Jump to content

So who can beat the dual training costs in Qld RAA $310 hour - Sling 2


Recommended Posts

Turbs, there are many more people who want to take out their superbly maintained plane on nice safe weather days and fly at a safe altitude just enjoying themselves. And if it keeps them active, the total health benefits outweigh the risk by about 4 times.Taking the worst example of piloting and using it to make regulations for everybody is nasty, but just what is happening.

I reckon everybody should get a fair go without it being assumed that they will go and crash into a kindergarten if let alone for an hour or two. How many of us have crashed into kindergartens anyway? Maybe that's only a theoretical risk.

 

Come have a fly with me ( as long as you are not overweight ) and see. I bet we don't crash into a kindergarten.

Whether you like it or not, the automotive/transport industry has an annual fatality rate in Australia of around 1 per billion trips vs recreational aviation which in the case of someone doing five hours per year puts the fatality risk at 1 in 5. As you say, those in well maintained and designed aircraft who have been well trained, and who tick all the boxes for care make up the majority, and rarely does a fatality come from these people.

It's the bottom of the barrel which produces the bulk of the statistics and it's and it's only natural that authorities have to address those people.

 

In some cases that affects the rest of us, but most people would be conforming to those standards anyway.

 

I understand your point about the health benefits. Park Victoria did research which showed that people were killing themselves in huge numbers by drinking, smoking, and voluntarily eating themselves into heart attacks. They then ran a campaign to get people moving and out into the parks. I also accept that your inference that taking people flying may reduce these deaths, but your problem here is that when the Sociologists drilled down to the net result, some flyers are still dying, and that has to be addressed.

 

Using an example of the chances of someone crashing into a kindergarten, to justify all risks from a solo pilot is emotive, and may not have happened, however there are plenty of statistics available, particularly in the US, from FAA records which show people have been injured and killed from falling aircraft and parts, and also from aircraft sliding along the ground out of control.

 

It remains a risk which has to be addressed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let me guess....you would also like to see tighter regulation and more training for all private car, motorcycle, boat, and jetski operators, as well forcing them to have qualified maintainers for any maintenance and their mandatory annual inspection and biennial review, otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

No I'm not a hypocrite; I've been involved in developing safety regulations in the transport industry all my life, and have seen reductions in injuries and fatalities as a result.

Maintenance for all those items is nowhere near as critical; if the engine throws a rod through the side, you just roll to a stop and walk, and the road trauma statistics also show maintanence as a very low factor.

 

In Victoria we only have a compulsory inspection when a vehicle changes hands, and given the statistics, I'm against the unnecessary expense of annual inspections.

 

Ground based operations require a much lower set of skills than a pilot needs, but I am in favour of a retest of road law knowledge about every ten years.

 

A lot of your precious regulations are not developed in blood, they were developed to ensure bureaucrats stay employed. The USA, for example, has very effective, but far less aviation regulation than we do.

Interesting that these would be my precious regulations; does that mean you are one of the people ignoring them?

You're WAY out of date with the changes to aviation in the USA. The FAA has been steadily introducing the ICAO regulations we are required to comply with, and today it's not like it used to be a couple of years ago. I can remember booking a Cherokee one night in Las Vegas. When I turned up the next day, as a foreigner, without showing the CFI my licence, he threw they keys through the air and said "It's the green one over there" wouldn't happen today.

 

Face it, we all operate vehicles on a daily basis with far less regulation than is forced on private aircraft operations. Understandably, regulation is required for those running a business, but it is a significant and unnecessary impingement of freedom for private use.

At around 1 fatality per billion trips on the road vs over 1 per month in RA/GA, that's not going to change.

 

And as for your example, realistically, if Joe Bloggs wants to fly his poorly maintained Cessna through the trees in the middle of Bumblef*ck, who cares? It's not your problem, nor anyone else's except his. It only becomes a problem if he involves the public.You might happily throw a paddock basher commodore around in the sticks, but only a fool would do the same in town.

Well at least you understand the principal that someone else can be hurt.

There's always the possibility for someone to sue his estate based on his negligence.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there's an answer to my question, the people who can afford them is always answered to be someone else, no one ever posts "$60K, phhttt, that's my emergency cash I keep under the bed Mate".By the way, the people who sell houses usually have to buy another, status quo. My Brother has a run down old fibro cement house on a small block in Merrylands Sydney, worth close to a $1 million, but where does he go then?

your brother could buy a nice house in Adelaide for $0.5m and put the rest in his super; it all depends on whether he needs to get a job.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a good look at the FARs you will find they are just about the same as our CARs CASRs and all the other bullshit put out by CASA, The big difference is that CASA is constantly re writing the rules and never uses one word where a dozen can be used.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether you like it or not, the automotive/transport industry has an annual fatality rate in Australia of around 1 per billion trips vs recreational aviation which in the case of someone doing five hours per year puts the fatality risk at 1 in 5. As you say, those in well maintained and designed aircraft who have been well trained, and who tick all the boxes for care make up the majority, and rarely does a fatality come from these people.It's the bottom of the barrel which produces the bulk of the statistics and it's and it's only natural that authorities have to address those people.

 

In some cases that affects the rest of us, but most people would be conforming to those standards anyway.

 

I understand your point about the health benefits. Park Victoria did research which showed that people were killing themselves in huge numbers by drinking, smoking, and voluntarily eating themselves into heart attacks. They then ran a campaign to get people moving and out into the parks. I also accept that your inference that taking people flying may reduce these deaths, but your problem here is that when the Sociologists drilled down to the net result, some flyers are still dying, and that has to be addressed.

 

Using an example of the chances of someone crashing into a kindergarten, to justify all risks from a solo pilot is emotive, and may not have happened, however there are plenty of statistics available, particularly in the US, from FAA records which show people have been injured and killed from falling aircraft and parts, and also from aircraft sliding along the ground out of control.

 

It remains a risk which has to be addressed.

1 in 5 risk, that is just plain bullshit.

 

At that rate we would be dropping like flies. Everyone would be dead before getting many hrs up. Sure 5 hrs a year is low but not deadly.

 

Have you not noticed some of our dear friends with bulk hrs are no longer with us?

 

You seem to be making up facts to suit your argument.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 in 5 risk, that is just plain ********.At that rate we would be dropping like flies. Everyone would be dead before getting many hrs up. Sure 5 hrs a year is low but not deadly.

Have you not noticed some of our dear friends with bulk hrs are no longer with us?

 

You seem to be making up facts to suit your argument.

There have been people who only flew low hours like that and were killed during the year; that's 1 in1, 2, 3 4,5 etc - whatever trips they did per year.

You can adjust the trips to whatever average you like to come up with a risk profile, but at around 1 fatality per year in GA/RA its going to be a high risk figure.

 

Yes, some of the ones who have died had bulk hours, and their risk factor was less.

 

The point was none of us have a snowball's chance in hell of getting to 1 in a billion, so it's not surprising there's a focus on safety regulations by the government.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
if the engine throws a rod through the side, you just roll to a stop and walk,

That's exactly what I've done in my aircraft, what's the difference?

Maintenance issues aren't really showing up in the accident statistics a a significant factor either.

 

Interesting that these would be my precious regulations; does that mean you are one of the people ignoring them?You're WAY out of date with the changes to aviation in the USA.

I refer to your "precious regulations" because every time you make new regulations to take away someone's liberty. I would suggest having a good hard look at the state of the country, but you appear not to be able to see the forest for the trees.

I have indeed checked out FARs and they are much better written than the legalese tripe CASA dishes up, they are simpler, easily read and understood, and far less prescriptive than CARs.

 

A quick search comes up straight away with some glaring differences.

 

Some examples of similar regs.

 

FARs:

 

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

 

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

 

 

 

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

 

§91.15 Dropping objects.

 

No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.

 

 

§91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

 

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

 

 

 

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.

 

 

 

© No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.

 

 

§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

 

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

 

 

 

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

 

 

 

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

 

 

 

© Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

 

 

 

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

 

 

 

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or © of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

 

 

 

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph © of this section.

