barandbrew Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 RAA , I joined this group because I wanted a simple way to fly without the highly regulated crap that GA is. I don't need to go 100 knots I am happy at 65 knots and I don't need to fly 200 kilometres I just want to to get in my self maintained aircraft and enjoy being airborne without having to having to sit a test to have a bit of paper that says that I can maintain my aircraft ,as I have done for 12 years quite successfully , I don't need to be forced to have my aircraft inspected by an L2 every year or two so I can keep CASA happy if I think there is a problem I get a LAME to inspect , I will not get in an aircraft I think has a problem , my ass is way more important than CASSA. So I am selling my plane , very sadly I admit , but I can not see an RAA in the future that suits my flying desires. Maybe if the RAA didn't get greedy wanting fast highly complex aircraft then they wouldn't be in the position it is in now being regulated as if we were GA. We started off with slow and fun , pity it didn't stay that way. I won't respond to any replys ,sorry but I am out of here, good luck to all of you hope RAA gives you what you want in your flying future. 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
503 Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 How can you give up flying once it's in your blood? You will just get a bigger pain in the neck from looking up all the time 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kermit Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I hear what you say barandbrew and agree to it all. I too like my 65 knots and wont change , times are changing but the wrong way I think . why not let us do our own thing as we have always done . we are safe, so why do they continue to push more nonsense on to us ...buggar me any time your down in my neck of the woods an you wanna fly a quickie call me .....regards kermit 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Typical blame raa for somthing you you bought on your self you are probely one of those people that said I'm alright jack stuff the rest of you and hung on the out side and let others fight our battle. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR PLANE that you don't want us to know about Like some that don't want to go to Temora because casa is here doing ramp checks it is the likes of you that has contribituted to our problem neil 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Yea, gettin tired of this dump on RAA attitude. What new regulation has forced your Gazelle out of the air? news flash, the RAA didnt want or ask for anything, they are simply there to administer what WE THE MEMBERS WANT AND DO. So its the MEMBERS that wanted faster more complex aeroplanes. And I cant remember reading a regulation that deems your gazelle too slow to fit the catagory. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 It beggars belief what some people believe. We had a recent thread on here which showed there was NO IMPEDIMENT to people like brandbrew continuing to do what they were always allowed to do. Oh and the thread petered out, not because of big brother but because the grass rooters lost interest. Are you people who agreed with him aware of this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Personally IMHO why whine about people who want to go faster? They pay their membership fees which helps keep RAA going. If you lost everyone from RAA who flew 'GA Wannabee' planes what resources would you have left? For me in the long run I would like to be able to fly with four seats which means I will have to get my ppl which I don't mind doing but I will also be keeping my certificate current for the hornet. So I'm probably also a 'GA Wannabee' but I pay my membership each year so what's the prob? I have nothing against anyone flying little homebuilts in fact I think it is a very very important part of our "society/heritage/roots" (can't think of the right word but you get the idea). The main trouble IMHO is we all get set in our particular type of flying and don't have any tolerance for people with different desires. (I do include myself in that as by nature I am fairly intolerant of those with a differing opinion:bash:) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Winsor, stop sitting on the sidelines sniping. If you want to give me a creative, have the guts to actually say why - put yourself up there to be measured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Actually there's a far higher satisfaction rating with Rec Flying now than there was in the days of the AUF. Back then we had 90% of members complaining that the aircraft weren't fast enough, now we only have 10% of the people complaining about the faster ones ... 2 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevron Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 The planes are fast enough for sure but max weight for is too low for 2 passengers and full tanks . Americans and Australians are not all 60 kg. I guess not every one wants to fly a big fat 2 seater, but allowance should be made for the ones that do, I am not talking 800 or 900 kg just 650 to 700 kg to cater for the bigger people and more people could enjoy flying without the expense of GA. It's funny that they will give more weigh if you fit pods , go figure. Just think how many more could enjoy what we love to do . 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 It might interest you to know Stevron that you can't usually carry full passengers and full fuel in a four seater GA aircraft, and you can't usually carry full passengers and full fuel in a six seater GA aircraft. In all cases performance and operations pre flight planning is required. My car is geared to 305 km/hr, but I can't drive over the 100 km/hr speed limit A sole pilot can use the full endurance of the aircraft with the larger tank, so people who fly alone no doubt want this feature. If the tank was made smaller, the aircraft would save some weight, and you could carry two people and have full tanks; its just an engineering equation, and part of maximising the flexibility of flying 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 The planes are fast enough for sure but max weight ... is too low for 2 passengers and full tanks ..... And therein lies the problem - you're only allowed to carry ONE passenger! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I think he might have meant two people. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 It's creative Turbs to claim this has already been shown not to be the case. Sure...there may have been less people involved if Ra had remained as AUF but this "new" GA is not doing anybody any favours regardless of what anybody claims. Someone should have fixed GA rather than hijack AUF. 20 years ago you could buy a proper litttle rag and tube...sure you still can today but the vast majority of pilots involved today are here because they want to fly GA bit can't afford ot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I'd suggest you go and find the thread and read the facts from people directly involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I think he might have meant two people. Yes, my response was meant to be a joke but I should have put a chuckling smiley after it ... Someone should have fixed GA rather than hijack AUF. Yes, good point. It's really all about the medical, and that's what RPL is supposed to be about, but too little and much too late. Those of us, like me, who were running AUF flying schools in the earlier days, should have heard the alarm bells when we started to get a majority