K-man

VFR doesn't mean fair-weather only.Perhaps the problem is lumping together 95.10 and 95.55.

Quite right, but if you read the post I was replying to you will see VFR in this case was referring to cloud.

RAAus needs to make CTA overhaul its highest priority...almost every time i fly north south or west from Port Macquarie CTA seriously jeopardises my safety....cloud on the ranges in this area is a serious regular concern and always forces me to compromise safety when CTa could easily allow extremely safe passage.

Ada Elle, your knowledge of the CAOs and air law is truly impressive, but they come with a sting in the tail. For example, you can apply for an exemption from the flight rules and under that provision, technically, DrZoos could apply to CASA to transit CTA on a particular flight. You must apply 28 days before the flight and 'show them the money'. Only time we did that was several years back and the fee was $180, from memory, non-refundable if permission was not granted.

However, perhaps instead of VFR, I should have written VMC.

 

 

RAAus needs to make CTA overhaul its highest priority...almost every time i fly north south or west from Port Macquarie CTA seriously jeopardises my safety....cloud on the ranges in this area is a serious regular concern and always forces me to compromise safety when CTa could easily allow extremely safe passage.I know some will jump on this and say you can and should request clearance...but the reality is we dont, we take risks we shouldnt need to...for me as an RAAus pilot CTA is the biggest obvious risk i encounter on a regular basis. And yet it is one imposed on me by the safety administrator...

I agree with the sentiment but the reality is a little different. Certainly you can ask for and be given CTA clearance. However that does not make it legal. You may be able to argue the case once in terms of your safety in an emergency, but the fact remains, we are VFR pilots and if the conditions are bad, we shouldn't be flying. We do now at least have the option of getting an RPL and flying legally in CTA but I agree totally that RAA should be pushing for its own CTA endorsement.

It is a sad fact that several years ago, when it looked as if we would have a CTA endorsement for RA, we had a small vocal group within RA fighting against us. I reckon it was their lobbying that turned McCormack against the proposal, but that is just my gut feel from comments passed at time. If we want an RA endorsement for CTA we must produce a united front to put pressure on CASA.

 

 

No, there were variously amended versions of the CAOs which referred to Part 5 licenses (which a RPL is not) vs Part 61 licenses.The air law is all very confusing.

You are talking in riddles. Exactly what was illegal?

 

 

Were you flying illegally before 13 August? given that you had a Part 61 license, not a Part 5 license, and the CAOs allowing you to fly into CTA on a 95.55 aircraft required a Part 5 license?This is the sort of ridiculous air law stuff that I'm talking about.

I'm not sure who you are asking with this post but seeing it follows our conversation I will assume it is me. Why would I have been flying illegally before August 13 (assuming 2014)? I had never flown in CTA or into a controlled airport prior to my RPL training.

 

 

There's a flying school at YMMB that has Foxbat LSAs.I can think of a good reason - RA instructors don't go into CTA that frequently, and don't necessarily have a solid knowledge of air law. Requiring the training to be done by CPL instructors (not necessarily part of a Part 141 operation) would be reasonable, I think.

Well, when I rang Soar they certainly didn't offer a foxbat. They had a Warrior or a Cessna. I think at the time they had been using Jabs but couldn't continue to use them for training for obvious reasons. So, if they have a VH registered Foxbat, cool. I just can't find it on their list of aircraft.

As to the comment about RA instructors and controlled airspace ... sorry I have to take exception to your comment. Most RA instructors I have come across are highly trained, many CPLs and one in particular who actually does the ratings for airline pilots in another life. I am of the belief that if a person is piloting a plane anywhere in Australia, he/she must be as competent as the next person whether they hold a RPC, RPL, PPL or CPL. I have had people dump or RA pilots for years as having a lessor degree of knowledge or skill and I don't believe that to be true. There are different levels of experience but everyone needs the same basic knowledge and understanding to fly safely whether that be in controlled airspace or other.

 

 

There's a GA/RA school at Bankstown that has Foxbats - one VH, one 24. I don't know which aircraft students take ab initio, but the charges on the website are the same for both aircraft. You would presume that students would get CTX training with every flight. Does that mean that a student who had the 24 aircraft every time would need to re-do all the training in the VH aircraft?Doing the last part of the endorsement in a VH aircraft might be compulsory, but I don't think there's a requirement that every trip to controlled airspace has to be in a VH aircraft.

