DrZoos

Hey Kyle Communication , your knowledge is astounding...any idea when 2 Bose A20 noise cancelling headsets are plugged in , and ones batteries go flat we get horrendous pinging every few seconds back through the radio when transmitting...we now carry spare batteries, but its so sever we have to unplug one headset... Just thought your knowledge may be helpful as im sure others may have similar issues

Litespeed- Your too young, i might get arrested for supply!

Well done Pylon if your ever stuck in YPMQ message me

Another tip, and this one is bound to get 100 plus likes is, shouting older pilots a beer and picking thier brains for stories, incidents , lessons and anecdotes is possibly the best value beers you will ever buy in your life, and may actually save your life... Im in quiet a big club and we have weekly friday drinks, which i used to religiously attend, and now attend about once a month... Those chats are some of the best learning i get and is absolutely invaluable. $20-$30 on the bar buys me about a $100 plus of experience everytime

oscar- Absolutely and Truss as a National Mp ought to better rhan anyone understand the role of GA and RAA in the bush for transport and the range of other services that it so critically provides...

Pylon if i was there or new anyone in town I would help out...Robbo prob a valid point, but i do like to think we help fellow pilots out. i have given about 12 lifts from YPMQ to town in the last 12 months... I have also helped two fuel up because they wanted to run mogas....Karma is a good thing in aviation When i see visiting pilots pull in I always offer assitance , and always hope the same elsewhere..

Is it really more likely to stall or is it only if its flown at a lower air speed? And couls an altered op manual eliminate this risk, especially if that extra weight was used for some safety features

Im sure gravity works the same over there Jim, possibly a little slower, but some of the rubbish we discuss may still be relevant

Any low hour pilot should also consider flying with a range of high hour pilots where ever possible... they can always give you something you can put in the tool kit for later use. I try to take high hour pilots who don't own planes with me at any opportunity. They get to fly my plane and I get some gems to file away for later...I have found this invaluable Flying so often I have far more recency and motor skills than most older pilots, but their experience and knowledge dwarfs mine and many and one day those stories and examples passed on will probably save some more lives...

I think I agree! Perhaps you should draft a letter to the honourable Warren.

Apparently we all get it, but its more aggressive in the younger ones...its in my family so I cnat stress how important it is to get a PSA blood test done as young as you can (30+) for a baseline PSA measurement

Fresh in everyones email today - I love it - I guess hes been reading the thread lol FROM THE CEO Hi and welcome to Spring. Around the country our members are taking to the skies again as fine weather abounds. This month we talk about Safety. We also bring you an update on endorsements we are chasing for our members. Access to CTA and a weight increase are our priority. A meeting was held on 1 May 2015 at Airservices Australia in Canberra. The response from Airservices Australia was encouraging, based on an initially simplistic assessment as a service provider that the potential increase in traffic levels could be managed appropriately, discussing charges as required, and no major objections to the proposal. The board will consider the progress made to date with a view to a formal approach being made to the regulator before the end of the year. In the next issue of enews we will bring you an update on our progress towards a weight increase, which is also being discussed at the forthcoming board meeting.

One other point worth considering as well is the average pilot and pax now who is 50 years old is approximate 5-10cm taller and 10-20kg heavier than 20 years ago simply due to lifestyle factors in a post war era. In ten years they will be another 5-10 cm taller and 10-20kg heavier.. If your taller or lighter than the majority of people your childrens age your either very lucky or statistically a freak.

The cessna might have survived if MTOW was increased , bringing a great engine and manufacturer into LSA RAAus I dont want extra weight for overweight passengers or more gadgets... 1. I want extra MTOS so that I dont have to constantly choose between equipment or fuel...I actually have a fairly generous allowance and most aircraft I fly with have significant less fuel on board than I do... 2. I want it is so that aircraft can have M6 bolts instead of m4 or m8 instead of m6 , thicker wing spars, thicker frame, more timber ribs instead of foam and possibly some better engine choices that could both potentially increase safety and lower costs. A sturdier nose wheel and a lot more passenger protection. 3. One day even a CO2 chute might be possible instead of having to choose between a chute or fuel/luggage. This argument we should all fly rag and tube and be happy with 400kg is not very realistic of the modern fleet in RAAus. Perhaps 20 years ago that was relevant but it certainly is not today. One would assume Natfly was reasonably representative of the fleet and if it was the vast majority where 2 POB with a tent, mat, sleeping bag, an pair of jocks... I dont profess to have done the calcs on increased passenger protection v increased inertia, with actual accident speeds and mass, but I have studied university level physics and would suggest it is at least worth very serious discussion and further investigation, rather than simply clinging to the past and saying its more dangerous to fly heavier aircraft. I accept that aircraft A with more weigh on board is less safe, but if aircraft B is has extra safety features that negate the increased inertia effect, such as occupant safety or airbags, roll cages etc, this is at least worth investigating rather then just assuming its more dangerous. I think some make a very legitimate point that some aircraft would potentially be more dangerous with increased MTOW, and I am not suggesting those aircraft be increased. But in cases where an aircraft is safely flown in another country, or under another authority at a higher MTOW surely its worth investigating and discussing, especially if it means they might carry more fuel or fly safer routes . And for newly manufactured and built aircraft where an increase in MTOW can improve safety such as the inclusion of a chute etc...surely that's worth discussion and consideration. At the end of the day, I think the most important thing is not that we agree on any of this, but we at least have open minds and discuss it.

