SDQDI

Personally I think splitting Raa would be sport aviation suicide. As for the ga wannabe vs grass roots flyers thing I think it has been done to death. Yes it would be nice to see an ultralight class with similar rules to the Americans but I don't see casa winding back the regs for us anytime soon BUT I do think the RAA as a whole could be doing more to push that way as well. As for everyone wanting more regulation IMO as I understand it Raa is trying to get more privileges and doing so without increasing regs for any except those that want the extra privilege. That will in no way negatively affect the grass root flyers. I would be more worried about people trying to get things like radios and brs's made mandatory.

Absolute gold!

While I partly agree with you P4D another part of me knows how much our bodies work against us. For the most part we should be able to avoid stalling without looking at the instruments at all BUT put us in a low level turn with a little wind and all of a sudden our bodies start to take too many queues off the ground and it isn't long before we are flying uncoordinated. I still haven't finished my ll endo but the little I did made me very aware that yes our eyes need to be outside at least 90% of the time BUT it was also super important to do a quick glance often to make sure the ball was centred and the airspeed was healthy because our bodies definitely lie.

While I agree with Don I do think we (of course it is not really we it is Ian's site but just meaning the forum as a whole!) could improve things by canning off topic threads that start big arguments (politics and religion to name two) and still allow off topic discussions that are nice and could be of interest to a few, for example the hay drive that Geoff has told us about. I think if we lost all off topic threads we would lose some people and it would take a fair effort for the site to refrain from getting stale.

Ian I think the idea has some merit although speaking for myself I would be too lazy to chase a second site just to talk about off topic things. There are already sites where those things can be discussed. IMO it would be a bit like the sport pilot mag, since it has gone digital I haven't bothered to read it and even though I could afford the subscription I just couldn't be bothered. Getting rid of the political and religious arguments would probably be a good thing but removing the jokes and other non argumentive off topic threads could be detrimental to the site. Also out of interest wouldn't having more hits on search engines be a good thing? (I don't follow all the tech side of things!)

Well I won't be so rude to a first time poster....... Welcome Warren and I hope you do post more than just this once. Reviving old posts is not illegal, having said that this would be one of the oldest revivals I have ever seen though lol We are generally friendly warren and all these fellas mean well in their stirring. Forum etiquette is a fickle thing, some places you will get tarred and feathered for asking a question that has been asked before and other places you get creamed for reviving old threads, how do you win:whistling:

A few posts before yours jet someone said that generally corporates are less successful at farming which IMO is just as wrong as your post. In my limited time farming I have seen both corporate and family owned farms both succeed and fail and IMO most of it comes down to bad management, yes weather can play a big part and has ruined a few but nowhere near as many as mismanagement has. In our local area most of the farms are family owned and are quite successful. We also hear a lot about about farmers being big gamblers and big crybabies always looking for a handout at the first opportunity. I personally don't think that is generally the case, actually most of the farmers I know (and yes I am one myself) could be better described as conservative in the sense that they don't take big risks. Yes we are more susceptible to weather events than most industries and yes commodity prices can and do change drastically overnight which can all make a huge difference in our income but the majority of farmers IMO take all that into account and still manage to turn a profit in the long run. As for foreign ownership, someone mentioned they buy up all the broke places and make a go of them which I also think is a bit optimistic. I've on,y been close to a few foreign purchases and they were ALL viable farms to start with. Why weren't they bought by locals? Well in those cases the money paid was well above what the locals could or would pay for them. Can you blame joe blogs for selling to foreign owners when he is retiring because the kiddies don't want the farm? Not at all, every extra dollar he can get will help him in his retirement. As a side note, I think the days when you could purchase a farm and pay it off from that farm are well and truly gone, now you need to have a good viable farm to start with before you would even think of it let alone before the bank would give you a go.

Just found this in my wet weather YouTube surfing time

Just to be a real pain............ The thread title only mentioned Recreational Flying, the first question posed did say RAA however the second question did just ask about rec aircraft. The third question while asking just about regs seemed to be aimed specifically at Raa because the following question was about weight increase which would seem to be only relevant to Raa. So while Raa is a big part of it I don't think we should avoid talking about the GREC (GA Rec division:doh:) Personally While I do think there will be a little more decline I have some optimism for the future. In RAA I think the board and leadership team must be doing something right as apart from some minor technical issues the biggest whine I've heard was about the hi-vis thing which in he great scheme of things isn't really a deal breaker! Once the kerfuffles with the new digital system are worked out I think the system as a whole will perform an awful lot better. As far as rec flying as a whole, I think that some of the new technology that is around and being developed is exciting and I would think as time goes on the more affordable it will all get. Yes some older people are getting older and moving on but there is still interested people out there who just need some positive flyers to infect them with the bug. I am trying to do my part by keeping the kids excited about flying:thumb up:

I went for a fly this morning up to Narrabri and home again, on the way home I half caught Brisbane centre talking about an aircraft who had reported an oil leak and was doing a forced landing 20 miles south of Walget. I was busy enthusiastically talking to my pax so wasnt paying a lot of attention until I heard the forced landing part. Just thought I would put it up here in case anyone had heard any more. Hope it all ended well for them.

..............

