ian00798

I'd be interested in your feedback on that point regarding my own posts please?I'm pretty sure that Roundsounds, for one, does not need a refresher and I will be so bold as to state that I do not (I'm a flight examiner for instructors who want to teach spins).

Now if only people on here would listen to your good advice instead of arguing every little point

 

 

In a K13, I was taught to enter a spin with ailerons & rudder neutral, and stick back until the break. At which point, one wing would drop. If the spin was allowed to develop, the procedure was opposite rudder, stick forward to unstall, recover using coordinated controls.But at the incipient spin, when the wing starts to drop, it was stressed to use only the rudder, keeping the ailerons centralised. This always worked to prevent the wing dropping further and a spin developing.

 

So, either my terminology is incorrect, or my memory fails me. Now my recall is pretty crap at times, but I have a solid sense of doing just as I said - picking up a wing with rudder, not aileron.

It's your terminology that is the issue. Picking up the wing with rudder implies that not only have you prevented the wing from dropping, but you are actually using the rudder to return to wings level which is a tremendously bad idea. What you said earlier in the post was correct, where you used the rudder to prevent further wing drop. Then once you have unstalled the aircraft you use aileron to roll to wings level.

 

 

Tell that to the relatives. You have a duty of care and we are not at war at the moment and even then the equipment must work. You are meant to kill the other side, not your own people in a training exercise. Whenever this happens there's usually a thorough enquiry and some blame will be laid and should be. The Military Industry is very profitable.. It often doesn't do everything right and does have to be answerable.. More testing or more training or the equipment is faulty. This item has an unacceptable safety history... That's a fact.. Nev

War is a messy business, and unfortunately sometimes staying ready for war you lose good people keeping your forces prepared. It's not a pleasant fact of life, however in combat these machines are a godsend. The military has come a long way as far as safety goes, however ultimately mission comes before safety, and demanding the same level of safety we take for granted with airliners just won't work. After all, for these people getting shot at is considered a normal fact of life.

 

 

This Plane/Helicopter/Contraption has had an unacceptable safety record and is widely known as the widowmaker being extremely difficult to fly/control according to many accounts. Does it have cyclic pitch control? Nev

It's a machine of war, and the safety standards we expect from commercial aviation don't apply. Plenty of other military aircraft have earned the widowmaker title so that's nothing new.

 

 

I agree the IDEA of the V22 and its benefits over choppers is great, but in reality it's a mechanical nightmare and there have been several crashes. I don't know whether that extra 100kts over a Chinook is worth the billions in costs and the many lives lost so far.

Whenever you work on the cutting edge there will be crashes. In combat an extra 100 knots could easily be life and death, and it has twice the combat radius of the chinook as well which is a huge difference.

 

 

Engine out control needs to be improved. Hanging on a motor with 2 chances of a failure is not good odds. It's not gunna glide is it? Nev

It has a power transfer shaft so in hover mode if you lose an engine the remaining engine keeps turning both props. Obviously there is going to be a significant power loss and fully loaded I suspect your still going down, but then how is that any different to a piston twin really.

 

I have always thought they were an example of technology purely for technology's sake.

That seems somewhat misinformed to say the least. There is a huge tactical advantage from the added combat radius and lift capability. The added combat radius means you can park the ship carrying it much further offshore, and the ability to drop 30 combat equipped marines nearly anywhere isn't something to be sneezed at.

 

 

I would much prefer to see someone in aviation in something they can afford rather than not fly at all, however the solo rate on a sling is $195 per hour, compared to the $165 on a drifter. The sling is a good 30 knots or maybe more faster than a drifter for a similar fuel burn, which means if you wanted to travel somewhere it would actually end up cheaper.

 

 

Back to the tread topic, why on earth would you learn to fly in a high performance aircraft like a Sling?.Much better in my opinion to train in something more robust and forgiving and accordingly cheaper.

In my experience the sling is an exceptionally good initial training aircraft. It has the benefit of being very easy to fly, but quite tricky to fly well. It's fast enough that you don't waste excessive time getting to the training area, and it can take quite a beating. The handling qualities on it are just beautiful. Have you taken the opportunity to fly the sling yet? If you haven't I strongly recommend having a go at it.

 

 

Instructors are generally very hesitant to exceed 2 flights per day initially, especially for the basic sequences. You will be totally drained after an hour initially, and it's that day of rest which gives you the ability to absorb the new learnings. Keep in mind for every initial lesson there is a corresponding 1 hour briefing, and in my experience by the time you go for a third lesson it is pointless due to fatigue.