Yep your needs and wants will probably change dramatically with experience...i would anticipate at first you may want stol slow easy uncomplicated and as your experience grows a d you do more x country you may want more speed to make travel an easier option... Consider this if you buy a purely stol aircraft that cruises at say 80 knots and you seem to have a 10-20 knot head / cross wind every where you fly will you be happy compared to say an aircraft at 120 knots ...will you be cool with taking 1/3rd longer almost every where you go... Some love it some hate it... Some like flyng local , others want to travel long distances... When i bought mine i didnt want retractable gear or constant speed prop, now i wish i had both, because i prefer travel to wierd places over doing laps. At first local for me was cgreat, but it soon becomes monotonous... Mind you i fly a Lot...2 -3 times most weeks . In a perfect world id have a 160 knot RV7 or blackshape prime and a Just Super stol or bushranger. But in this world a 120 knot UL does jsut fine

Go and read this page, consider the numbers and then try to comeback without a better impression of our safety record.. then consider this is just victoria where every year around 40-50 pax are killed and 900 seriously injured in one sport or passion alone http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/motorcycle-crash-data We have a lot of similarities except we also have gravity and height to contend with. Yet we dont see motorcyclists fretting thier sport or transport will be shut down.. As someone that has been into motorcycles my entire life , i have lost many people i know, i have even lost friends children...it hurts, its horrible, but it happens Several friends, my sister in laws boyfirend, a work colleague and a good mates son, plus several others close , but not that close. Im not belittling it, but i think most motorcyclists lose a Lot more people they know to motorbikes than pilots...its no less tragic...but its worth considering to keep it all relative. This doesnt include the heartache and trauma of many seriously injured friends and a few very serious accidents myself.

Camel , I think this is getting a little personal, so I will refrain from further comment.. So lets just agree to disagree and not let this get personal... I respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine. even if we disagree

An increase in MTOW could increase safety for many reasons.. 1. Under engineering to keep usable weights acceptable to customers- Take a look under the surface of most modern two seaters built in the last 5 years and the first thing you will notice is foam wing ribs, tiny timber framing, ultra tiny bolts that on GA aircraft are generally twice the thicknesses and diameters... My former CFI & almost qualified LAME pointed this out to me when i was at their aircraft maintenance facility, showing me the differences in sizes of bolts etc on the 152 v my aircraft...since then I have observed this many times over on a variety of aircraft.. 2. Taking less fuel than is optimal - I have taken many trips in the last two years and there have been several times when I would have found carrying an extra 10-20L of fuel would have allowed me a safer route , but due to MTOW i had to fly more direct than preferred, which in my area generally involves more mountains or tiger country than if I had an extra 20L I would definitely take the longer route. 3. Swapping safety equipment for fuel / luggage - often when bumping off MTOW and planning a route for an overnight trip or multi day trip that has some long stints people will be forced to choose fuel or equipment. eg if heading to Narromine and taking a tent, mat , sleeping bag for 2 PAx.. many may encounter areas that have long stints without a guaranteed airport.. eg just recently when SCO was completely submerged in cloud and thus a major diversions was taken to the north this wasnt an issue luckily as I had plenty of fuel on board, but reaching scone and turning back for some on that day may have been problematic...Im sure another 10-20L of fuel would have made Narromine a safer trip this year for those crossing the ranges and there where many. In reference to people's decision making of going or not going...above by kgwilson... often its not the decision to go or not go...from my experience recently the weather forecasts have looked great , I have reached destinations easily, but in the day or few days your there the weather deteriorates without being on the forecasts and its getting home that for me is more often the problem... I know what the answer is here and I agree with it "not dieing to get home etc blah blah" But the reality is for many who are not retired, or have kids etc getting home does carry some cost/responsibility issues and you would have to be very naive to think it doesnt force at least a reasonable number of pilots into tougher and more risky decisions than leaving home in the first place... my argument here is that this is when the use of CTA v non CTA can make a real difference... and yes on some occasions, I would happily pay to be granted access thru CTA... probably not $60 but perhaps $10-$20 ... especially if it meant the difference between getting home or turning back... This weather deterioration is severely exacerbated and amplified for those that need to cross the ranges... and due to Newcastle CTA RA and Coffs CTA...often this is the case for people in this area. To Camel - before you jump in and tell me to get a PPL RPL and class 2 medical ( and suggest i cant) i have had a break thru there and it most likely will be granted despite 14 months of rejection for no apparent reason other than a bad choice of meds by a doctor 5 years ago). So my reasons for raising this and following up on it are not entirely selfish...I have plenty of pilots I fly and share a beer with who express these exact same concerns, however they are in the category where they dont want to chase medicals (due to age) , but they still feel they are often placed in much higher risks than necessary due to the Newcastle Tamworth and Coffs CTA... As i said above...often its not leaving thats the issue its coming home.. we just happen to be on the coast with high mountains to the west, CTA to the North, South and West... on a clear day CTA is never an issue, but for basically 250+ days a year its not clear near the ranges due to cloud formations from coastal breezes.. If our situation here is so unique then perhaps we should be asking CASA for a special look at Tamworth and Coffs CTA... We get a LOT of travelling pilots come thru Port Macquarie including RAAus pilots and they must face the same issues where ever they are heading.. I would also like to say the amount of GA pilots who laugh when I say I cant take extra fuel etc due to MTOW is significant...their response is generally that they breach MTOW regularly and that everyone does... I have no idea if this is true, but I dont, and I would prefer to be increasing MTOW legitimately via legislative change than taking a punt on if and how much is supposedly safe.

