K-man

I don't have an issue with the IF training. I have said elsewhere that I think it should be a requirement for RA if you are flying cross country. I hadn't even considered that before I read the requirement. Learning the new aircraft was 2 hours, so about $650 from memory. I have to disagree with your thoughts on doing away with the RPC. If we want to keep recreational flying affordable we should be working towards making the RPC as good or better than the RPL. We all share the same airspace so we all should be competent. It used to annoy the crap out of me when some PPLs used to suggest my certificate was second rate. I had my RPC because it was sufficient for my needs, not because I wasn't good enough to earn a PPL. I still think that we should have the opportunity to have the CTA and CTX endorsements under RAA.

Actually, that is what was originally meant to happen. For RA pilots we were meant to apply for and receive our RPL. To use it was a whole lot more. You do need a valid medical. Then you need to do a flight review in a GA aircraft. The English language test is just crazy, having to interpret some guy impersonating a foreign pilot who is attempting to speak English. Then it gets more confusing. I have flown our aircraft (RA) all around Australia with my RPC without any instrument flying but with my RPL to fly the same aircraft around Australia, I have to do 2 hours instrument flying to activate the Nav endorsement. How does that work when all endorsements were meant to carry over? The simple 'apply for the RPL then undertake a flight review' ended up costing me more than $3,000 (including CTA and CTX).

Hmm! They're only little crosses. Who's going to notice a little plane? (just kidding)

It is a Sonex. http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/geelong/lethbridge-plane-crash-man-dead-after-heavy-landing/story-fnjuhovy-1227433595983

Well, for starters, over 42% of the population have used illicit drugs. Of course there's nothing wrong with that. We all know that drugs don't cause harm to most people so no problem there. And of course speed limits are for the guidance of wise men and obedience of fools. Speeding isn't an issue for people who know how to drive properly. How many people have a criminal history? That comes from breaking rules. Drinking and driving? Driving unlicensed? I'd say a big percentage of Australians have quite an aversion to 'rules'. Now, how much does that translate to flying? I would hope that pilots have a totally different attitude but like most of us, I have seen my share of cowboys. Maybe we do have a good overall safety record but if that is true why is this thread in existence? 35 deaths in 30 months! I don't think it is acceptable and I think we will see a massive knee jerk reaction if it continues. That could find all of us using our legs instead of our wings if the action against Jabiru is any measure.

Phil, my observation was not aimed specifically at Australian pilots. It was aimed at Australians in general where we have a reputation for being just a little lax when it comes to rules. I was surmising that a small number of Aussie pilots might carry that attitude into the air where they may well be putting theirs hands up to receive a 'Darwin Award' in recognition of their aeronautical feats.

Geoff, I just hope that if I ever have a similar experience, I have the same presence of mind that you demonstrated. Well done.

Australians are not particularly renown for obeying the rules. It would be interesting to go through the coronial reports to see the actual cause of the crashes. Then you could see whether there were issues with aircraft or issues with pilots. My bet is at least 95% would be pilot error. I went looking at press reports and found this to do with one of the crashes. The pilot had his licence for about two months but a friend described him as a 'good pilot'. He hit powerlines after flying low over a friends house. What 'good pilot' does that? I don't think there is much you can do to convince young bulletproof guys that they are not bulletproof. We have the 'human factors' course, but really, what does it achieve apart from trying to point out to people that things go pear shape very quickly if you aren't on top of your game? The adage of the old pilots or bold pilots but no old, bold pilots is particularly apt. I don't see flying as such to be terribly risky. I think it is most likely people flying outside the envelope are responsible for most of the incidents.

I reckon wearing trousers is far more dangerous than flying. So many people found dead wearing pants.

Technically true but this thread is about converting your RPC to the RPL. In converting all your RA endorsements originally they were simply to be recognised. Now that has changed and you have to do the extra work to enjoy the same privileges. So much for a straight conversion of RPC to RPL. But following on from that. How can anyone sign off your cross country endorsement on your flight review if you haven't got the two hours of instrument flying? The way I read it, you can either transfer your RA endosements across with the additional training or you have to undertake the entire endorsement process from scratch to add to the RPL. That would mean redoing all your cross country time. So yes, you don't need the 2 hours up front but, unless someone is fudging your application, that will cost you an extra 5 hours flying. The only additional endorsements I want is CTA and CTX. That will end up taking 3 or 4 hours. Altogether this conversion will have taken me about 10 flying hours.

Unfortunately not the case. Again, unfortunately, not this simple.Just revisiting these posts because CASA moved the goal posts. Initially the deal was RA pilots could simply apply for a RPL. The catch is that before you can apply for the RPL you need the medical and the ASIC (or application) and before you can use the RPL you have to undertake a flight review in a GA aircraft. Most RA pilots have never flown a GA aircraft so it can be a bit of a steep learning curve there. Then when you get the paperwork there is a little sting in the tail. In applying for your RPL you have to declare your flying hours, including at least two hours instrument flying. Most RA pilots will not have done that as it is not a requirement for RA. Another little bite is the 'English Language' test where you have to demonstrate that you can understand foreign pilots attempting to speak English, and pay for that privilege. No mention was ever made of that in the past. Applying for an ASIC is best done through CASA as the application alone is sufficient in the RPL application process. I made the mistake of applying through RAA and had to wait a month for the actual ASIC to arrive so I could include a copy of the issued ASIC. I am now into my fifth week of waiting to obtain my RPL paperwork back from CASA. I feel sorry for those poor buggers. They must be totally run off their feet. Fortunately I have no pressing need as I can continue to fly on my RA licence.

