Ra-Aus "Infomercial" on ABC TV just on...

[motzartmerv]

Yea look guys. The story was very positive, its just a real shame that the footage had to be of someone breaking the rules. Don't try and tell me its an "optical illusion", its an almost knife edge wingover.

 

We need to be portraying an image of professionalism when "putting it out there" for the world to see.

 

If no-one speaks up on this public forum then the baggers will have a field day. Hows about telling it like it is instead of 'cowboying up" all over a public forum.

 

(enough cement?)

 

 

[pudestcon]

Definitely a good positive story on recreational flying, and I though ER "done good" with his small segment in promoting our corner of the aviation world.

 

Now I'm a pedantic sort of person....... So I have to agree with Motz (not often I agree with the way you go about getting your point across though Motz:wink:) that the wingovers were outside our rules whichever way you look at it, even though it made for great footage on the TV. I reckon the footage would have been just as great with 45 degree angle of bank and good camera angle. The article will give us good positive publicity with the general public, but may attract unwanted attention from others. Motz uses the term "professionalism", hell we shouldn't be professionals! I prefer we be seen as a solid, safe and responsible sector of aviation - just not sure we are there yet.......

 

Pud

 

 

[terryc]

Definitely a good positive story on recreational flying, and I though ER "done good" with his small segment in promoting our corner of the aviation world.Now I'm a pedantic sort of person....... So I have to agree with Motz (not often I agree with the way you go about getting your point across though Motz:wink:) that the wingovers were outside our rules whichever way you look at it, even though it made for great footage on the TV. I reckon the footage would have been just as great with 45 degree angle of bank and good camera angle. The article will give us good positive publicity with the general public, but may attract unwanted attention from others. Motz uses the term "professionalism", hell we shouldn't be professionals! I prefer we be seen as a solid, safe and responsible sector of aviation - just not sure we are there yet.......

 

Pud

What a lot of doom sayers. What's wrong with you guys. I think I'll give this forum a miss for a while

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Don't let the h8rs win.

 

 

[P4D]

Any publicity is good publicity. Great exposure that would cost thousands of your dollars to do under the RAA banner.

 

Thanks to the generous person who whet to the trouble opf finding the link so I could see it for myself.

 

If you want to criticise the actual flying as being ourside the regulations go make a FORMAL complaint and stop opining.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Already have mate.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Realistically, the ABC segment was - good and bad

 

You won't hear a professional marketing manager saying any publicity is good publicity because people tend to react the other way, so it's important to eliminate the bad.

 

I was always interested at work in the ups and downs of the 4x4 division, up against the seemingly invincible Land Cruiser, and trying to portray a similar image by using shots of the vehicles charging through the bushes and along beaches, ploughing through sea water. Those ads brought emails and letters from outraged potential buyers who respected the bush and seascapes, and the ads were ineffective in lifting market share.

 

The ads went on to bush tracks, with the vehicles flying in the air over bumps. There were less complaints on the made tracks, so the competitors joined in with bigger and better jumps and slides, and this had a humorous side effect.

 

At one stage I got home late on Sunday from the mountains and didn't have time to wash my company 4WD. Naturally it was noticed immediately and I was reprimanded for not keeping it clean.

 

A few days late the Ad guys said they wanted it for a shoot and gave me another stand in. Nothing was said for a couple of weeks, and when I asked how long this shoot was going to take, the reply was: "Ah, well, there's been a problem, we burnt out the clutch, and fixed that, then we rolled it, you better order a new one because it doesn't look like this one will make it back on to the road.

 

In due course I was given a video of the finished advertisement which showed my 4WD disappearing at a high rate of knots across a red soil clay pan. The shot then closed up and followed the 4WD as it charged a creek, and shot straight up the other side! And I mean vertically - nose in the air, tail a metre or so off the ground!

 

I waited until the next sales meeting, then said I wanted to raise an issue about the way company cars were being looked after, and played the video.

 

We had some discussions a few weeks later, because the ad didn't work and I suggested that we needed to show what the vehicle could do, so we needed it going through deep mud on a forest track at normal operating speed, and after it passed show water returning level, and nothing disturbed except one little leaf falling to the ground - a dry one, and a little bird coming out to investigate.

 

They actually filmed the ad and somehow got the leaf to fall, but no bird. It worked quite well. The message here is you have to be VERY careful not to create negative publicity.

 

Coming back to the ABC story, this may well have taken several days to produce with several different meetings with different people.

 

There were some good lines and good shots in it, and they should be applauded.

 

CFI has made it clear that Eugene was separated from the flying sequences, so he did well on a windy day too.

