MattP

No you’re not, had that conversation the other day with a mate as he wondered why he was paying for the raa membership as well as the other ppl related costs. For those of us not flying weight shift etc it doesn’t seem to make a ton of sense.. assuming you have a class 2 medical and are current etc.

It's a wonder the building didn't repel it with that colour scheme. Yuck.

It's worth noting that if you want cta today as a recreational pilot, the mechanism exists by way of getting a medical, the rpl and the relevant endorsemrbts or a ppl. With an appropriately fitted out aircraft, you can then fly in cta raa reg or vh. Now is this the most economical / easiest / logical approach, probably not. At least it differentiates this as being a function of the pilot not the registration of the aircraft. If you want to be able to fly in cta though I'd look at doing this rather than waiting an indeterminate amount of time for an raa cta endorsement that will have strings if it comes at all. Only down side is cost, but there's no such thing as cheap aviation. Cheap is a relative term, I just look at it as going broke more slowly. Unfortunately or by design by the time you figure out you might need the cta, you're past the stage where you would have chosen a path ga or raa ( not that it's binary). If you put a positive spin on it, you can pick up a new skill, and have the option to take 3pax up or more luggage. You might then decide you like / don't like ga or that cta isn't that important to you.

It does seen somewhat more complicated than it needs to be considering in the USA there's a vfr corridor right over lax that gets used without aluminium raining from the sky daily. Seems there's either a cbf or workload issue, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the controllers here, I'm guessing they're following some pre defined guidance or are just too busy (understaffed) to deal with us. Good to see though that there seems to be service in airservices around the place

I'm going to be cynical here and say good luck. I can't remember the last time I got a response other than clearance unavailable remain octa from mel ctr trying to transit vfr. Even with a plan filed. Ifr isn't a problem usually but they don't seem to want to deal with vfr lighties. Can't comment for other areas so not sure if mel are special or this is a wider occurance. Generally if I'm planning to transit c anywhere I'll just file ifr. User pays at work!

I get it, I travel 60-90 to my closest class D to fly based on that being where the aircraft I fly are. I have closer C and G airfields but not with a choice / availability of anything I want to fly. I just take that as part of the cost of flying / process of being able to explain, "Why does it take most of the day when you're only going flying for an hour?" Note expletives removed. 🙂 I've taken to using the commute to get into the head space for flying and clear out the mind of all the daily things that float around in there and to start prepping for whatever I'm doing. Regarding the medical requirement, that's a whole other debate as you pointed out and again never ending.

Its interesting that this topic and the weight increases keep coming up as soon as the last one is approved. Question for me is what is RAA trying to be, and what does it want to be? What do the members want it to be? The more endorsements / complexity = more training and admin. This equals cost that people evidently don't want. The other thing is careful what you wish for, as I'd be willing to bet that the CTA endorsement comes attached with a medical requirement, and that's going to result in cries from many who have chosen to go the RAA path for want of removing the complexity of medicals. Additionally, flying into C/D airports means ASIC, there's another $240 bucks thanks. If you're that keen on CTA just get a medical, do the RPL and get the RPCT / RPCA.

The issue is upwind particularly off 17 outside the airport and under 5-600ft where there aren't many options that aren't houses or factories. Past that point there are options in the greenery around thr area or the airport if you're not in Springvale or West Gippsland somewhere in your circuit!

It looks like he did all that well, realised he was too far to glide back to the airport, committed to a flat open space in the trotting track and got it down. The fact the plane isn't re usable is a small detail that's for the school and insurance company to work out. He goes home to his family and nobody on the ground got hurt. The car and plane are replaceable / repairable. Hopefully he'll not have a heart attack when he reads the hire agreement and sees the excess.

Yeah it’s not a good practice, but not sure if it’s being taught or just being appropriated by students until it’s metaphorically beaten out of them by their instructors. I can see it making sense pre solo or just after, eg if you haven’t turned downwind by x then you are wide. Using the runway makes much more sense in my mind as it helps with whatever you do and once the student gets to forced landings you can build on the same concepts.

Carb ice? The warrior iii from memory is still carbureted (I know the archer iii is). I think they switched to injected engines with the tx lx models.

Don't know what you're taking about, they always look like that...😇

If the speculation that this was a first solo is true then he did a spectacular job, regardless he walked away and nobody got hurt. That's a win and you'd have to be happy with that. Hopefully he keeps at it too. Regarding glide approaches, consider that at class d airports like this you're at the mercy of the traffic. I've put a track of my circuits last week at Moorabin. I tend to like to fly a tight circuit that allows me to glide back to the airport if not the runway I was using, rather than landing on houses/ bunnings. You can see here the one circuit I did without traffic, then others either following others who circuit like they're in an a380 and also where I had to extend for traffic joining base. Glide approaches are nice but not always practical in these airports. Also there tends to be a trend toward teaching circuits using landmarks rather than reference to the runway I've seen, not sure what the go is there but I learned to use the runway as your reference for circuits.

Shu Any aviation purchase for recreational pilots tends to be an emotional buy, so no matter what advice anyone gives you, just do what will make you happy. That being said you would be wise to consider a few things before jumping in to buy a plane or rent hangar space. From your posts you've just started training so haven't yet gotten to understand your "mission". The advice to buy for the 90% of flying you do and rent for the rest is sound, you just need to work out what you'll be doing, which is hard when you haven't started getting out by yourself yet. Practically think of the 6 seat example. Most se 6 seaters are 4 + bags + fuel and scale the Maths down from there with a few notable exceptions. Also, unless you already know your other half is into small planes don't assume they will line up to come with. Mrs P occasionally tags along under duty and any child interest in flying had skipped my kids generation, meaning most of my flying is solo / with some other pilots or friends into the small plane vibe. In Melbourne for the location you mentioned you have a few options for renting and it might be good to complete your training, see what type of flying you do and then work out what you are best off getting and rent the rest. You also don't know how much flying you'll practically do, especially if as you've eluded to family is on the way. That tends to place a limit on hours while life happens. Some things to consider, but if it makes you happy go buy a lance, 206 or Cherokee 6 and go hack. Have fun.

The written exam covers them and so you need to know enough to answer those, even though as in my case the aircraft I was training in didn't even have an adf. I guess it's the leveller as given the permutations of fpa's you could select it would make it too hard to cover. The basic as tested pifr without fpa's only allows you enroute ifr with visual approaches by day until you add them via fpa's. Also remember if you don't have nvfr and get night fpa on your pifr you can only operate at night under ifr not vfr....unlike the ifr rating. Talk to your instructor about your plan and what you want to do and they can work out the fpa's you need, as some are prerequisites of others from memory. For books I also found many I read just covered all the ifr theory not covering the private side either by focusing on the material tested or the differences in pifr vs ifr exam and rating or the differences in private ifr ops vs the assumed commercial in the ifr rating. I'd highly recommend the Australian private pilot instrument rating book by Chris Markham which covers the pifr specifically. Its available from skylines and comes as a binder. Combined with the usual Bob Tait etc. It answered the hardest question I had for thr pifr exam... what the f#$% is the difference with the pifr, and why isn't there a book?!

I wouldn't rush out to find something "fun" so early on in your training though. You can have great fun in a 150, 172, tecnam etc. Just by going places, seeing things and enjoying being up there. Given your investment to date down the rpl path, you might be better off sticking with the 152, doing the various rpl endorsements and spending the time flying what you already can then spending more to do the raa conversion and get much the same. Obviously this depends on your circumstances but think of things like ease of getting to and from the airport, proximity to you, the availability of ANY aircraft for you to hire and other things that will eat into your ability to just get out and enjoy aviation as a recreational pilot. Over time you'll figure out if you need or want more seats, to go into cta and get other endorsement features etc. Your rpl gives you these options, but an rpc won't give you all of them.

I found the biggest thing adjusting to ra from ga was the lack of inertia and slower speeds ( flap, final, flare etc). I wouldn't call it deal breaking just something to get used to. Oh and the climb rate, that surprised me. The hours set aside to convert were sufficient though. Then there was getting my head around rotax rpm settings (you want me to cruise at what?) And the shut-down!

As well as the aopa podcast the ILAFT I learned about flying from that podcast is good too.

All these things are just tools to use to build your situational awareness and help you decide a course of action. These things are tricky as whilst the weather might be the thing that causes the actual problems, accidents are usually caused by a number of factors such as pressure to press on, a schedule to be somewhere, commitments etc. As we've seen recently, experience isn't an antidote to this type of thing happening, and whilst there may be gaps in MET understanding, looking at the HF aspects is also critical. What drives one person to decide to go vs. another not go. Even if we took two people with the same level of MET knowledge, they'd make two different decisions based on their experiences be that aeronautical, the last time they did it working out, personal circumstances and even personality. Not sure how you train that other than the FAA hazardous attitudes material, which again requires someone to have the ability to self reflect on said attitudes. Hence we get back to the idea that this is a command decision on your part.

