Guest ozzie Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 Actually I don't see anything sentimental in it at all. Getting back to realistic minimal regulations is the aim. RAAus is mainly GA covered in a thin layer of glass and plastic. They need insurance they need to utilize airports they have the needs to travel far and wide. GA that's all it is. Don't think the new medical requirements will be the godsend. If you haven't previously held a GA medical you won't get the new one. It is set up fro GA to step down not for rec flyers to step up. Those who fly grass roots don't mind being away from the mainstream. Most of us are already. These parrots don't fly like i do. I will go from fence hopping to full on thermal and ridge soaring and never really get any further away than a couple of Kl ms if that. I don't carry passengers and don't see any need for expensive insurance, in comparison i could easily do more damage on a trail bike riding in the same area than i could with the lazair so why do i need it or them. Don't need no regs or insurance or mandatiory membership to ride my bike do i. Their op regs really make fence hopping thermalling and ridge soaring illegal so what good are they to flying my aircraft how it was designed to be flown. Wasted money. As it is i just belong under duress and threats. Real Australian that is. FAR 103 thank you very much.
Guest Andys@coffs Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 A lot of people have thought and talked about it but it is widely thought to be too hard to do. To go to the GM and suggest it as you once advised me to do would be a complete waste of time as I imagine you would have already known. What I am annoyed about is the things which have happened with no consultation like, the name change from the AUF and the introduction of LSA our organisation has been hijacked by self interested people and all but destroyed. On the contrary, how will you know it's a waste of time if you don't put it up, the few that post passionately here are only but a small part of the whole, and you'll never never know if you never never go and try to see what others think. If it were me and I felt passionately about it I'd give Lee Ungerman at CASA a ring and see what he has to say. If he isn't interested then your pushing it uphill if he supports you, or doesn't shoot you down then you have a chance. In any event do something rather than just go on bout the good old days. I know I go on about RAA today but I intend to give it my best in feb to try and introduce some changes of what we have today, like you ultimately if I succeed or fail will come down, as it should, to the members Andy
Guest nunans Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 It had a lot to do with getting insurance. The two strokes became impossible to ensure in a flying training role. Recreational aviation sounds better than Ultralight. There was also a concept of anticipating the growth and trying to be the centre of it. Some would say that was a clever move. We all know the movement has grown beyond most expectations. Nev It is clever and it's fine to anticipate growth and for the auf to change the name and jump on a wave of plastic ga aviation that the mainstream and probably now majority of RA members (when you consider all the newest ones that aren't interested in ultralighting) want, but I feel for those like ozzie and many others who ARE into real recreational flying as the organisation is less and less for them with the gap closing between what RAaus is about and what general GA flying is about. I mean what's our identity? what is RAaus about? what would draw somebody to RAaus rather than just going down the PPL-Cessna route of private flying? How do we differ from that? The more the gap closes the more need there is for our aircraft to be maintained by people with higher quals, the more emphasis there will be on our pilot training (though I could argue there is VERY LITTLE difference now between our training and a PPL as I simultaneously have been doing RA instructor trainging and a ppl so i'm current with the syllabus of both). I'm not convinced that interest in building your own plane or flying around in little aircraft for minimum cost is history, I think that as a result of chasing growth, the group of grass roots pilots who this organisation was originally meant for have been recently flooded by people with more money and less association to ultralighting in general. So much so that they are now a minority of the membership and as we are a democracy, it's only fair I guess that RA aus continue to push for more weight, airspace etc etc as it seems the treasurer and therefor must be the majority membership are just "would be if they could be" big shot Cessna/Piper drivers.....
