April RAA mag article - what do you think?

[Powerin]

Hi All,

 

Seeing we are not getting a May edition of the RAA mag I have been rereading the April edition and just want to comment on one of the articles and see what you all think. I apologise to the author if he is a member here.

 

As a student who has yet to escape the circuit I must admit to raising my eyebrows a few times on reading the article about the Savannah Adventure. To me there seemed to be a lot of examples of risk taking....such as:

 

• To start there was the departure into questionable weather against the advice of a CFI (not that CFIs are infallible :big_grin: ).
   
   
  
• Then there was the suggestion that he entered controlled airspace a couple times (although I think that was just in the telling of the story).
   
   
  
• Relying on GPS to navigate to an airstrip and getting it wrong because some published coordinates were wrong. ATC had to set him right. (I thought you had to navigate by reference to maps/ground and GPS is just a backup)
   
   
  
• Contemplating landing on a taxiway because of crosswind and saying he would do it next time. (is that legal?)
   
   
  
• Taking off from Bendigo without realising he could not reach his planned destination before nightfall and having to divert.
   
   
  
• Mentioning he is paranoid about overloading due to previous experiences. (I would have thought you shouldn't be paranoid....you just don't do it!)
   
   
  
• Fuel not available where planned so flew direct to an airport over tiger country to save fuel rather than the planned coastal route which would use all of reserves (no crime in that.....but still....)
   
   
  
• Taking off to check out the weather and finding an 800ft cloud base. (I don't know...but I reckon even I could tell that the cloud base was below circuit height and 800ft is well below VFR by my reading of the rules)
   
   
  

 

 

I am aware that a lot of my concerns might be just in the way the story was told. Am I being too critical? If not, should such an article appear in our magazine? I enjoyed reading about the adventure, but am concerned about the apparent risk taking it contained and the example it sets. What do you think?

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Powerin; I'd have to agree that I had many of the same thoughts about the article. I don't think not publishing it would help. The story is interesting and I don't believe that protecting new pilots from the reality that they share the air with others who make poor decisions and infringe the rules, has any real benefit.

 

Each pilot is responsible for their own behaviour and should recognise what not to do. Unfortunately, not everyone will, and on top of that, there is human error.

 

 

[Powerin]

I agree David, and I accepted the article for what it was (I enjoyed reading it) and I definitely don't believe in wrapping new pilots in cotton wool. But my concern is that it was presented as a trip adventure in our magazine which goes to all RAAus members and is available to the general public at any newsagent. It was not presented as something to learn from.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're right Pow, it was irresponsible for the magazine to have published it without comment.

 

This sort of story has been published in the past by CASA without penalising the pilot but pointing out the errors and how to avoid them.

 

The big lesson in this one was that you can get into big trouble flying on a GPS

 

The downside of this story for RA was that it got quite an extended debate among GA pilots ridiculing our standards.

 

 

[Teckair]

There have been a number of stories like this printed in the magazine. Recently I read about a bloke flying at just over 7000 ft. I think the problem may be the magazine is run by non flying people who do not understand what is being printed.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

You're right Pow, it was irresponsible for the magazine to have published it without comment.

It is at best a trade-off. If authors are to submit to post submission criticism, albeit framed in a constructive manner, then the scarcity of interesting articles will be exacerbated. The nature of the article was for the entertainment of readers, and as a travelogue. It did not purport to be a lesson in airmanship. As such, it is also possible that poetic license creeps into the description of some activities, without necessarily being obvious.

As a magazine, I'm not sure that every article has to be used as a lesson...

 

The downside of this story for RA was that it got quite an extended debate among GA pilots ridiculing our standards.

nor is it valid to point to a magazine article, which is presented as entertainment, as representative of either RAA's views or generalise as typical member behavior (or lack of it). Of course, not being valid won't stop people using it in a political manner!

 

The big lesson in this one was that you can get into big trouble flying on a GPS

Co-incidently, that is one of CASA's current educational pushes too..

 

 

[fly_tornado]

There have been a number of stories like this printed in the magazine. Recently I read about a bloke flying at just over 7000 ft. I think the problem may be the magazine is run by non flying people who do not understand what is being printed.

Its the editors job to make sure that the story is accurate and activities are legal. Is this is just a case of ex-GA pilots not following RAA rules?

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're right David and F-T

 

I remember one of our mates on here who had an eccentric way of writing which made it look like he was a reckless daredevil, but if you read his stories carefully you could see that underneath he was careful. RAA descended on him like a lead brick.

 

 

[Powerin]

If authors are to submit to post submission criticism, albeit framed in a constructive manner, then the scarcity of interesting articles will be exacerbated. The nature of the article was for the entertainment of readers, and as a travelogue. It did not purport to be a lesson in airmanship. As such, it is also possible that poetic license creeps into the description of some activities, without necessarily being obvious.

Good points David (as usual). And I hope I haven't dissuaded anybody from submitting an article to the mag. It's all too easy to be critical from the comfort of a lounge chair.

But I feel that sometimes information in hard copy print tends to carry more weight than, say, on this forum. After all, it's supposedly been read and approved for print by an editor so it must be OK...right? And some may view this article with a less critical eye....especially newer pilots, and think that it is accepted practice (after you pass your XC endorsement) to just use GPS for navigation. If it is approved for print, without comment, in our official magazine then it gives the impression (however wrongly) that RAAus is giving tacit approval to such practices.

 

It's probably a moot point as I'm sure our new editor will be on top of things if the AOPA magazine is anything to go by.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

.........The downside of this story for RA was that it got quite an extended debate among GA pilots ridiculing our standards.

Then leave them to it, I dont read the CASA published safety magazine stories where someone almost killed themselves and think "typical GA clowns". In almost any case to do with flying, simplifying a set of complex circumstances down to a single common denominator results in simplification to the point of uselessness. If that werent the case then many of the casa published stories would not be published because they show poor airmanship and weve already covered that....

 

Further, its always been the case that the abinitio training shows you the right way to do something but once your signed off and set free only you can choose whether you intend to maintain what you learnt or do things differently. Trying to make the case that poor training standards are the obvious cause for someone who was signed off many years ago doing something wrong now, to me is another over simlification to suit a mindset, rather than the whole plethora of possible explainations.

 

Im of a view that their comment shows more about them than it does of anything to do with RAA training standards...

 

Andy

 

P.S I too had a couple of cringes when I read it, but in the end accepted that the story had to fit a size limitation and took about 10 minutes to read, yet took days to fly so I pressume that some poetic license took place in order to make it all fit.

 

 

[Captain]

Hi All,Seeing we are not getting a May edition of the RAA mag I have been rereading the April edition and just want to comment on one of the articles and see what you all think. I apologise to the author if he is a member here.

 

As a student who has yet to escape the circuit I must admit to raising my eyebrows a few times on reading the article about the Savannah Adventure. To me there seemed to be a lot of examples of risk taking....such as:

 

• To start there was the departure into questionable weather against the advice of a CFI (not that CFIs are infallible :big_grin: ).
   
   
  
• Then there was the suggestion that he entered controlled airspace a couple times (although I think that was just in the telling of the story).
   
   
  
• Relying on GPS to navigate to an airstrip and getting it wrong because some published coordinates were wrong. ATC had to set him right. (I thought you had to navigate by reference to maps/ground and GPS is just a backup)
   
   
  
• Contemplating landing on a taxiway because of crosswind and saying he would do it next time. (is that legal?)
   
   
  
• Taking off from Bendigo without realising he could not reach his planned destination before nightfall and having to divert.
   
   
  
• Mentioning he is paranoid about overloading due to previous experiences. (I would have thought you shouldn't be paranoid....you just don't do it!)
   
   
  
• Fuel not available where planned so flew direct to an airport over tiger country to save fuel rather than the planned coastal route which would use all of reserves (no crime in that.....but still....)
   
   
  
• Taking off to check out the weather and finding an 800ft cloud base. (I don't know...but I reckon even I could tell that the cloud base was below circuit height and 800ft is well below VFR by my reading of the rules)
   
   
  

 

 

I am aware that a lot of my concerns might be just in the way the story was told. Am I being too critical? If not, should such an article appear in our magazine? I enjoyed reading about the adventure, but am concerned about the apparent risk taking it contained and the example it sets. What do you think?

You make a great point Powerin, so thanks for that. Particularly when you read one of the other threads, here, where Ian and this site were accused by the RA Aus of promoting poor flying practice ......... and they copied in their mates in CASA so as to stick it right up this site.

 

I assume that the RA Aus will now report themselves and copy that to CASA too, as I just know there would never be a double standard applied on such a vital matter by our illustrious President and Executive ............................... or would there?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

Did it have a gene inside it?

 

 

[winsor68]

So exactly who are "they"... who produced the magazine? And how has that structure changed? If it results in a better magazine then I am all for it...

 

 

[Powerin]

So exactly who are "they"... who produced the magazine? And how has that structure changed? If it results in a better magazine then I am all for it...

The RAA mag was previously published by Zebra Publishing which has an office near RAAus in Canberra. I'm not sure who printed it.

Apparently the new publishers are the same team who publish Australian Pilot magazine for AOPA. It is printed by Graphic Impressions. The editor is Brian Bigg, who is a pilot and writes a few of the articles and reviews for the AOPA magazine himself.

 

 

[Captain]

Cap'n!!...I wont tell u what I observed at George Town today.....

Come on ........................ out with it .............................. ????????????

 

 

[turboplanner]

Those fog sniffers stick together, don't they