Aerochute Kev

What they normally do, make it more difficult for everyone else.

I would think a low pass. If he had taken off that close the hands would have been too busy with the chute to find the lollies in time to drop. You can see the right arm hanging at one point like he had just dropped something or waving. From flying low at the start, power on to climb a bit as he approaches the crowd then a moment of reduced power to stop the climb. Power back on after that. Left hand hanging on the left toggle causing a slow left turn while he throws something/waves with right and is looking down to the right. Looking right he didnt notice the turn was taking him into the tree. A whole lot of bad choices that many of us may now have to pay for.

He packed it on the ute and disappeared before authorities arrived. An Aerochute arriving on a ute will attract attention. 20 mins to set up an no one in authority there noticed or asked him what it was or what he was doing? I,m not convinced the organizers knew nothing of this.

I have never seen anything this stupid before. Maybe 20ft over the crowd?? Below and between trees?? absolute moron. Could have done the same lolly drop from a decent altitude and been safe, if he had got permission to do so. No rules will stop an idiot. RAA rules simply don't apply if he isnt Rego'd or an PC holder. However i am sure there will be some other "agencies" dying to speak with him. If he has never been a PC holder or even properly trained he may not even know what the rules are. This is not a case of breaking the rules, it's a case of selfishness and stupidity. 2 crashes recently, both urego'd and no PC. The question is why are there so many not affiliated with RAA? There will be many like that just quietly going about their business in remote areas, but to take an unlicensed aircraft and pilot to a big public event, behave like a moron and expect to stay under the radar??

Hi Ed All good, just enjoying my flying and keeping the farm running. Unfortunately I had just started when the last review changes were incorporated into the Op's Manual. That meant the rating would have been next to useless unless I spent the next few years being supervised. I stopped then as it was unachievabe. I can't leave the farm at short notice for that period of time. Let's hope things will be different in the future.

I forgot to add some points in my previous posts that I think are important. We have a Board with limited knowledge of PPC operations making the rules we fly by. Naturally they will defer to the professional staff in this instance. Unfortunately the professional staff also have limited knowledge in this area so they consult the only 6 CFI’s in the country for information on rule changes. These 6 already have their qualifications and have no real interest in seeing changes that will possibly pose a threat or competition to their operations. There is simply nothing there for them that will tempt them to expend time and energy in these issues. The result will predictably be, no you can’t change that, it’s a safety issue. RAA quite simply does not consult wide enough to get a true picture of what is required or do enough independent research to make informed decisions. This is not a failing of the Board, they have taken the most responsible action. However the staff have not and when the final recommendations go to the Board for approval (if they haven’t already given the CEO the authority to make whatever changes he deems appropriate, like the Board did at the May Board meeting, Yes, I read the minutes!!) they will be making decisions on flawed information. It is easy to have rules or regulations, or introduce new ones, in the name of “safety” and of course everyone will be happy, won’t they? What is not being considered is just HOW it will make flying safer. Introducing new rules that require more training, endorsements, log book notations and travel and cost with no obvious benefit to the pilot, and no CFI network available to actually do these things, places the pilot in a difficult position. He knows he can’t comply with the rules so now has to decide whether to stop flying or continue on as he was and actually be flying illegally. If he flys illegally is there any benefit to being a member of RAA and having a registered aircraft? The answer is probably no, so he leaves RAA. Those changes in the name of “safety” have now forced a pilot out of RAA but have not stopped him flying. Just how have those new rule changes made his, or anyone else’s flying safer? It has had the opposite effect of what the original rule change was meant to do. RAA now has absolutely no control over his flying activities. RAA is becoming just another bureaucracy. The main difference is they can’t say “we don’t make the rules”, They do. RAA can still stand with its hand on heart and claim “No RAA PPC pilot has ever died in a PPC in Australia so our rules and regulations introduced in the name of safety are working”. But the reality is that it is safer for RAA, not the pilots. Not one of RAA’s rules or regulations would have stopped the recent death in a PPC from happening, nor will it stop any incident or accident in the future if people are leaving the organization because they are unable to comply with pointless and restrictive regulations. But unfortunately it seems it will not stop RAA from using this death as an excuse for not making changes. I think if the entire RAA board were PPC pilots and knew little of fixed wing operations but started introducing new rules/regs for fixed wing pilots that simply made little sense to them, it would certainly change the attitudes of some of the detractors we have at the moment.

Maj, It sounds very similar to what PPG's are doing now with small lightweight carts which they attach their PPG engine to and strap in. Would have been exciting to see something that different back then.

Glad you think its funny turbo, but that might not be s silly as you think. Have a BFR done from the ground by someone who has no idea what you are doing or if you are doing it right, OR send a video to a properly certified CFI showing perhaps your pre-flight, circuit, low pass, engine out, setting up for dual, or whatever is required. Interesting concept. I don't see why it can't at least be worthy of discussion. Andy, whilst PPC's certainly deserve the same care and responsibility, that does not necessarily mean the same rules should apply. They should be appropriate to the aircraft. It is extremely misleading to say "the issues raised all have as their genesis the lack of instructors around the place. If there were no impediments by virtue of instructor amounts then the need for the same pathways to certificate would not really be seen as an issue." When you know very well the current rules will ensure even if you could find a CFI to teach you as an instructor, it would highly unlikely to be able to get through to be able to actually teach anyone to fly. The lengths of time for training as instructor and SI will ensure that. An instructor does not need 75 hours of supervision before being able to become a SI in a PPC. I worked out that even if my CFI was to fly every weekend (which he doesn't) and didn't take holidays it would take nearly 2 years to to get to where i could apply for a SI rating and I would have traveled around 10,000 km for that training. The Australian made PPC company has produced well over 400 PPC's, others have been imported or home built. RAA has 222 PPC's on the register. Ever wondered where all the rest are? I would bet not many are written off or sitting in sheds rusting away. The owners have simply "opted out" as it is a damn site easier than trying to stay legal. RAA must make it attractive for people to change their ways and become legal. It is not up to the PPC community to address this issue, THAT is the issue RAA needs to address. It needs to have a system that pilots CAN become instructors and SI's. You have eluded to the recent death in a PPC so why not tell everyone the the status of that Pilot and aircraft. He was not the holder of a valid pilot certificate and his aircraft was unregistered. Its time RAA worked out why this is so prevalent. RAA needs to get serious or more will opt out. How many Instructors and SI's have been trained in the last 5 years? How many PPC's do you think you will have on the register when all 6 of our aging CFI's stop training in 5/10 years. It will decrease rapidly, but i bet they won't stop flying. If the system does not allow for a pilot to be legal at a reasonable cost and in a reasonable manner there is not much point paying RAA membership and Rego fees. Its time some of the Board actually learnt to fly a PPC so they know how the decisions they make are relevant.

Thanks, not sure how i missed that!!

Are you sure that is the same one Dazza? The other thread is about a Pitts, Kaz's one shows a 19 rego'd Sonex?

The last couple of paragraphs in that article gives me the impression that the 51% rule is really not required. If the builder is fully responsible for all elements including the quality of the build and airworthiness, (as they should be) why is there a need to specify how much of the build must be completed b y the builder, especially if no one can say what 51% actually is. It seems a bit strange RAA cannot say what constitutes 51% yet the person making the decision MUST know what criteria they use or they couldn't make a decision. I can import a fixed wing kit of several thousand parts and put it together without manufacturing anything and that is OK for 51%. A PPC of a couple of hundred parts is not. Where is the line drawn and why? RAA certainly won't say.

