For all recreational aviators

[Admin]

This is an article that has been published in the current edition of the Australian Flying magazine.

 

All I can say is that words would completely fail me if I tried to say how I feel about this.

 

The RAAus CEO is going to respond

 

Personally, I now know why I subscribe to The Pacific Flyer mag and not this one.

 

[ATTACH]10604.vB[/ATTACH] - 268k

 

Is GA losing out to RA.pdf

 

Is GA losing out to RA.pdf

 

Is GA losing out to RA.pdf

[Guest basscheffers]

WTF!? Couldn't resist a letter to the editor myself:

 

Dear Justin,I am quite schocked at the enormous level of ignorance conatined in the "Is GA losing out to RA" article.

 

The author is entitled to his opinion and I am sure others will take this up as well. So I am going to focus on one particular issue: the IFR vs. RA incident.

 

First of all, it sounds like at this uncontrolled aerodrome, he was well within his rights to fly without transponder and radio.

 

Secondly, your IFR pilot was guided in through IMC by a controller in a remote location, making the runway choice based most likely on a half-hourly auto METAR. The RA pilot was visual with the field and no doubt the sock and decided the circuit direction based on that.

 

Who in this scenario is more likely to choose the correct runway and circuit direction at that moment in time?

 

The author is entirely correct incidents are more likely than not to involve RA-Aus aircraft, due to the simple fact that these days at uncontrolled airfields, operations by RA aircraft outnumber GA operations many to one. If 9 out 10 aircraft are RA, then there is a 9 out of 10 chance the rotten apple is an RA pilot. This has nothing to do with the level of training, it's simple statitics.

 

I could tell you about the incidents I have seen involving PPLs in GA aircraft taking off overloaded and nearly hitting the ground due to sink caused by a crab angle to create a "cool" photograph. Or the non-IR pilot who regularly takes of into IMC on a VFR plan at a major GAAP aerodrome before the tower opens. Or the one making his broadcast on UNICOM, not knowing the CTAF frequency for the airfield, of which I have to inform him while myself on final at an airfield 20nm away.

 

All personal experience, all GA aircraft. Yes, they are such a better and more professional bunch.

 

Kind regards,

 

Bas Scheffers.

[markendee]

What a moron.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

Seemed like a case of "Writing Under the Influence", of some substance that started hitting his brain cell (singular) half way down the 2nd column. ;-(

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Good point, eastmeg. At the start of the article I thought it was going to take a very different direction, that of: "GA is too complex and expense, RA have it good but only two seaters, how can we make GA more affordable and easier?"

 

But no, he went off on a rant about how to best get rid of us altogether because we are a threat to safety!

 

Sad.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I used to enjoy the writings of Doug Nancarrow, maybe age is getting the better of him. I wouldnt be surprised if Australian Flying, placed this story from pressure from the old GA people who have their heads stuck in the sand. It is funny how last issue of Australian Flying was pro - recreational flying.With the write up of the LSA's.There was a great deal of good stories over the last couple of years about recreational flying.Maybe a change of editor, has something to do with it. Anyway- having flown both GA and RAA, it think the story is, way to bias .

 

 

[SilverWing]

Is GA losing out to RA?

 

Anyone read the article - title above - in the current May-June issue of Australian Flying. Here's a sample: "But we need to re-assert that GA training and licensing is a cut above the light sport sector - and should be supported vigorously as such."

 

Is there a competition for 'we (GA) are better than thou (RA)' comments or what? And who is this guy Nancarrow anyway?

 

 

[Spin]

Hmmm, I'm not usually much for conspiracy theories, but you have to wonder why two of our local mags are spouting almost identical drivel in the same month - Aviator being the other one if I'm not mistaken. They will both be receiving letters from me.

 

The lack of foresight is somewhat breathtaking - has it not crossed their tiny little minds that probably the biggest potential market for new recruits to GA is right here, amongst the RA fraternity? How often doesn't the RA-GA conversion raise its head on this forum. I come from a GA background, packed it in because it wasn't much fun and too expensive, however with changing circumstances (need more n 2 seats and controlled airspace) I will be working to regain my PPL not too far down the line. RA will still be the main focus of my flying, but GA will help extend the possibilities.

 

Idiots!:no no:

 

 

[facthunter]

GA training standards.

