quit what you're doing and sign up for a cadetship with one of the airlines straightaway as that's the only way in nowadays. If you're looking to get a job with a charter company then you'll have no choice but to stump up some huge amounts of money getting your hours up in suitable aircraft. That or find a place that will let you sweep the floors in return for the odd right-seat flight ferrying aircraft or some such thing. Sorry that's all a bit blunt but i'm trying out the "tough love" approach to such things lately!

In my opinion Andy you're way off the mark in this post. The Sting had two pilots on board who were both highly qualified and who both owned and were experienced on Sting aircraft. The engine failure was a catastrophic failure that sent parts of the crankshaft through the crankcase, ripping pistons apart in the process. The field they chose is considered suitable for the situation by all who've seen it. It came out in the Coroners report that the maintenance records were at most farcical and Mr Coates is not painted in a pretty light in the report. I highly recommend a reading of the report by anyone looking to purchase an aircraft. It's evident to anyone who has actually read the reports and knew the quality of the pilots and their training that the engine failure must have caused other issues. They didn't just trip over a rock on landing or hit some trees - the crater from the impact tells the biggest story in my opinion. This would lead to the opinion that the engine failure or the manner in which it failed was a direct cause of the deaths. This is the only time such a failure has ever occurred with a Rotax engine. The records indicated only 450 hours on the engine however no reliance could be placed on that figure. The reasons for the engine failure will never truly be known as the maintenance records for the engine were almost entirely fictional. Two experienced guys with 60-odd years of flying experience between them could have made a simple error in the approach or flare but i honestly believe there was more going on. Do we need greater accountability or greater transparency in RA-Aus? Ten years too late is my answer but better late than never.

This rumour has been getting around a bit. CASA stand at Natfly was answering RPL questions almost non-stop for two full days and had this exact question several times (I was on the stand next door...). Drivers licence medical is nothing like a Class 2. A local DAME at Goulburn airport brought one out to show us all. It's a very short form where the doctor simply signs off that you are fit to drive a motor vehicle. There are a couple of extra requirements on there about a couple of specific things but basically you can be pretty happy that if you can drive to the airport you'll pass the drivers licence medical.

Howdy, The Gazelle was back up and running although the owner was still not 100% happy with how the undercarriage looks so it's getting a little bit more work done (I think him being quite fussy and paying close attention to such details is why Teraya has kept it online for so long!). She has a J170 and Sportstar online now too which are proving popular for use while people wait for the Gazelle to be back in perfect condition. Just took a momentary lapse for the guy with thousands of hours flying time to bend the legs - one can never be too careful i suppose... You didn't spend any time in the Vision did you? Old Keith's had it under covers for quite a few years but it's still in great nick.

Hi Jeff, A belated welcome to the forum. I fly with Teraya up at Goulburn - sounds like you may have done the same at some stage? Love to see some photos of the Zodiac build if you're passing through and feel like dropping into the school on a Saturday.

GA instructors generally have 200 hours at least for the CPL and then the instructor rating of 50 hours on top. You could theoretically do it all in 200 hours (with integrated CPL and straight into instructing) but most come out with at least 300 hours. They may not be better instructors but they're committed to a career in flying after parting with so much hard-earned. Trade-off is they should be more professional in their approach although that's not always the case nowadays as every kid that leaves school heads off to Uni and the ones doing flying at Uni are no different. I don't think a lot of them truly comprehend what they've committed to until their mid 20's when the path they've chosen starts to dawn on them...

You've probably hit the nail on the head there! I certainly wasn't trying to infer that we should be tending away from younger instructors. Simply that if any instructor is lacking in hours they should be making up for it in other ways (reputable instructor rating, good attitude and enthusiasm, not being a cowboy etc.). As for more money equaling better instructors refer my first sentence above. It's bleeding obvious that to attract a decent instructor (RA or GA) to Goulburn you've got to be offering $50-70 an hour. That makes sense in the GA spectrum as the GA students expect to and are happy to pay for quality. They will not pay for quality on the RA side though and whinge about costs going up $5. It's bloody hard to make a quid out of charging $170/hour for the Gazelle when $50-70 of it is going straight to an instructor. The school's been running a Gazelle for over 10 years and know exactly what they cost to run. The major difference between an RA only instructor and a GA instructor is the CPL the GA instructor holds and the 300 hours minimum time. But RA exists purely to make flying affordable so there's no option other than to accept lesser training standards and aircraft maintenance. Not a bad thing - just that there is an obvious trade-off.