Aerobatics

[Yenn]

A GA pilot remarked to me the other day that RAAus ought to get it's act into gear and allow aerobatics.

 

Now I thought that the ban was probably from CASA.

 

Given that we have many aircraft which are capable aerobatic performers nowadays and the fact that aerobatics improve pilot skills wouldn't it be a good idea to allow aerobatic training on a similar basis to the training for flying at close quarters.

 

Does anyone know where the ban came from?

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I think that it's in 95.55

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest bateo]

Correct me if I am wrong, But the Ban is enforced by CASA because the knowledge required to undertake aerobatics is in the PPL endorsed syllabus...

 

Many Ra-aus pilots (and I have no doubt as I have seen it done privately) are more than capable of handling an aircraft through a spin or roll but many do not have the knowledge of the outcomes of the theory. For example things like limitations on force ratio to aircraft and PIC with body limitations (G force) .

 

RA-aus is cut short on much needed theory in even the basics of flying. The PPL covers all of this which evolves onto the other endorsements such as commercial, ag and aerobatics.

 

Its basically the same reason RA-aus Pilots cannot fly in Controlled airspace, obtain IFR or undertake Agricultural Ariel work...

 

I think we are all waiting for the day that RA-AUS and CASA can co-operate together to make these future operations happen...

 

 

[Guest danda]

Sorry Sam but I disagree to some extent I was blessed the CFI I trained with was very matriculas and went well beyond the RAA syllabus with explanations of the forces that act on a aircraft and given his experience I was only to pleased to listen although because of the law we weren’t able to translate the theory into practice he went into great detail fro which I’m extremely grateful so maybe it’s more to do with the flight trainer .

 

Don

 

 

[Guest bateo]

G'day Don,

 

Yes I understand, and I absolutely agree that all CFI's should be teaching well beyond the RAA syllabus. Unfortunately, there are some who only stick to the RAA syllabus with some not having even a PPL background. (but I know there are many GREAT Rec instructors out there who just dont teach you how to fly, they explain the theory in every detail)

 

I can honestly think to myself that if I didnt have a GA background, I would hate to see me fly.. I use my GA knowledge every minute when flying..Unfortunately CASA recognises all RA-aus pilots of not meeting the requirement of their PPL syllabus.

 

If only CASA could recognise the CFI's that do translate the GA theory past the RAA- syllabus, then we could co-operate with operations such as IFR's and aerobatics...

 

We can only hope in the near future anyway.... bateo

 

 

[Guest danda]

Sam one of the elements of training that I believe that is lacking in the RAA sibilus is in the area of navigation <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

My brother is a GA pilot and he has vastly more nav knowledge than I do.

 

It would be good to see those RAA instructors with a GA background teach the PPL sibilus and as you say be recognised by Casa.

 

Don

 

 

[Guest bateo]

Don, Couldnt agree with you more.. I am lucky enough to have done my PPL nav's before I did my RAA license.. I think the RAA syllabus should be improved, I know I maybe stirring the pot a bit here.. But I think it is beneficial to have as much knowledge possible when flying nav exercises and also this relates to the same reason why RA-aus isnt permitted to endorse things such as Aerobatics and IFR...

 

 

[Yenn]

Now i am learning about the RAA syllabus. I came to ultralights from GA and therefore didn,t have to study with the RAA syllabus. I had thought that some flyers were a bit dumb with their theory but maybe it is a lack of training rather than beeing dumb.

 

Personally I have studied as much as I can from varied sources ever since I started flying. I studied commercial theory with good results but didn't do the flying as it never interested me to become a professional pilot and I still read all I can on the subject.

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Aerobatics in RA-Aus has been allowed before, however it ended in a crash and they are reluctant to offer it again. The aircraft involved was the one-off BiPlane Howard Hughes Lightwing variant thing - don't recall what it was called exactly (it was yellow and was on the front page of the AUF magazine years back) He was given an excemption to fly aero's to something like 1,500 ft, however the aircraft crashed into the ground when performing low level aerobatics contrary to the waiver. (I believe with little or no injury). This left a somewhat sour taste in the mouth of the RA-Aus executive.

 

That being said I know an application went in around 6 months ago at a cost of around $800 to CASA for a Murphy Renegage at Lethbridge to perform aerobatics by very experienced CFI Aube Coote (not sure on spelling sorry). I'm yet to hear if it was approved. Theaircraft was amateur built and formerly GA registered.