 

CARs:

 

 

 

150 Dropping of articles

 

 

 

(1) Subject to this regulation, the pilot in command of an aircraft in flight shall not permit anything to be dropped from the aircraft.

 

 

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

 

 

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

 

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

 

 

(2) Nothing in this regulation shall prevent:

 

 

 

(a) the dropping of packages or other articles or substances:

 

 

 

(i) in the course of agricultural operations; or

 

 

 

(ii) in the course of cloud seeding operations; or

 

 

 

(iii) in the course of firefighting operations; or

 

 

 

(iv) to initiate controlled burning; or

 

 

 

(v) in the course of search and rescue operations; or

 

 

 

(vi) to deliver emergency medical supplies; or

 

 

 

(vii) to deliver emergency food supplies; or

 

 

 

(viii) in the course of other operations;

 

 

 

in accordance with directions issued by CASA:

 

 

 

(ix) to ensure the safety of the aircraft as far as practicable; and

 

 

 

(x) to minimise hazard to persons, animals or property;

 

 

 

(b) the dropping of ballast in the form of fine sand or water;

 

 

 

© the use of apparatus solely for the purpose of navigating an aircraft where the approval of CASA to the type of apparatus and the method of use has previously been notified; or

 

 

 

(d) in an emergency, the jettisoning of liquid fuel or cargo over areas where hazard to persons or property on the ground or water is not created.

 

 

 

157 Low flying

 

 

 

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:

 

 

 

(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or

 

 

 

(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.

 

 

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

 

 

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

 

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

 

 

(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:

 

 

 

(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter—600 metres; or

 

 

 

(b) in the case of a helicopter—300 metres;

 

 

 

from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.

 

 

 

(3A) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.

 

 

 

(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:

 

 

 

(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or

 

 

 

(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or

 

 

 

© the pilot of the aircraft is receiving flight training in low‑level operations or aerial application operations, within the meaning of Part 61 of CASR; or

 

 

 

(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or

 

 

 

(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking‑off or landing at an aerodrome; or

 

 

 

(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:

 

 

 

(i) a search; or

 

 

 

(ii) a rescue; or

 

 

 

(iii) dropping supplies;

 

 

 

in a search and rescue operation; or

 

 

 

(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:

 

 

 

(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and

 

 

 

(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or

 

 

 

(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.

 

 

 

163 Operating near other aircraft

 

 

 

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

 

 

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

 

 

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not operate the aircraft on the ground in such a manner as to create a hazard to itself or to another aircraft.

 

 

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

 

 

(3) An offence against subregulation (1) or (2) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

 

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

 

 

163AA Formation flying

 

 

 

(1) A pilot must not fly an aircraft in formation if each of the following requirements is not satisfied:

 

 

 

(a) each of the pilots in command is authorised, under Part 61 of CASR, to fly in formation;

 

 

 

(b) the formation is pre‑arranged between the pilots in command;

 

 

 

© the formation flight is conducted either:

 

 

 

(i) under the Visual Flight Rules by day; or

 

 

 

(ii) under an approval given by CASA.

 

 

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

 

 

(1A) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

 

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

I have absolutely no objection to necessary regulation, right of way rules are absolutely necessary among others, but the fallback position of govt is to be seen to make a new regulation every time some dill hurts themselves. We don't need regulation to protect us from ourselves, we only need regulation that holds you responsible for actual harm to other people or property.

 

Notice the lack of "strict liability" in FARs, and the accident stats are very similar as they are in most developed countries.

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Winner 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested in statistics on driving "per trip"??

 

How would anyone know how many trips taken in vehicles.

 

Hard enough extroplating hours flown in aircraft to km travelled.

 

Would indicate a 2 trip to the shops driver has the double the fatality risk as a 150,000km per year professional driver, (they do 1 trip per day)

 

Reads as BS statistics to suit a hypothesis for some insurance company..

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read that big trucks have about double the fatality rate of average cars. This would be on a time basis not a mileage basis.

