Has Recreational Aviation collapsed?

[spacesailor]

I Can build my own,

BUT

Only to RAA specifications, not a whisker out !, or it,s over to GA experimental.

How mant aircraft display That " Wing load " that 95-10 has to abide by.

spancesailor

[pmccarthy]

I did training in a Drifter with AUF thirty years ago, but I don’t remember what it cost per hour. So the problem is not owning and operating, but training? Around here instructors seem to charge about $100 per hour for their time. Unfortunately electricians and plumbers are the same. I guess if an instructor could get 3 hours work per day, 5 days per week, 47 weeks per year his gross income would be around $70,000 per year. The difficulty would be finding the students. 

[kasper]

6 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

I Can build my own,

BUT

Only to RAA specifications, not a whisker out !, or it,s over to GA experimental.

How mant aircraft display That " Wing load " that 95-10 has to abide by.

spancesailor

I'll be the broken record 

- ANY and ALL Hummel Birds can be built and registered with RAAus under the provisions of CAO95.55 as a homebuilt. 

- No new builds of Hummel Birds have been registerable under 95.10 since the introduction of the wing load requirement that simplified the registration of the single seat 300kg class.

- Your Hummel Bird that was denied 95.10 registration due to whatever RAAus/AUF admin errors CAN be registered today under 95.55 by simple completion of paperwork and a single inspection.

[bull]

😎Just to use the roads for an example ,,ok if you want to learn to ride a motorcycle , there are training facilities for that ,now just a motor vehicle , there is a totally different training regime for that ...Now if you want to drive a truck there is a training regime for that,,,now all these things have wheels and a steering wheel and a brake pedal /handle,,,BUT you would not like to see someone coming the other way at you in a 14 tonne truck who was trained in  a honda jazz would you???

Edited December 3, 2020 by bull

[pmccarthy]

I understood that you needed to train in rag and tube types to be allowed to fly them under RAA. If you train in the high performance types you have to do extra training to fly something like a Drifter. Has that changed?

[spacesailor]

 

High performance with a sub 50 hp motor,  can we get good speed and economy with that ?.

Of the 16 HB,s building in Australia how many moved to the 95-55 register?.

spacesailor

 

[kasper]

9 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I understood that you needed to train in rag and tube types to be allowed to fly them under RAA. If you train in the high performance types you have to do extra training to fly something like a Drifter. Has that changed?

The older HP and LP endorsements have been removed from RAAus ops manual for the current version and if you had those endo's on your certificate you will find that they have been deleted from the last printed cards and from the members online portal.

 

Strange they keep the 2stroke endo but do not have a 4stroke endo - just an assumption that all training will be in 4strokes I suppose.

[bull]

33 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

I understood that you needed to train in rag and tube types to be allowed to fly them under RAA. If you train in the high performance types you have to do extra training to fly something like a Drifter. Has that changed?

No and that's the problem because you are FORCED to spend the money to train in a high performance type as that is all there is to train in , and after that you are FORCED to spend lots of extra money to find an instructor who trains in drifter types if one can be found  [as there is still a few around but not many ] and then FORCED to spend more money having to travel to these instructors and accommodation and associated costs ,,just because you WANT to fly an aircraft that the RAA was originally designed and formed for........................

[kgwilson]

The thing is the aviation grass roots world has moved on so there are few who want to fly the seat of the pants type aircraft these days. In the late 70s I first flew a weight shift controlled Quicksilver. It was fun and noisy given my hang gliding addiction at the time. 3 axis variants home builts of every shape and size and manufacturers began popping up all over the world. Modern materials and technological advancement determined the direction of cheap aviation and it has evolved into what we have today. Even though modern light aircraft are called Ultralights here and in the USA they are still called Microlights in the rest of the world but neither term suits what in reality are now Light Recreational Aircraft.

 

The AUF formed to look after all of this originally has also evolved but is still charged with managing what is left of the seat of the pants rag & tube aircraft. Perhaps it is time for a sub group of RAA to look after the interests of the old 95.10 category and for those that own these aircraft and love this type of flying to take control. The only obstacle I see is CASA, not RAA.