What you are saying is correct. However, regardless of the aircraft registration, it still costs a lot to get the licence and the endorsements. There will be exceptions like you are describing but I checked out six flying schools around Melbourne and none had an LSA registered GA. it was either a Warrior or a Cessna so I had to learn to fly another aircraft for no good reason and part with about $3000. If RA had the authority to issue CTA/CTX endorsements it would have cost less than $1000 and at the end of the exercise the plane I will be flying into CTA is my RA aircraft.

 

 

Is there a problem, in a dual RA/GA school, with doing the training portions of the RPL in your own aircraft? (other than the actual instrument flight portions)

That's up to the school. I did the instrument flying in my aircraft and two of the flights into Moorabin and Essendon in it as well. However, not all RA pilots own their own aircraft and, even if they do, if it is powered by a Jab motor it isn't going to happen.

 

Secondly, there shouldn't be a flight test for the RPL.

Converting from RA to RPL there is no flight test to get the actual bit of paper. Just the piece of paper is useless until you do the flight test.

 

Thirdly, you don't necessarily need to go into controlled airspace on the flight review. The flight review may test navigation etc, but nothing stops you from getting your controlled airspace endorsement after flight review. An instructor needs to sign that you have received training on form 61-1RE.

I think you are missing the point. Going into a controlled airport on your flight review can give you the endorsements. In reality there is very little advantage in getting an RPL after your RPC unless you need CTA. My arguement is that it should be available through RA, even if you have to jump through hoops.

 

Fourthly, most schools charge a lot more for training in your own aircraft than for training in one of theirs. At the GA school I've been training at (which has a PiperSport) I wouldn't be able to hire an aircraft and ask to be trained in it cheaper than training in the PiperSport.

That wasn't exactly what I had in mind. If you owned the PiperSport it would be cheaper to fly it than the cost of using the flying school aircraft.

 

So, without taking any shortcuts, you could (in Sydney):- have 1 hour in a sim

- fly for 1.5 hours in a VH registered Jabiru, Foxbat, or PiperSport (available at YSBK/YSCN)

 

- fly for 1.5 hours in an AFR

 

- then go to a combined RA/GA school and ask to do CTA/CTX in your own aircraft (say at YMND).

Um! Not what CASA told me. The endorsement is a GA endorsement and had to be completed in a VH aircraft.

 

Not RPL medical. The drivers license standard for RAAus/GFA/etc.Under the drivers license standard, you're allowed to drive two weeks after a heart attack. The CASA standard is six months.

 

A long time ago I looked after a flight instructor with a broken toe. He asked me how long to be grounded for. At this stage I had very little experience with aviation, so I said for him to ask his DAME; the DAME called me, and we agreed upon 'until it was healed', which is usually 4 weeks. That's twice as long, for a broken toe, as someone who has had a heart attack in the RAA system.

Seems to work OK overseas."The Sport Pilot certificate was created in September 2004 after years of work by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). The intent of the new rule was to lower the barriers of entry into aviation and make flying more affordable and accessible.

 

 

 

The new rule also created the Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category of aircraft, which are smaller, lower-powered aircraft. The sport pilot certificate offers limited privileges mainly for recreational use. It is the only powered aircraft certificate that does not require a medical certificate; a valid vehicle driver's license can be used as proof of medical competence provided the prospective pilot was not rejected for their last Airman Medical Certificate." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_certification_in_the_United_States

 

The endorsements for controlled airspace etc are extra, but still no medical.

 

I think it might have been the UK guys questioning the need for a formal medical for recreational flying.

 

Why is the cost of a DAME medical exorbitant? You're asking a highly trained professional to use their professional judgment.

The same GP does virtually the same medical taking the same time whether it is RPL or Class 2. Are you really saying that he is exercising professional judgement in one but not the other to justify the extra $150?

As mentioned earlier, CTA privileges are already provided to RAAus students under an exemption at the old GAAP airports (now modified Class D). Gliding Australia (formerly the GFA) enjoy Class C and D access, their pilots operate on the same basis as RAAus- a certificate issued by their RAAO and a self assessed medical. Camden is a good example of this.A properly prepared submission to CASA, highlighting the discriminatory application of restrictions to airspace use, should see at least Class D access.