 

The main story line written for or by the Presenter was :"Instructors insist the planes are safe, and don't deserve their dubious reputations"

 

That implies that in the eyes of the presenter/writer that there had been a problem, so this story should have been all about safe and professional flying, to correct that image in the eyes of the presenter/writer and presumably people watching the show who felt that way.

 

Next, Eugene is prepping and aircraft, talking like a machine gun, and looking professional.

 

The touch and gone was just that, a touch, not a bounce, probably flown by Eugene as arranged for the cameraman to use his tripod and get good focus for the touch, and that was good.

 

Big companies normally survey test audiences before committing millions of dollars to time slots, and I'd suggest up to this point all the test audience would be saying "You've got my interest, this looks fun, I might give it a try, especially since its not like the bad old days you mention.

 

Then for the long shots. Many sequences which have been posted on here would have had people's mouths watering with numbers of people from the real time audience lining up to learn to fly. There are many safe ways to make flying look exciting.

 

The test audience demographics will have been carefully chosen to include a group of non-active GA pilots, some women (not that there's anything special about that), and some lifestyle people looking for a pleasant hobby which includes the ability to travel.

 

Then we see the 90 degree stuff.

 

The GA guys will see if for the exhibitionism it is, and pull straight back into their shells, and a section of the rest of the audience, having watched the preamble, and thinking this would be just like an aerial car ride, will have quietened down considerably.

 

I agree with Motzart's criticism, and I can tell when a wing is above 60 degrees.

 

And there are two downstream issues: firstly that the airframe can have been compromised and some unlucky innocent in the future will pay the price, and secondly someone may think that's a great thing to emulate, and not be able to recover; where I live I've seen both a Technam P92 and A Cherokee doing 80 deg+ turns and falling straight out of them, nose first for the ground, dropping several hundred feet. What sort of standard does this set?

 

So on the balance, credit is deserved by some and a good kick in the pants by others, and I'd expect that some of the potential converts have been lost - a very good lesson for the future.

 

 

[Spin]

Turbo, I think you're crediting them with a hell of a lot more planning and effort than ever occurred. Someone probably talked them into presenting a filler spot, couple of likely suspects were lined up to do the talking and the footage was spliced together from whatever the cameraman could get in an afternoon's flying, with an emphasis on whatever looked the most dramatic. I doubt the RA participants had much say if any at all in the choice of footage, or even what part of their interview was broadcast.

 

As for potential candidates being scared off by a few wingovers, steep turns call them what you will - I very much doubt it. Joe Public is so accustomed to seeing aeros in videos etc that there is nothing at all unusual in their eyes with a steep turn. Sitting inside the aircraft is another thing and white knuckles will soon be in evidence. As far as actually reporting the pilot for what was done - seems petty I'm afraid, why worry about the greenies shutting us down, we'll do it all on our own with this sort of infighting.

 

 

 

[winsor68]

Personally I think the only people who would pick up on the high banked turns as being anything out of the ordinary would be us Recreational flying people. I don't see anything negative in there to dissuade people from joining Ra-Aus so in my opinion for what it was intended its all good.

 

Its just a technical matter and its good that we can discuss this stuff because if we didn't perhaps we are not being responsible aviators.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I think you guys are being way to Picky, whats the problem.Who gives a S$%^& if it was over 60 Degrees.Are you telling me that every aviator in this country whether GA or RAA have never done a bank over 60.( If they havent well I think for their own personal safety they should learn how do do it, aircraft get flipped over by turbulence and mountain rotors from time to time.If they have never been shown unusual attitudes, apart from GA guys with being signed off with Aeros, they will end up in some serious problems one day.AND they will be in a world of pain if they dont know how to correct it. Dont start with this not allowed in RAA BS, I know that.It seem to me that there is a lynching toward Eugene Read with anything he has done or not done. End of Rant .

 

 

[Bandit12]

Sometimes I wonder whether things like wingovers and steep turns beyond 60 degrees are only disallowed because of the fact that those sorts of maneuvers just aren't taught any more. I learnt to fly in Toowoomba and we did wingovers in the Tomahawk more than once. I don't think we pulled past 1.5G, and never went past 90 degrees (or even close). Certainly the aircraft can handle much more than they are allowed to these days.....

 

Personally I don't think the average public have any idea of whether a turn that appeared to be that steep was legal. The impression that a Jabiru gives is far more "safety" in appearance than a ultralight of 30 years ago and that will probably make more of an impact than anything else.

 

I still think the touch and go was more of a bounce and go

 

 

[dazza 38]

Im hearing you Bandit, I did wing overs and Lazy eights in a Archer taught by a instructor, Aeros in a Yak 52( Barry Hemple) .Have been nearly flipped upside down in a Savage cub fitted with Vg's.Normal in a full power stall when fitted with Vg's. again with a instructor and by myself.I have been flipped upside down by a mountain rotor. The thing im trying to get across, was that I have been taught to deal with it.It Realy scares me if Peeps are flying 3 Axis and have not been or had any experience in being in that situation passed 60 and more degrees.Im sorry I am going against the rules and regs, if I get in trouble, so be it.I would rather get in trouble than read about somebody who has died because in this day and age with liability etc,they have not being shown how to get out of trouble if they accidently find themselves in a world of hurt. I would rather be alive breaking the rules than dead because I wasnt shown anything.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Bandit, a 60 degree equates to 2 g's, and I've been in 90 deg turns in a tiger moth and Chipmunk and the skin squashes on your teeth. I was the one who pulled the stick back on the Chipmunk and the instructor just sat there grinning and let us fall.

 

For the scenario I was painting think of a widow with the mortgage paid off who wants to be a bit more adventurous, but not that adventurous - she would be turned off.

 

I didn't see the undercarriage spring with the touch, and I know Eugene could spot land it, but who knows.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Im hearing you Bandit, I did wing overs and Lazy eights in a Archer taught by a instructor, Aeros in a Yak 52( Barry Hemple) .Have been nearly flipped upside down in a Savage cub fitted with Vg's.Normal in a full power stall when fitted with Vg's. again with a instructor and by myself.I have been flipped upside down by a mountain rotor. The thing im trying to get across, was that I have been taught to deal with it.It Realy scares me if Peeps are flying 3 Axis and have not been had any experience in being in that situation passed 60 and more degrees.Im sorry I am going against the rules and regs, if I get in trouble, so be it.I would rather get in trouble than read about somebody who has died because in this day and age with liability etc,they have not being shown how to get out of trouble if they accidently find themselves in a world of hurt. I would rather be alive breaking the rules than dead because I wasnt shown anything.

We have a way to cover that legally Dazza, which was discussed in detail on another thread (might have been aerobatics), and that's in a GA aircraft with an aerobatics instructor - not a long course either.

 

The rotors concern me, (although maybe you live with them up there), because in the GA training I did, we spent some time looking at the effects of adiabatic wind etc, and which areas to avoid flying in when the wind's up, and in recent years quite a few pilots have been lost after being slammed into the mountain.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I better add, the last time I was upside down was Yesterday with a very good friend of mine, He is Ga with aero.He owns a Rv7.We are going back to the basics as Im not current, im current with flying RAA but not current flying in unusual attitudes.He was taught aero's by Nigel Arnot, he is very smooth . I recommend that every pilot whether Ga or RAA get some training, in unusual attitudes It will save your life one day.Ps- I know that Rv's are experimental.It was just two guys having fun, no rules broken, he did the flying I was getting used to being upside down again. Cheers

 

 

[dazza 38]

Your right turbo, I have been taught about that and rotors I was flying through the Numinbar valley, towards Murwillumba your have to desend to remain OCTA at the southen end Chillingham .Its the only way pretty much to Murwillumba from Boonah.It all good, im still here.

 

 

[Litespeed]

We have a way to cover that legally Dazza, which was discussed in detail on another thread (might have been aerobatics), and that's in a GA aircraft with an aerobatics instructor - not a long course either.The rotors concern me, (although maybe you live with them up there), because in the GA training I did, we spent some time looking at the effects of adiabatic wind etc, and which areas to avoid flying in when the wind's up, and in recent years quite a few pilots have been lost after being slammed into the mountain.

And that is a great concern personally. So essentially the only way to have this quite likely life saving skill is to get a it in a GA aircraft?

 

That really defeats the whole purpose of making RAA as popular and sensible as possible. What message for safety are we sending by not training these skills?

 

I am not talking about pure aerobatics but a skill set that does not fall apart when something unusual happens.

 

Some of the rules sound petty and are actually self defeating.

 

We should be allowed to do low G manoeuvres that are consistent with the airframe and pilot skill set.

 

We do endorsements for tail wheels etc, why not a advanced licence and endorsements for certain things that open the envelope a little.

 

I am sure many die from other causes in planes than 90 degree turns but if they do these either by intent or otherwise. We are always told such moves were deadly and by having No training to respond correctly means -, when nature tricks you or you stuff up, you panic and end up in a pile of bits.

 

The opportunities for skill advancement should not be just a GA thing. That makes us a Joke, it basically means RA wants to be the less safe, less well trained end of flying.

 

We need to aim to attract new pilots not just guys with a ATPL or GA background.

 

And to suggest we have to go to the far greater expense of GA for extra skills is really unaffordable for many.

 

I would even be so bold as to say many recent deaths may have been avoided had such training been given. It is the out of the normal stuff that generally leads to crash and death. Solution is training to be able to avoid and control such situations- so you well trained skill set either stops you getting in the sh@t or allows you to get out of it.

 

I am not advocating full on aerobatics for RA but a safe sensible and natural need be filled.

 

Otherwise I think we are been asked to fly with one arm behind our back.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Litespeed, have a look for the thread on aerobatics, virtually every one of your questions is answered there. It's a very long thread but you'll then understand what we are talking about - the aircraft specification, the training involved, the instructors involved.

 

Not a lot of money if you want those extras tools in your drawer.

 

Of course you can flight plan your way out of needing them too.

 

 

[Tomo]

Nicely done.

 

Shame about the negativity that has come up, one reason why most don't like saying anything or showing anything these days. I agree the turns didn't need to be that steep, but I don't think it was planned. I can see the implications but I don't think people would ever really care about it till something like this has been talked about in public. Now the RAA bashers don't have to even go looking, they have it all out in front of them, here.

 

It appears to be a descending turn so the G's wouldn't be that great, still I'm not saying I agree with it at all. Just unhelpful criticism is a pretty big killer. Instead of us all just talking of the legality of a turn, how about someone has something helpful to say about the dangers of a steep turn? I don't know, I just hate someone being flattened when trying to do something good.

 

Use it as a talking point, if a student asks you "did you see those turns in that video the other day?" And explain turns and limitations to the student...

 

Just my thoughts

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The opportunities for skill advancement should not be just a GA thing. That makes us a Joke, it basically means RA wants to be the less safe, less well trained end of flying.

We need to aim to attract new pilots not just guys with a ATPL or GA background.

 

.

Litespeed, aerobatic training is not required even for ATPL. Are non aerobatic trained CPL and ATPL pilots a joke?..Is their training a joke?..Substandard? unsafe?

 

I would even be so bold as to say many recent deaths may have been avoided had such training been given. It is the out of the normal stuff that generally leads to crash and death. Solution is training to be able to avoid and control such situations- so you well trained skill set either stops you getting in the sh@t or allows you to get out of it.

.

I fail to see how engine failures caused by fuel starvation could have been avoided by aerobatic training. I do agree though, these recent deaths were totally unnecessary. This is my point, some of the rules may seem petty to us, but which ones aren't petty??..which rules do we use to form the backbone of our own personal limitations?.. Which rules is it ok to break??..MTOW?..Weight and balance?..Fuel reserves??..VFR criteria?? Don't turn under 500ft??..what other rules are ok?? Good solid basic training in areas like flightplanning, stalling etc could have made a big difference in recent incidents.

 

If the RAA is to move forward we need to portray (as a whole) an attitude of compliance. Sure we can lobby for rule changes, but whats the point if we all just decide that some of the rules are petty anyway, we dont really need to follow them. But perhaps MORE importantly, we need to be perceived as being compliant, ie, when someone breaks the rules, be it at your club, in the cct, on a news story, we have to indicate that we don't condone it. In a public forum, we can't afford to sit on the fence.

 

cheers

 

 

[motzartmerv]

its a shame you are so bitter and twisted motz..........you might be able to move us forward if u werent...ever considered a job with CASA...?

I wont apologize for pushing compliance.

 

 

[winsor68]

I'm Spartacus.

 

 

[dazza 38]

From personal experience, anybody who flies a STOL a/c with Vg's.If doing training at Max AOA.A wing will let go more sudden than a aircraft without vg's at a lower airspeed. Its because when the airflow breaks away from the airfoil , it breaks all of a sudden.And in can be violent, not always at low level it will and can kill you.At the end of the day..All I want is people to get training in aeros.ATM it has to be GA.But you dont have to be a PPL.Anyone can do it. Go and do it.Cheers guys.It may save you one day.

 

 

[Bandit12]

I'm with you Dazza. I did several hours in a Pitts doing every combination of spins (upright, inverted, accelerated) and the wildest unusual attitudes recoveries and have also done my aerobatics endorsement. It really is life saving stuff, even if aeros isn't what makes you drool

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Chief, show me where i said that and i will.

 

Dont get me wrong, aero training is fantastic. Unforutunatly not available in raaus acft, but like others have said, u dont need a ppl to do some training.