What if you controlled policy for a day, what would improve your safety most?

[dazza 38]

Maybe when ultralights were 95.10 machines with a max BEW of 300kg, but at an MTOW of 1500kg?Do you want RAA to still be the AUF, or do you want it to be GA-lite?

 

Do you want stalls to be demonstrated by someone who potentially doesn't understand loading charts, how to calculate CoG, and how CoG affects stall/spin behaviour?

 

You can't argue for watered down standards for ultralights and then claim that an RPC is equivalent to an RPL in training.

Are you trying to alienate yourself from AUF/RAA pilots ? FWIW- Senior RAA instructors have to pass the PPL theory exam.

I have flown with many RAA instructors over the years and they have been just as good or better than the GA instructors I flew with. One RAA CFI friend of mine who I have flown with on many occasions was an Airline pilot, a Virgin sim instructor and flew GA for many years in Papua and has approx 24000 hours.

 

Imo you analyse things too much. I went from a Jabiru LSA55 to a Piper Archer. The Piper is easier to fly out of the two. Basic GA aircraft like the Warrior, Archer, C172 are generally EASIER to fly.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Are you trying to alienate yourself from AUF/RAA pilots ? FWIW- Senior RAA instructors have to pass the PPL theory exam. I have flown with many RAA instructors over the years and they have been just as good or better than the GA instructors I flew with. One RAA CFI friend of mine who I have flown with on many occasions was an Airline pilot, a Virgin sim instructor and flew GA for many years in Papua and has approx 24000 hours. Imo you analyse things too much. I went from a Jabiru LSA55 to a Piper Archer. The Piper is easier to fly out of the two. Basic GA aircraft like the Warrior, Archer, C172 are generally EASIER to fly.

None of that is relevant. I'm not talking about SIs or CFIs. I know that SIs need to pass the PPL theory exam.

 

I'm talking about base grade instructors, who need to have 75 hours PIC, no extra theory passes other than the basic NAV and radio, and are allowed to take students from ab initio to pre-solo.

 

I too went from an LSA55 to eventually a Piper Warrior (with many planes in between). I know that the piper is easier to fly. None of this is pertinent to the discussion.

 

Is the argument that the PPL theory is too hard for a new instructor trainee? or that it is too expensive?

 

You don't pay people the respect of reading what they write before you slam into them.

 

 

[kasper]

Maybe when ultralights were 95.10 machines with a max BEW of 300kg, but at an MTOW of 1500kg?Do you want RAA to still be the AUF, or do you want it to be GA-lite?

 

Do you want stalls to be demonstrated by someone who potentially doesn't understand loading charts, how to calculate CoG, and how CoG affects stall/spin behaviour?

 

You can't argue for watered down standards for ultralights and then claim that an RPC is equivalent to an RPL in training.

Unfortunately from my perspective (AUF SI, GA PPL and UK PPL(m)) you loose a lot of credibility when you confuse and mix BEW and MTOW in the same sentence (95.10 has never had a BEW of 300kg) and I am sorry if you believe that even a BASIC RAA instructor does not understand loading charts , CofG or affect of stall/spin - and really I am not hearing ANY instructors arguing for watered down standards at all - what I hear is people arguing for APPROPRIATE and PROPORTIONATE regulation.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Getting back to what Dr Zoos started, I completely agree that safer airspace is what we need.

 

By far the most dangerous thing I do in flying is being forced to fly lower than safe over the Adelaide Hills. It would be easy to give planes like mine a couple of thousand more feet without inconveniencing the airlines or military in the slightest. They go nowhere near the airspace I am denied by our so-called "safety "authorities. In a single-engined plane, having sufficient height to glide to a landing spot in the event of an engine stoppage is the biggest safety issue by far.

 

The only possible explanations for their actions are: (1) laziness , stupidity and a callous disregard for our safety or (2) they want us to have crashes so they can argue for more staff and power.

 

From looking at airspace maps, other cities like Brisbane seem to be even worse off than we are in Adelaide. I'd like to fly into Brisbane, but it looks like many miles of low flying over houses.

 

Nobody in power has deigned to respond to this issue.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Unfortunately from my perspective (AUF SI, GA PPL and UK PPL(m)) you loose a lot of credibility when you confuse and mix BEW and MTOW in the same sentence (95.10 has never had a BEW of 300kg) and I am sorry if you believe that even a BASIC RAA instructor does not understand loading charts , CofG or affect of stall/spin - and really I am not hearing ANY instructors arguing for watered down standards at all - what I hear is people arguing for APPROPRIATE and PROPORTIONATE regulation.

I've never been near a 95.10 machine, let alone flown one, owned one, or built one, so I'm happy to be corrected about any part of 95.10. However, 95.10 or 95.25 is what most of the public thinks of when they hear 'ultralights'.