I know an individual has already raised this with CASA resulting in it being referred to their legal office for consideration, but a lone voice is unlikely to make any ground. This would need a higher profile push to succeed.

Agreed. And just where is the logic that a student is deemed safe to fly in that environment but once they are given their flying certificate they are no longer deemed competent to fly there? Apart from that, the difference in flying class D and class C is minuscule. Like many areas, this is another example of politics getting in the way of common sense.

 

 

A bare minimum RPL should run at <$1k (2.5 hours of dual flight time + AFR). If you fly a type which is VH-registrable there are no familiarisation costs. The trips to CTA for endorsement purposes may be fairly expensive, depending on where you are.

I would suggest this synopsis is optimistic. Bearing in mind, very few people are going to want an RPL without CTA and CTX endorsement. I fly an aircraft that is VH registrable but that doesn't mean there are any available in flying schools that are registered VH. That means flying an unfamiliar aircraft, that might be similar in characteristics although double the weight, into and out of controlled airspace and controlled airports. I would suggest that two hours is closer to the minimum there just learning to fly the aircraft competently. Then you have two hours of instrument flying. For the flight test you have to demonstrate that you can safely fly into controlled airspace without the help of the examiner so in my case I flew into and out of Moorabbin (class D) numerous times and Essendon (class C) once, with an instructor, getting taxi clearance etc. From memory, that was about 2.5 hours alone. Flight review, another 1.5 hours with flight into and out of two controlled airports and being cleared from tower airspace to controlled airspace and requesting altitude change. That is eight hours and I can't see anyone getting away with much less unless there are corners being cut. If that happens and standards aren't being enforced then the RPL will have the same criticism heaped on it that we have now with our RPC.

 

Basically, I don't see how RAAus training, by equivalently qualified instructors (ie CPLs, ideally CPLs who teach CPLs) would be much cheaper than getting an RPL.

Well, for starters, we could do it in our own aircraft which is the same aircraft we will be flying into and out of controlled airports and airspace anyway. Apart from that, normally RA aircraft are cheaper to hire than GA aircraft and there is no familiarisation. I reckon I would have saved well over $1k if I had been able to fly my own aircraft throughout the conversion.

 

As for the medical issue: I think that the private drivers license medical standard is potentially too lax, especially in CTA where you might be causing millions of dollars of delays by calling a medical mayday in certain spots. I also know that I've advised patients not to drive, and they have driven anyhow.I think what we need is a DAME administered third class medical, with clear standards.

I don't understand what in the 'driver's licence medical' is lax. The same things will disqualify you for the RPL medical as the class 2. As to the medical maydays ... just how often does that occur and why would having a different medical make any difference? A class 2 medical doesn't prevent heart attack or stroke. If I recall correctly that is an issue in the U.S. presently where they are looking at reducing the medical requirements. My wife's last DAME medical was nearly twice the price of mine and I thought the cost of my RPL medical was exhorbitant.

 

 

I would run mogas if it were more dependable.

What's the problem with Mogas? We use Mogas as our preferred option and only use Avgas when Mogas is unavailable. We use a very good filter funnel but have never had a tank of bad fuel, and that includes a lot of outback flying.

I would run mogas if it were more dependable.

What's the problem with Mogas? We use Mogas as our preferred option and only use Avgas when Mogas is unavailable. We use a very good filter funnel but have never had a tank of bad fuel, and that includes a lot of outback flying.

Landing fees vary from place to place. Most of the smaller strips don't charge landing fees. Some places have an honesty box where you can put the money in an envelope and place it in the box, some you just pay at the desk. Many of the bigger strips send a charge based on your rego but because RA don't give out private details you won't be billed even if you offer to pay at the desk.

 

As to calling ahead for smaller strips or PPR strips, it is just common sense and courtesy. Asking about landing fees is only a small part of calling ahead. What you are calling for information on the condition of the strip and the owner's permission to land there.

 

 

Sounds like a great trip. I'm not sure about the 'glide free' bit as that's not such an issue for me. Having a quick look on Google Earth I suspect it's not a great issue with the route you have outlined. Keep coastal along the bay until you pass Mt Eliza before cutting across to Tyabb. We've flown coastal to SA from Melbourne maybe half a dozen times. It's a beautiful flight on a good day. You are right that there aren't many safe landing options along the way to Port Campbell but it's not a long flight from Torquay, about 85 miles. You can refuel at Warnambool, Mt Gambia, Aldinga etc if you need to on your way back. Remember to check the 'fly neighbourly' information for the Apostles area.