Yep - and what concerns me about the marketing of said style of aircraft in such ways is that there is an element out there that will see the fancy glass, sleek bodies etc. and think they are go anywhere, anytime, do anything machines. They aren't. Even a cursory look at some of the speeds on these types shows that the cruise speed vs VA speed gap is significant and VNE is awful close in a lot of instances to cruise, not giving you much room to move should you hit some rough stuff. Even understanding the idea of VA and that sometimes you just might need to slow it down rather than blast through everywhere at warp 5. Add into that turbocharging courtesy of the 915, and the ability to go high, needing an understanding of the differences in TAS vs IAS and which limiting speeds use which. Add in descent planning (not VNAV and AP on the G3X autopilot), and need to be on top of the aircraft and its not that any of this is hard but you can go really quickly from something that putts around the pattern at 60 - 70 knots to a 130+ knot glass speedster quickly. None of this is the fault of the designs here, its more the type of people they're appealing to and (potentially from what we're discussing here) lack of training to prepare them for the jump.

I can understand not covering it as part of the general RAA BAK type training, but for the X country endorsement, I would have expected to see this type of training / need to demonstrate consideration of weather. Even more important in lighter aircraft without as much inertia. As the aircraft coming onto the RAA register become more capable and the gap between RAA and GA flying blurs more, its going to be important for the RAA to demonstrate that there's not a considerable difference in capability / quality of training from someone who learned at an RAA school vs. a GA school. Ideally numbers vs letters on the side of the plane shouldn't make a difference at all [talking 3 axis here, not lightweight / weight shift etc.]. Given that's the way CASA sees it in terms of logging hours then I'm going to assume they are expecting this is the case already?

I learned a lot about weather I didn't know (or forgot) during my instrument training, and the concept of personal minimums took on a new dimension as technically once you're instrument rated you've really got some low minimums mandated by the A/C POH or part91 to stop you legally, it comes down to your own decision making and personal minimums. One thing I still see though (and admittedly my personal minimums are quite conservative) is people launching into the sky VFR on days where I'm either happy to complain about not flying as I've cancelled or just take a quick lap around the circuit a few times. I also remember doing a weather course as part of my PPL, but that was at a large school and they had it as part of the general "course" they ran all students through at the time. I don't know what schools do now, but as part of my PPL nav's I did do a nearly 5 hour flight interstate and then back which included showing my weather planning / briefing, alternates etc. There were also opportunities to join the instructors on trips away for weekends etc. just to learn about all the things you don't see in the school environment (even basic things like how to tie down the aircraft at a country strip, contacting for prior permission etc. that might not be experienced by those training out of larger class D / C airports). This problem isn't a new one, and despite the calls from people that the fancy new avionics people have or EFB's are causing issues, I'm not sure the data on CFIT's / weather related incidents backs up that hypothesis. Like everything, there are some people who have more risk appetite than others, or who may have been successful scud running in the past who continue to do so. I had a similar query the other day about RAA met training as I'd come from a GA background and don't know what is taught on the RAA syllabus.

Zulu time makes sense to ensure everyone is using the same reference, not even just the big guys, think flying from Hamilton in vic to mt gambier in sa or a longer trip in au, which depending on the time of year can sit across 4 different time zones. in this regard local time is a pita and I just use the clock in the plane. Decoding the notams / wx nowadays when we don’t have the same constraints we did in the 40s tech wise is insane. Even if you keep the notation format but expand it to full wording. We could easily run in parallel and continue to train for a period on the existing format if needs be. Similar to how we all train with maps e6b and compass and then grab our shiny iPad to fly (at least most of us). for that matter, we have the tech to translate to multiple languages, infer context and even build a visual model of the weather depicted rendered in 3d if someone thought about it for 5 mins. Either way I think we can do better than a standard codified in the 40s.

Yep, seems like he’s being a so and so but he’s doing you a favour, showing what you need to keep up with and that you can ask again for info. Also don’t sweat it when you make a mistake, learn from it and hopefully you’re debriefing with the instructor when you get back too. it will feel for a while like you’re juggling whist on a unicycle with flying in imc, briefing an approach and dealing with a controller but you just get used to it after a while and it clicks. Also where you learn to appreciate currency being king, no matter the hours in your logbook if you’re not current and confident you can be dangerous. oh and a good autopilot!!!

Yep you can annotate charts in OzRunways. Note the aircraft overlay is also shown I just aren’t anywhere near the airport ☹️. Using your home sim connected to the iPad in sim mode also helps get your flow right and saves time and $$ on procedural stuff. I’ve gone completely paperless now with iPad and Apple Pencil (and backup tablet).