[bull]

8 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

The thing is the aviation grass roots world has moved on so there are few who want to fly the seat of the pants type aircraft these days. In the late 70s I first flew a weight shift controlled Quicksilver. It was fun and noisy given my hang gliding addiction at the time. 3 axis variants home builts of every shape and size and manufacturers began popping up all over the world. Modern materials and technological advancement determined the direction of cheap aviation and it has evolved into what we have today. Even though modern light aircraft are called Ultralights here and in the USA they are still called Microlights in the rest of the world but neither term suits what in reality are now Light Recreational Aircraft.

 

The AUF formed to look after all of this originally has also evolved but is still charged with managing what is left of the seat of the pants rag & tube aircraft. Perhaps it is time for a sub group of RAA to look after the interests of the old 95.10 category and for those that own these aircraft and love this type of flying to take control. The only obstacle I see is CASA, not RAA.

YES that would be ideal with less requirements and costs  and that can be balanced by some restrictions per say , like only allowed to fly a certain weight and allowable fuel on board etc . This sub group would be formed along the same lines as the AUF was formed and for the SAME reason the AUF was formed , for safe affordable aviation for recreation ,not for long distance regular transport for WORK purposes and glitter club.

 

[bull]

Just now, bull said:

YES that would be ideal with less requirements and costs  and that can be balanced by some restrictions per say , like only allowed to fly a certain weight and allowable fuel on board etc . This sub group would be formed along the same lines as the AUF was formed and for the SAME reason the AUF was formed , for safe affordable aviation for recreation ,not for long distance regular transport for WORK purposes and glitter club.Even better would be a sub group along the lines of the USA part 104 with no requirements past the initial pilots certificate and no rego requirements ,,but must have personal 3rd party insurance to be able to fly................

 

 

[facthunter]

The Drifters and Thrusters with 2 stroke engines are getting hard to find and get training in. Few training schools would be involved in such planes  as they would probably be damaged more  and hard to insure and the majority Interest has gone to "Off the Hook" Planes. A Gazelle was pretty costly back then and in todays money would be ridiculous. WE have lost "something" since the mid 80's when some very minimal flimsy little planes made it all the way to our national meet.. 2 strokes do need special care and understanding if they are to be reliable. Even then I pulled a few through that were in such a state I wouldn't mow the Lawn with an engine in such condition.. You CAN be safe if the aerodrome is not surrounded by houses and factories  and you fly with due regard to the engines unreliability.  They ALL can fail.  Nev

Edited December 3, 2020 by facthunter

[spacesailor]

The biggest snag with all the legislation is that most Australian People have gained a bit more weight than the rules of long ago Allowed  for.

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

 That's a fact. The standard weight for a PAX used to be 70Kgs.. OR actual if they looked like SUMO wrestlers.  Nev

[spacesailor]

I Was 72 klgms when first started my build, after medical problems, I,m now 97 klgms .

Need a bigger wing to get me off the ground, I suspect !.

spacesailor

[bull]

And for all the plastic fantastic pilots out there that will scream ,,,OH but they are so unsafe etc,well personally when my engine fails ,[because it is not if ,it IS when be it the latest fantastic plastic or a little loehle ]i ,d much prefer a stall speed under 30 knots and a weight that if i go into trees i,m more and likely to be stuck up in the branches and have to climb down , where as plastic fantastic hitting trees at 60 kts will penetrate and smash into trunks etc or explode into flames ,,NO thanks   Also if you look at historic records Yes there was a lot of outlandings, in fact you where trained to do them, and the death rate per accidents is way lower then todays parrot brigades.  The records show that your chances of surviving and outlanding back then where far better then the same scenario today as the planes are heavier faster and beside jabiru,s most are low wing with a very high chance of a turnover in an outlanding and subsequent entrapment  here are some examples, i know which one i,d rather be in ...lol.................... 

Edited December 3, 2020 by bull

[facthunter]

Spacey, Or go a bit faster. Twice as fast gives 4 x lift .Nev

Edited December 3, 2020 by facthunter

[spacesailor]

My thoughts when first reading the Hummel specs, Seems a lot have had a bad "landing " but few, very few fatalities,

Not just slow stall but an Engineered crumple Airframe, as one survivor said "like the airframe folding over to protect me ".