 

I've only ever flown with one RAA non-senior instructor, and he said that he was finding some parts of the PPL theory difficult. You may disagree about the amount of regulation; but my position is that someone who finds the PPL theory too difficult to pass doesn't really have a place in explaining aerodynamics, or stall/spin, etc, to a new student. The impost on a new instructor having to do the PPL theory is minimal - there are plenty of pilots who have done it! Loading charts aren't covered in the RAA BAK exam, so how does a basic instructor prove that she understands it?

 

If we're going to train to the GA syllabus (and claim that our training is equivalent), then our instructors should have passed the theory for the GA syllabus. This is doubly true if we want 1500kg (which, IMHO, is a mistake).

 

 

[Litespeed]

Ada Elle,

 

Your leaps of logic from the discussion have me gasping for air.

 

First you want to keep all the existing weight limits and argue against any change, now you are going on about having 1500kg.

 

You have gone from one extreme to the other.

 

Also what the public or anyone in the media- who can't tell the difference between a Cessna and a Bi-plane thinks about what Ultralight means is not relevant. I don't care what Joe Blow thinks.

 

If you had not noticed we are not just rag and tube anymore, we have moved on and are actually called Recreational Aircraft.

 

Note: Recreational ie not for profit, Not for carrying commercial loads. For the fun and enjoyment of flying.

 

 

 

The whole idea is to have all the benefits of flying suitable aircraft that we can regulate and not have the costs and complexity of GA.

 

 

 

Even CASA seems to get it, why don't you?

 

 

[facthunter]

I haven't heard anyone going for 1500 KG's I've argued for 700 -750 max and that's based on BUILDING something of simple construction which is strong and carry two realistic sized people some gear, tie downs and fuel for 4 plus hours. Your realistic empty weight is about 340 Kgs and the other sums anyone can do. We have all been through this exercise before with the weight calcs

 

Aircraft will never be as cheap as they have been ( and that wasn't very cheap) with our dollar where it is. Who can really lay out $120K for a plane that doesn't get a lot of use? Who knows what the 51% rule is? these days Nearly everyone buys a going plane. and many don't service them because they don't have the expertise. Is this the end game for RAAus.? building must be a part of the future for the recreational movement, or is it just like buying a jet ski? Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

Mainly for conversation.

 

I wonder about pilot currency in RAA

 

Lots of very low hour per yr pilots.....some with high total hours though

 

 

[facthunter]

Bit like riding a pushbike eh? Preparation and planning is the key, regardless. I think it varies from person to person how quickly they will go back after a break. Do the refresher. Look through the POH thoroughly, check the area around the airport and get a check ride and be deliberate about what you do. Go through all the regs and check any changes to procedures. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

What I consider to be one of the best things about RAAus, is that it is possible to fly for less cost than GA, therefore RAAus pilots have better currency. I let my GA licence lapse for a few years until I found what was then AUF. I could then keep current, and have done so for about 20 years. I have moved back into GA, but in my experimental, which is cheaper to fly than normal GA.

 

There seems to be a school of thought that flying would be safer if we could go into controlled airspace or if there was less controlled airspace. How can it be unsafe due to being excluded from any airspace? The way I see it if you are unsafe because you are flying low to avoid controlled areas, you have made a decision that was not guaranteed a safe outcome. The problem is of your making, not the regulators.

 

 

[Yenn]

What I consider to be one of the best things about RAAus, is that it is possible to fly for less cost than GA, therefore RAAus pilots have better currency. I let my GA licence lapse for a few years until I found what was then AUF. I could then keep current, and have done so for about 20 years. I have moved back into GA, but in my experimental, which is cheaper to fly than normal GA.

 

There seems to be a school of thought that flying would be safer if we could go into controlled airspace or if there was less controlled airspace. How can it be unsafe due to being excluded from any airspace? The way I see it if you are unsafe because you are flying low to avoid controlled areas, you have made a decision that was not guaranteed a safe outcome. The problem is of your making, not the regulators.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

There seems to be a school of thought that flying would be safer if we could go into controlled airspace or if there was less controlled airspace. How can it be unsafe due to being excluded from any airspace? The way I see it if you are unsafe because you are flying low to avoid controlled areas, you have made a decision that was not guaranteed a safe outcome. The problem is of your making, not the regulators.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but.... how is it GFA and Ballooning Certificate holders are permitted to operate in CTA, but not RAAus? If RAAus were granted the ability to operate in at least Class D, that would open the sport up to our larger / capital city folk and potentially give RAAus a larger membership, voice and viability.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yenn, are you saying that it is my fault for flying at all? You seem to be saying that they are free to set stupid and dangerous airspace and they are great fellows but if I choose to fly in that airspace then it is my fault?

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yenn, you are the first person to ever defend this to me so please feel free to argue.

 

 

[facthunter]

Roundsounds I think they get a blanket airspace allocation like para drop s may if they get cleared into CTA Isn't it just usually notammed for a time stipulated. We (from the north) used to get a "special" VFR clearance into Mascot. There is no easier way than that but it wasn't an IFR flight.. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

There seems to be a school of thought that flying would be safer if we could go into controlled airspace or if there was less controlled airspace. How can it be unsafe due to being excluded from any airspace? The way I see it if you are unsafe because you are flying low to avoid controlled areas, you have made a decision that was not guaranteed a safe outcome. The problem is of your making, not the regulators.

