motzartmerv Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Wow Bull. Youve obviously not read how to win friends and influence people. If people didnt want it, it would not be here. Capiche? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 No not interested in influencing people or making friends useing a false persona. A fact is a fact a spade is a spade you can say ,yea but we all want these new exemptions and freedoms ,what a crock if we had a survey of current members of Raa we would get some honest answers from real people not some fantastic plastic pr manager................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Maybe it`s just the sun that I`ve been working in all morning, getting to me!What the hell is that gem supposed to mean?.....That all those who survive a crash, tell lies? Frank. It's not the sun Frank , as it's raining down here and I feel the same !! There must be something we are both missing . FT seems to be 'fishin' . Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I think we have a self perpetuating system, the pilots that do not want to be scrutinized gravitate to the system that asks no questions.I have got reservations about hopping into an RAA plane as there is no guarantee that the pilot or plane meets any sort of standard. Which is exactly what that little sticker oin the front panel says......you do have one dont you FT.....<all the while looking up CASA's dob in the stickerless phone number> Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The RAA seems to have a lot of accidents where the plane crashes for no obvious reason. This year I started to wonder how experienced pilots can crash so easily, the only conclusion I can come too is that the lack of penalties for relaxing standards must contribute something to the increase in risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Ipersonally know at least 5 raa plastic drivers who have said that they would fail any medical and thats why they fly raa ,now 600kg at 90 knots will do just as much damage as a 182 which the casa medical is for so some 60 year old pilot does,nt have a heart attack or fit or pass out because of a medical condition ,flying raa to avoid these medicals [designed with public safety in mind]in a fantastic plastic which can do just as much damage ,to me is just fraud and bypassing any safety issues implemented over a very long time ,i will be selling my aircraft and not renewing my licence in raa........................ Bull Add me to the list Im pretty sure I couldnt pass an ATP medical, nor indeed last time I checked I wasnt able to jump six feet high. Now neither of those things, nor indeed a GA related medical are called for so exactly how is this relevant?? You talk about damage from 600kg's at 90 knots, and yet its perfectly acceptable to society for the same walking timebomb (medically speaking) pilot to jump in his huge ass 4wd, probably 600kgs 3 times over and travel at 55kt's on a freeway just inches away from other road users......Get real the ultralight is the least of the total problem!! If the pilot only flys his plastic when he would be Ok to fly his 4wd (and again that requires self control) then exactly what is the issue? And dont tell me that a class 1 or 2 is better, not flying at all is the ultimate better but I dont hear many of us calling for that!! Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The RAA seems to have a lot of accidents where the plane crashes for no obvious reason. This year I started to wonder how experienced pilots can crash so easily, the only conclusion I can come too is that the lack of penalties for relaxing standards must contribute something to the increase in risk. Yeah, on thinking about it your right, this really needs a dose of capital punishment. lets threaten them with death if they...... do ......something silly .......that might cause their death...... Damn Im good with logic just ask me I'll tell ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 So if you knowingly drive a big arse 4wd with a heart condition or diabetes is that being responsable....i hope i,m never driving along a road with you coming the other way!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Ok Bull.. Spade is a spade. 1. Currently RAA pilots cannot fly into controlled airspace. To do so they need a valid PPL (minimum) which means a current medical. - I don't see your point, we CAN'T fly into CTA (sydney). 2. There are a lot of 600 kg aircraft that can land in less distance than a thruster. Please, if your going to make an argument, make it resemble the facts. 3. Who needs a poll. Look at the register of aircraft. Facts are facts as you say, and the fact is, there are many times more "plastic" aeroplanes on the register. That is a fact. If people only wanted rag n tube, then the numbers would reflect this. 4. Its interesting that this argument has popped up in a thread about a "10" registered single seater, that weighs sweet bugga all. ;) When you obtained your RAA cert, did you not realize that no medical was required? Its not a new thing, why the sudden "u" turn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sain Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 stop feeding the troll guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 FT seems to be 'fishin' . Bob Naahhh, This is fishin, Bob! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Yeah, on thinking about it your right, this really needs a dose of capital punishment. lets threaten them with death if they...... do ......something silly .......that might cause their death...... Damn Im good with logic just ask me I'll tell ya! Look what happened at Reno, for years they did nothing about safety and the planes got faster and heavier and the pilots older. Now they have lost $1.5M+ on last years event because of that crash and have double the legal hoops to jump through for the ongoing events. If there is a huge payout the insurance will make the event unviable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Any way guys good luck to you no matter what you fly,and yes i dont want to give up my Fun flying, maybe a splinter group for traditional fun flying Ultralighters with max tow of 300kg single seater fun machines be created so we dont have to pay for the cta more weight /more speed lobbying to canberra something like the hang glider fed or para planes or gliders ...any thoughts??? ps insurance what are the statistics from the 80s and 90 s of LIGHT ULTRALIGHTS crashing into something or someone that justifies 10 million in cover ?Yes you might need it if you plowed an rv into a crowd or house why should we have to pay for plastics to fly somewhere we dont even go near ie houses towns ga airfields .i fly from a paddock over bush unpopulated areas and love every minute for FUN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 Now THAT's something sensible to talk about! That's for Farri, not you other two turkeys who should start writing to each other. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 So if you knowingly drive a big **** 4wd with a heart condition or diabetes is that being responsable....i hope i,m never driving along a road with you coming the other way!!! Actually Im a type 1 diabetic and Ive been driving the whole time since diagnosis. Why, because i have a special medical each year where they assess if I can still drive.....So in this case Im probably more "measured" than many others. I suggest that you give up your car at next registration as well as your plane...after all the same logic applies Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 FT A serious question for you, requiring more than a 10 word answer. You've said there isnt enough oversight, and yet you poked fun at those suggesting a police state approach. Obviously they are at each end of the spectrum when you want something more towards the middle. Describe to me what your middle would look like and what benefits and costs it would bring. Who knows, if you provide details and a logic that us peasants can follow we may end up agreeing with you rather than questioning your sanity (and therefore using the "dob in an idiot" that we seem to have thrashed to death of late, your right to fly!!) Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Naahhh, This is fishin, Bob![ATTACH=full]16240[/ATTACH] Nice Photoshop Frank , does almost look real though, but you can't fool us Southerners !! Bob 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Any way guys good luck to you no matter what you fly,and yes i dont want to give up my Fun flying, maybe a splinter group for traditional fun flying Ultralighters with max tow of 300kg single seater fun machines be created so we dont have to pay for the cta more weight /more speed lobbying to canberra something like the hang glider fed or para planes or gliders ...any thoughts??? ps insurance what are the statistics from the 80s and 90 s of LIGHT ULTRALIGHTS crashing into something or someone that justifies 10 million in cover ?Yes you might need it if you plowed an rv into a crowd or house why should we have to pay for plastics to fly somewhere we dont even go near ie houses towns ga airfields .i fly from a paddock over bush unpopulated areas and love every minute for FUN The $10m is called for because many councils require at least that amount if you want to use the council airstrip. The airstrip I fly from at South Grafton require $10m coverage of each and every user. Why, because its an amount that is achievable for the users and reduces the council risk to almost zip. I personally, for my plastic, have top up insurance above and beyond because It suits my risk profile (The risk Im prepared to be exposed to). Each to their own financial arrangments, but a warning, just because you fly rag and tube doesnt remove the risk. Your inference is that plastics are more prone to accident than rag and tube. Do you have any stats to back that claim? I suspect not. QBE will insure my plastic, but they dont want a bar of the trike....Now why is that ? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Any way guys good luck to you no matter what you fly,and yes i dont want to give up my Fun flying, maybe a splinter group for traditional fun flying Ultralighters with max tow of 300kg single seater fun machines be created so we dont have to pay for the cta more weight /more speed lobbying to canberra something like the hang glider fed or para planes or gliders ...any thoughts??? ps insurance what are the statistics from the 80s and 90 s of LIGHT ULTRALIGHTS crashing into something or someone that justifies 10 million in cover ?Yes you might need it if you plowed an rv into a crowd or house why should we have to pay for plastics to fly somewhere we dont even go near ie houses towns ga airfields .i fly from a paddock over bush unpopulated areas and love every minute for FUN Yep good idea, that should have a good following, could still be in RAAus but with more appropriate fees and requirements. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 andy have you seen the SAAA's IRIS system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 andy have you seen the SAAA's IRIS system? FT answer the damn Q please this, as with all your posts, just (probably??) answers one specific aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Andy, fit GPS loggers to planes. They wouldn't be that expensive, tie that to an online logging system and the RAA will have a pretty good idea how safely you are flying. Fit the GPS logger with a Gsensor and you will find who's planes have been doing aerobatics and heavy landings. At least when they find the wreck they will have some idea what the plane was doing prior to crashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Hey people my apologies to anyone who might be offended by discussion on this topic ,I have been MODERATED and will now retire from the old boys club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 What is with these billsh!t claims of being moderated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Andy, fit GPS loggers to planes. They wouldn't be that expensive, tie that to an online logging system and the RAA will have a pretty good idea how safely you are flying. Fit the GPS logger with a Gsensor and you will find who's planes have been doing aerobatics and heavy landings. At least when they find the wreck they will have some idea what the plane was doing prior to crashing. But what's the point of that? How many lives will that save and at what cost? Life is all about accepting and mitigating risk. There is some point where you say the risks are acceptable. If you are driving a car down the highway then the law says 100km/h is the speed which produces an acceptable risk of death. It certainly doesn't stop loss of life from happening...it is just the level we as a society accept for the privilege of driving cars at a convenient speed (and we don't have data loggers in cars). If you fly without a medical then the law says no CTA and 600kg max weight (amongst others) are the limits that produce an acceptable risk. As for 600kg aircraft hitting houses...well...when was the last time ANY aircraft in Australia hit a house and killed someone? I can't remember. When was the last time a car or truck in Australia hit a house and killed someone? Unfortunately it was just in the past few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts