ian00798

Your kidding right? Your actually suggesting we let people do something for which they have no training or evidence that they are actually competent? While you may think cross country is a piece of cake there is actually a lot to it. Even if the radius was doubled to 50NM that's just quadrupled the amount of area the student has to get lost in. I have literally seen pilots get lost in the circuit area of the aerodrome they took of from, so I think 25NM is quite a fair and reasonable restriction for someone who has no Nav training. As for the creative interpretations of the rule some people are using, seriously how hard is it to just apply the rule like a normal person would and if you want to go further then do the appropriate training?

Sounds like a fantastic idea that could never be misused/abused.........

PPL is a big step up compared to RA. CTA/CTR, more complex aircraft and as a general rule a much higher knowledge and technical standard. You have to look at what a PPL gives you the ability to do, with training you can fly almost anything by day/night and in IMC, they have to know you meet the standard. I believe the conversion from RA to RPL is quite a bit easier at the dual GA/RA schools.

I have to agree with frank on this one, the standard varies drastically between RA schools and that is because of the inbred nature of the system. When the guy running the school happens to be the instructor, CFI and the testing officer there is way too much room for abuse in the system. Given that I have had an RA pilot tell me they don't have to hold an alternate IAW AIP because that doesn't apply to RA pilots I start getting very concerned with what some people are being taught. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some less than stellar pilots in the GA world, but as the licence test has to be passed with an ATO the standard is much more consistent. I'm a firm believer that no one person should be able to award someone a licence, there have to be multiple people along the way saying the person is ready

I haven't experienced that either in the 172 or 182, I suspect it may partly involve getting used to the significantly higher control forces required in these aircraft compared to most RA aircraft

20 is about the optimum. 10 will lead to excessive float, although may be appropriate in strong crosswinds. Full flap is really only something I use when I need it on the 172, and you have to watch your speed because the drag is phenomenal, which is also an advantage. Your journey sounds about normal to me, CTA is always going to take a while to master despite what others say on here, as for the aircraft it is heavier, faster and more complex. As for the wind, 15-20 knots is getting towards the 172 crosswind limits so most pilots would be working hard in that one. Don't shy away from practising them though, they are one of the biggest weaknesses we deal with as instructors and the only way to get good is to practise.

That brings back some memories Denis, not all of them good. Which pilots course were you on?

That seems more like the exception than the norm. Firstly a BFR is not a test and as such is not conducted by an examiner, it's done by a grade 2 or 1 instructor. Secondly, there is no requirement to have an asic for a flight review. However if it was a flight test then yes you are required to have a current asic or avid as it's a requirement on the form.

While I don't disagree, 24 000 000/10000=2400 With only 1 person in every 2400 being a member of ra Aus, it doesn't equate to much political power. That's 0.04 percent of the population. Compare that to something like the NRA, which is about 1.5% of the US population, and they do have some clout. Simple fact is most Australians couldn't care less about general aviation so the government isn't going to spend time on something with no voice and no votes.

Yes. More often than not by people who have never actually flown it and just heard from a friend of a friend.

Spinning is not banned on them, most people just don't do it for that exact reason, although you will inadvertently end up in incipient spins practicing stalls. I'm not saying it's the worlds finest aircraft, it's far from it however I believe it still performs what it was designed to do quite well and I will always have a soft spot for it. The one thing I like is how it actually demands accuracy, if you fly it sloppy then it will punish you. The fact that the Air Force cadets have used, and still use it, as a trainer says quite a bit about how capable it is at doing what it was designed to do. Having said that, yes if I had the choice I would still choose the C172 over it.

SSCBD, yes the tomahawk doesn't love being slow, and it will punish you if you let it get slow. Probably one of the things a lot of people hate about it, but I think the disciplined speed control required to fly the tomahawk well is a positive rather than a negative. Then if your not comfortable that is a good call not to fly it on your own, but I really strongly suggest go and fly it with someone until you do get comfortable, it will definitely improve your flying and once you get used to the tommy it can be fun.

I'm not exactly small myself, the tomahawk wasn't much below MTOW. I have flown the tomahawk for a significant amount of hours at many different weights in many different conditions, and while it certainly has some interesting qualities and it's stall qualities can be interesting elevator authority is not an issue I have found.

Have you considered asking for a medical with the condition that you have a safety pilot on board? I know it's not ideal but if it lets you move into some of the aircraft like a C172/182 it would still be worth it, and if your doing it recreationally then it's not that horrible to have to have a safety pilot on board. Doing the RPL conversion opens up a lot of options and gives you the chance to develop your skills further.

Wouldn't you like to have had that picked up before it even became diabetes though? That would definitely have been a possibility if you had to do an annual medical where they checked for that. While I don't love the cost of the medical, I consider the annual medical I have to do to be a good thing, and the worst possible scenario is they find something that means I can't fly, they treat it, I get many more years with my family and probably a medical that says I have to fly with a safety pilot, which isn't the worst thing in the world let's be honest.

They probably still would like to Derek, which is even more reason to use it, remember the basic principle of use it or lose it, and Archerfield would be horrible to lose

While still not what it was in its heyday, Archerfield is starting to get quite busy again now with a very interesting traffic mix

Well that's totally incorrect, a large portion of recreational flying takes place in our capital cities and there is absolutely no requirement to be able to glide clear of the built up areas, you just have to be at or above 1000ft over obstacles within 600m of the aircraft

It's not the person that has well managed diabetes casa is looking for in the medical exams, in fact once you show that your diabetes under control casa generally give your medical back with certain conditions. Casa is worried about the person who has no idea that they have, or nearly have, diabetes and the first time they find out is when they get ill, and incapacitated from the first occurrence. That is going to be picked up in the glucose test in the medical.

No for cholesterol hence why it is checked every 5 years unless clinically indicated otherwise, yes for blood sugar, they test for the level of glucose present in the urine. Ultimately it's kind of similar to how breath is used to test for alcohol, as there is a relationship between urine glucose and blood sugars

Yes you have. It's what they check for when you pee in the cup. And the cholesterol is checked every five years

Yeah checking things like cholesterol, blood sugar levels, blood pressure etc is useless and won't detect anything. I mean it makes way more sense to just wait until you have full blown diabetes or something and then worry about it right? Preventative medicine is for noobs.

Damn right driving is risky, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it but a smart driver does everything they reasonably can to reduce the risks. Aviation should be the same, and an occasional medical to reduce the risk isn't that onerous

Seriously how hard would it be to visit your GP once per year and have them give you a quick once over to make sure you are actually in a fit condition to fly an aircraft? It wouldn't even be particularly expensive. Then you only have to go and see a DAME if you want one of the higher classes of medical or if something comes up in the check with your GP. Signing a piece of paper basically saying yeah bro I feel like I'm fit to fly an aircraft just doesn't cut it as due process as far as I'm concerned because there is a bias in the decision making there.

So you had what some would call a bad landing, it must be the aircrafts fault? The elevator authority has been fine on every tomahawk I have ever flown, not that I haven't landed with inelegant bumps, but that was all down to me.