Another light aircraft crash, S.E. of Darwin - 12/01/2025 - 1 dead

[facthunter]

I've NEVER used the word "Eradicate" nor seen it as the Aim.. Their numbers are growing and they are turning up in more places than ever before,  IF you wash your dishes at the riverbank they will be waiting by the third time..  When they want you they  stay under and move fast. Last time I was up there two people got taken. One , a fisherman just got into  the water briefly, to unsnag his line and the croc came all the way from the other side and that's it. The alligator river is misnamed. There never were any alligators up there.   nev

[poteroo]

On 14/01/2025 at 3:34 PM, facthunter said:

I don't know how you run a business with it if it wasn't under GA. RAAus are silly about a low flying endorsement. They restrict it to cattle mustering and I've had WORDS with them about that restriction but it was talking to a brick wall. Denying people necessary skills is close to criminal negligence and I was authorized to do it in GA signed off in my logbook. .  Nev

Again, I agree with Nev in respect of the regulatory intransigence over the benefits of low level exposure/training.  Pilots continue to plunge into IMC weather - despite all the dire warnings and perhaps 2 hrs of IF training (GA), and in the case of RAAus - (SFA!) - but that's ok?? Smart-arsed pilots will continue to defy the LL warnings, and they'll continue to collide with terrain or powerlines etc despite what they are told. But the relevant training could help them survive too. You don't know, what you don't know - and that's ever so true in aviation.

 

Lets get right to it. The aircraft doesn't appreciate to difference between 150 ft and 500 ft. It's a pilot problem, and it's all about poor planning, poor anticipation of weather, and mis-handling of the aircraft under pressure. There's an obvious need for pilots to be upskilled so they really can configure and fly their aircraft at lower speeds, scan and turn using minimum radius numbers, and keep the whole aircraft under control - (speeds,balance,power). 

 

I've probably conducted 150 or more LL courses, (mostly in GA), and the majority of beginning pilots exhibit poor power management, poor balance at low speeds, and poor decision making on 1st exposure to <500agl flight. They tend to suffer immediate  'pucker-up of the anal sphincter '  after which the decision making ability is reduced. And that is the reason we all need both good training, plus regular currency.

 

 

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, poteroo said:

And that is the reason we all need both good training, plus regular currency.

 

I think I read a while back the average annual hours of RA pilots is 3 hours.

Would it be wise to teach low level flying under those conditions?

 

Since we switched to Visibility 5 km (5000 m) ahead, I think the fatality rate has dropped significantly. In GA we don't seem to get that batch of people killed around May, and given all those people were trained for hours under the hood, I would suggest the 5 km visibility is the more significant life saver of the two.

 

There's also the factor that in RA there is very little cross country flying, and in particular flights from Victoria to Queensland or vice versa where you need to manage the flight to suit two or three weather changes. 

[Red]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

I think I read a while back the average annual hours of RA pilots is 3 hours.

 

You're kidding?, so what is the figure for whatever you class as a PPL holder then?

Over here the Microlight/Light Sports pilots fly a lot more than the full on GA pilots and I don't think any class as low as 3 hour PA, in fact you'd lose your rating with hours that low.

[turboplanner]

3 hours ago, Red said:

You're kidding?, so what is the figure for whatever you class as a PPL holder then?

Over here the Microlight/Light Sports pilots fly a lot more than the full on GA pilots and I don't think any class as low as 3 hour PA, in fact you'd lose your rating with hours that low.

I haven't seen an annual figure average for a PPL, but in both RA and GA cost is the limiting factor.

 

For PPL, hire rates at Royal Victorian Aero Club are currently (per hour):

 

C152      $245.00

C172N   $280.00

C172SP $290.00

PA28 Warrior $285.00

PA28 Archer  $295.00

PA28 Arrow   $345.00

 

One of the best plans I've seen for staying current at the bare minimum annual cost, was a guy who did 30 minutes per week. He didn't fly on bad weather days and he took holidays.

 

So on current costs for a C152 that would be:

40 weeks x 0.5 hrs = 20 hrs/yr x $245.00 = $4,900.00/year 

That was in one of the busiest circuits in the country, so he was always on his toes and up with his pre-flight, pre-takeoff, circuits, downwind checks, landings etc.

 

RA rates for RPC

Jabiru J170    $110.00, $174.00, $220.00

Jabiru J230   $207.00

 

 

 

[rodgerc]

4 hours ago, Red said:

You're kidding?, so what is the figure for whatever you class as a PPL holder then?

Over here the Microlight/Light Sports pilots fly a lot more than the full on GA pilots and I don't think any class as low as 3 hour PA, in fact you'd lose your rating with hours that low.

I’d usually caution against quoting mean (average) numbers alone, as they can be misleading, but if we accept the federal government’s Bureau of Transport Research and Economics survey of annual hours flown by non-VH aircraft in 2022 and 2023 (353.1k hours and 333.6k hours, see reference below), then the average number of hours flown by RA-AUS’s ~10,000 members (“RA pilots”) is likely to be greater than 30. 

Edited Saturday at 08:37 PM by rodgerc

[Red]

9 minutes ago, rodgerc said:

I’d usually caution against quoting mean (average) numbers alone, as they can be misleading, but if we accept the federal government’s Bureau of Transport Research and Economics survey of annual hours flown by non-VH aircraft in 2022 and 2023 (353.1k hours and 333.6k hours, see reference below), then the average number of hours flown by RA-AUS’s ~10,000 members (“RA pilots”) is likely to be greater than 30. 

Thanks, 30 hours seems far more in the realms of reality than 3 hours

[turboplanner]

35 minutes ago, rodgerc said:

I’d usually caution against quoting mean (average) numbers alone, as they can be misleading, but if we accept the federal government’s Bureau of Transport Research and Economics survey of annual hours flown by non-VH aircraft in 2022 and 2023 (353.1k hours and 333.6k hours, see reference below), then the average number of hours flown by RA-AUS’s ~10,000 members (“RA pilots”) is likely to be greater than 30. 

Well I agree with you about mean averages, but RA is only a small part of SAOs, so you'd have to deduct the hours from:

Parachuting

Sports Rotorcraft

Balloons

Powered Parachutes

Para Gliders

Warbirds

Gliding

 

 

 

[Thruster88]

12 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Well I agree with you about mean averages, but RA is only a small part of SAOs, so you'd have to deduct the hours from:

Parachuting

Sports Rotorcraft

Balloons

Powered Parachutes

Para Gliders

Warbirds

Gliding

 

 

 

Parachuting, balloons, warbirds and gliding are all VH and would be in the VH sport and leisure section. You seem to lack some understanding of aircraft turbo.

[turboplanner]

7 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Parachuting, balloons, warbirds and gliding are all VH and would be in the VH sport and leisure section. You seem to lack some understanding of aircraft turbo.

I only posted the complete list of SAOs (Self Administering Organisations) a couple of days ago, so people would understand the CURRENT  structure of Aviation in Australia today.

 

Here is the lst of Sport Aviation Self-Administering Organisations again:

• Australian Parachute Federation
• Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association
• Australian Warbird Association Ltd
• Gliding Federation of Australia
• Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd
• Sports Aviation Federation of Australia

(Note: SAAA are not in the Self Administering Organisation group)

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Your logic is ODD. Turbo. If you are a 3 hours per year person you wouldn't have recency in anything. needing a flight test assessment before you got into a plane by yourself. Any bounced landing resulting in a decision to go around. (wise thing to do)  NEEDS low flying skills To do an outlanding you need low level skills to inspect where you intend to land. It's done in GA why not with RAAus where the need is arguably greater with 2 stroke or non certified motors.? They idea, don't train them or they will DO it defies logic.. Special skills taught the RIGHT way will acquaint the student with the risks involved. Nev

[rodgerc]

45 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Well I agree with you about mean averages, but RA is only a small part of SAOs, so you'd have to deduct the hours from:

Parachuting

Sports Rotorcraft

Balloons

Powered Parachutes

Para Gliders

Warbirds

Gliding

 

 

 

That’s partially true….

 

Again using BITRE’s published survey results from 2021, once the hours flown by Gliders, Hang Gliders and Gyroplanes are deducted, the average annual hours flown by Ultralight (RA pilots) decreases to around 17h.

 

[turboplanner]

18 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Your logic is ODD. Turbo. If you are a 3 hours per year person you wouldn't have recency in anything. needing a flight test assessment before you got into a plane by yourself. Any bounced landing resulting in a decision to go around. (wise thing to do)  NEEDS low flying skills To do an outlanding you need low level skills to inspect where you intend to land. It's done in GA why not with RAAus where the need is arguably greater with 2 stroke or non certified motors.? They idea, don't train them or they will DO it defies logic.. Special skills taught the RIGHT way will acquaint the student with the risks involved. Nev

Well between Rodger's figures and mine we have 3 to 17 hours average; take yoour pick.

We all know about the academic who drowned in a creek of average depth 150 mm, so I wouldnt get hung up on that. There will be some people who haven't flown for 10 years while they were building their dream.

 

There's nothing wrong with talking about low level training, upset training, training under the hood. But you have to stay connected with cost for the pilot vs risk. If Pilots can't afford to fly you don't have a risk problem.

Similarly if you were to argue that the RA Instructors needed a new complex training programme, If instructors can't pay the cost then you won't have instructors.

 

 

10 minutes ago, rodgerc said:

That’s partially true….

 

Again using BITRE’s published survey results from 2021, once the hours flown by Gliders, Hang Gliders and Gyroplanes are deducted, the average annual hours flown by Ultralight (RA pilots) decreases to around 17h.

 

That still leaves Parachuting, where a lot of hours are racked up, Balloons, Warbirds and perthaps Powered Parachutes and Paragliders, but let's say its between 3 and 17, it's still averaging which I agree doesn't tell you much.

Edited Saturday at 10:33 PM by turboplanner

[BrendAn]

43 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Your logic is ODD. Turbo. If you are a 3 hours per year person you wouldn't have recency in anything. needing a flight test assessment before you got into a plane by yourself. Any bounced landing resulting in a decision to go around. (wise thing to do)  NEEDS low flying skills To do an outlanding you need low level skills to inspect where you intend to land. It's done in GA why not with RAAus where the need is arguably greater with 2 stroke or non certified motors.? They idea, don't train them or they will DO it defies logic.. Special skills taught the RIGHT way will acquaint the student with the risks involved. Nev

Raaus do teach outlanding and we get made to practise it quite a bit during training. 

[facthunter]

Well I'll let YOU into a little secret if you don't tell anyone. In such  sessions I taught low level as well but you can't put it in the book or file.. Nev

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

Raaus do teach outlanding and we get made to practise it quite a bit during training. 

Yes, correct, albeit its gliders that do Outlandings because while they are not going to get off again if they screw up, they can come in much higher and use the airbrake to quickly change the descent angle once they are sure of the landing zone, and they can glide at a much shallower angle, whereas a recreational aircraft by comparison has a lot more drag, and if you are too conservative you overshoot and don't have an air brake. When the engine fails in a powered aircraft it's called a Forced Landing to change your mindset to full alert. Around 15 years ago there were a lot of forced landing fatals due to RA pilots either pulling back on the stick thinking that would keep the aircraft flying or simply crashing in from a thousand feet to ground which was fine for forced landings. They also happen at the most inconvenient times. 

 

The terminology Low Level is different to Forced Landing. In Forced Landing you can do anything necessary to save yourself. In Low level you are going to deliberately fly the aircraft under 500' (which is illegal without a Rating and reason for the rating), so you are going to be taught about how you must turn, flying under wires, and a lot of other skills you aren't taught in Forced Landings. The risk is also much higher.

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

15 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Well I'll let YOU into a little secret if you don't tell anyone. In such  sessions I taught low level as well but you can't put it in the book or file.. Nev

I think it's an anomally in RA, perhaps a mistaken carry over from the time they were only allowed to fly in paddocks at less than 300 feet. If you want to check stock etc, you can easily do it at 500 feet.

 

If you didn't charge the student for it, you still introduce risk that the student will go out the next day, mimic what he was shown and suddenly find himself face to face with a row of tall pine trees because he was focussed on the ground.