 

There are "practically" NIL certified aircraft on the RA-Aus register that are actually approved for full aerobatics. Of course practically any aircraft can do a stall turn, loop or barrel roll, however the margins aren't there to allow the aircraft to safely perform aerobatics. I stand corrected however I believe the only aircraft on the register at this time certified for aero's are homebuilts such as the Murphy Renegade / Sprite or similar...

 

 

[Guest bateo]

I have heard about that, but seeing the aircraft was formerly GA registered would have helped the situation in it's approval...

 

I stand corrected, but I really think CASA arent worried about the type of aircraft as such, I think it's the RA-aus pilots that have learnt with just the RAA syllabus, not knowing over half of the PPL theory..

 

As you say Clembrown, almost any aircraft can do a stall turn loop or barrel roll.. But you need a very experienced and knowledgable pilot to fly the thing with CASA's requirements and safely...

 

If the RAA syllabus involved more PPL theory for pilots to become more experienced, maybe this could be a possibility???? bateo

 

 

[Yenn]

Clem.

 

You have jogged my memory on 2 things.

 

I remember hearing about the crash you refer to, andI heard that the pilot was very seriously injured.

 

Mention of Aub Coote takes me back to 1967 as he was my CFI when I first soloed from Grovedale in Victoria. A real gentleman and he also kept telling me that "he was never not warm" which I could not say as I was used to sunny Qld even back then.

 

Will have to see if I can contact him.

 

Ian

 

 

[facthunter]

I think the corby starlet is aerobatic. VH of course. N... Makes you think though. ( One of the reasons I own a citabria. but they do need extra inspections) Things should be done properly, training & discipline as well N.......

 

 

[Guest danda]

I wonder if it wouldn’t make more sense if a RAA pilots qualifications, shouldn’t go through a series of training by suitably qualified instructors right up to PPL standard a step by step process if you like and that should be recognised by CASA thus if they have the will their formal training need not stop always something to aspire to.

 

I believe that it may go a long way to reducing the divide between RAA & GA as well as giving the security of ongoing education and training.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

The second benefit I believe could be to help the lagging GA market although cost is one of the main factors in the declining GA market I believe.

 

I must say though from my observation there are some groups who thrive on division to serve their own purpose and then offcourse we have the office jockeys who are more worried about being done out of a job that air safety.Don

 

 

[Student Pilot]

What was the name of the Saphire looking thing that a bloke named something like Markey used to fly? I think it was something original like aerobat? Was that in Ultralight rego? what ever happened to it? It ran away when it was being handstarted somewhere, I think it hit a few Aircraft.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I do not believe that this is primarily a training or knowledge issue! It is more ‘environmental’.

 

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

As those of you who have been around these forums (and the previous AUF Chat forum) are well aware – I have been very vocal about a specialized movement broadening into something much more diverse that is beyond the capacity of a small paid staff to be able to adequately control. It was not what was happening that I was concerned about it was the consequences of what that would bring with it.

 

Broaden the pilot base and start attracting differently ‘aligned’ interests via diversity of types and you bring with it ‘expectancy’ that may well be backed with knowledge and experience. But with a control structure primarily founded upon ‘pilot responsibility’ and a very basic level or aircraft, you are going to get the less competent and the less knowledgeable seeing someone doing something interesting and decide they are going to have a go themselves because nobody is watching!

 

It is a waste of time saying they should not because they WILL and have been doing so for some time. Few long term readers here will not have seen an ultralight doing illegal aerobatics, know of people who regularly fly IMC, or fly at what is technically (or actually) night!

 

So the human angle is important and this could become significant in a movement that traditionally espouses a great deal of freedom and self determination.

 

This brings into play knowledge – and that is a weak area as well because knowledge underpins responsibility of activity.

 

With a total ban on aerobatics (for example), most ultralights were not designed for them, not test flown for them and in consequence there is no teaching requirement in either the syllabus nor instructor training. Some may be capable of aerobatics – but which ones and in who’s hands?

 

Let us example a simple manoeuvre – the barrel roll. This is quite benign and if executed correctly is a steady 1 G activity that is satisfying and stresses nothing. Many early pilots get into trouble and allow the nose to go down when approaching the inverted and are quite startled by how quickly speed increases! The simple barrel roll translates into a forced aileron roll to get out of the situation and that is quite different!

