Stearman

I agree. It is not good that incidents go unreported. I know of an incident where an aircraft caught & ripped off it's tailwheel on the top wire of a fence as it came in to land. I can't find a report of that on the RAAus site. I wonder if it was recorded in the aircraft maintenance log too?

Just wondering what people are using ( if anything ) to protect composite props from stone chips & general wear? I came across this on the Aircraft Spruce website - 3M ALUMINUM PROP TAPE - 2 WIDTH from Aircraft Spruce Has anyone used this? Is it any more durable than the polyurethane tapes like the one linked below which I have been using, it works OK but I would like something even more durable - 3M POLYURETHANE 8561 / 8562 PROP TAPE from Aircraft Spruce

From RAAus via e-mail today - Reactivation and Joining Fees From 1 March, membership renewals that have been overdue for more than 30 days will be subject to a reactivation fee of $22. RAAus incurs costs when a member joins or reactivates their membership, so rather than putting fees up, we have introduced a fee to cover the membership record setup or reactivation for new or expired members. Staying on top of your membership renewal will help you avoid this fee, if in doubt about the expiry date of your membership, simply log in to your member portal to access your membership summary and renew your membership instantly. Did you know that if you let your membership lapse for a month, you are no longer covered by our broad-based members third-party property policy? It's important that you ensure you stay current and by renewing your membership on time you won’t be exposed to any additional charges.

I am rather surprised there has not been more reaction to the fact not all our flying schools are being inspected. Sort of gotten lost in discussion of hours to train & what instruction cost. Just to chime in on that I know of schools regularly taking 60 hours to get a pilot certificate done. On the other hand an interstate friend had a school tell him they would have him solo in 5-6 hours.

Rod if you are looking for feedback on more than just Sport Pilot please see the thread "Safety & Training - RAAus are you listening?" in the General Discussion section of this forum.

In recent times RAAus have employed a person specialising in safety. This new position has come up with such gems as sending out Hi-Viz vests & key rings that remind us pilots to engage our minds before flight. Does it really take someone specialised in safety to come up with such an un-original idea as Hi-Viz vests? How many RAAus members have been killed or injured in the history of RAAus because they were not wearing a Hi-Viz vest? Obviously there is plenty of money to be spent on safety initiatives. Meanwhile our operations team either does not have the funding or time to get around to all our flying schools and conduct school inspections. How many of our members are aware that some of our schools are not being inspected, but instead are being requested to carry out a self assessment as per a mostly "tick & flick" questionnaire sent to them by RAAus? Meanwhile when Operations get word of a pilot who is getting it wrong, they send these pilots to a school ( not the one they trained with ) for "remedial" training. Surely it would be more effective to try to fix the problem at it's source, which disappointingly in many cases is the school they learnt with? It is extremely difficult to re-train a pilot. Sure while the problem pilot is with another instructor they will try to do the right thing, but either over time or under pressure, all too often they will return to "first taught". Sadly this can result in things going completely wrong resulting in serious injuries or even death. If RAAus really want to get serious about pilot safety we must start at the very beginning. Get our operations team the budget and staffing needed to conduct proper school inspections and checking of all instructors. RAAus needs to stop being a toothless tiger and allowing underperforming schools and instructors to continue to operate and turn out pilots not trained to the level they should be. Now before all the instructors out there jump on me, hear me out. I acknowledge that there are plenty of good instructors out there, however we need to address the fact there are some who are not up to the task. For example I know of a student that recently "completed" his training without ever completing a real stall. They simply raised the nose until the aircraft slowed to the point of the controls going sloppy then lowering the nose to regain speed and recover. As a second example, a few years ago I was has having a discussion with another instructor ( from a different school from the first example ) about engine failures after take off. This instructor made the comment "If I think the student can handle it I give them a few, but if I think it will scare them I don't do EFATO's at all". This means that the students who needed it most were not getting this vital training. These are only two examples of substandard training that I continue to hear of. Sadly there are no doubt many more taking place than what I hear about, I am only one person in one location. So how about it RAAus? Stop focusing our safety efforts on unoriginal, "warm & fuzzy" safety initiatives and get real about improving areas that will truly generate safer recreational pilots?

