29 RA-Aus deaths in 29 months

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy when do you go up against Abbott ,you have the lawyer/polly speak down pat ,well done

Please, reread what I said and tell me what was actually wrong with the thinking? Is it not true that affordability is only one element of accessibility? In what way have you been wronged by the change???? please answer the question and don't just attack me personally, I cant speak for the others on the board at the time but I sure wasn't out to change our reason for being?

 

Andy

 

 

[jetjr]

Alf J, you missed my point a bit

 

I was saying those arguments are here claimed by the same people. They cant have it both ways. Maybe once upon a time but not now.

 

Cant compain about the cost of membership then want to maintain big ticket items like magazine when options exist. I dont want to spend $200K on paper magazine. Theres an option there if you do think this is a good way to spend money.

 

I do want to keep fllying though. To do it with current CASA burden the cost rises over time. So does eerything else.

 

Cant want to go back when compliance was non existant, then complain about numner of accidents and the records dont pass regulator audit. Lots of aircraft grounded during this remember?

 

Cant complain things are too expensive at FTF then demand higher standards

 

Too many accidents yet complain about increased training requirements.

 

Plenty of 90-100kt aircraft, often pretty cheap, few RAA fly faster than 100kts. But truth wouldnt suit the picture being painted.

 

Theres lots of generalised bullc$&p and assumptions that HP aircraft owners are wealthy and dont have options in GA. I am neither of those.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

And check out the new REQUIRMENTS to get your XC endorsment 20 hours of dual xc @ 200 dollars an hour ,,well last time i looked most of the board have not been getting themselves lost and as some of them will say :most learn,t in rag and tube and most solo,ed after 10 hours, and they are still here ,but its alright to charge some young new pilot 2000 dollars to get thier xc ,,wake up ,,,,,,,,,,

I think you may be using a bit of load there to support your argument . I trained 2yrs ago and paid $130 p/h and a mate is currently training in a Jab at $165. I believe the cost of training for an articulated truck licence is even more than that.

Once again, maybe flying for you is no longer affordable. Shame you will miss it

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Doug,I have a really nice plane already, if I had an XY GTHO phase 3, it wouldn't come out of the shed as there are too many scoundrels in the world that would nick it.

I know ya have a nice craft I was just using the ford / Holden card. I am a ford man ... He he

 

 

[bull]

 

Please, reread what I said and tell me what was actually wrong with the thinking? Is it not true that affordability is only one element of accessibility? In what way have you been wronged by the change???? please answer the question and don't just attack me personally, I cant speak for the others on the board at the time but I sure wasn't out to change our reason for being?Andy

Sorry if you think i was attacking you mate ,far from it ,it was just that you so well said something that really meant nothing that you would give Abbott a real run for his money .

 

 

[bull]

I think you may be using a bit of load there to support your argument . I trained 2yrs ago and paid $130 p/h and a mate is currently training in a Jab at $165. I believe the cost of training for an articulated truck licence is even more than that.Once again, maybe flying for you is no longer affordable. Shame you will miss it

Thats the thing mate RAA flying is just that: recreational: and as we cant earn a living out of it, the costs are now much the same as if i get my mc licence and can earn a living with that ,,,oxymoron...i see lol [ps i,ll still be flying my trail bike of the sky well after your expensive spam can/plastic is grounded because its too expensive to run/fly ]

 

 

[Keith Page]

That's a good way to destroy sport aviation.

Following on from bull's post #166.

It is on the way to being destroyed now.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Keith what would you do to fix it? Story, I read back to look for what you said earlier but didn't find it. Is it being destroyed by the safety problem or by other things?

 

 

[alf jessup]

Alf J, you missed my point a bitI was saying those arguments are here claimed by the same people. They cant have it both ways. Maybe once upon a time but not now.

Cant compain about the cost of membership then want to maintain big ticket items like magazine when options exist. I dont want to spend $200K on paper magazine. Theres an option there if you do think this is a good way to spend money.

 

I do want to keep fllying though. To do it with current CASA burden the cost rises over time. So does eerything else.

 

Cant want to go back when compliance was non existant, then complain about numner of accidents and the records dont pass regulator audit. Lots of aircraft grounded during this remember?

 

Cant complain things are too expensive at FTF then demand higher standards

 

Too many accidents yet complain about increased training requirements.

 

Plenty of 90-100kt aircraft, often pretty cheap, few RAA fly faster than 100kts. But truth wouldnt suit the picture being painted.