Thats exactly how i feel, and when we do tell them what they could actually do to improve it further we get ignored! Which is why the orange vest stunt is so emotive! They are preaching to the convertedbut not listening to the congregation! And hell yeh Maj the board and management are definitely doing great things, even if this one upsets us a bit

So its pretty clear some of us don't want Fluro vest photo parties. But what do we think CASAor RAA could do that would actually make an immediate and real difference to our safety. .....what are the big ticket items that could immediately improve safety in our sport if you had the big stick or magic wand. Clearly casa and raa will have thier own thinking based on data or agendas...but what is our collective thoughts pointing towards... It would be great if those responding could number and prioritize a list of your top 3 in orded. We have a great number of people here and surely if we put our collective heads together we can come up with a hotlist of what we think are top 3 policy priorities that could improve our safety. For me it is 1. safer RAA routes up and down the east coast and near the ranges 2. Access to cta especially near mountains eg coffs tamworth etc... 3. Increase in mtow It would be great if rather than morphing into an argument about the necesity or reality of policies or change we could jsut come up with a hot list of the topics that those who do believe policy could make a difference and where.

Well I was at Narromine in full view of the entire RAAuus SAAA and CASA and watched Paul Bennet and 10 others do low level turns and aeorbaotics less than 100ft AGL. i can post video here if you want of the Gruman avenger doing aerobatics at less than hanger hieght..... Personally that has no influence on my safety as I would never do that....but if thats what floats your boat go for it.... What affects me and almost everyone i know every time they fly is M.tow. When they try to scimp on fuel or equipment and then CTA as the plan routes through rediculous terrai. To avoid cta and RA just try and reach places that should be rediculously easy to reach... Seriously. Can you honestly tell me you have not been forced to take less than ideal routes due to cta or Ra, or can you honestly tell me there are times where you have taken less fuel or safety equipment then you would have if you had an extra 50 -100kg Can you honestly say to me your aircraft would be no safer if you had an extra 100 kg?

Fair shake of the sauce bottle..so anyonne that disagrees need to get aPPL...not sure thats compliant with a membership organisation charter....??? we are entitled and should be actively encouraged to express our opinion, no matter how diverse it is.

Safety in 4 simple steps Allow unough weight to not under build, to carry fuel 2 pob and equipment Allow us to fly thru perfectly safe cta like coffs tamworth Give us safe routes all the way up and down eastern seaboard and past major cities Allow us to do flight reviews in our own category aircraft Everything else is BS in compareison

Fair call, poorly worded, its not what I meant.

I think we would all rather see every serving military personnel get an early pension, generous super and properly looked after than one politician take another business class flight or com car...or perhaps even a breath Hats off too all current, former and future service men and women for your incredible selfless sacrifices.