Ultralight Federation mark II anyone?

[Guest ratchet]

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.

The girlfriend would contest it...

 

 

[Teckair]

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

Hey ratchet I think you may have replied to the wrong person here.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Yes

 

 

[Guest ratchet]

Hey ratchet I think you may have replied to the wrong person here.

Sorry mate. I'm ratchet with a smart phone too.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

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

Two stroke what started the hole thing !

 

 

[Doug Evans]

What aircraft weight limit did you have in mind and how many of those older types would still be flying. ie we would have a much smaller organisation than we used to have and so may not be viable.I do miss it though.

Alan.

544 kg

 

 

[winsor68]

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.

Perhaps yours would Turbo. Mine (to be) lives in the real world where men are men and take responsibility for their own actions rather than try to lay blame on others. Oh... and what bloody estate???!!! If you have an "Estate" maybe it is prudent to stick to the plastic fantastics and it's complications with all the BS that goes with it.

 

 

[Riley]

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.

Ratchet, if that was a rant then continue to rave on. I reckon it should be made compulsory reading for everyone from RAA student pilot to whomsoever replaces our illustrious ex CEO!

 

 

[Guest nunans]

I don't really like the idea of pretending to be something i'm not, and when someone asks "is that an ultralight?" I answer "certainly is" in the proudest voice i can manage. If i get a chance i add that its a home built kit plane with a two cylinder engine. I'm not embarresed to fly ultralights and i don't fly around wishing i was in a bonanza. The general public still call anything with a two stroke an ultralight and nobody knows what a recreational aircraft is, lately it seems i'm supposed to be ashamed to fly a two stroke or an ultralight and keep my flying on the hush hush because the insurance companies don't like it... what a load of bs

 

 

[johnm]

good reminder Nunans

 

I also fly ULTRALIGHTS and don't wish that I'd like to be flying a bonanza (or a turbine) - mind you if you do fly an expensive bird ............................... nothing wrong with that either

 

[My solisitor reminds all persons reading this message that flying is inherently costly (including ultralights - particularly insured ones) and that any inference that there is cheaper form of flying (compared to another (or any other) form of flying) is based purely on comparative personal relative base costs bases and socio ecomnomic factors]

 

 

[facthunter]

I think if you examine my posts on this forum you will find the term U/L's used by me almost exclusively. Be wary of generalising and building up a "divide" here. You may be part of a declining percentage of an expanding organisation but that IS the way the development is going.

 

Not long ago I was part of a group who was somewhat "vilified" by telling the advantages of a tailwheel aircraft. (also a declining percentage of the total) sort of accused of some sort of snobbery. hasn't happened so much lately.( Never said it should be compulsory (as it was once).

 

I have not met too many who want to make their "litttle" plane (U/L) into a pretend Airbus and stop belittling older blokes/ Girls. If you are smart , you might become one one day. If you do silly things you might avoid it.

 

Aerodromes would be a lot lonelier places without the over 50's.

 

I saw Stephen Gall (age 65) win a race against some of the best riders in australia, yesterday against the best bikes around and on the trickiest circuit . Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yep and an old mate of mine Billy Holmes still races motorbikes in Qld at an age well into his 70s ... I would NOT take him on on a bike.

 

 

[facthunter]

Often the skills seem to go across. A lot of bike riders were also pilots. Lionel van Pragh is a good example. Like the exciting life, perhaps. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

I have been a bike rider all my life Nev and used to push the boundaries too far often when I was young. These days my bike riding skills may be questionable, in any case I would NOT push the boundaries, the gravel rash and bruises don't heal as fast as they used to.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

Be wary of generalising and building up a "divide" here. You may be part of a declining percentage of an expanding organisation but that IS the way the development is going.

I totally agree that IS the way development is going, but I don't like the idea of making a big effort to disguise ultralighting as some other less offensive activity by using an ambiguous name. Maybe there aren't that many Raa members left who like the idea of flying lighter, smaller aircraft just because it's more enjoyable than flying the bigger more "sterile" craft designed to get you from airport to airport.

I'd like it if RAaus stuck to a mission statement of who the organisation was there for rather than just chasing growth and income regardless of how far off track the "development is going".

 

I have not met too many who want to make their "litttle" plane (U/L) into a pretend Airbus and stop belittling older blokes/ Girls. Nev

I think it's the manufacturers/importers who are shaping the designs toward a percieved wealthy, maybe even ex ga customer who is looking for an ultralight that's "like my cessna was except cheaper and newer and faster".

 

Where in my post did I belittle older blokes/girls? If infact that was directed at me, I realise a big portion of private aviators are among the more experienced in life and hold no ill feelings toward people of any age group..

 

 

[turboplanner]

You grannies should try a big aircraft like a Jabiru and see how you like it. It's got a proper nosewheel too rather than a trolley castor at the back.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Now you go hide in your dark damp office in Mexico Tubz and behave yourself ....

 

 

[Guest nunans]

You grannies should try a big aircraft like a Jabiru and see how you like it. It's got a proper nosewheel too rather than a trolley castor at the back.

Wow, I s'pose you're gunna tell me them there big jabiru planes have that fangle electric start I been hearin' 'bout!

 

and with that tail wheel out the front, one guy told me they land all by thems selves. kinda automatic like??

 

 

[Teckair]

You grannies should try a big aircraft like a Jabiru and see how you like it. It's got a proper nosewheel too rather than a trolley castor at the back.

Hey nunans why did you like that ridiculous comment, you must have hit the wrong button I think you can unlike it if you wish. Jabiru a big aircraft really?? the nose wheel BS really???

 

 

[robinsm]

Well shucks Nunans, them thar jabbyroo thingys dont even have a frame in them. Shute, they aint even gotten fabric on thair wings. Damn new fangled things, Whats the world coming to?

 

 

[Teckair]

Turbo have you ever seen a Red Bull racer aircraft with nose wheel? I thought not, what does that tell you about pilots with real skill?? Let me help you out here you are not one.

 

 

[winsor68]

I reckon Sailplane Pilots trump us all.

 

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Turbo have you ever seen a Red Bull racer aircraft with nose wheel? I thought not, what does that tell you about pilots with real skill?? Let me help you out here you are not one.

And all of our Airforce aircraft from the fastest flashier fighters through to the C17....they all dont have....oh hang on....

 

2 or 3 doesnt really matter if they fold away between use......and it matters little once your off the ground and flying is all about flying not grounding If you want grounding then talk to our execs...they're specialists at that !

 

 

[Teckair]

I reckon Sailplane Pilots trump us all.

You sure about that win? I know one who was a gliding instructor who is proud to tell anyone who will listen about how he tacks like a sail boat when he has a head wind.

 

 

[Teckair]

And all of our Airforce aircraft from the fastest flashier fighters through to the C17....they all dont have....oh hang on....2 or 3 doesnt really matter if they fold away between use......and it matters little once your off the ground and flying is all about flying not grounding If you want grounding then talk to our execs...they're specialists at that !

Not many of our aircraft tuck away 3 wheels mostly they drag them through the air. Tailwheel planes are superior to nosewheels in all ways, they have less drag, they are lighter, they are stronger and they can handle shorter rougher airstrips.