facthunter Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 I believe some of you are making a heap of assumptions. Some of the GA people you "conjure up", and don't appear to want, have been there before there were even any rules at all. Flying stuff, Pre ozzie maybe? I know some who test flew stuff that never made production. If someone does not want to fly in a particular thruster, so what. I fly thrusters but there are plenty I would not fly in. All pilots start at the bottom, as learners with NO experience. . I don't believe that Ozzie should pay for complexity he does not use. LSA was always a Horses "R" us as far as I am concerned and always said it was some US stop gap thing anyhow. Some of the high tech euro stuff are the pretty toys of millionaires.. Any how the things that unite us. enthusiasm for flying curiosity about ALL planes, desire to try a new challenge etc are bigger than some of the narrow views sometimes expressed here at times that I find very dissappointing. We all need each other. The progress??? of which you feel threatened is happening everywhere and it won't stop. When I started you could only fly VH planes. There was nothing else and you got about 2 hours for a weeks wages. Things have improved since then . Nev 1
Guernsey Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 Maybe the word "ultralight" turned potential new GA members off joining so in the interest of income the organisation changed its name to something a little more palatable? What was happening is that the public were getting a wrong impression regarding the safety of 'Ultralights' as accident reporting news outlets nearly always refered to the aircraft as an ultralight just because it was registered with the Ausralian "Ultralight' Federation but was in no way ultra light. An ultralight originally, was an aircraft weighing no more than 300 kilos all up weight including the pilot. As the industry expanded and the weight increased, Recreational Flying was a better name and we were able to get rid of the stigma of "Oh no, not another of those damn ultralights." Whilst I am in favour of the changes and the way we have expanded, I believe that we could have kept the AUF as a subsidiary of the new RaAus and had the best of both worlds so to speak, all within one controlling body. Just my thoughts. Alan. 1
facthunter Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 You still can Alan. By operating under the old rules It must be treated separately anyhow. If it is simpler to administer it should cost less. (User pays) Single seat planes are less liability . It's the reaction to GA pilots so called and making them out as different that bothers me, and they are the cause of most of this problem. I can't see that. If I had to make a guess I would say most of the problem is with LSA planes. Weight has nothing to do with it. A Pietenpol is simpler than a skyfox. I'm ex ga and I have never believed you need CTA ( except transitting) and the odd aerodrome. Mascot used to have a special VFR clearance and was easier to go to than Bankstown. These thing work fine till a couple of people cock it up and then you lose the privilege. I think Ferris wheels are the cause and all those who fly in them. Nev
Guernsey Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 You still can Alan. By operating under the old rules It must be treated separately anyhow. If it is simpler to administer it should cost less. (User pays) Single seat planes are less liability . It's the reaction to GA pilots so called and making them out as different that bothers me, and they are the cause of most of this problem. I can't see that. If I had to make a guess I would say most of the problem is with LSA planes. Weight has nothing to do with it. A Pietenpol is simpler than a skyfox. I'm ex ga and I have never believed you need CTA ( except transitting) and the odd aerodrome. Mascot used to have a special VFR clearance and was easier to go to than Bankstown. These thing work fine till a couple of people **** it up and then you lose the privilege. I think Ferris wheels are the cause and all those who fly in them. Nev I agree facthunter as I am also ex Ga but for several years flew GA and ultralights at the same time (not literally) and flew them for the advantages that each has to offer. Alan.
cscotthendry Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 There is another possible route for the 95.10 flyers if they feel that RAAus is not for them. Maybe they could approach the HGFA and see whether they would be willing to take over the lower end of the ultralights. They already cover trikes which are motorised and quite a lot fly with 2 stroke engines. It may be that the HGFA would be a better fit for the 95.10 build-it, fly-it crowd.
facthunter Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 That's an option but I hope they never feel the need to do that. They will never be a majority in the RAAus numbers again but what does that matter. No doubt they will make some converts from the more "conventional" ranks by being amongst them. on the same airfields. I wouldn't regard it as a problem, being in the minority at any stage. The majority are Jabiru's every where I go but that shouldn't worry them either, but it's better to have all the variety you can. Nev
Guest ozzie Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 There is another possible route for the 95.10 flyers if they feel that RAAus is not for them. Maybe they could approach the HGFA and see whether they would be willing to take over the lower end of the ultralights. They already cover trikes which are motorised and quite a lot fly with 2 stroke engines. It may be that the HGFA would be a better fit for the 95.10 build-it, fly-it crowd. I tried to speak with the HGFA some time back. They have a nanolight category for the weight shift trikes. 75kg empty. I thought i could get the Lazair in as it weighs 73kg empty. But the keyword in the reg for them is weightshift. Any how they also seem to be having enough in house problems of their own at the time. Seems also a bit one sided that they can have a nanolight group and the RAAus doesn't.