Wow thats one seriously strange point of view......your entitled to it, but that has some serious flaws

 

1. If the safest route is A to B, but one has to go via C D and E over inhospitable terrain to avoid CTA then its the pilots fault, not the regulators? thats just bizarre! And secondly you say "How can it be unsafe due to being excluded from any airspace?" ...well if route a to b is the safest but CTA stops that happening, then it can be less safe.

 

The way I see it if you are unsafe because you are flying low to avoid controlled areas, you have made a decision that was not guaranteed a safe outcome. .

2. We are not arguing that we are making unsafe decisions, we are saying we are being forced to take less safe decisions see example 1 for how thats possible

 

The problem is of your making, not the regulators.

3. Are sorry but we don't control where CTA is or where the mountains and coast are, or the routes available past those locations when ranges and oceans come into play... so sorry but that's also bizarre to say the least.. If you live in a remote area, it might be possible to think this...but if you have any familiarity with areas that have a lot of CTA , mountains and coast nearby its very different in reality, once any sort of cloud starts to build.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Roundsounds I think they get a blanket airspace allocation like para drop s may if they get cleared into CTA Isn't it just usually notammed for a time stipulated. We (from the north) used to get a "special" VFR clearance into Mascot. There is no easier way than that but it wasn't an IFR flight.. Nev

Hi Nev

 

Mike Borgelt will be current on this but going back 35 years ago when I was gliding regularly we just called up ATC and asked for a clearance to climb into the lower flight levels. The odd thing was that power pilots had to work through FS any time they went more than 50 NM from base as I recall? Flight plans and 30 minute reports all the way. Long while ago and the memory is fading :-)

 

Some no doubt just did it anyway because the early glass gliders gave f-all radar return. Those flying wave were much more in touch with the Controllers because they were likely mixing it with RPT at 30,000 plus.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Roundsounds I think they get a blanket airspace allocation like para drop s may if they get cleared into CTA Isn't it just usually notammed for a time stipulated. We (from the north) used to get a "special" VFR clearance into Mascot. There is no easier way than that but it wasn't an IFR flight.. Nev

Nev, the pure gliders do as you state for comps, however motor glider pilots operate as though they have a PPL. For example at Camden (Class D), motor glider operations are permitted on a self certified medical, no GA quals and have a controlled airspace endorsement issued by the GFA. The pure glider operators also self certify medicals, but aren't required to hold an airspace endorsement. Private balloon pilots also operate from Camden, again no GA quals or CASA medical. Glaring double standards, I dare say the RAAus airspace limitations are a legacy from the days of ops not above 300', unreliable power plants, single seat aircraft and self taught pilots.

 

 

[facthunter]

You may be correct but I would hope such prejudice would not be widespread. Things have changed a lot since then. It's very possible that a low regard exists but I think if so, it is becoming less. There's always been a sort if hierarchy in aviation. Bigger is better or something. I don't care for it. Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

I am sure in many minds there is a hierarchy.

 

But to me it is just like dog owners. The bigger the dog the smaller the man on the inside or his privates.

 

Thats why I have two Chihuahua's. I don't give a damn what others think.

 

 

[K-man]

I am sure in many minds there is a hierarchy.But to me it is just like dog owners. The bigger the dog the smaller the man on the inside or his privates.

 

Thats why I have two Chihuahua's. I don't give a damn what others think.

Hmm! I have two German Shepherds. Just what are you saying?

 

 

[Litespeed]

Thats open to interpretation.

 

Do you walk around covered in tattoos, in a singlet with veins popping from steroids?

 

Are your doggies threatening to eat anyone that walks past you?

 

 

[K-man]

Thats open to interpretation.Do you walk around covered in tattoos, in a singlet with veins popping from steroids?

 

Are your doggies threatening to eat anyone that walks past you?

Not really. I don't even have one tattoo and I've never been tempted with steroids. My furry friends would try to lick most people to death and the little kids just love them. If you get lost, they're pretty good at tracking and our baby will be in her second ever obedience trial at the Royal Melbourne Show on Friday. In another life I am an instructor at the local dog club so I get my dog fix every Sunday hanging out with all sorts of dogs including a Chihuahua.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Mine are both Long hairs and extremely friendly. They still don't realize at 15 and 16 years old they are no longer puppies. They have never been yappy and were used as care dogs in disability work for many years. Also have lab, she is a garbage disposal unit.

 

The girl has three legs and and lots of titanium courtesy of a Rottweiler that jumped the fence and attacked her when she was out for a wee. That was 13 years ago. The small dicked owner had the gall to blame my dog. Two weeks later his dog attacked his expensive horse- but no the dog was lovely just ask him. Karma ensued as he backed over it in his 4wd a month after that.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Apologies for furry friends thread drift