The max weight of an RAAus registered aircraft is not "purely an admin thing", it is a rule. This sort of attitude does nothing good for the RAAus movement. Also I hear plenty talk about the ability to fly at 700kg as a GA aircraft, not many mention that the increase in weight increases the stall speed. A dangerous trap for those who hear the aircraft can fly at 700kg & think they will bend the RAAus rules and load one up.

If a 50 nm flight at 50kts takes 1 hour which "include transport to field and setup etc prior to flight becomes a day", an extra 15 knots will mean your 60 minute flight becomes a 46 minute flight, not much difference to your day really. Not sure if you operate under RAAus or HGFA? I know in RAAus without a X-Country endorsement you can only fly 25nm, does HGFA allow you to do the 50nm flights without the endorsement?

It always amuses me when people talk about how much an RAAus registered J230 can carry. At an empty weight of 370kg ( without options ) you are only left with 230kg usable load. Full fuel is 135 litres which weighs about 95kg. If you & your passenger combined weigh any more than 135kg ( which would be a very common scenario ), you can't even fill up the tanks & that is with no baggage.

And just for good measure, I just received in the mail the rego card and in a seperate envelope an "Overdue Notice" dated the same day as the rego was processed. What a waste of time & resources!!! And my new rego runs out 51 weeks after it was issued. 51 weeks rego for the price of 52, now that's a good deal!?!?

The aircraft I have been refering to has now been registered, however on the paperwork accompanying the new reo it did not have the number of hours & landings updated although some other details have been updated. However I consider the following of much greater concern. On the cover letter that comes with the renewal papers for our rego the 5th paragraph reads......( bold & itallics added by me ) "Due to the nature of aviation and in order to enhance your safety, AUSAR ( Australian Search and Rescue ) have 'read only' access to our database to assist in their duties if one of our aircraft is reported overdue. Ensuring your aircraft details are up to date is of great importance. Of particular note is the colour of the aircraft and if the aircraft is fitted with an ELT ( Emergancy Locator Transmitter ) or BRS ( Ballistic Recovery System ) which is of concern to accident investigators and other emergency personnel first on the scene of an accident." Despite telling us how important this info is, even though a description and photos were provided with the initial registration, the colour description part of our "Databse Details for Aircraft" was left blank. If this aircraft had become the subject of a search outside of RAAus office hours, AUSAR could potentially not know the colour the aircraft they were searching for.

The aircraft being discussed here had the "Database Details for Aircraft" form fully completed when the renewal was submitted, including both changes to incorrect info in contradiction with the info supplied at the time of initial registration last year, and filling in blanks where the info was also provided at initial rego. Although not requested, photos of all rego markings and correct placarding were also supplied with the renewal in an attempt to prevent delays in case the photos supplied last year had been misplaced.

So did those aircraft get their regos renewed? If so what was the point of all the hold ups last year for those of us that do supply all the required info if regos were renewed for some that did not?

Maj, it was the tech staff who said they are running at 5 weeks. I don't doubt Darren is working hard to better this, but if they are running at a 5 week turnaround the renewal paperwork should be sent out 6 weeks before expiry not 4 as seems to the case at the moment. With less notice than the lead time every aircraft will spend some time grounded. I know of one case where a single aircraft school is now unable to operate due to rego delays. This particular aircraft was only first registered 1 year ago ( ie after the problems came to light and the auditing began ) so delays due auditing were not expected. The office was made aware a week before expiry of the circumstances of the school but it made no difference, rego expired and now a dozen students will miss flying this weekend. It is not a good thing to have to explain to these new members of our organisation why they are suffering this disruption to their training.

What I am saying is not guess work, read the incident & accident reports recently added to the RAAUs website & you will see there is no indication of poor maintenance featuring as a cause of accidents. I know you have copped a raw deal with what has happened with your aircraft, but work that shoddy is very much the exception not the rule. I think RAAus should be sorting bigger problems that affect many members before creating more paperwork for those of us who work to keep aircraft flying. This new process is purely paperwork and will not reveal any substandard work. Sounds like the guy who did such a bad job on your aircraft will still have plenty of work to record in a diary to prove he is current under this new system, thus proving the worthlessness of this system.