 

For example the Thruster is immensely strong in terms of withstanding G forces but there is very little documentation on what it’s torsional capabilities are! And that is where you would be – overspeeded and with full aileron deflection on and huge torsional stresses on a wing that was not designed to take them not ever has been proven that it could!

 

In the case of the aerobatic approved ultralight exampled in posts above – this was a totally kosher exercise. It was not a Lightwing but had been designed by the person who was involved with the Lightwing design. The aircraft was specifically designed and built for aerobatics and was probably stronger than a Pitts Special. The pilot was experienced in aerobatics. Dispensation was given to allow this activity.

 

The pilot crashed it and was that severely injured that I do not believe he has ever flown again as pilot in command and maybe never will’

 

I will not comment on that accident other than pointing out that the actions of a single individual can affect the freedoms of all of us and the reputation of the movement in responsibility terms.

 

That could have just as easily been done by a 50 hour pilot who believed aerobatics are now legal and he wanted to have a go and took the wings off a Drifter in a public place.

 

Please do not come back and stay ‘but that is stupid – he should have known better’. If there was no need for him to be trained and endorsed correctly then it comes down to the individual and the damage the individual can do when the human factor becomes involved. Stupid – yes! But possible – also yes, in fact probable.

 

In outlook the ultralight movement had it’s expectancy controlled by it’s simple regulation that it’s aircraft design and approval was tailored to. Opening the doors to other expectancies will then impact on an overall freedom if there is not a training, knowledge and skills base to adequately deal with new expectancies.

 

If these word seem caustic then that makes them no less true. What do you do with pilots who are quite safe and enjoying themselves, but are tempted into other areas – yet those pilots do not even understand that because a category weight increase allows 450 kg or 550 kg or 720 kg – their personal aircraft was designed to a standard that does not encompass that weight regime and has not been proved to do so?

 

Topics such as this push us further down the (apparently intended) road that what was AUF will become the low end of GA but with far greater freedoms.

 

Freedom is not granted – it is won, and has to be preserved. To preserve it you need a bit more than ‘expectation’ of a handful of pilots – you have to underpin it with standards. We have none for this sort of thing. Go buy a Decathlon, go back to GA and just enjoy yourselves if you want to fly aerobatics.

 

I am reminded of a session Gawler Gliding Club went through. They got a vocal core of pilots who wanted to fly aerobatics. No reason why not, there were plenty of glider types designed for the purpose. But they did not want that. They wanted the big machines designed for the purpose of soaring and to be able to aerobat them.

 

One day many, many years ago, I watched Derek Piggot turn a Kestrel 19 inside out for a factory test flight. When he got down, and despite what he had shown the aircraft was capable of he said NO! – non aerobatic – it can get away from you too quickly. The Kestrel was strong enough – so what price something that was never designed nor tested nor approved that someone decides they will ‘have a go in’ because it appears a common place activity?

 

Tony Hayes

 

 

[facthunter]

Got to agree with Tony. How would any of us like to take the responsibility of overseeing this organisation , when aerobatic category aircraft were (hypothetically) available? These are very specialised aircraft & are generally overweight & overstrong, with special consideration to reducing aeroelasticity, flutter Etc They don't usually carry much payload, and have reduced endurance & need more inspections.( All compared to normal aircraft.) We build lighter than lightaircraft, with many freedoms with materials and construction methods, simplified designs that save us money,and the ability to service & repair our own machines. We could easily compromise all that, by trying to "stretch the envelope" There is also the worry of someone trying to emulate the performance in an unsuitable aircraft with no training. Sorry to try to curb the enthusiasm, but we have a pretty good scene, & we should try to do well, what we are allowed to do now. N.....

 

 

[Guest danda]

Sorry Tony my intention on my last posting was not to suggest that the R A Aus be allowed to train for aerobatics or any other GA activity, my suggestion was to be able to train to a GA level if the instructor is suitably qualified and if the pilot required to step up the GA must qualify accordingly with CASA. I can not see a problem with further education weather it be in life of flying however as one progresses suitable steps must be taken to obtain the right indorsement with the right authority.

 

Recreational aviation will evolve of that there is no doubt however it would be irresponsible to allow this natural evolution to take place without correct education and I believe that no one so far has disagreed with the need for greater education.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

Don

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hi Danda (Don).