 

Theres lots of generalised bullc$&p and assumptions that HP aircraft owners are wealthy and dont have options in GA. I am neither of those.

Jetjr,

 

Yep i must have misinterpreted what you were getting at, was in no way having a shot at you for your comment, joys of being human as we all read and interpret things different, even posts.

 

Alf

 

 

[bull]

Keith what would you do to fix it? Story, I read back to look for what you said earlier but didn't find it. Is it being destroyed by the safety problem or by other things?

GA introduced costs

 

 

[K-man]

Following on from bull's post #166.It is on the way to being destroyed now.

Regards

 

KP.

I think there are enough good people around to ensure that doesn't happen and I'm not sure that CASA would want to take over all the work of administering what is now being done at no charge to them. In fact I would suggest CASA might have preferred RAA took over responsibility for all aircraft under 1500kg flying for recreation. Obviously that wouldn't necessarily have been best for RAA and it came to nothing when John McCormack arrived. Now we have the RPL it's probably totally dead and buried.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Too many accidents- yep through who's fault (pilots in most cases as what you do on your own after being trained to a certain standard isn't your instructors fault)

That's not correct Alf, it's not "all care but no responsibility" any more.

 

If an instructors cuts corners, isn't capable of assessing what has been absorbed, doesn't bother with nav/met theory, teaches aerobatics, doesn't teach safety checks correctly, and doesn't manage what he has started (or if there is no safety system to manage what he has started under a self administration system), then he is at risk of being made to pay for the damage.

 

In cases where a pilot has simply dropped the aircraft vertically following an engine failure, the first person I'd be looking for would be the instructor.

 

 

[bull]

That's not correct Alf, it's not "all care but no responsibility" any more.If an instructors cuts corners, isn't capable of assessing what has been absorbed, doesn't bother with nav/met theory, teaches aerobatics, doesn't teach safety checks correctly, and doesn't manage what he has started (or if there is no safety system to manage what he has started under a self administration system), then he is at risk of being made to pay for the damage.

In cases where a pilot has simply dropped the aircraft vertically following an engine failure, the first person I'd be looking for would be the instructor.

What about a pilot that has trained to the HIGHEST standard and still flys his airliner into a mountain killing hundreds,,,,did your :training standards help then mate,Alf is correct,once trained an instructer cant hold your hand every day, about time people took responsability for their own actions instead of playing the litagation blame game.......

 

 

[turboplanner]

bull, you've already hijacked a critically important thread which relates specifically to people killed and has nothing to do with your anti rag and tube politics.

 

No point in trying to spin in red herrings on safety as well.

 

 

[bull]

bull, you've already hijacked a critically important thread which relates specifically to people killed and has nothing to do with your anti rag and tube politics.No point in trying to spin in red herrings on safety as well.

Hijacked??? to talk about the inposition of others {GA]into a :sport" is HIJACKING well, mate you might need a bit of TRAINING yourself by the sound of it ......[ps ANTI rag and tube ,well last time i looked my aircraft is wood and rag] and i TRAINED in rag and tube so where you got that from god knows .........................More like GA has HIJACKED a sport for their own ends dont you think??????

 

 

[alf jessup]

That's not correct Alf, it's not "all care but no responsibility" any more.If an instructors cuts corners, isn't capable of assessing what has been absorbed, doesn't bother with nav/met theory, teaches aerobatics, doesn't teach safety checks correctly, and doesn't manage what he has started (or if there is no safety system to manage what he has started under a self administration system), then he is at risk of being made to pay for the damage.

In cases where a pilot has simply dropped the aircraft vertically following an engine failure, the first person I'd be looking for would be the instructor.

Tubs'

 

This is where we disagree,

 

I value you comments totally but us being human all have different opinions.

 

Yes, I agree some instructors maybe shonky but not all of them, would be interesting to see who trained all these pilots who have passed on to see if there is a trend in these accidents.

 

My point was once you are out on your own you are responsible to keep current, make good decisions, fly disciplined and practice what you have been trained to do until your next BFR comes up.

 

I regularly practice, FL, EFATO, stalls, ST, glide approaches, flappless landings, side slipping, forward slips ect ect ect, I don't sit there fat dumb and happy for 2 years.

 

There is no way you can blame an instructor for a fatality unless of course he hasn't trained to a standard as you say, dead men tell no tales and book keeping can be fudged.