I would've said it was a dash cam as the second person had no idea what had happened nearly like he had been asleep. I've never been up to the territory but someone more in the know would know, how much highway up there is unfenced? When we used to muster in paddocks with unfenced roads through them signs were never put out as there were permanent signs on the grids at each side of the paddocks. I would guess that the lighting is a bit deceptive. I would guess that it wasn't too long after sunset and the lights cause the camera to show the surroundings a bit darker than they actually were. To start with you can see a fair distance out to the side quite clearly and the trucks lights aren't showing up as much as they would if it were darker. I also think that the far car having his high beam on for a smidge too long didn't help things. (It doesn't matter if you are well outside your legal dipping distance, even on a 10 or 20 k straight stretch high beam at the other end can be a nuisance.) I would say that blame could be pointed all round (including the mustering crew). And IMO it is a perfect example of how little things add up to cause stuff ups.

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/approved-airband-hand-held-radios.135609/

Just be careful though as from memory only one handheld is approved but I can't remember which one, they were out of stock in Aus recently but I think they are available again now. I certainly wouldn't want to front up to a ramp check with one that wasn't approved! Maybe someone in the know would be good enough to clear this up?

It's a while ago now Turbs but I seem to remember quite a big slab of reading and being tested on the cars and the caos. I will admit though that since getting my cert I haven't exactly been flipping through them each night to keep current. I do remember the basics though and rely mainly on my version of common sense (some have said I've a warped sense but I think that was my humour not my common!) to keep me out of trouble.

Can you fellas talk about something else!!!!!!! I just googled "naked and screaming" and this thread popped up:throw pc: you are making my searches less efficient.

Turbs I think you miss the point that I was making. I personally think it is a good idea to remove the minimum age for students as it gives people like me the chance to allow our kids to learn 'legally'. Of course we all know about the 'let pax touch controls breaks the law!' Thingy but as Marty said who wouldn't be tempted to let your kid have a feel of the stick? At least this allows me to be able to say "no dear I can't let you do that but come with me to meet my instructor and he can take you for a few lessons" This seems to be a good thing, at least for me in my situation as it will provide me a legal way to let my kids enjoy learning to fly (only if they want to of course!) without me being tempted to break some laws.

I guess there will be differences between types, I would think a spin would be a fair rate of descent but as practicing that isn't an option I went out yesterday and tried a few different things. For my aircraft the best rate of descent I got was from a no flaps no power vne (actually I didn't get to vne I thought it prudent to stay a few knots under) "dive" the trouble with that is if that isn't enough airspeed to extinguish the fire it could dramatically speed the burn. So maybe the full flaps sideslip would be a safer option even though the descent rate is slower. The stall descent (for the hornet) was very benign and was actually one of the slowest descent rates I got. As I mentioned earlier the spin could be effective but I'm not going to try it.

Exactly right Marty, at least this way though I can send them with an instructor so that they don't pick up all my bad habits :-) I was taught how to drive each vehicle on the farm once I was big enough to safely reach all the controls. I would like to do the same with my littlies if they want to learn. I've got a video of my 4 and a half year old driving our quad under supervision. I want her to move into our single seat Polaris ace (roll cage and seatbelt!) but her legs are not long enough to reach the pedals yet.

I have two little kids (3 and 4 and a half) and one day I would love to see them learn to fly. IMO I think removing the age limit at least provides some legal options for a younger person to learn and could reduce the temptation for parents to "stick share". My children are obviously too small to reach the stick let alone the rudder pedals but once they get to 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 they may have the length to reach the controls and I would certainly appreciate a legal option to let them get a few lessons so that I don't get tempted to "show" them. I still agree that there should be a minimum age to solo and do NOT think that that should be reduced! Anyway just my ten cents worth :-)

Is that you in the fancy clothes M61A1? Certainly outclass our local flyers here

Hmm that was a fail....... I put a few spaces between the words but they seem to have automatically been reduced to one space when posted! Anyway was just trying to be funny, I saw a test answer in mathematics that was similar. They were asked to eland on a problem and had done exactly that just increasing the space bête all the numbers.

T h i s w i l l b e c o m e t h e p r o b l e m w i t h c a r b o n f i b r e n n a i r c r a f t a l s o .

Only after he was called one Ev. But Aldo apologised for that and it is probably better left alone now. I certainly don't always agree with Kasper, actually I totally disagree with him over some things, but I think this subject is getting out of hand and I would have to say Kasper seems to have the right balance in regards to this subject, (IMO of course). Calling someone names because they enjoy some of the relaxed regs in the appropriate areas seems a bit childish.

Well for a different look at it. 1. How many mid air collisions have there been in Aus? 2. what is the ratio of those collisions as far as radios vs non radios 3.is there recorded statistics of reported near misses? And what is the ratio of those that had and didn't have a radio? It would be interesting to see the numbers, I personally still think it is dangerous to want more regs because I believe looking through the statistics would show we would save more lives by making BRS mandatory than radios and the way tech is going soon it will be safer to fly fully automated machines with no pilot imput at all but at what level do you want everyone? I personally think the way that the rules are now is sufficient for radios, they are needed to be able to fly into certain aerodromes and in certain airspace but there are also areas where they are not needed and I think that is relatively sensible. We need to remember that we all fly different machines for different reasons and what suits us personally might not be the be all and end all for everyone.