 

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

There is no need to apologise to myself. I was not taking issue with what you have had to say but treating the entire thread direction as a whole.

 

You may be missing the point I was attempting to make – the issue is not training it is environmental! We simply do not have the legislation, and consequently the design proven trainers, to even conduct this form of training.

 

There may be some that are capable but a move of this sort is not about the wishes of a few, or a handful of types, it is about the stability and fabric of an entire movement – and consequently what implications change would bring.

 

Let me pick up this point and also answer a thread above as an illustration.

 

The aircraft referred to in an above post was, I believe, named the UltraBat and was aerobatic capable.

 

Let us not dwell on an isolated airmanship omission that caused a bit of drama at the time but something else. Those times were a lot simpler than they are now and may therefore be seen more clearly.

 

Concurrently with the arrival of the Ultrabat there was a concerted ‘push’ that AUF (as it then was) should include spinning as mandatory – despite GA already having minimized this area in it’s syllabus while (if anything) GFA were relentlessly pursing spin training – as they should and must do.

 

Spinning is an aerobatic maneuver in most definitions so there could have been something of the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ there, but spinning was the issue chosen.

 

Now look at this situation in movement scope terms! If spin training was introduced as mandatory then that requirement would wipe out the existing trainers and the schools using them – unless they could buy new spin capable and approved aircraft. It would also have effectively junked a large proportion of the AUF training fleet and sent their operators broke.

 

This is not a case of just whether spin training was essential (it was deemed not so) or aerobatics or IFR training, or controlled airspace training – or much of anything else! At it’s basic level a movement had arisen, was starting to do it responsibly and doing so on legislation for the purpose.

 

Manufacturers had responded and supplied aircraft accordingly. But one simple and sound appearing requirement was going to destroy the entire thing and abruptly jack up participation costs for a movement founded on simple, safe and affordable flying for the average Joe in the street. So obviously it did not happen!

 

Converting our then current 95.25 trainers, design proving them, and test flying them to prove the standard was just not an economic proposition!

 

I think there is a bottom line there of understanding – if people will only understand! I really do want to stay out of politics but will say one thing. Any perceived angst should not be attributed to ‘traditionalists’ not wanting their turf trampled on but more them not wanting to lose of their effective low cost flying and effective representation to preserve and encourage that. A new wave of ‘expectancy’ from a new intake of pilots is going to cause divisions and that will lead to strife.

 

It is hard enough already to get rag and bone new trainers and any further escalation of requirements that have ‘majority market appeal’ will kill them stone dead – and so along with it the original ultralighting movement!

 

The political acumen brought to bear over the past few years, for whatever purpose it was done, has not just been inept – it has been cynical in the extreme.

 

Tony.

 

 

[Guest danda]

Tony to their credit the Holbrook Ultralight Club held a rag & tube flyin just 3-4 weeks ago although I wasn't involved I spent most of the Saturday at the airfield and loved it. There was no where near the numbers they expected however they believe that it laid the foundation for a annual flyin I personally hope that it grows bigger with every year that passers as well as a flyin maybe it could extend to a swap meetas I'm told that some of the partsfor some of the older ones aren't made any more. (I don't know just a thought)

 

I also thank you for your information although I do believe that theevolution ofultra lighting is inevitable making it in many ways another exclusive club as with the evolution comes much higher costs and with those higher costs it pushers many many potential flyer's away.

 

Don

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

There is an easy way around this.

 

If you are an RA-Aus pilot and you want to do aerobatics, get yourself a PPL and cover the aerobatic endorsement. Then apply to RA-Aus for a dispensation for your aircraft to perform aerobatics if in fact you have an aircraft that is legally capable of doing so.

 

Until such time that the RA-Aus sylllabus contains an aerobatic endorsement (not likely in the near future) then this is the only solution.

 

Note I should amend my previous post about their being no aerobatic UL's around to mention that there are few if any 2 seater aerobatic aircraft registered as RA.

 

If someone (say an instructor) wants to forge ahead and create a syllabus and training standards, let me know and I'll put you in touch with the guy that wrote the CASA aerobatic syllabus that became law many years ago. He would be more than happy to help, however after recently speaking to him about this he informed me that there are no aircraft avaiable with 2 seats for legal aerobatic training.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

....however after recently speaking to him about this he informed me that there are no aircraft avaiable with 2 seats for legal aerobatic training.