[red750]

Cost and lack of currency were the reasons I gave up flying. Back in the day flying GA aircraft, I found renewal time coming up, and I hadn't done more than a couple of hours since last renewal, I just couldn't afford it, putting two boys through secondary college. I had a check ride with an instructor, got OK'd to fly and completed the 3 hours required. I decided that would be the last time that would occur.

[facthunter]

You are out of your depth turbs and just waffling. Not helpful to a proper consideration of this matter..  It's pure BS really what you just said. Denying someone training is more safe?? Many Instructors would never accept that. IT really defies LOGIC. I see  it as bordering on  criminal neglect and abrogation of responsibility.. Nev

[turboplanner]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You are out of your depth turbs and just waffling. Not helpful to a proper consideration of this matter..  It's pure BS really what you just said. Denying someone training is more safe?? Many Instructors would never accept that. IT really defies LOGIC. I see  it as bordering on  criminal neglect and abrogation of responsibility.. Nev

Low level flying is clearly defined under Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd regulations; very clearly defined.

 

I realise you were talking about the Dreamtime in the past where, if something went wrong for the student practising what he was taught, CASA picked up the tab, and if necessary smacked the instructor on the knuckles.

 

We are no longer in that era.

[Blueadventures]

7 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You are out of your depth turbs and just waffling. Not helpful to a proper consideration of this matter..  It's pure BS really what you just said. Denying someone training is more safe?? Many Instructors would never accept that. IT really defies LOGIC. I see  it as bordering on  criminal neglect and abrogation of responsibility.. Nev

Hi Nev, I like your posts but they need the link with it either the quote or the paragraph referred to.

 

My experience is that RAA won't allow LL unless you have a business case (eg Property water  / fence rounds etc).  I tried to do LL a number of years ago at bfr time as would have been good learning and also for any valley flying, turns etc.  Not approved by CFI; but the forced landing that was part of bfr was good regarding theory / challenge test of the planning and the practical down to almost on the deck considering wind direction strength, location, obstacles (trees, mounds, small gully / creek).  So RAA do low flying in the safest possible manner; but not LL for sightseeing / enjoyment.  UP here we have a power line between two hills that would be like hitting a ski lift if LL that valley.

[facthunter]

I'm the one who sticks to the subject. READ carefully what I stated above and then tell me it's not important. This IS an Important matter directly related to SAFETY and should not be deflected, as it usually has been. Most of Turbos assertions are very contestable and I HAVE direct experience of these matters  and involvement with RAAus.to draw on. Is this another subject where proper debate will be cut off by "Just play by the Rules and it will be fine" attitude?. Now don't $#!t me by saying YOU encourage people to break the rules. I'll answer for what I say and not what I get accused of saying as is often the CASE here, Unfortunately.. It should not have to be this hard. I'm only the messenger.  Nev

[Thruster88]

Has anyone read the fine print on the RAAus members liability insurance? Is low level covered, would any non compliance eg not getting land owner approval mean no pay out.?

[turboplanner]

7 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I'm the one who sticks to the subject. READ carefully what I stated above and then tell me it's not important. This IS an Important matter directly related to SAFETY and should not be deflected, as it usually has been. Most of Turbos assertions are very contestable and I HAVE direct experience of these matters  and involvement with RAAus.to draw on. Is this another subject where proper debate will be cut off by "Just play by the Rules and it will be fine" attitude?. Now don't $#!t me by saying YOU encourage people to break the rules. I'll answer for what I say and not what I get accused of saying as is often the CASE here, Unfortunately.. It should not have to be this hard. I'm only the messenger.  Nev

1. It's good manners to use the Quote link, just like I've done here. It's only a single click, then we know what you are referring to.

 

2. Just so you know LL regulation is not up for debate; just a few people clarifying it. You might be the messenger but that's all the more reason to refer to the Recreational Aviation Australia Rules and quote them.

[facthunter]

II think that is not relevant to the Main Issue which is RAAus attitude to the LL training being done at all (except mustering)., Designated training areas exist for most school training.. Nev