facthunter Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 Rules that just grew like Topsy. Not a lot of it makes sense, but If someone revises them, new brooms sweep clean. You could lose some things you want to keep. What exactly is a microlight? Would that be a suitable category? Nev
dodo Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 I wanted to learn to fly ultralights, and my interest is in little flappy things that emerge from a paddock looking improbable. However, practically,you have to learn in something else ("a pretend cessna" if you like). Once you have a certificate and a cross-country rating,then you can get a low-performance, tail-wheel and 2 stroke endorsement. A bit frustrating, and maybe I can understand how it happened, but it is silly, a bit like having to get a GA licence before being able to get an ultralight endorsement! dodo
cscotthendry Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 I wanted to learn to fly ultralights, and my interest is in little flappy things that emerge from a paddock looking improbable.However, practically,you have to learn in something else ("a pretend cessna" if you like). Once you have a certificate and a cross-country rating,then you can get a low-performance, tail-wheel and 2 stroke endorsement. A bit frustrating, and maybe I can understand how it happened, but it is silly, a bit like having to get a GA licence before being able to get an ultralight endorsement! dodo Actually it's not as absurd as it seems. You should know how flight is supposed to work in conventional aircraft before you launch off into something that's substantially different. There's a really funny video on YouTube somewhere of the pitfalls of not doing this. A couple of Aussie bushies got hold of a hang glider and who obviously knew nothing about flying. Lacking a suitable hill to launch it off, the tied a rope around it and to the back of a ute. One bloke got into the glider and another got into the ute while a third one filmed. The ute took off, the hang glider rose and the guy in it knew not what to do with it and the result was as you'd expect except he wasn't seriously hurt thankfully.
Guest nunans Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 I wanted to learn to fly ultralights, and my interest is in little flappy things that emerge from a paddock looking improbable. However, practically,you have to learn in something else ("a pretend cessna" if you like). Once you have a certificate and a cross-country rating,then you can get a low-performance, tail-wheel and 2 stroke endorsement. A bit frustrating, and maybe I can understand how it happened, but it is silly, a bit like having to get a GA licence before being able to get an ultralight endorsement! dodo Yep that's pretty much how it went for me. And i found the "real" fun started once i stared flying the tail wheel and two strokes. It is worth it in the end. Funny though, I find the ultralights more controlable and easier than the pretend cessnas
Teckair Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 On the contrary, how will you know it's a waste of time if you don't put it up, the few that post passionately here are only but a small part of the whole, and you'll never never know if you never never go and try to see what others think.If it were me and I felt passionately about it I'd give Lee Ungerman at CASA a ring and see what he has to say. If he isn't interested then your pushing it uphill if he supports you, or doesn't shoot you down then you have a chance. In any event do something rather than just go on bout the good old days. I know I go on about RAA today but I intend to give it my best in feb to try and introduce some changes of what we have today, like you ultimately if I succeed or fail will come down, as it should, to the members Andy Thanks for that Andy, I guess I am unsure about the whole deal and I am yet to make my mind up about these issues like, do I have the commitment to make it happen? would I get enough support? what will happen to RAAus can it be repaired? will FH's idea that user pays for the expenses incurred for their type of aircraft be implemented? what is next for the Australian economy? and do I really want to keep pursuing something (flying ultralights) that is so much trouble? Richard.