Hi Clem,

 

can we just clarify that - there are no two seater aerobatic trainers that are legal? Or did you mean that there are no RAAus type aircraft that would be legal aerobatic trainers if in VH rego?

 

I find it very interesting if the former. I understood that at the bottom of the scale the 152 Aerobat was a legal aerobatic trainer and that there were many others.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

In the 50's, & into the early 60's I would have thought that virtually every instructor (there may have been exceptions but I never knew any) did aerobatics,& certainly was endorsed as such. When the 'new' cessnas , and the (land itself) Cherokee 140's arrived, the DH-82's, Chipmunks Austers etc.became sort of obselete & gradually only" oddball "people( like me ) flew them. Of course we had then arrived at a situation where none of these newer aircraft could legally do aerobatics or spins ,So this sequence(spinning) was removed from the syllabus.This did not stop aeroplanes from spinning, and some thinking pilots still wonder at the wisdom of where we are at . I believe it should be extensively covered( at least in theory), with a view to never doing it .Ialso believe that,if a pilot is capable of getting an aircraft out of a spin, the same pilot should never have gotten into it (Unintentionally) Where am I going with all this? I think I'm saying that we have moved on .The aircraft manufacturers did not see the need to build this type of aircraft for the market(with a few exceptions, Zlin,& manufacturers with an eye to a military trainer style of product) The modern aerobatic A/C has evolved into a very speciallised article, Flown hopefully by fully trained, competent, current, pilots. There are quite a few training schools which provide Instruction in aero's & I'm sure the dual flying could be done and it's all part of ones flying knowledgebase, but sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, if its not used appropriately. This subject could go on forever N.....

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

I meant there are few or no 2 seat RA-Aus aircraft at present that are legal for aero's.

 

 

[Guest Juliette Lima]

Hi All,

 

From earlier postings

 

"A GA pilot remarked to me the other day that the RAAus should get its act into gear and allow aerobatics"

 

"RAAus is cut short on much needed theory in even the basics of flying"

 

Everything is relative.... I remember seeing a drawing (cartoon )of a hirearchy of flying with microlighting at the bottom followed up the tree by ultralights, GA , commercial, helicopters, jets ,and perched at the top, our elite airforce F111...or somthing like that. I suppose it could be argued that relative to the upper branches in the tree,the GA syllabus could be somewhat lacking.

 

Glider pilots had their own little boxclose to the top but well off to the side for some unexplained reason....almost as if they did'nt need to be part of the 'them and us' background noise often heard in other forms of aviation.

 

I seem to recall the cartoon made some reference to perceived ego relative to your position in the tree.

 

Years ago I recall flying many hours in a particular glider with a well deserved reputation for suddenly dropping a wing if flown too close to the stall.

 

Problem was that flown close to the stall in strong (rough) thermals,

 

the beautiful aircraft produced stunning climb....even though accompanied by periodical corrective inputs to lift the wing,(the end result of thorough spin training from volunteer instructors),I don't seem to recall huge amounts of theory associated with these flying skills.

 

Tony is dead right, recreational flying is what it is .....with all its huge benefits anditslimitations.

 

If I want to climb the hirearchy and do IFR, enter controlled air space,

 

learn aerobatics in aircraft designed to do so etc. etc.,then I have to be prepared to learn more,and most telling of all,pay a heck of a lot more than I have already done so to get into a recreation that I love.

 

The current RAAus syllabus is thorough and entirely safe relative to its intended purpose. Have a look at the RAAus training web site.....it is simply brilliant in its comprehensiveness.

 

Fly Safe

 

JL Juliette Lima

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Aye Facthunter – your post I loved and it struck cords within me. So, at the expense of boring all and sundry I will go down a different track and begin looking at what flying means to us all, but by ‘all’ I mean the environments in which we came to flying and our consequent understanding of flying and what it should be. There are now some vast gulfs!