 

I wouldn't get too offended by that statement. GA training has to cater for the whole gambut right up to Command Multi-engine Instrument Rating, on single pilot pressurised aircraft. We have stated many times that we want to keep the complexities down to a minimum and keep our flying as basic as possible. We cannot have it both ways. We should do what we do well, and leave the complexities to those that MUST go there. Nev

 

Addendum.. I did not read the article as this thread has been remodelled since I started typing. I have left my post as it is as I think the comments I have expressed have some relevance still. Note. Sections of the Aviation community "having a go" at the others is counter-productive and It is about time we woke up to that fact. Nev

 

 

[Tomo]

I wrote this also -

 

G'day Justin,

Just emailing you regarding "Is GA losing out to RAA?" article in your Magazine.

 

I don't think it is fair at all to the RAA community to have an article like that - of course the writer is open to his opinions regarding it, and so am I. But making assumptions isn't doing anyone any good.

 

That incident quoted has quite a few variables and is a pretty bad comparison for the two types - I will say though, I'm very happy to hear the GA pilot in the incident actually saw the other aircraft.

 

Of course there will be issues with both GA/RAA - a lot of the time there are more RAA aircraft in the circuit than GA, so the ratio of incidents can't be compared.

 

Having recently been to the Recreational Aviation "NATFLY" at Temora, I was very pleased with the quality of RAA pilots. The few incidents that did occur were actually GA pilots! Not to mention the GA aircraft departing a 'non-in-to-wind' (non active) runway at Narromine with three other aircraft on the other 'in-to-wind' (active) runway, not only that but he didn't make any radio calls. It was an RAA pilot that alerted the other traffic of this particular aircraft.

 

I've seen some pretty ordinary RAA pilots also, but lets face it, who doesn't make mistakes?? I honestly don't think it is fair to point a blind finger at a particular group. And an apology be issued to the RAA group.

 

Regards,

 

Thomas Scott

[markendee]

Be wary of protesting too much - gives them way too much credibility.

 

Best way to treat an idiot is to ignore said idiot.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

I wouldn't get too offended by that statement. GA training has to cater for the whole gambut right up to Command Multi-engine Instrument Rating, on single pilot pressurised aircraft.

It does, but it is implied that the basic PPL is superior to an RA certificate with XC endorsement.

Clearly, this is not the case; with the exception of the hours of instrument flying the syllabus is the same. And so it should be because we do the *exact* same thing as a PPL - that is be competent in operating the aircraft and handling basic emergencies like engine failure.

 

Yes, you can technically get up to XC in 30 hours, but the reality is that the vast majority of us get just as much training as a PPL does before they get set loose.

 

Hanging 'round a GA school, I have met plenty of recent PPLs (on their way to CPL!) that are every bit as green as newly qualified RA pilots.

 

 

[HEON]

I have not been responding to threads for some time but cannot resist on this.

 

PRIOR to reading this, I emailed the National Advertising Manager for Australian Flying and stated to him that if this was the position the magazine was going to take I could not see the value in continueing my advertising of a RAA aircraft in it.

 

As well as being VERY XXXXed off on the tone of the article, I said that if required I could tell him stories where GA pilots have tried there best to kill me with mid air UCFITAA (uncontrolled flight into another aircraft!)...the last time on Tuesday over Lismore!

 

Also expressed the opinion that with that attitude I was glad GA was dieing.

 

 

[sseeker]

Hi Everyone,

 

Yes I was pretty XXXXed off when I read it - still can't get over it actually. We don't give GA crap like that, so I don't think we deserve it. From my knowledge most of the ALA and small country strips are maintained by RA-Aus Schools/Clubs and GA pilots and aircraft are usually given a warm welcome. Quite disappointed with the attitude of the writer.

 

-Andrew

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

<newsflash...sensationalism at play, rarely seen in the print media......>

 

Its an article that due to a very small number of column inches takes a potential conflict story that probably would actually be interesting if all the facts were provided, and distills it down to something so devoid of facts and any consequences that its barely worth the effort to write this down. That he then took those precious column inches and traded some real components of the story for a whole bunch of "his personal view" that is only loosely related to the conflict, to me reduces his credibility further.

 

But all that said is it worth getting uptight about.... To be honest the GA world regularly publishes some of its classic stuff ups for all others (including us) to learn from. The fact that stuff ups are reported and dissected just proves as Tomo said that we all make mistakes. In the RAA world, if we are truly 9 out of 10 then there probably should be 9 times more stuff ups that we probably should publish and dissect in the hope that we learn from them. Yet its felt that in the RAA world we aren't very good at reporting incidents and accidents let alone defect reporting ...and there isn't really any mechanism other than these forums to discuss those butt clenching moments that might, but for a bit of good luck or experience that the next person may not be able to call on, have killed us.

 

maybe as we mature and evolve we'll actually do that, rather than get indignant if someone suggest that one stuff up represents all participants. The problem is at the moment there aren't good statistics other than gross fatalities which we can use to repudiate the claims made.

 

sometimes you do need to do a bit of navel gazing, lest someone else do it for you.

 

Andy

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Disgusting.. Absolutly disgusting......:hittinghead:

 

 

[Owi]

Although the tone of the article comes across as a bit "snobbish / uppity" - which is not nice - the man is entitled to air his opinion. As stated before by another post above, due to the restricted space on the page, it could have been edited down from a fairly good balanced article and the intended context was lost. I tend to look at it, assess it for what it's worth (not much in my own view) and discard it if it's of no good use.

 

Us RA flyers have also "suffered" misfortune at the hands of some rogue cowboy GA pilots (remember the incident or two at NATFLY 2010?), so the account is more or less even (who's counting?). Nobody's perfect and there'll always be some incidents that make people emotional.

 

As for the magazine - let's rather focus on the good things that it has, such as the excellent "What Can We Learn?" articles and other writings by Jim Davis; and others. I don't know the man, but I reckon that, since he seems like a down-to-earth, no-nonsense bloke, Jim would also take exception to the tone of the article.

 

All part of the great privilege of "freedom of speech" that we enjoy in our culture nowadays.

 

Smooth skies,

 

 

[Admin]

But what he also ignores is that there are less deaths now in RAAus trained pilots then there are in GA trained pilots (per hrs flown) - but I suppose that is beside the point

 

He also ignores that the majority of RAAus instructors are also GA instructors - but I suppose that is also besides the point

 

He also ignores the fact that flying a Jabiru or high drag Thruster is so much harder to fly and requires greater training and flying skills than needed to fly a 172 etc - and we have less deaths - is also besides the point

 

...and so much more!

 

What IS, in my opinion, the POINT is that this writer, this magazine, this publishing company are not only idiots, uninformed, inexperienced, unknowledgable (as proven by allowing the article to go to print) but also doing their best to put recreational aviation down and segregate the aviation industry that all of us in recreational aviation try to unite.

 

Is it any wonder why recreational aviation is going for CTA, 760kg etc because of the attitude of magazines like this that promote segregation rather then uniting the flying community.

 

Thank my god that I don't subscribe to this "rag" any more and only subscribe to The Pacific Flyer that supports the aviation industry.

 

I am so darn furious that this kind of media, rubbish media, is out there being detrimental to all the work that is done every single day to get Joe Public into the joys of flying like we all enjoy

 

 

[Brett]

I'm afraid to say but i think about 50% of our local club members were I am will love this article. Sad really as the club is now expanding and will do so more now that there is a RAA school at our field. The CFI for RAA up here has flown and instructed in GA for yrs but still you hear the noise that RAA pilots are not up to scratch. With all the traffic we have up here including RPT's , rest assured he wouldn't let anyone loose without the required skills. Perhaps when some of the members start flying with us mere RAA pilots perhaps we can slowly change the attitudes. RAA wont be disappearing and change sometimes is hard for people that have only known one way there entire flying life.

 

 

[Vorticity]

Thanks for putting this out Ian. I was starting to think that this magazine was worth buying and was actually going to pay for a subscription next pay-day!

 

Honest truth, the problems that we all see when we go flying are pilot issues not GA/RAAus. I think there are some bitter people out there angry that RA have risen from the weeds and are having way more fun.

 

Vote with your $$. If this mag doesn't want the fastest growing sector of the aviation industry buying/sponsoring their product than that is fine.

 

 

[country kid]

that is a very un-fair article with a very limited ammount of truth, definetly beating up meanial issues, :black_eye: im disgusted to think their are some people out their who beat up issues that are just meaningless, the truth is for the price RA follows the VFR sylabus that is set by the approptiate regulatory body so essentialy both streams of aviation are getting the same base knoledge, but our aircraft arent as big and thirsty which is were RA becomes cheaper, not because we cut corners on our training! thumb_down

 

 

[XP503]

Guys this sort of garbage should not be printed in a magazine like Australian Flying, this does absolutely nothing for promoting safety and cooperation in the air which is what he is complaining about, if this guy had his way we would all be grounded - we NEED to voice our opinions - the editor's email address is [email protected] so get in contact!

 

 

[Powerin]

From CASA stats (only from 2006) and RAAus stats (2009) at least 20% of all Australian registered aircraft and pilots are RAAus and growing fast. I think that's a pretty big chunk of the magazine's potential market that they have just offended. Might be worth quietly pointing that out to them.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Touché CiFi. Nicely done.

 

 

[Tomo]

Touché CiFi. Nicely done.

Yes indeed CfiCare