of students who were convertees from GA because they had lost their medical. Naiive were we when we imagined that these former GA types would be happy flying around in Drifters and Thrusters for the rest of their days. 20 years ago you could buy a proper litttle rag and tube ... There's something here that folks often miss when they say, "nothing has changed that stops people flying little rag and tube machines just like it was in the AUF days". Well something VERY major has changed, in the early 95.10 days very few of the planes were homebuilt, in fact the vast majority were factory built - Thrusters, Rotec Rally, Javelin, Jeep, Jackeroo, Scout, Grasshopper, Sportsman, Eagle, Pteradactyl, Vampire, Goldwing, Mitchell, Bantam, Sirocco, Tyro, Hornet, Macro, Sapphire, Ranger, Sky Rider, Blue Max, Skylark, Pup, Bandit, Farmate, Bunyip, Wombat, Chinook, Beaver, Lazair, Falcon, Hawk, Tierra, Cobra, Hummer, Delta series, Hiperlight, Avion, Kasperwing, Honcho, Nomad, XTC, Weedhopper, Quicksilver, J3 Kitten, Buccaneer, Mustang, Kolb Ultrastar, Drifter, Mirage, Phantom, Phoenix, Flightstar, Challenger, Coyote, Panther, Pegasus, Bearcat, Ikarus Fox ... and these are all single seaters (even the Drifter) What has changed is that you're no longer allowed to buy a factory built single seater, 95.10 got changed very quietly and while no-one seemed to be looking, so that you now have to build it yourself, or at least 51% of it, and that just doesn't interest the majority of people. How popular would jetskis/Seadoos be if you had to build your own? 1 3 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 To save a lot of people wasting time, here's the thread I was referring to - It went for just 12 pages from January 17 to February 8 and then interest from both participants and outsiders faded out. If the particpants don't want to help themselves then there's no point raking over history. http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/what-can-be-done.112161/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 To save a lot of people wasting time, here's the thread I was referring to - It went for just 12 pages from January 17 to February 8 and then interest from both participants and outsiders faded out. If the particpants don't want to help themselves then there's no point raking over history. http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/what-can-be-done.112161/ That really has nothing to do with it. The fact is that you used to be able to buy a 95.10 ready to fly and the rules were changed without consultation and the result is that you can't now buy a factory built 95.10 single seater because the rules don't permit them. That is madness, it's far safer to sell people well-proven factory-built planes than have amateurs have to design and/or build their own. As for the 'what can be done' thread fading out, that's because nothing much can be done to make cheaper kits because there aren't enough people willing to build, the only possibility for cheaper is higher production numbers and then a higher number of people could buy and get into this (dwindling) sport ... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 That thread proved nothing Turbs. Exactly which part of the problems facing Ra today came about due to rag and tube ultralights and those that fly them...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 We can speculate Win... Things were never going to stay the same. The older aircraft with their various engines and creature comforts, (I am a Drifter fan) were not particularly safe or useable over significant distances and I wonder if we can assume that nothing would have changed there as time went on. Some more regulation was always going to happen . I don't agree with the "bigger is better" is everything, but the more people we have under our umbrella the more we are listened to if we play our cards right. The RAAus always had enemies out there who were striving for a better place in the sun for themselves, and some of that is done by denigrating the RAAus. It is remarkable that the AOPA is one of the organisations that could assist us most. The situation is fluid. I don't think it is productive to apportion blame here or there at this or any point. We can all learn from each other. The non commercial section of aviation has more in common than not. None of it needs excessive regulation, but education based progress. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlegg Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I am quite happy for negative attitude people to take their ball home from the sandpit, who needs them? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 That thread proved nothing Turbs.Exactly which part of the problems facing Ra today came about due to rag and tube ultralights and those that fly them...? None that I know of, that's why you are still free to fly rag and tube - higher speed aircraft are not preventing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 We all come under the umbrella of CASA we the RAA are not exempt from the rules, we share the same airspace as GA other than we cannot go into controlled airspace, we have the privileges of flying over towns in certified aircraft so we have to consider the public to an extent who we fly over. Maintenance is a part of aviation if you don't want to have a L2 look at your plane once a year stay at 300ft and don't cross a public road and enjoy your flying going around in circles like the old days were, we have been given greater privileges and responsibilities than the old days so with that there comes a cost. We cannot please everyone and never will but we should be grateful to some extent of what we do have at our disposal, some countries the only flying allowed is airlines & military. Alf 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Is it yearly inspection now? I was blissfully preparing for L2 inspections every other year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 I was at Mangelore when the AUF was first started; walking around, the only ultralight aircraft there that did not have an obvious basic structural design deficiency, was Keith Jarvis's Joey glider, which had a hotted-up VICTA lawnmower motor on it, mounted on a piece of Cessna lift-strut above the wing centre-section. It also flew rings around every other ultralight there. They were all single-seaters and mostly barely capable of flying at all; let alone safe by any measure. The only argument that could be made for them was that they flew so slowly, and weighed so little, that if one fell on your roof, all it would do would be to break a few tiles. Shades of "Those magnificent Men" indeed. This "low momentum" argument originated from the original Skycraft Scout. Go look at the parking area at Temora to-day, and you will find two-seat aircraft capable of safely flying a thousand miles on a good day. The progression between then and now has been, in effect, a re-invention of General Aviation, but with limited weight capability so they did not compete with "real" GA aircraft. That restriction is a hang-over from the "low momentum" argument, but it's well past time it was recognised for the fallacious argument it really is, for anything beyond 95.10. This pattern - which starts from people saying "There really has to be a simpler way" - basically because they can't be bothered making the effort to understand whatever the existing way actually is - has been repeated at least four times within my memory. The cycle is just about to repeat itself yet again, to judge from the complaints. Plus ca change, plus ca meme 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now