nickduncs84

The real question is why the regulatory MTOW isn't the same as the structural MTOW. I understand there has to be a line in the sand somewhere, but gimme a break. 150kt cruise, yep that's ok. CS prop, yep that's ok too. Oh you want to fill up your fuel tanks? Sorry, you'll need to paint a VH on the side to do that. Why not just have a list of approved aircraft? There's not that many!

The short answer is yes. In fact, if he's looking to progress to CPL standard, then he can count 100 RA Aus hours towards the 200 hour requirement.

Words can't describe how much I hate the media. Such dribble. No wonder the general public are so scared of small planes. I wonder what percentage of ga accidents are the cause of poor decision making. Ie vfr into imc, engine failure over terrain you can't glide clear of, fuel exhaustion, etc. In my opinion, those crashes are completely avoidable if you want them to be. Flying errors and mental errors in flight are a risk, no matter how much we would like to think that we are all above it, but poor decisions on the ground cause way too many accidents and are completely avoidable. Saying that the ga accident rate is equal to the probability you will die in a plane crash is as dumb as saying the same thing about motorbikes and cars. The reality is you will always be the biggest risk factor and you have control over more than you think. Do you think the likelihood of someone dying on a motorbike is the same for the guy cruising through the city at 60kmh as it is for the guy winding through the hills at 160kmh? Aviation attracts more thrillseekers than the population average, which goes a long way to explain the high fatality rate. That being said, there are plenty of very risk averse pilots who do everything they can to avoid putting themselves in a bad situation in the first place. Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of the useless media looking at a bowl of fruit and calling it an apple. For those who aren't pilots, it's more important to know who you are flying with than what you are flying in.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's important for Ra aus to remain affordable for everyone that wants to get into aviation, my gripe was with the $40 amount. I'm sure that for 95% of members, they would be able to pay this much more per year, especially if it meant saving Ra aus. Not that I'm saying it's going to come to that of that it's the only option, I was just making the point that the deficit for an organisation of this size shouldn't be the dooms day event some are making it out to be. How about if everyone paid $40 but members could submit a request for exemption on financial grounds. I'm sure for many they would rather just pay the money that deal with the paperwork, but for the ones that really need it, they could get an exemption. Again, not trying to pick a fight, just sick of hearing people whinge about paying $7 to see a doctor as they sit around sipping a $7 latte. I'm not saying that you, but there's been enough of it in the country the past couple of months.

Well I have no idea about the credentials of management, but having said that, could it be that the problem is the same one we have with politicians in that the job doesn't pay high enough. Everyone complains about politicians pay, but the reality is that earn a mediocre salary, so it attracts mediocre people. As such we have a bunch of mediocre people with hardly a drop of qualification outside of politics who are running the country. As I said, I have no idea who runs Ra aus, but could it be that we are expecting too much from the structure we have?

Got one. Let me guess, you have to sell your house to afford the $7 GP payment. Seriously, if you can't afford $40 a year, this is the wrong hobby. If you get each of your kids to give you a 20c coin each week that should cover it. I know it sounds harsh, but I'm sick of all the winging in this country. People whinge just for the sake of it without even thinking about what they are saying.

Yep that would work. Or some combination of the two. Point is, it's all relative and all this doom and gloom is a bit premature. No reasons why it can't be turned around. The rpl excuse is a cop out.

Charge everyone an extra $40 a year. Problem solved.

a lot of confusion here in an area where there really isn't any excuse for there to be any. not a good look for the training standards of RA Aus and not one of those areas you can afford not to understand and practice.

Nope, but I am looking. I think you are missing my point. A few thousand dollars isn't chicken feed, but neither is 150,000 dollars. It seems that you are saying that there are a lot of people out there who spend 100k on an aircraft and then aren't able to pay the 3 to 4 grand more a year to own an RV over a RA aus eligible plane. That seems like the definition of a pretty die hard aviation buff with a very understanding significant other! Ie if their income is such that 4k a year is a lot of money, how did they justify spending 100k on a depreciable asset? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're right and that those people exist, but I also think a large portion of the people spending that much on a plane do it because they are making more than enough to justify the hobby and for people like that another $300 a month isn't going to make a difference. As such, the prediction that my instructor made about the demand for those type of aircraft increasing after September 1 is pretty valid I think. That's all.... Nick

So you paid 100k in cash, then pay for a hangar, insurance, etc and that fits the cheap as chips equation....but paying an extra $20 an hour for petrol and $2k a year for an annual is what makes it unaffordable?? As I said, each to their own. Things will vary massively by aircraft and also if you can do the maintenance yourself under Ra Aus but not GA, that would make a big difference, but there is no doubt that for a lot of people, many non RA Aus aircraft will now be an option....

Yeah I guess it's all dollars and cents. 6,000 extra a year isn't that much of a stretch for 100k buyers. If I was after real bang for buck, I would get a 30k Jab SP6. For 100k, I think an extra 6k a year in operating costs isn't too much of a stretch. $500 a month for an aircraft that is more reliable, more fun and has better resale value.....

Yes I agree, operating costs are still going to be cheaper with RA Aus, but will vary a lot. An annual on an old Cessna may cost 10k, but on a fairly new, low time RV, it wouldn't be that much more. And like I said, imagine you have a spare 100k to spend on a plane. If you're spending 100k on a plane, the difference between $70 an hour to cover the costs of an LSA vs $120 or even $150 an hour for GA doesn't matter too much. at 50 hours a year, the difference between the running costs of a jab and an RV is probably, only a couple of grand. And that's assuming the jab engine will be as reliable as a lycoming.

My instructor raised a valid point this morning. If the RPL goes ahead as planned, it will surely have a big impact on the used aircraft market in this country. At the moment, there is a premium paid for high performance LSA's, but after September 1, there will be a whole lot of relatively affordable aircraft that are all in play. Piper's, Cessna's, RV's, etc, etc. For those who are looking for true low frills flying, you still can't go past RA Aus, but for those who are trying to sell an LSA in the 75k to 150k range, there's a lot of competition. Just look at the prices of the J230's in the members market at the moment. The J230 is a nice plane, but for 90-100k, I think I'll take the RV-7!! So, if you had 100k to spend on a plane, what would it be??

Only from this forum. This is the third time I've seen him tonight.

BlurE I think there is danger in trying to over simplify something like you have. The issue centres on the fact that stall speed increases greatly with bank angle angle, which can sneak up and bite you if you are focused on making the turn instead of maintaining a safe AoA. I think in the real world it's a lot safer to do 3 things. Firstly, go out and practice how much altitude you lose making a 270 degree turn and then lining up for what would be a straight in to the departing runway. Make sure you wait a couple of seconds after pulling the power. Take the result and add a generous margin to it. Secondly, use that information to come up with various decision heights based on the conditions and airfield of the day. Finally, as you pass through each altitude, call it out loud and expect it to happen. So it may be: 1) takeoff, straight ahead 2) 300 ft, cross strip, some grass area of the field, whatever 3) 500 ft straight ahead to some predetermined crash zone off field 4) 700 ft established cross wind, coming back in on downwind runway I think the mentality and practice is more important than trying to create rules about how you fly. If you've practiced it a thousand times and you know what the game plan is straight away, you give yourself the best chance. The only other thing that I think would add to the safety margin is an AoA indicator both during your practice and in a real EFATO event. Nick

It doesn't matter what label is up front, if you're flying around in a single and NOT expecting the sound to go out at any given moment, you're an idiot. I happily fly in a Jabiru knowing that if the sound went out, I'd be confident getting it down safely. Flying with a lycoming or rotax up front wouldn't change my attitude. Your engine may be more reliable than mine, but your false sense of security is by far more dangerous.

What's the cruise speed of a hornet with a 912?

Yep, but I doubt the vast majority of people that have or want a ppl can afford to or want to do any of those things. Most of us made a decision to go Ra aus because of the cost. RPL opens up a greater range of aircraft that are still relative cost efficient. If you can afford a turbine or the gas that goes into a multi, you probably have never even heard of Ra aus.

Why not just wait until September to see if the RPL goes through? Save yourself having to do the ppl theory.

Thanks dutchroll. One last question, how much did you spend on it before it got on the ship? Inspections, wing removal, etc.

Dutchroll, out of interest can you give us a ballpark idea of how much the whole process costs you?

Bravo! That's exactly what I was after. In all seriousness, for someone like me who is really more interested in the flying than the technicalities, the problem is knowing what to look for and where to look for it. It's a bit like hiring a lawyer. I know that in theory I could study all of the regulations, but even if I did have the time to do that, I'm pretty sure most of it would go over my head. Sometimes, the only real way to find out is to ask. So thanks for your help!

All good fellas. I actually appreciate the banter. I have all day at work to be polite. Thanks for the info Dafydd. I'm a little clearer on it now. Still very much a rookie and appreciate you taking the time to share your wisdom in this forum...even if you are a grumpy bugga!

Slight thread drift here, but something that you lot probably have some thoughts on. I saw an old piper pacer (actually a converted tri pacer, I think they call them PA20/22's) last week and thought it had a certain charm to it. The owner had given it a complete refurb including new fabric and an 0320 up front. After doing some research, I have learned that with the bigger engines and a few other relatively simple mods, they have similar STOL characteristics to a Cub, but can carry 4 people a little faster. Anyone have any experiences with these old birds? And how does it work with a restored yet certified plane? Is the maintenance going to be a nightmare? Are simple things like adding an EFIS going to be a pain in the arse? And at the risk of someone shooting me for stupidity, is it possible to register a certified VH plane as VH experimental in the same way you would switch a 24 to a 19 rego??