Is it an Ultralight or a Recreational Aircraft

[Admin]

Of days gone by we, and the public, associated a small aircraft as an ultralight. Our own governing organisation made the switch from Aust Ultralight Federation to Recreational Aviation but have we and the public made the complete transition yet?

 

What do you think?

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

Not sure the RA-Aus has completely changed over. For example, the following URL is still in use:

 

www.auf.asn.au/operations/9555.pdf

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I don't recall ever reading or hearing of the media or public referring to any aircraft as "recreational." only as Ultralights".

 

But i still class my Lazair as a "minimum aircraft" as it was originally classified as such.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

When I fly my thruster (yeah yeah Tony I know it doesn't happen much!) I fly an ultralight. When I fly something like a Jab I fly Recreational aircraft. When I knock ozzie off and take his Lazair I will be flying a minimum aircraft

 

The general public are dumb (at least about aviation) and everything is an ultraligh or light aircraft up to a 737 and everything that crashes is a Cessna ultralight.

 

 

[Matt]

Any small aircraft is going to be called a "light plane" or an "ultralight" and probably a "Cessna" by the average Joe public because he/she doesn't know or care about aviation rules, regulations, classifications, administering bodies, registration numbers and the like. The only folks in the community who are aware and care are those in aviation. Would I bother trying to educate the masses - nope - if they don't know or care now, they not likely to.

 

I'm sure we're all carefee and ignorant of many other hobbies / sports / interests that we don't participate in...I sure am...and will continue to be so until it becomes my hobby / sport / interest.

 

 

[Guest David C]

I'm on Matts wavelength here ... I don't concern myself with other peoples hobbies such as boating or cars etc. so why would I expect Joe Public to differentiate on aviation matters . To me a boat either has a sail or a motor and car is either a sedan or hatchback . I'm sure theres more to it than that , and that my ignorance may infuriate the boaties or the car lovers out there . Doe's it really matter what the public call our flying machines ??

 

Dave C

 

 

[geoffreywh]

I think the Americans got it right with "Light Sport Aircraft" , no confusion there

 

 

[Yenn]

The general public are dumb (at least about aviation)

 

No Adam it is the media that are dumb, they seldom give the correct info and never conduct a follow up. I recently saw an article in The New York Times, headed what they never told us and it was a list of the things the media should have told the public, but didn't. The main reason was being politically correct, they couldn't point out their governments faults.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

That was me with fat finger syndrome! Disregard!

 

:hittinghead:

 

 

[Student Pilot]

You are not going to change the press, especially the way media is going towards tabloid reporting. Take this morning for example, we've heard how the same Aircraft that was skillfully ditched in New York was a four engined A320, an A380 and an Airbus type Aircraft.

 

They were close I spose, the only thing that is in peoples power is to promote more the positive side of flying. How long since you've seen a positive news story in evening news? The only one I have seen do this is Dick Smith, then there are some in aviation who just criticise. We are our own masters to a point.

 

 

[antzx6r]

That's a good point. At the moment the only time ultralight gets mentioned is after a tragedy. Someone needs to leek to the media a positive story. Maybe on a successful fly-in like Natfly followed by a short history of the sketchy sport growing to the safety conscious organization of pilots it is today.

 

 

[octave]

I dont think the general public should necesarily know the fine details of our hobby but our reputation with the public could be important. With airfields gradually being sold off perhaps in the future we will be trying to establish new faclities. It would certainly be more difficult to establish new airfields for ultralights if the general public believe that ultralights are more dangerous than other aircraft. Most of the time I dont care what others think of ultralight aviation but I do think we ignore public opinion at our peril. We can only fly because governments allow us to, if they thought there would be more votes in abolishing the ultralight catergory then I am conviced they would. Ultimately it is the public that tolerates our flying.

 

 

[Smokey]

Would I bother trying to educate the masses - nope - if they don't know or care now, they not likely to.

Matt, octave is right, it's very important what the public perceives, this drives political direction and if we want our few remaining facilities to remain we need the public onside to tell the pollies. If the only 'mass' voice they hear from their electorate is the a hysterical, 'get rid of those dangerous aeroplanes', they will do it to buy the votes.

 

If we can at least get the public educated enough to understand that what the press is telling them is a load of cobblers then we might have some people who are at least neutral rather than totally opposed to aviation.

 

How do we do this ? I don't know, sorry. antzx6r suggested getting 'good news' stories, good luck, I'm all for it but there's no sensationalism in it so those same press people won't buy it. Perhaps someone with a PR background could make some suggestions. The good bits you do see on the box (docos etc) are usually watched by people like us, preaching to the converted.

 

Mark

 

 

[Matt]

If the only 'mass' voice they hear from their electorate is the a hysterical, 'get rid of those dangerous aeroplanes', they will do it to buy the votes.

Therefore the onus is on the aviation community to operate professionally and safely and stay out of the press - which is almost entirely within our power as pilots to do that.

 

It's highly unlikely and rare for anything aviation to make the news unless it's an incident - the only aviation news article I recall from all of last year was related to the charity flight day in November. If the "mass" has nothing to say about aviation (which is what you're ever likely to achieve, it's unlikely they'll champion our cause) then the pollies have nothing to respond to.

 

Yes the aviation community needs to champion and promote itself, to the masses to some degree but more to the politicians and other law / rule making types.

 

All in my humble opinion of course...I am just one of the masses after all

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

Since when is the media interested in anything BUT a disaster. Sells newspapers, and draws TV viewers. Good news stories are only worthwhile if they involve babies and kittens ;>

 

 

[Ben Longden]

I'm with Matt on this... But I do wish we could get on with things and use the term "light Aircraft' for anything smaller than a 737. (Apart from Deccas 727.. ;))

 

My the way, as a news camera operator for a major network, the truth is rather stark.

 

News directors base their contents on what makes ratings. Ratings are the number of eyes glued to the set.

 

Disasters and tragedy are what people want to watch. Therefore news directors strive to satisfy the wishes of the public.

 

High ratings equals income. Income for the station equals jobs, which also ensures the survival of the station to broadcast other entertainment.

 

Ben

 

 

[antzx6r]

I'm with matt on this as I suspect most pilots are. But just because the media make their mulah on news which they rate as worthy based on the numbers from ratings doesnt give them licence to colour it the way they think to get those ratings. That sort of reporting belongs in gossip mags not news. News items need to be informative and accurate. They have to be able to back that accuracy up with facts. They don't bother checking facts anymore and they write as if they have an opinion which is wrong. thumb_down

 

 

[octave]

A recent quote from a news paper article

 

 

 

Police will investigate whether low-flying ultralight planes are a safety issue in the area

 

 

 

I cant see why adding the word ultralight makes this story more "entertaining". I think the average member of the public would assume the only safety issue here is low flying ultralights and not other aircraft . Doesn't this seem to suggest that ultralights are a particular safety issue? I personally have no problem with just using the term light aircraft or recreational aircraft.

 

 

 

Here is a quote form article headlined

 

Ultralight death toll spinning out of control

 

-by Stephen Lamble - Head of School of Communication, Associate Professor, Journalism

 

Why use CAR

 

"There is no single Australian Government register containing data about the death toll per flying hour in ultralights. But an in-depth analysis of official crash statistics and news reports gathered from different sources shows that in the years from 1992 to 2007 an average of 7.25 ultralight pilots or passengers were killed for every 100,000 hours flown."

 

 

 

There is the old saying that today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip wrapping on the other hand we have an academic journalist using news paper reports in an "in depth analysis" of our safety record.

 

I can't see that the general community believing that our training standards are low or that our aircraft are inherently unsafe could possibly good for the future of recreational aviation.

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Graham

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[djpacro]

Re http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/incidents-accidents/21395-plane-crash-mornington-south-melbourne.html#post76654, being old & grumpy I’ve learnt that no-one takes any interest in my views on what is fair or not fair nevertheless I continue to put my views on what is right and what is wrong.

 

I don’t think that CASA has left that definition incomplete – that advisory circular seems very comprehensive to me.

 

Anyway, on to: " Police will investigate whether low-flying ultralight planes are a safety issue in the area". I have no views on whether they should do this nor how they should do it – I am a member of at least three organizations which should take an interest in it and maybe provide some evidence to their investigation.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

The only way the Recreational Aircraft movement is going to get good pulblicity is to make it themselves. The likes of making the annual fly in at Narromine a charity fund raising event. There's all sorts of commercial operators gaining from it why not make money for charity?

 

It has to be a good news event though making a decent amount, there's enough so called charity events of people spending hundreds of thousands to make hundreds. Media attendance showing ordinary people making a lot of money for a deserving charity would make a more positive profile than the press induced idea of the idle rich playing with their toys dangerously. Getting out doing something rather than splitting hairs about definition and 2 knots in stall speed and how we get a bum deal with the media. A couple of hundred thousand going to deserving charity would certainly give a positive statement.

 

It would be a nice gesture but the RAA movement is hardly "United" in anything it does with different interests pulling all different directions, would it be possible? Waddya recon?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

How about a 'young eagles' day there and get every kid's butt from within 200ks into a RAA aircraft. knew a girl called Charity, once or twice

 

 

[djpacro]

Totally agree with all that you said, SP, go for it.

 

 

[octave]

Re "How about a 'young eagles' day there and get every kid's butt from withing 200ks into a RAA aircraft."

 

Good idea, as long as people think that RA aircraft are relativelysafe.

 

 

[Ben Longden]

They don't bother checking facts anymore and they write as if they have an opinion which is wrong. thumb_down

Sadly in the print media this is all too true.

 

Which is why the editor MUST be made aware of errors in reporting.

 

Ben

 

 

[djpacro]

Which is why the editor MUST be made aware of errors in reporting

and, conversely, you do yourself a disservice if they do report correctly and you complain to them with your own errors.