 

 

Not a situation I relish. We had a cross wind like that at Tooradin a week back and after one half hearted attempt at 22 I changed to the short dirt strip into wind. No point in proving a point and maybe damaging the aircraft. As to training for them, yes, I have flown in a cross wind intentionally to get some practice. From my perspective in a strong crosswind crabbing and straightening as you touch down is not an option, especially on a bitumen strip. I prefer coming in straight with the wing down into the wind, flap-less and extra speed to aid the landing and, for me, the wind needs to be from the right, even if that means a slight tail wind component.

 

However, this is hypothetical answer. If I have done my flight planning properly I won't be in the situation where I have to raise my stress levels.

 

 

There part of that new channel 9 show hot plate, was a heap of film crew there a few weeks back.

Yes. We didn't know anything about that before we arrived and saw the show poster on the wall. I wasn't going to watch 'Hot Plate', having watched so many other cooking shows recently, but I went home and watched on "9jumpin". It will be interesting to see how they go. Nols just might have to get used to the idea of spicing up her food a bit.

 

 

See, thats what I had issues with.. I did as part of my Flight Review a flight into CTA from Archerfield (Class D) to Goldie (Class C), and likewise I did a transit flight on the way back from LismoreThe problem came up when you read the form for the endorsement it says "Pass in the aeronautical knowledge examination for the endorsement". CASA indicated to me that the only way to meet that requirement was for a pass in the PPL exam.. which i think is ridiculous.

I was granted my CTR, just not CTA

I can't find the appropriate form that was submitted but, from memory, I'm pretty sure that the forms cover a number of possible endorsements and one of the boxes to be ticked was that the appropriate examination was conducted or that an examination was not applicable.

 

 

So what is interesting is at the moment I dont seem to be able to find a Flight School that will sign off on a CTA endorsement for a RPL. Ive been constantly told that there is no "exam" you can do to meet the knowledge requirement for them to sign off on the paperwork to get a CTA endorsement. I even had one of the licensing guys from CASA confirm this. Have other people managed to get a CTA endo on their RPL? In Brisbane?

There is no 'exam' as such. It is purely a flight test. For me, I had to fly into Moorabbin (class D), from there to Essendon (class C) and depart into Melbourne Centre controlled airspace (class C). That gave me CTA. At Moorabbin and Essendon I had to land, request taxi clearances and demonstrate that I understood all the requirements of a controlled airport to get the CTX. Basically I had to demonstrate that I could do all that was required in the 'Visual Pilot Guide' for the Melbourne Basin, put out by Air Services.

 

Brisbane has a similar publication ... https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/pilots/download/archer/archer.pdf

 

 

Legislation is easier to follow if you look at it with a view of understanding the "intent" of the legislation as opposed to finding a loop-hole in order go against the intent.There is always plenty of "opinion" about but in the end it is "your" money/licence involved. Tread carefully.

The intent of the direction on radio calls at uncontrolled airports was to reduce radio traffic. At busy uncontrolled airports, especially those used for training, it isn't mandatory to call final. I would suggest that does nothing but reduce safety. The fact that the regulation goes on to state that you should use radio calls at other times when necessary makes a mockery of the regulation in the first place.

The intent of the regulation regarding radio calls at airstrips which are not shown on the maps was to clarify the situation (ie area frequency instead of 126.7) but it is at odds with what most people would call common sense. Now instead of discreet calls at out of the way fields we should be broadcasting on centre frequency, adding more radio congestion, even if that strip is within the area of a CTAF and other local traffic are using the local frequency.

 

Nothing there to do with loop-holes. Just regulations that haven't been properly thought through that can now lead to confusion and increased work load.

 

 

AldoI think the messy part simply highlights how little a lot of the posters on here actually know. (Or should I say how different peoples understanding of what they know can be). Not that I profess to know a lot more but to get so many differing opinions on such a trivial matter highlights

 

1. The gaps in a lot of the training.

 

2. The difficulties in understanding the regulations.

 

3. The passion that everyone tends to show when they think they are right.

Is that really the case? Most gaps in training are pretty obvious unless you avoid mixing with other pilots or students. Even though I didn't sit a PPL exam, I still read the PPL training books. How many people if they recognised a gap in their training would ignore it?