Sounds like a good plane, pity that dreaded " wing load " wasn,t in the specifications.

spacesailor

 

[bull]

On 03/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, pmccarthy said:

I understood that you needed to train in rag and tube types to be allowed to fly them under RAA. If you train in the high performance types you have to do extra training to fly something like a Drifter. Has that changed?

So using your logic would be like telling your 17 yr old son or daughter who want to  get their drivers licence and only want to drive a car, that they MUST learn to drive a truck at great expense first. Then pay a driving instructor to relearn how to drive a honda jazz???????does this make sense to you??? As both have vastly different operating regimes,The same as flying a loehle single seat 95,10 is vastly different to flying a morgan cheeter etc.......

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by bull

[spacesailor]

Lots more money to the Bureaucrats.

I Was 72 klgms when first started my build, after medical problems, and my hip replacement I,m now 97 klgms . 

AND still not climbed into my Dream machine. LoL

Need a bigger wing to get me off the ground, I suspect !.

OR a Trike wing, they have lots of wing area.

spacesailor

[Yenn]

If the problem is caused by not being able to train in a very basic aircraft, which seems to be what is said here, what has caused that situation? I would think that the problem is that very few want to fly those old basic machines, so they have gone and the instructors with them.

If we really wanted to still be flying Drifters and Thrusters we should have hung onto them and got ourselves an instructor rating to teach others. Personally I don't really want to fly a Thruster ever again, I wouldn't mind flying a Drifter, but would need conversion training and for the ability to say I have flown a Drifter, it is just not worth the hassle.

[facthunter]

I doubt you would have any trouble with a drifter. You are just being modest. A Corby is more challenging..Nev

[spacesailor]

AND, THERE,S THE RUB !.

" it,s just not worth the hassle "

Which is why RAA is going GA.

With dealer,s pushing for greater ' whatever sells Their machines '.

spacesailor

[Yenn]

Drifter and Thruster are vastly different. The Corby is a highly responsive small GA type plane with a fairly high wing loading, lovely in turbulence. The Drifter is a low wing loading, not quite so responsive, light aerolane. To jump into or rather onto one without some prior experience would be foolish. I have no doubt I could do it, but maybe I am over confident.

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, bull said:

So using your logic would be like telling your 17 yr old son or daughter who want to  get their drivers licence and only want to drive a car, that they MUST learn to drive a truck at great expense first. Then pay a driving instructor to relearn how to drive a honda jazz???????does this make sense to you??? As both have vastly different operating regimes,The same as flying a loehle single seat 95,10 is vastly different to flying a morgan cheeter etc.......

 

That's not what he said.

He was just saying his understanding is that you have to train in a rag and tube to fly in a rag and tube, and instructors are very scarce these days.

RAA should be paying attention to this and ensuring new instructors are trained because this is the affordable entry level.

What's happening is the people have the impression they can train in a Jab or similar, and then go and do long distance touring, so they bypass Drifters etc.

If you look at the history in the posts on this site, you'll find hundreds who did this and then did a cross country flight or two and then had a density ht, nav, weight, fuel exhaustion incident or found they couldn't carry enough to tour comfortably, or just couldn't handle the logistics of flight planning ahead for fuel and then finding their information was wrong, or getting stranded in a strange two by bad weather, and usually the wife put her foot down, or they just figured it was easier to tow a caravan and they moved on. In some cases the trip storiess will give way to reports on fly ins and breakfasts, but after a few of these you can tell they are losing interest and they move on.

 

These aircraft are not GA aircraft, the training is not GA training, the equipment level is not touring aircraft level and I suspect in the medium term, particularly if a few new GA entrepreneurs show up with new aircraft,  that the mix pendulum will shift back. 

 

Rag and Tube is a lot more social for building and flying.

 

If you look at recent comments from the heavier end of RA, the big issue is Hangarage. A little bit of lateral thinking to introduce trailerable aircraft would probably be The catalyst.

 

 

 

 

Rag and tube involves a lot more socialising to build them and keep them in the air.