The biggest issue with kit builts is it has been stated a kit is unlikely to comply with the 51%/major portion rule and be unable to rego as a homebuilt. However there is no definition of what makes up 51% or major portion. When queried RAA has been unable to say what exactly would be considered 51% or above, and simply refers builders back to the rules, which only state 51%/major portion. No help at all. It is very hard to comply with the rules when there actually is no idea what the rule means. You can actually import a kit and build it, find you cant register as homebuilt but as it is not an approved design cannot register as a factory built. These are the guys that will be forced into flying as unregistered with no pilot certificate or just scrap their dream machine.

SLB, are you sure the rumour wasn't the other way around, and some PPC's trying to off-load RAA?

I think we may be thinking of different things. The one I mean is two cams with sort of teeth on them. the rope runs through them and you can pull it to the place you want and it will not slip back through. To release just put tension back on the line and as you pull it up, just lift out and it will come free. No knot tying. Used on boats to run lines through to adjust sails.

You will be drilling holes in the headplate to put on the line guides for the electric system. Sort of the same thing really.

I'm sure with a bit of thought you could come up with a better system yourself. A simple marine cam lock cleat to put your steering line in will solve the problem of being able to fly in a x-wind without having to hang onto a handle, and only cost about $20. Small adjustments can then be made by shifting in the seat or moving your feet to a different position.

Andy, Is this the format we will get in the future? Will it be e-mailed direct to the member as a PDF or just sent a link through ISSUU? I only have a netbook with a 9" screen and navigating through the mag was a nightmare. The ISSUU header and footers take up a lot of my screen. To see the whole 2 pages was too small to read even the headlines and if scrolling up/down I couldnt use the arrows on the keyboard as this just scrolled the ISSUU page not the magazine. It had to be a "click and drag"operation on a very limited area making it difficult. I had to keep reducing the size of the page to be able to find the arrows to turn pages. To be honest it was not a pleasant experience and I gave up after page 10 as it was just too difficult to navigate. If it is to be e-mailed as a PDF it may be better but if it will be the same as this one through ISSUU, i guess that will be the last Sport Pilot i read.

Fred, I would much rather see them design a system that CAN be used for most facets of flight. Take off will probably always be done with the overheads as you really need to be able to feel the chute and make subtle changes. This is really because the chute is still manufactured without mylar leading edges that would make the chute come up cleaner. (Was going to be an optional extra at one stage but never heard of it again) Most other chutes are made with mylar and they come up clean just about every time. There is no real reason why the landing couldnt be done with the electrics IF they designed a system that will allow a full flare. The lines going to the electrics are attached at the ring stop on the steering lines so do not interfere with their use at all. Whilst i do like the idea of the electrics i would like to see something a bit better designed before i mortgaged the kids to buy a set.

I Know the ones you mean, i have seen them too. They do work. They are designed to be used in the cruise only and not for take off and landing. Make sure you put velcro around your steering line handles and to the headplate to stick them there when not in use. If you don't, when using the electric sticks on full flare for a tight turn the overhead toggles will float back into the prop. Edit. From memory I don't think they did a full flare either. only 15-18 inches or so.

I have seen 2 sets fitted. neither of them worked very well as the sticks did not have enough travel to get full flare. It was OK flying solo where full flare may not be needed but almost useless dual. One set, the owner tried for ages to modify them to make them better but failed and removed them. Money wasted. One of our group was ready to give up flying due to shoulder problems after fitting sticks that didn't work, but we designed a simple mod that ran a second set of steering lines behind and under the seat to the front and through pulleys attached to the front footrest. He then would use the overheads for take off as it allows better vision of the chute than leaning forward, but after takeoff just uses the front toggles which operated by pulling towards him which was easier than trying to keep his arms up all the time and not having the strength to pull them downwards to flare anymore. He is still flying 5 years later. There is a good reason you don't see anyone using them. Hope that helps your decision. Kev