 

Pretty hard to become liable if all the dots & T's are crossed on signing off.

 

I guess I am lucky my instructors are well drilled and professional in their field.

 

Alf

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm certainly not implying any specific number of onstructors Alf, but Certificate IV in Training is a key safety item which is missing.

 

There are also clusters of incidents and clusters of accident types to be investigated.

 

I'm legally responsible for work I did 20 years ago and so are they right now. GA has a system which is different.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hijacked??? to talk about the inposition of others {GA]into a :sport" is HIJACKING well, mate you might need a bit of TRAINING yourself by the sound of it ......[ps ANTI rag and tube ,well last time i looked my aircraft is wood and rag] and i TRAINED in rag and tube so where you got that from god knows .........................More like GA has HIJACKED a sport for their own ends dont you think??????

Two wrongs don't make a right bull; how about you start a thread on your subject rather than fill ip a critical thread on loss of life?

 

 

[Teckair]

Too many accidents- yep through who's fault (pilots in most cases as what you do on your own after being trained to a certain standard isn't your instructors fault)

With a good instructor that is correct.

 

In cases where a pilot has simply dropped the aircraft vertically following an engine failure, the first person I'd be looking for would be the instructor.

You can teach someone to fly safely but whether they continue to that is another matter.

 

 

[facthunter]

Who "drops an aircraft vertically", following an engine failure.? Lets get some reality into our examples. We go off our brain at the media for the same thing. If you have facts you don't have to embellish them. It diminishes the argument. There is no poetic "licence" here. Only certificates..Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ok fh, "who let their aircraft fall into an immediate stall".

 

 

[facthunter]

I still don't believe that is accurate either. Have you examined all the instructor syllabus? Your assertions of responsibility going back to time frames like 20 years can't be taken at face value either. Lots of rules that you must heed, change constantly. and WE don't have a lot of say in their formation.

 

An aircraft doesn't fall into a stall either. The pilot stalls it if it is going to happen, then it will fall. . Pilots should know about stalling. It's certainly in the syllabus.

 

Do I agree with the way it's taught? NO and I've made that clear. There is room for improvement..Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

Certificate IV in training : Really, "a key safety item" , I accept that is your view, but there are different opinions about that. I completed 80% of one before I couldn't stand any more BS (and that was being paid for by the employer & in work time)

 

 

[turboplanner]

Certificate IV in training : Really, "a key safety item" , I accept that is your view, but there are different opinions about that. I completed 80% of one before I couldn't stand any more BS (and that was being paid for by the employer & in work time)

I don't doubt that it might seem like BS if you haven't been made aware of the reason for it, but we lost a lot of cases in succession, and one of the things you quickly learn is that Courts seem to favour academic qualifications over years of experience. The next thing you find is that if you do get a summons, it's important to hire a good solicitor and barrester, and they aren't cheap, and it helps if you can put the matter to rest immediately with some paperwork so the lawyers go after someone else.

 

Cert IV is the best way I know to answer the question: "Mr Turbo, do you have any qualifications to show that you are capable of measuring what a student has absorbed of your teaching, and what is your teaching qualification?"

 

If anyone is instructing and has an alternative academic Certificate/Diploma etc. that may well do, but the last time I checked most RAA instructors would be exposed if a curly question came up.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I still don't believe that is accurate either. Have you examined all the instructor syllabus? Your assertions of responsibility going back to time frames like 20 years can't be taken at face value either. Lots of rules that you must heed, change constantly. and WE don't have a lot of say in their formation.An aircraft doesn't fall into a stall either. The pilot stalls it if it is going to happen, then it will fall. . Pilots should know about stalling. It's certainly in the syllabus.

Do I agree with the way it's taught? NO and I've made that clear. There is room for improvement..Nev

I don't think you are expected to be responsible for things that changed after you trained the person, but the person doing the lastest BFR is (provided that was after all changes).

Wherever there's a wheel FH, you love putting a spanner in it, but I recently provided a statement to lawyers in a liability case which went right back to 1974, so don't kid yourself, plaintiffs will go through a lot of people and a long timespan if there was a duty of care involved.

 

Whatever your definition of a stall and whether to pilot has to put the aircraft in a stall or whether he is so incompetent that he pulls the stick back trying to maintain height, and it drops to the ground and spreads out in a number of pieces, something is wrong somewhere. Sure the pilot should know about stalling, and if he didn't then the question is who had the duty of care for that.