 

On a mileage basis I am sure the trucks have a lower rate.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

If you were to work my pay out per flight hour it would be well in excess of $100 per hour and I'm far from over paid.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a CPL/FI and RAAus FI working in both GA and RAAus, I must maintain a 'time & duty' record in which I have to log my start and finish times for all work. I usually use entering/leaving the airport. Then I log flight times from brakes off to brakes on. I've done this for decades now and have a whopping file of T&D sheets. My ratio of flying to duty is over 3:1. I am paid for the flying only, and by my calcs I'm receiving around $77/hr for that. However, my hourly earnings, based on T&D is clearly much lower - around $28/hr.

 

The situation with a school owner/CFI is quite different to an employed CPL/ATPL who is on a salary and a set number of flying hours pa. Because of the longer flight legs, and probably quicker turnaround times - their hrs are probably closer to the T&D? If they flew, say 900hrs pa on a salary of $130k, that's notionally $144/hr. If the ratio of flight:T&D was 1:2, then the actual rate per hr is closer to $100 - as ben87r mentioned above.

 

Now, you can either suck-it-up, or get out of the industry. I'm happy with the former approach because I'm doing what I love, I'm not dependant on it to live, the school pays its' way,(just!), and I feel good that I'm providing a bloody sound service to the student.

 

But, every school, and CFI, will have a different set of circumstances, and to compare the up front dual instruction prices, here on a public forum, is perhaps being a little harsh. You don't always get what you pay for in life - but I believe that at most RAAus flying schools, you get more than fair value when you look past the up front dual charge.

 

happy days,

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

We usually fly 4-6 hrs per day for 9-11 hrs duty so roughly 2-1. We fly around 5-650 hours a year depending on who you ask.

 

We have it pretty good, the guys doing charter would do a bit more.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who here will be bothered to hire a plane out of archerfield and do all the bull of a class two medical. when you can just drive to caboolture and redcliffe where your taxi time is shorter. And you save some dollars. it's a no brainer

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
They were not Jabirus in the costs I noticed. Maybe flying those real expensive imports is for wealthy people huh.

Current costs as per asc website Gawler $140 per tachometer hour for student training, all theory training free. Hire and fly $127 per taco hour plus landing fee per day per member $2.35. Aircraft are jabs. 170/230 and FK9

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is long over due for Australia to implement the USA Part 103 Ultralight regulations so people on a budget can buy single seat ultralights and fly them without a licence and not be bent over and have to a member of any organisation.

 

That will bring ultralight flying back good days where flying was very affordable to the masses.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back, Dazza, Interesting idea but not likely to happen. I can vaguely recall those days. Teaching yourself might have been normal once but it's a scene where both the instructor and student are not clever. Think the accident rate was high. Some people are still probably doing it but they are few fortunately. The public perception would be that it's irresponsible, and one way and another they will call the shots eventually with maybe the rest of us being collateral damage. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Luckily the airframe on a jabiru is actually quite good and capable of handling a rough landing better than an Abrams tank

I don't think that even a Jabiru would be able to handle an Abrams tank.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hire and fly for a Jabiru 170 at Gawler is $150 an hour.And Ian007, are you saying that the non-Jabiru aircraft come with a reliability guarantee? Wow.

Please keep the straw men away. I am prone to hay fever.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
When I was paying $120.00 an hour to rent the club Archer II the cost with an instructor was $140. Flight briefing and debriefing was part of the cost and only hours from the Hobbs meter were charged. This was GA not RA. If schools are going to keep attracting new people to get into aviation then charging over $300 an hour for RA is not going to cut it. I did my RA conversion 18 months ago with some at $150 an hour & the balance at $200 an hour. I don't have a problem of someone wanting a ROI but if they price themselves out of the market the ROI will disappear.

You are not self-employed, are you?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People go for the cheapest air fares too. it's ONLY your life so don't let that worry you. Pretend they are all as safe as each other, but don't make a fuss if you are wrong. Likewise if a flying school does the right thing it has to cost a bit more or they go out of business. Of course it doesn't mean the dearest is the best but it would be odd if the cheapest was. Same with red wine. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...