Nev, if you look at the system in itself you could not say it was anti-competitive. But when to get through that system you had to deal with one company who has a very big interest in not training instructors/SI who are not contracted to them, i think that is a big failing of the system. Add to that, the RAA seeking input for any proposed changes from the company that has the most to lose if changes are made, certainly sounds a bit dodgy to me. The company has to look after its own interests, and does that very well. RAA has an obligation to act in the best interest of its members. There was one person years ago that designed and built a new PPC and wanted to market it and get his CFI rating to teach. His aircraft was rejected in part because it was not up to aviation standards by using aviation grade parts. Yet the Aerochute is made from various marine grade parts with plastic wheel barrow wheels available in Bunnings and rated for about 40kgs and not to exceed 10 km/h. The top headplate is mild steel and the 4 eyebolts that hang the cart from the chute are commercial grade and not even rated. I find it interesting the standards are not applied there. In reality it doesn't matter what the cart is made from as it does nothing but give you somewhere to sit to work the controls and attach an engine. As long as it is strong enough for that it would be safe. The real part that is important is the chute. In order to gain a SI rating he was told by RAA he had to go to that company to train. He did, but much later after being messed around and getting no training realised they had no intention of training him as he would become a competitor. Dreams ended. There are a couple of CFI's not connected with the company now so in theory it is possible but you would need a very big bank balance and a couple of years free time to do it. Considering most potential CFI's will be part time and doing it to bring others into the world of aviation and share their love of flying, who would put in such levels of time and dollars? I just hope RAA can see that things need to change. I guess we will find out after the May meeting.

At least 3 out of six (50%) of CFI's are affiliated with one company that will in all likelihood vigorously defend any changes that will make it easier for any training or instructor training to be done without their control. Guess where RAA goes for advice on changes? Are you now really surprised the changes are not being driven by the CFI's?

Strange or not Kasper, that is the price being asked for training if you do not buy one of their aircraft.They can do that because at the moment there is very few alternatives. Aerochute have been a monopoly for years and that is slowly changing as newer and different machines enter the country. They seemed to have some influence in the past with RAA as to the rules and how they could protect their business. I think that is now changing. They also trained instructors /SI's and CFIs and contracted them to not fly, train in or train anyone with a different brand of machine. You can work out the ethics of that yourself. As a business they have done nothing wrong in trying to protect it but our governing body should not be involved in such anti competitive practices by making it easy for them to do so to the exclusion of others. The Instructor David refers to is a RAA PPC instructor who has just recently gained his Instructor Rating. The intention was to be remotely supervised by the CFI, a practice within the rules prior to the change in the new Ops manual. Now he cannot instruct as it is impractical to take his students and himself to another state to be supervised. RAA has confirmed there are only 6 current PPC CFI's, 3 of those I know of are affiliated with Aerochute and will not even consider training anyone not flying their aircraft. The chances of David finding someone to teach him at a reasonable cost, within a reachable distance and within a reasonable time frame are slim. The reality for David at the moment is that it would probably be cheaper and quicker to do three axis training with a local instructor/CFI and when complete head interstate for a simple conversion of 5 hours that could be completed in a couple of days if the weather is right. Hardy a good way to introduce someone to the "simple, safe, affordable" flying RAA try to promote. Kind of silly to have to fly fixed wing as a way to get to PPC's but very few alternatives for anyone in a similar situation at the moment. Unfortunately it is not only David but anyone who wants to learn to fly PPC's and not fly an Aerochute. David, check your PM's

Turbo, I think you may be reading into it things that are just not there. Where does it say that we are looking for changes to ANY element of the syllabus. Those statements are accurate. The syllabus as it is in the RAA training manual will not change. If the time that almost all students can complete the syllabus and the CFI deems are ready for a pilot certificate is significantly less than the mandated hours required, then the hours are obviously WRONG!! Unfortunately I have seen very few facts in your posts that relate to PPC's. David, there is an element to the instructor training which is titled Principles and Methods of Instruction. Supposedly a shortened and non certified version of the Cert 4. All instructor candidates must complete the PMI component or have recognition of prior learning for a similar or higher experience/qualification.