 

The rapid training used in the war was done more out of necessity than anything, and your final exam was eye opening to say the least, and most didn't pass it.

 

 

I was under the impression that this thread was about rec flying not RPT

Last time I checked most of the guys flying the RPT started down the little end of town. Let that pipeline dry up and next thing all we are left with is captains flying with very low time first officers in the right seat. Don't know about you, but that's not what I want becoming the norm. I shudder to think how QF32 might have ended if it was just the captain then two very low time pilots "helping" him.

 

 

Well that will fix australias love of flying, with our xenophobia when all the flying is done by Muslims and Asians no Australian will ever fly

 

 

Maybe some of the failing schools should do some maths. People only have so much money to spend on their hobby. If it's more than they can afford, they will do something else. It's unfortunate, but it's how the market works.People mostly need tradesmen, they don't need to learn to fly for recreation, it's a want.

Essentially, it's just supply and demand. The maths here is really simple. If it cost more than people are willing to pay, they won't do it. They'll just go and do something they can afford. How many people would have JetSkis, boats or 4WDs if they had to spend thousands just to be authorised to use it?

People might consider it less of a hobby when there is no one left to fly them to Bali for their annual piss up

 

 

Most tradesmen charge around 80-100 per hour, so why is it not reasonable for an instructor to get similar? And for the record, while the dual rate may be $100 per hour more, the instructor is lucky to get half of that.

 

Perhaps we should do some maths? Most instructors only get paid while they fly, and are realistically limited to 900 hours per year. $45 per hour is about what the instructor gets, which equates to an annual income of $40 500. That is not much above the Australian minimum wage which is about $36 000 per year. For someone who has invested at least $50-60k for their qualification.

 

 

anyone who has sold a half decent house in sydney in the last few decades

Anybody that has sold a half decent house in Sydney could probably spring for something even more fun like a PC12 or TBM850

 

 

And if subject to CASA's annual limit on flying hours it is not a lucrative salary either way.

I would argue a smart RA instructor would abide by these limitations too, if something went wrong a lawyer will absolutely tear you apart in court if they could argue that fatigue could have been a contributing factor

 

 

Any instructor who is charging $100.00 an hour for his time has a vastly over inflated opinion of his real worth in the world & anyone who pays this is nuts.

Yep. How dare somebody that has spent upwards of $60k actually want a return on their investment. That's pretty damn arrogant of them.

 

 

It is definitely the grid lowest safe altitude. The grid lowest safe altitude that Cessnock is in is definitely that height and that's because it has to take into account the highest terrain in that entire grid. If you went and calculated a route lowest safe you would quite likely end up with a lower figure unless your route actually took you near that high point.

 

The grid lowest safe also takes into account high structures as well, the same way any other LSALT calculation does, so if you are at the grid lowest safe altitude with the correct QNH set you are guaranteed 1000ft of obstacle clearance.

 

 

Those charging $310 an hour for any recreational trainer are definitely running high margins.ProSky Maryborough are $230 per hour dual for a Tecnam Sierra or Evektor Sportstar. Wet hire I have not checked recently but last I did it was $145 per hour.

There is a massive difference between running an aircraft at YMYB and running one at YBAF.

 

 

Luckily the airframe on a jabiru is actually quite good and capable of handling a rough landing better than an Abrams tank

 

 

Sure. We will just blindly pretend the jabiru engine doesn't actually have a reliability issue then it might just disappear. Put it this way, if even my non aviation friends know jabiru have an issue then it's probably an actual problem, not an imaginary issue.

 

 

Seriously that post got a caution? Damn the truth being inconvenient

 

 

Yeah. Turns out if you want an engine that actually is sought of reliable you might have to pay a bit of cash.

 

 

Does everybody realise that there isn't anything horrible about flying GA? A 40 year old Cessna actually can be a lot of fun despite what a lot of people on here think with their GA allergy. As for the cheaper rates that supposedly exist, perhaps post them on here as per what the original poster requested rather than say you don't have to look too far?

 

 

Well since we don't all have a wife that can pay for it some people have to pay the real world costs to people who actually want to make some money from aviation, and I can't think of many places that are much cheaper than either of those places in the Brisbane area.

 

 

I would support the weight increase. A lot of RA aircraft are operating on an artificially reduced MTOW, ie sling 2, I think a 750kg MTOW would allow a much better utility of RA aircraft with no reduction in safety