Regulations? It's not hard to understand regulations. The difficulty arises when there are conflicting regulations and herein lies the problem from my point of view. Every time a problem or potential problem is encountered some one writes a new regulation to cover their arse. As a result we have a plethora of regulations that do not mesh seamlessly but instead can cause confusion.

 

The passion people tend to show is maybe a tad of exaggeration. I would suggest that it is more an attempt to clarify an anomaly rather than a position set in stone. Any legal document if not framed correctly is hotly debated by solicitors. Why should we as pilots be any different when we look at poorly framed regulations? Then, of course, you have the situation where regulations have changed and not everyone is current with those changes.

 

There's a lot of discussion on regulatory confusion on other forums as well.

 

 

Today, lunch at Wings and Fins at Tooradin. Always a great excuse to go for a quick fly even though it's only 15 minutes from home. Boy, were they busy. Normally we visit during the week so it was interesting to see how many people visit at the weekend. I can highly recommend the seafood chowder.

 

 

Walk into a flying school and ask if something is allowed under the regulations and it is rare that anyone will actually get them out and read them - you're more likely to get an informal vote amongst the flying instructors about what they reckon. "3 out of 5 flying instructors reckon..." isn't much of a way to regulate aviation, but it's how it works...

Which is why we are probably being over regulated and possibly under trained. One classic case is my under hood training for my RPL. To save a few dollars ($100s) I asked if I could do it in my plane rather than a GA one especially seeing that if I ever need to rely on that training it will be in that aircraft. All the instructors initially told me I couldn't as apparently someone had spoken to RA and been told RA instructors couldn't supervise that training, (which I though was interesting seeing that all they are doing is giving instructions and keeping a lookout for other flying objects). So, I got on to RA and it was not a problem from their point of view to undertake the training in an RA aircraft. I got on to CASA and there was nothing in their regulations to say it had to be undertaken in a GA aircraft as long as there was a logbook entry to support the application. Final outcome, I did the training in my RA aircraft with an instructor qualified from both RA and GA. But the question is why was it even an issue in the first place?

 

 

There will always be crashes but if we are serious about reducing the fatality rate rather than just the crash rate then I think it would be worth developing a database about crashed airframes with a view to providing each type with an occupant protection rating.

I would agree but I think it needs to go way beyond just the airframe. It is virtually impossible to ascertain the cause of RAA fatalities due to the way they are reported. Apparently there is a difference (legally) between the type of information RAA can publish to the information CASA can publish. I tried to go through the 30 fatalities of the past 30 months but could only find about half reported. How anyone thinks you can do something to reduce fatalities when we don't know the cause of the fatalities is beyond my comprehension. I assume that RAA doesn't have the financial resources to undertake a really detailed analysis but even an informed opinion would be better than we have now.

One accident, not RA, where a friend lost his life will probably be put down as pilot error leading to a stall. From the eye witness accounts I would think there is a real possibility that the was an underlying medical issue leading to the point where the stall occurred.

 

My 2c worth - when sitting around the chat table in the clubroom I've sometimes had to bite my tongue when hearing some of the quite fantastic things some of our fellow flyers come out with. They might be a small minority but their complete lack of understanding of some basic principles astounds me. One of my favourites came from a long-time flyer who not long afterward gained his instructor certificate - "a stall happens when you run out of wind" ...I knew of a couple of fellas who owned an HP LSA and travelled a long way to do their BFR with an old mate who taught in a LP machine because he would expect them to be unfamiliar with the plane and go easier on them. They never saw their BFR as a great opportunity to learn more, it was just an imposition that had to be dealt with every so often.

 

Although there is a choice of local schools with very competent instructors, others get half a dozen people together and bring a distant instructor to put them all through in a single day, or more like a half a day. They openly admit that they did it to limit the real time the instructor would have to spend with each of them, he would just rattle through them a hundred bucks a pop, rubber stamp in hand.

 

In RAA I've never heard of anyone actually failing a BFR, does anyone else know of someone who did? The nearest I came to hearing of one was that an instructor recommended the pilot take some extra training. They still passed him and he didn't take the extra training, in fact he was so offended he made a point of finding a different instructor for the next BFR - that was when I met this fella. When he told me the story - his comment was that he hoped the 'new instructor' wasn't so finnicky ...