dodo Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 Actually it's not as absurd as it seems. You should know how flight is supposed to work in conventional aircraft before you launch off into something that's substantially different By that logic, we should get GA licenses before we fly ultralights. And is it wrong to learn to fly a glider via the GFA, without flying a Jabiru or Cessna first? I understand your point, but I don't think learning to fly in a Drifter or Lightwing would be so bad. What is bad is hopping in to fly a Cessna with nothing but Drifter experience (or the reverse). However, my sarcastic comment about getting a GA license may come back to bite me - I am a bit tied to RA now, just when the organisation is looking rather wobbly! dodo
Guernsey Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 By that logic, we should get GA licenses before we fly ultralights. And is it wrong to learn to fly a glider via the GFA, without flying a Jabiru or Cessna first?I understand your point, but I don't think learning to fly in a Drifter or Lightwing would be so bad. What is bad is hopping in to fly a Cessna with nothing but Drifter experience (or the reverse). However, my sarcastic comment about getting a GA license may come back to bite me - I am a bit tied to RA now, just when the organisation is looking rather wobbly! dodo Don't go to GA dodo we need you in our group. Looking at some of your posts on this forum I believe that although Raa seems a bit wobbly at the moment, things will only get better with members like you in our ranks. Have a good Christmas and please keep contributing. Alan.
Teckair Posted December 23, 2012 Posted December 23, 2012 By that logic, we should get GA licenses before we fly ultralights. And is it wrong to learn to fly a glider via the GFA, without flying a Jabiru or Cessna first?I understand your point, but I don't think learning to fly in a Drifter or Lightwing would be so bad. What is bad is hopping in to fly a Cessna with nothing but Drifter experience (or the reverse). However, my sarcastic comment about getting a GA license may come back to bite me - I am a bit tied to RA now, just when the organisation is looking rather wobbly! dodo Learning to fly in a Drifter or Lightwing is not bad it is good, however learning in a Cessna is bad as you will not get a good skill level and only be able to fly that style of aircraft with a nose wheel and other handling characteristics. Piloting skills will be best if you start with ultralights such as Drifter, Thruster or Lightwing if you can handle these a Cessna will be a walk in the park. The late Terry Kronk who was in the habit of flying replica war birds like P 51 Mustang, Spitfire and Fokker Wulf told me his early experience in ultralights provided the best piloting skills. Richard.
Guest ratchet Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 It had a lot to do with getting insurance. The two strokes became impossible to ensure in a flying training role. Recreational aviation sounds better than Ultralight. There was also a concept of anticipating the growth and trying to be the centre of it. Some would say that was a clever move. We all know the movement has grown beyond most expectations. Nev Yes i remember that argument which i thought spurious. Insurance companies are smart and don't change premiums because you called your plane a starship. A bit like me changing my name to Barack Obama so the bank gives me a loan. Commercial entities usually like some data/facts on their risk level. Names have little to do with it. On the other hand by changing our name to starships unlimited, more members would join and result in better premiums.
facthunter Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Two strokes ARE impossible to insure in a training environment. That is why almost none are doing it. The nature of our flying has changed that IS a fact. Human factors training has been tied up with insurance also. Our accident rate has something to do with it too. Of course insurance companies aren't stupid . They do risk analysis and actuarial studies, just like bookmakers do at the racecourse. they also compete with each other, and there has to be a buck there for them to be in it. What you name things is all part of the concept and perception, which is important if you are selling something. Nev
Guest ratchet Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Having been a doubter on the name change years ago i must admit the new organisation has delivered beyond my skepticism. There were 2 forces driving the change- (a) a flood of people without medicals wanting to fly GA-ish (b) the resulting changes in performance to RAA registered aircraft allowed broke people who could only own a rag n tube to be part of syndicates for high performance aircraft. The spectrum of affordable flying shifted up. The organisation is cost effective in terms of membership costs. What annoys me is not that it achieves good bang for the buck (it does) but the endless bureacratic threats to change something- anything- for change's sake. Today, No-one is allowed to say in any organisation that "this is as good as it gets". The reason is that people in CASA or RAA or wherever need to be seen to be earning their pay and no-one got a new empire from the status quo. As a trained statistician I would defy anyone to demonstrate from available data that any of the more recent changes in procedures and requirements have improved either safety or affordability. The introduction of dual trainers after the 