Happyflyer

A 19 aircraft can't be used for training (except the builder), can't fly over built areas (best check that) and can't fly into controlled airspace. You can though have just as much fun in them!

Have he tried the Aus/NZ dealer for ULP? Corvus Aero Australia 61 Waterfalls Rd Mount Macedon Victoria 3441 Australia Contact Name: Les Elliott Offical dealer for Australia and New Zealand Tel: +61 (0)419 444 546 E-mail: [email protected] Website: corvusaero.com.au

From RAAus website. "The cover has an indemnity limit of up to $10,000,000 for liability arising from third party property damage or bodily injury including a sub-limit of up to $250,000 for liability arising from injuries to passengers (including student pilots). Depending on individual circumstances, you may require more than the limits described above, so you may need to maintain additional individual insurance."

I think I would be fantastic for RAAus to own an airfield, be headquartered there, have a big annual airshow.

One thing you could do is to not give the insurance company any reason not to pay out. Things such as being medically fit, properly licenced, aircraft registered and servicings and paperwork up to date and not breaking any other basic rules at the time of the accident. It is interesting to see in the ATSB reports how many times the pilot's medical or BFR has lapsed, maintenance not current etc. Remember also the courts have deem flying to be inherently dangerous and are reluctant to order payouts to any person who should reasonably know this. I personally don't know of anyone who has ever been sent bankrupt by a genuine accident in an aircraft.

You have to change. Tell him it's not working and you are taking a break and want to try another instructor or just leave and try elsewhere. It is just so much better when you learn from an instructor you gel with. Good luck.

Well I think they did end up on the runway so they didn't use all of it. Could be the manufacturer fibbed just a little bit? There are many things that can extend the take off roll. Density altitude? Leisurely acceleration? 138 m quoted for sealed surface? Flaps or not? Maybe not quite full throttle? Carb heat on? Cruise or climb prop? Runway up slope? Remember the Russian pilot resting his feet on the brake causing a jet to crash and kill an ice hockey team?

Thanks for the feed back. I would like to think that like you in post #12, I look at the information offered, use my experience and offer a contribution to the conversation. My humble opinion. (and I do try hard not to be dismissive of other opinions without reason)

I would have laughed a lot harder when I first saw this many years ago. Maybe people don't find drunk pilots that funny anymore.

Yes. But the end coming up quickly increases the temptation to pull back on the stick too far and that will stall the aircraft and cause the accident.

So the aircraft was heavy, the wind was light from the SW and the choice of runways was a 530m grass runway to the west or a 1600m sealed runway to the south. The first was a very quick taxi the other a 1km back track. I wonder which choice we would have made... and which choice we would now make with what we have learnt from this? Hopefully I will take the longer runway.

Then with no deterrent he would keep on doing it, undercutting the legitimate operators (because it's all about money) until his luck ran out in my opinion. Airline travel is the safest form of travel and considering the millions of flights every year I think it works pretty well.

So reading between the lines Bruce, you are saying the system should have stopped this happening and the pilot should have been able to declare an emergency without penalty for getting himself into this situation?

I can hear CASA, ASA and Military now. "Wouldn't work in Australian conditions" , strange how those pesky Yanks have managed it in one of those quiet little airports they have over there, LAX. "The next transition route is the Los Angeles Special Flight Rules Area. This route is flown on the SMO 132-degree radial and crosses LAX at 3,500 feet when proceeding southeast and 4,500 feet when flying northeast. An ATC clearance is not required to fly this route - but all airplanes flying this route must switch their transponders to 1201 when they are within the LAX Class Bravo airspace. Pilots must provide their own traffic avoidance by maintaining the correct altitude and by making position announcements on 128.55. A typical announcement might sound like this: "Los Angeles special flight rules area traffic, Cessna 1234, over LAX at 4,500 feet." How simple is that!

I would suggest the answer to your question is no. No mention of it in the Sportstar POH. As I understand it Vtoss is to be achieved at 50 ft. As this aircraft apparently didn't get to 50 ft I'd say it's fairly irrelevant. Better to look out the front and make sure your nose doesn't go too high.

You make it sound quite complex. It's really quite easy as millions of flights prove every day. It takes a special blend of arrogance and stupidity to do what this captain has done.

Couldn't agree more. The more time you put in away from the aircraft the less time you need to do in it. It's disappointing for an instructor when the student rocks up not having opened the books or seriously thought about flying since the last lesson, and so refreshing when you get the opposite.

I think you will find CAO 95.55 is still in force, at least raaus still has plenty of references to it in the ops manual. But I was wrong, CAO 95.55 para 8.4 only says that above 5000 an RAAus aircraft must carry a serviceable radio and the pilot be authorized to use it. Therefore RAAus aircraft would have to follow the same murky rules GA aircraft follow. Common sense would say that above 5000 ft the CTAF freq is of no use, monitor Area. My radio can listen to two frequencies so it's easy.

For RAAus it is written in CAO 95.55.

CASA says that when flying above 5000ft you must have a radio and must be monitoring the area frequency. Below 5000ft it becomes a bit murkier, in more ways than one.

The Rotax recommendation is to change the engine oil every hundred hours if you use mogas. If you use avgas the recommendation is change it more often. The local flying school uses only mogas and 100 hr oil change and generally get to TBO. I have no idea why anyone would not follow the maker's recommendation.

The Queensland Coroner released reports to the public on this page http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/coroners-court/findings . Just know the name of the deceased and approximate date. As an example this one is about the replica spitfire crash - http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/337622/cif-uscinski-20141229.pdf

No it can not be done. If it is being done then that person is cheating a legal operator, who has paid top dollar to get the approvals.

I was not aware of any requirement to have L2 maintenance if flying in CTA. Do you have a reference for that?

It can't hurt to ask about an exemption. This from their last email. "As always, RAAus will recognise appropriate prior learning and certification from any suitably recognised training course. For instance, members who have completed the SAAA Weight and Balance training will be automatically recognised."