 

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><O:P></O:P>

 

The Chipmunk was the aircraft I did my GA spin training on. Damn! The Chipmunk was a real aircraft! You had to walk up the wing and climb into it. It had a stick and a big flap handle – not one of these silly electric switches and a gauge you had to peer at to see what was happening or if you had cocked it up. It did not have a tiny master switch it had big ‘flight/ground’ switch on the floor and there was no doubt about where you were. Everything was utilitarian, and effective, easy to know what you were doing when distracted – and flying does cause distraction now and then.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

The cockpit was stark and uncompromising but everything was to hand and you slid the lid shut and became totally part of the aircraft – it demanded that you be a pilot, not a driver or passenger.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

The school’s Chippy was aged and tired. It took time to lumber up to 5000’ for the spins. I was bemused about this (at first) but I came to understand! By this stage I was a professional gliding instructor and was spinning virtually every day of my life.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

We had to! It was part of the syllabus, is scary for students and you had to do a lot of it to settle them down. Because of winch launching heights the norm was a one turn spin from 1200’ and maybe up to three incipients from 1000’. We were not particularly brave or foolhardy – that was just the way things were so you got on and did it and were trained to do so. We probably got very good at it and had few training accidents.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

In the back of ‘my’ Chipmunk was a grizzled ex military QFI. He may have been past retirement age but either wanted to cling to what he loved – or maybe needed to earn an extra shilling or two. He was totally uncompromising as well. He wanted a five turn spin so we had time to observe and discuss things. Then we lumbered back up and explored the high drag spiral dive – very similar in appearance to the spin ‘but notice the burbling sound above the front of the canopy so use your controls normally’ and we again went around five times so this was thoroughly absorbed!

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

The weak little 21 year old I also flew with would not let me touch the controls in take-off or landing, despite I had more flying experience than him!

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

Only a year or so later I was ordered to do a glider aerotow evaluation on a Ralley Commodore being enthusiastically flogged by a French sales team. I had not flown one before but time was short so my first flight was with a glider on the back. I did not care! My first flight with a Pawnee was also with a glider on the back and the cheery briefing of ‘no problems, you are only really interested in the landing so take someone with you!’ And there were no problems!

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

I finished the Ralley evaluation, scribbled a report and scurried hurriedly back to the safety of my Super Cubs, Austers and Pawnees. I did not like nosewheel aircraft and I certainly felt uncomfortable in ‘flying cars’. It did the job OK but there was something terribly lacking in the ambience of flying it.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

Alien is it not? Strange by today’s standards? Yeah well! Strange it may be but we had an aviation community back then and you were under constant peer group pressure and scrutiny. Where people flew together was virtually an enclave rather than today’s ‘fast food’ flying where you rock up for an hour and then go play golf or mow the lawn or go back to work. <BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

 

We had huge freedoms but they were very much granted ‘in house’. Do the right thing often enough, prove yourself and you could get what you wished – but you had to cut the mustard repeatedly until you were totally trusted – then NEVER abuse that trust given to you.

 

<O:P>

 

But my ‘old’ world is not dead, even if it is receding somewhat. I see it in the faces of some young pilots who do treasure flying and aviation as something special – and I read it via their enthusiasm.

 

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><O:P></O:P>

 

One such pilot comes to mind instantly that I have considerable time for (waves to Adam). This guy is young and has done it tough and has done it ‘traditional’ – very much the school I was brought up in.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

He is quiet, unassuming and seldom quotes ‘war stories’ – just a pilot really enjoying what they do.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

He slaved, scrounged, flew, got qualifications, more qualifications, flew commercially on both line haul and sports. But branched out and got commercial float time, penetrating all the areas and getting instructor ratings. And he owns a Thruster Glasshouse and loves flying it when he can.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

Whether Adam ever goes airlines, which so many aspire to, remains to be seen. I personally think that the pure ‘lure of the air’ may keep him ‘low down’ and he could become a key player to the future of real sports aviation if he choses to remain poverty stricken.

 

</O:P>

 

Times change and it is a different scenario now. A different world and consequently different expectations. The quacking of old fogies like myself may bounce off and be dismissed. Fair enough – I may have different values to you! That does not mean yours are wrong any more than mine are to myself!

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

But we do have to have a meeting of the waters now and then. I would really appreciate if neither the ‘old’ side, nor the ‘new’ side get so entrenched in wants and expectations that communication breaks down into civil war!

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

If we can be responsible pilots then we can be reasonable people also. So let us give issues that come up a fair hearing and try to see the other person’s point of view.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

This particular thread has been good in that regard and I thank the respondents for that. Let us just keep that up.

 

<O:P></O:P>

 

Tony TOSGcentral