1988 Horscutt inquiry had a real effect. As for the rest- BFRs, pre-sale inspections, radio, tailwheel and 2 stroke endorsements etc. I am convinced have not improved safety one jot. Yes, they sound logical, good ideas but in reality if you are an idiot in losing currency, buying a bit of junk aircraft, and flying aircraft that are markedly different in handling and performance or believing any a/c engine cannot stop, then aviation will kill you anyway in the 4.1 million other ways allowed. Like flying in IMC, with rotted wing skins, overloaded, without a preflight or engine warmup, a stall on base turn etc. Apart from empire building to oversea a new domain of form filling and filing, the other motivation is avoiding an attack from a nest of liability lawyers quoting the new words that kill all individual responsibility for anything i.e. "duty of care, reasonableness and foreseeability". It is not just reasonable it seems but essential to remind people via a form that vehicles of all kinds can kill you- including organic ones like horses. Only by filling in a form in which there are no real or implied penalties for lying and in which signatures do not carry any accountability or assurance of quality or the exercise of judgement, can the hapless purchaser be protected from the toxic effects of gravity. Same for a BFR. If I am so stupid that I need to be reminded to not fly when not current, then even when current I am also stupid enough to fly at 20 ft near a power station. But it makes a few dollars for someone and a form needs to be printed, worshiped and filed so that when grieving rellies appear looking for compensation it can be inserted in a lawyer's orifice (any one will do). Again, I doubt the overall safety picture has benefited from this nonsense but it is good garlic against lawyers and other parasites. So this is problem. The organisation is actually doing a good job considering but like all bureaucracies it has an innate need to expand. The worry is when it ventures into very high performance aircraft with complex systems (retracts, constant speed props), accidentally punctures controlled airspace at high speed with a hypoxic 70 year old with a car license medical at the controls, wiping sweat from the bifocals and struggling with a 3000 mode nav system. If it was a rag n tube at 1000 ft little can affect the A-380 on approach and no-one cares if one of us takes out a tree as well as ourselves. But a nearmiss with big metal or crashing onto a suburban BBQ could be bad mojo for regulators. The endless pursuit of performance without commensurate levels of training and medical standards is a worry and the endless new forms, procedures etc for no gain in safety is just plain annoying. Rant mode is now off.
Guest ratchet Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Two strokes ARE impossible to insure in a training environment. That is why almost none are doing it. Nev Then if they were uninsurable then and still are, how did the name change improve their insurability? This was part of the great sell for AUF changing to RAAus. Magically we would all be insurable but your statement suggests nothing changed for the R&T crowd. I don't mind either way but it was dishonest at the time to pretend the insurability of all types would improve when in reality it just lowered the premiums of those that were already insurable.
winsor68 Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Insurance??? WTF??? Who needs Insurance if it is only your own bum in the seat and your aircraft costs less than $20k and is flown away from built up areas? Sure this may not be applicable to the faster, fancier aircraft but what happened to the idea of a few mates hanging out, having fun and taking their own risks? 6
turboplanner Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Your widow will sue your estate, and there goes all that money you had promised to the cat protection society, or your aircraft will catch fire on impact, and the fire will spread to neighbouring properties doing five million dollars worth of damage, and you'll have to work it off.
Guest ratchet Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Insurance??? WTF???Who needs Insurance if it is only your own bum in the seat and your aircraft costs less than $20k and is flown away from built up areas? Sure this may not be applicable to the faster, fancier aircraft but what happened to the idea of a few mates hanging out, having fun and taking their own risks? It would help if we could a keep a straight line of logic here: 1. The claim was that 2 strokes are uninsurable in a training role. i.e. instructors cannot offer training in 2 stroke machines because insurance cannot be obtained. 2. The claim of RAAus was that the name change would help improve the insurability of all. It appears this did not happen for 2 strokes in training (at least) 3. Now you raise a previously undiscussed sit/n i.e. 2 strokes not used in training. 4. In response, some people fly with passengers on 2 strokes and I don't believe the name change/new org had any real effect on the insurability of this risk for R&T flyers. 5. I can live with your scenario of single seat flyers wearing their own risks, but this was not the sales pitch of RAAus at the time. Somehow, the actuaries would be impressed by the removal of the word ultralight from the association and the old thruster ultralight was to become a recreational aircraft and hence infinitely safer and a better insurance risk. cheers
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