I would be interested to see where you got this information. There is nothing in writing I could find that says this and Casa confirmed to me that this isn't the case. I also checked it with RAA. In the absence of information to the contrary you can do your under the hood training in any aircraft as long as the instructor is certified to supervise that training. RAA doesn't have instrument flying so RA instructors cannot sign off on instruments, but there are many instructors who are rated for both RA and GA. One of those instructors can sign you off in an RA aircraft. Same goes for controlled airspace. To be signed off for the RPL controlled airspace and airport endorsements you need to fly a GA aircraft into and out of controlled airspace but if you are flying in and out training you can fly an RAA aircraft. I think the committee that designed the RPL were descendants of the guys who designed the camel. There's a lot about it that just doesn't make any sense at all.

Nice aircraft but with me and my wife and enough gear for a weekend away there is no room for any fuel. Another weekend stuck at home.

There is a significant price advantage to doing an RA certificate first. You can get almost all your hours out of the way and get your Nav endorsement in an RA aircraft. Not even a medical or ASIC required to that point. Once you have your RA certificate you have to fly two hours with a GA instructor 'under the hood', i.e. on instruments, then get into a GA aircraft to be signed off for for your RPL. You now need to pass an English language test, have your medical, apply for the ASIC and post the lot off to CASA. If you did the GA part at Moorabbin you would probably also have your controlled airspace and controlled airport boxes ticked as well. I reckon there's anything up to $3000 or more saving there depending on how much they are charging for different aircraft.

Yep, got the Flight Manual thank you. New to it? Hmm! Well as to hours, my wife (ppl) and I have probably got about 700 hours on it and been round Australia 4 or 5 times. Still learning though.

Interesting to apply the foregoing discussion to 2 seater light aircraft. We have two storage areas behind the seats. We can have up to 20 kg in the first area and 15 kg in the rear. Pilot and passenger are very close to COG. As long as we are under MTOW and observe those weight limits I don't see how we can be outside W&B parameters. I haven't heard of anyone doing specific calculations.

Hey! I have a 300 and love it! Plenty of Pioneers in Aus. We used to have Alpi flyways until a few years ago. In fact we flew around the North Island with a group of NZ owners about 8 years back.

I did something today I have been wanting to do for years. I did a Melbourne city orbit. Now Melbourne is nowhere near as spectacular as Sydney but it is a fantastic sight. Flying over Docklands, looking along the Yarra, past Eureka tower, Albert Park Lake, around the city to the MCG, looking down on St Pats and the Exhibition Building. Wow! What a privilege to be able to get permission to take this flight. I can't wait to do it again.

Perhaps I should have said "insufficient rudder authority to maintain runway direction".

I've never flown the 230 but I understand it to be a lot more stable. But having said that, I have witnessed an extremely scary takeoff of a 230 in strong crosswind. Again, it was a pilot with low hours on that aircraft. Once you know what might happen you fly accordingly. All I was suggesting is that some of these things be taught in basic training or at least discussed.

Perhaps you haven't spent much time in lighter aircraft. I trained in a 160 Jab and you need a lot of right rudder to keep straight on take off, even in no wind. Add a bit of cross wind from the left and it significantly reduces rudder authority. Cross wind from the right is much more user friendly. Lots of strips you can fly into and land in strong wind only to find it difficult to taxi off at right angles to the apron due to that wind. I'm surprised you never noticed that in the Pitts. It's nothing to do with design, unless you mean we shouldn't have a fin on the back and it's not about flying in unsafe conditions because unexpected wind gusts can catch you out at any time. The reason I mentioned it was to point out that if you rotate too soon you haven't got sufficient flying speed and you may be weather cocked. Keeping the nose down until you have more speed helps in those conditions. With a strong gross wind component I would prefer to take off with a slight tail wind if it means keeping the cross wind on the right.

In fairness, the document does read that it is more for the organisation than the individual members. It is saying that RAA will do everything in its power to promote and improve safety. Like others here, I was querying just how effective it could be. What I was pointing out was that, realistically, we alone are responsible for our own safety and the safety of others around us. RAA cannot be responsible for our safety.

Well no. You can land one day with no wind and take off the next in totally different weather. We had a trip to Barwon Heads a few years back where the wind was straight up the strip when we landed. After lunch it was gusting across the strip. We don't get many cross winds here anyway and when we do we are often protected by trees close to the ground. So where you have a relatively benign takeoff you can come in with a cross wind. As I said, I didn't have any cross wind take offs in training. The first major cross wind takeoff I had saw me taking off over the side fence. That taught me a number of lessons, not the least being how to wash my pants. But seriously, I learned a lot from that first hairy takeoff. I was just very lucky that first time as I had absolutely no rudder authority once I rotated. It would have been a lot better if I had some instruction first in what to expect.

Hope it's not against rules to link to another forum but these guys are talking about the AvMap unit. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=104364 I haven't seen it but it looks similar to the Dynon 10A that I have. If it's anything like the Dynon it will be a great addition to your panel.

Just saw the report of the crash at Tyagarah. That strip reminds me of the strip at Agnes Water and I'm sure there are many more like it where the strip is protected from the wind by trees but you can have a strong crosswind above. I experienced nothing like that in my training but fortunately there were a few experienced pilots with me when I flew out of Agnes. They advised to stay in ground effect below tree height as long as possible to build up speed before climbing and to be ready for the wind gust. That's the sort of training that might seem just like good sense but isn't actually taught. We practise cross wind landings but how much practise is there for cross wind take-offs?