I don't think there is any single thing that can reduce either the number of crashes or the outcome, short of stopping flying. In the post above it was mentioned that certain pilots went out of their way to avoid a thorough BFR. I feel there are two sides to this situation. Take someone flying regularly around the country, using different strips, maybe even CTX. Look at the log book. A BFR is just going to confirm that that pilot is able to fly competently. Maybe for that pilot the time could be better spent on a simulator or even just discussing safety issues and 'what ifs'. For someone who flys once every month or so and never ventures far from home, maybe a flight test is more appropriate but it still needs to be combined with general discussion. What would you do with an engine fire? What if it was in the cockpit? What if the engine suddenly starts to run roughly? What are the possible causes? Are there times when you might consider taking off/landing with a tail wind? I would hazard a guess that the adverse conditions or the majority of problems causing potential accident or death are not likely to be present at the time of a BFR.

 

If a pilot fails to demonstrate competency, why would an instructor sign him/her off? I'm not talking of minor slip ups due to the mental pressure of the flight review. I'm talking of situations where there have been glaringly obvious flaws in knowledge or ability. I have never come across an instructor who would do that, RA or GA.

 

 

Geez I'm starting to wonder. The rate of attrition just marches along steadily. Obviously it is too high but pinning the precise cause is not ever easy. In flight camera's would help a lot, but I'm not one to mandate much. Nev

Mandatory 'black box'? Only an additional 20kg and everything's there.

(Please don't take me seriously.)

 

 

With competency based training there is no incentive for schools to try and achieve excellence. The schools want to push pilots through the system as quickly and as cheaply as possible which means getting to the lowest standard possible to qualify as pilots.

Is this really the case? Most training is based on competencies. How you assess the competency is another thing. I spent a number of years as an examiner of health care professionals. We examined in pairs and had to agree that a candidate was competent before they were allowed to practise. Many times the decision was clear cut, one way or the other, but a lot of candidates were around the middle. Toss a coin? Pilot training is no different. You don't score marks for checking the plane, you don't score marks for taxing and you don't score marks for general airmanship. At the end of the day it is the value judgement by the instructor as to whether you have the required competencies. There are mandatory numbers of hours before a licence is issued. I think that over those hours there is more than enough time for an instructor to rate the competency.Now, as to schools pushing students through to reduce costs ... hmm! I might have thought the opposite might have been the case, but I'm probably a cynic. I cannot agree that completing a flying course in the shortest time gives the lowest standard possible to qualify as a pilot. The length of the instruction time has been determined as sufficient by whoever sets those standards. If it's not then it may need to be increased but I don't believe that to be the case at all. As in all fields, some people learn faster than others and some people have more natural ability than others. No amount of legislation or regulation will change that.

 

Flight planning is a core competency that seems to be lacking with RAA pilots. To me it appears like the competency based training assesses the individual components of flying but not putting the whole thing together as a pilot in a marginal situation where competency is critical.

I don't believe this for an instant. Flight planning was a big part of my training. It was no different to the ppl training and why should it have been any different? That flight planning has got us around Australia nearly once a year for the past eight years. Each time we have been accompanied by other aircraft, GA and RA, and the only difference to my eye was experience, not competency. Put any pilot into a marginal situation and I'll go for the experience, but that is something you get over time, not something you can regulate.

 

So, you're saying the we should just accept that a death every month is normal for the RAA?

I really don't understand why we have this sudden horrendous rise in fatalities. It's a bit like global warming. We know it's happening, we're not 100% sure of the causes and we can't agree on what to do about it. Whatever the cause of the increased light aircraft fatalities, I'm not convinced adding more regulations will fix it, although increasing regulations may allow some people to cover their butts.

I have found out who this poor soul was. He was a personal friend of a personal friend of mine. I have not met him but I know who he is, he was only 54 years of age. He is well respected in the motorsport field and was a very experienced GA pilot who flew his GA aircraft weekly between his very large rural holdings. Very sad, it is said it was his first flight in his new RAA registered Cub.A tragic outcome to what should have been years more of enjoyable flying.

I think this is what you might be referring to ...

http://www.speedcafe.com/2015/07/29/tcm-racer-bill-pye-killed-in-plane-crash/

 

Tragic.