SSCBD

The real poll question that also should be included is, how many are flying without a current RAA pilot cert - or GA license or BFR.

This is the timing belt reduction drive I chose...At the time there had been a number of Rotax B type gearbox failures so I reasoned I could inspect the components of the belt drive, at preflight! from memory, it did around 130 trouble free hours before Cyclone Joy damaged my AC and I stored it.....It`s held to the engine by 2 pieces of Aluminum angle and the adjusting arms are attached to those...It`s been sitting in a box since 1990.[ATTACH]53995[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]53996[/ATTACH]

Frank

Veteran Status - Well done. Do you still have the Scout?.

Well you aren't going to be taught that by one of the instructors who thinks all aircraft are the same.

I'm just saying they're different, 'tis all - we're talking about a "Foxbat" here but are we talking about a 22 or a 32?and yes, I was taught that when I learnt to fly a Drifter...

Just a short note, I probably could have checked online for the details of the aircraft but I'm a lazy bugger:I was under the impression the Foxbat is the A22 and the Vixxen is the A32 - apparently they are very different to fly, the A32 being more aerodynamic than the A22...

 

My 'source' told me the A32 is a little 'tricky' to slow down after turning Base, needs to be managed very differently than the draggier A22

 

Am I right ? As for the A32, imho it would put a woody on a jellyfish - having said that, I'd be happy to have an A22 in my hangar instead...

 

BP

They are nowhere near as simple to fly and similar to each other as the bulk of GA singles. With a fraction of the design hours of GA aircraft, that’s not surprising.That doesn’t mean instructors need the same time as students, but there is a happy medium. I can remember a Gazelle instructor who came down from the country for an assessment on a Jab J170 I was about to be tested on. When he finally reappeared and landed, he pulled up short, got out and threw up. When they taxiied in he got out flew back to his home strip and we never saw him again.

If you're happy to let an instructor learn on your plane, you're more than welcome. Me on the other hand, feel this is an unnecessary risk, particularly when it can be avoided and I wouldn't stand for it. The 'suck it and see' mentality has no place in aviation.See that plane below? It was someone's Belite. Here's what happened in the pilots (note, NOT the owner) own words.

 

Jesus, FLYING SCHOOLS ARE A COMMERCIAL OPERATION. what happens when a flying school gets a new type of aircraft - say a Jab - BRM - Sling for example, they fly it for an hour or so, read the book then take students. Its not hard. They also will learn while training on it. this is what CFI's are for. These aircraft are simple to fly and operate - where is this all coming from.

Doesn't like wind gusts. Fine in still air. Nev.

Its a simple aircraft to fly. Don't know why its a problem - seems the lack of experience of the instructor is the problem. . .

Many think they can - but cant. simple fact. Love to do a rating on flying schools from a independent point of view, outside RAA or GA bubble system. Then again would probably be sued from hurting some feelings of the precious.

However teaching 25 hours ish to a student is not hard just tick the boxes.

This is my worst nightmare - I am really terrified when she drives the car and I am in it.

Ouch - insurance claim?

People need hands on courses (not costly talk fests)

AND

Kids (city) these days don't know how to change a car tire. Really - last few boyfriends of my daughters could not and I kid you not!

Hi and welcome, but get a real flying job. Dassault Falcon rules.

In most light draggy aircraft (at least the few I have flown) to land without throttle you need to maintain your airspeed down through what my instructor called the grownd rush (at around 50ish feet you get the feeling the ground is rushing up at you) and not round out too high. It is an automatic reaction to start pulling up once the ground rush starts and if you do do that with no throttle you will run out of airspeed too high and not have enough authority left for the final flare which will mean a rough landing at best or a stall from high enough to hurt.Using powered approaches can and does remove that vertical ground rush feeling by flattening out the approach angle.

 

In my comment I was just wondering how many Pilots were spoiling themselves with the use of throttle and weren't experiencing the ground rush until they had an engine failure, and then not used to the ground rush were they pulling up/ rounding out too high and the stalling it in?

 

I personally use throttle on a lot of my landings but I also try and practice my no throttle landings regularly.

Identification of the failed engine needs to be both rapid and accurate and the propeller must be feathered whilst simultaneously keeping the airspeed at the best single engine climb speed, often referred to as “blue line” speed because of such a line often seen on analogue ASIs

Whenever possible all my approaches are glide approches, adjusting attitude, for airspeed as I was taught to do, for the obvious reason of thats whats required when the bugsmasher stops.and I think any BFR without an engine out landing practice is,nt the complete deal, cheers Hargraves

Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft

NOTE the word ULTRALIGHT IN the headline of the “ farri “ POST.

To get back to the original question of this post and not transform to a free for all, and for the GA and RAA pilots or those learning on or flying nothing other than Tecnam, Slings, Jabs, BRM, ETC. and who have never flown a true Ultralight.

You guys don’t know what you are missing.

Some background and digression.

First Problem to remember, ultralights have a very small - take-off, stall to max cruise speed range envelope. Some early and very BASIC single seat ULTRALIGHTS only have around a 0 TO 60-kilometre speed range, which is 32.5 kts! That’s flat out, to stall at half that. So your margin or flight envelope was about 15 kts all with about 20 to 30 HP two stroke motor.

True Ultralights (commonly referred to as rag wings (sailcloth) with two stroke engines) are a very different animal and can have some nasty spots that can bite, (even the well trained high time GA pilot) that the aloof, types that look down on our actual heritage.

It amuses me no end years ago, to watch GA pilots, for first time flying a rag wing. The initial shock on the faces of the speed washing off as fast as they pull the power back is almost the same as the rpm gauge unwinding. Also, GA pilots first flights initial reaction to no momentum (weight and speed to punch through wind gusts and turbulence).

Real Example - if you got hit by a 20kt gust flying along straight and level – you felt the whole aircraft tighten up, it climbed like you were riding a thermal, you could actually feel and see the wing wire bracing tighten and the wing bend slightly at the tip but it was not sharp thump like turbulence

Next the scary bit, flat out cruise straight and level say 40 to 45kts – the ASI would suddenly go up a lot, and hold for a second or two then the gust would be passed and suddenly your airspeed would drop 25 to 30 kts. No weight to punch through it with more drag. The lighter the rag wing or a single seat the more pronounced the effect. You were a true butterfly.

Then the best bit, and I did have some fun with GA pilots, and this is what we did every day back in the AUF days (and as far as I am concerned criminal that we can’t now) – we turned off the engine without warning to the victim. This was of course over head, with somewhere to land and usually over a thousand feet or two so they could understand the OUTSTANDING lack glide ratio, compared to a brick!! – and how fast the ALT, could unwind in its best glide speed compared to todays slick toys.

The biggest thing we had to drum into these guys was with an engine failure – “stick the nose down now before you do or look at anything”. This was a problem, because people having their FIRST real engine failure as the prop was not rotating were in stunned that it was happening to them.

So having the ability of the early rag wing, two seat, two stroke training ultralights allowed us to turn off the engine in controlled conditions? for the students including GA guys, and reduce the “frozen shock and disbelief period” before they acted. They may not have liked it but it saved lives. Not like the snowflake rules we have now.

So back to the question – “Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft” Frank has cheekily posted.

Frank the answer is

Of course an engine failure wont kill you – you are my proof - (how many have you had?????. However - You must have to have the right training – self-taught correct? and survived, but always have a plan to put it down without power!

I have flown as a passenger in the back seat at night. When it's black down there I wonder what one does when the engine quits. You can't pick a paddock, can't see trees, wires etc. I would not do it myself. Even over the city, it's scary, although very pretty.

Myles Baptiste told Nine News he watched in horror as the plane hit the water and quickly sank on Sunday.

"We saw a seaplane coming towards us," he said.

"It made a tight right-hand turn and as it actually turned around, the wings dipped and it nosedived straight into the water."

OF course it's lovely on the right night. Moon shining no clouds, town lights like fairyland below you etc What about a moonless night where you run into invisible ground fog. at low level in a circuit? Others report a single point light running all over the windscreen and they don't know which way is UP. Lucky to survive. Nev

I fly night VFR, - so what's the problem? And since you fly twins I ASSUME you have a night rating - correct?

I also highly recommend learning night circuits to all including RAA pilots - just in case someone gets caught out and stuffs up so at least they can put the aircraft on the ground.

So the RAA system is hog wash, and you really start from scratch. No credit on the money spent or exams done with RAA. If that is the true outcome why have our RAA leaders said nothing, is my slant. This to me sets RAA back in the caves, as it seems from above that CASA wont act on any RAA system put in place to train and be given credit for time and money spent - Correct???

My next question is - Why don't we use and teach the full PPL theory instead of the kindergarten books and exams that students pay hard money for now and is a waste if want to get into flying GA. Then at least the standard could be recognised I hope by CASA.

Maybe RAA head office can enlighten us on why?

Its amazing we could ever fly for how many years before it ever existed! Oh God, us old pilots are very lucky to be around still.