For all recreational aviators

[monty]

Well said cficare,

 

Glad to have you on the side of truth.

 

Monty

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I haven't bought or read an Australian Flying magazine for a long time 20 years maybe.. I used to buy it but found after ten years or so i was reading most of the articles over and over. Most things were just rehashed and some current photos added. Articles like 'How to preflight", How to find a flying school. ect ect ect were basically the same. Every time i pick up a copy and flick through it shows the same dull articles. About the only different thing about this mag today is it now comes out every second month. Better off spending your money on a EAA membership.

 

ozzie

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

cficare.. nice

 

That is all.

 

;)

 

 

[dazza 38]

Excellent Letter CFI, well done mate

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

The sad piece by Doug Nancarrow in Short Final, Australian Flying May-June 2010, is symptomatic of a much deeper problem in Australia Aviation, and a problem that just does not exist in US, Canada, NZ or the UK.

 

The problem is an "assumed" and "attempt to enforce" a hierarchy of "rights and priorities".

 

It goes something like this: I am an ATPL, I'm better than you, a CPL ME CIR who is better than a CPL, who is better than a PPL, who is better an RAOz Certificate holder, and:

 

I am flying an "big" RPT, I have priority over "little" RPT, who assumes priority over non-scheduled "commercial", who "assumes" priority over "Private Operations", (where the PIC may very well be an ATPL, but is more or less assumed by self-confessed professionals to be a low time and incompetent PPL) who assume superiority, if not priority, over "mere" Recreational Pilots.

 

This is a very "Australian thing", it pains me to say, and in my opinion, a significant threat to air safety. The prejudices go very deep.

 

In a proper world, they should not exist at all. They are very resistant to treatment by fact, witness the nonsense about training standards, and the emerging safety outcome statistics, which increasingly look like they favour RAOZ v. GA.

 

Some aircraft do have legislated priorities, have a look at the rules: Without quoting verbatim, an aircraft in an emergency always has absolute priority, by law.

 

Then there is a list in the AIP, starting with an aircraft carrying the Governor General, the Prime Minister etc etc. Note that these latter "priorities" apply to handling in controlled airspace, particularly where traffic slots are limited, capital city primary airports.

 

Ask yourself what applies in Class G?? Do any?? When might they??

 

Clearly, any aircraft in distress has priority, a Med 1 possibly, but what about the rest?

 

Nowhere but nowhere do we have a regulated system of rights or priorities based simply on the size of the aircraft, the class of operation or flight (IFR v. VFR) turbine v. piston, or the hourly operating cost of the particular aeroplane.

 

But if you were a stranger to Australia, and knew no better, and observed and listened around quite a few airfields in Australia, frequented by "commercial" traffic, including Regionals, you would be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

 

The attempts at browbeating I hear regularly on CTAF simply do not happen outside Australia.

 

The Rules of the Air ( convenient shorthand for some of the CARs that apply to the operation of all aircraft - in the G.O.Ds, they were called the Rules of the Air) apply to everyone ----- there is no hierarchy of rights or priorities based on size, speed or type of operation.

 

Which brings me (again!) to the latest version of the rules for operating in Class G and at/in the vicinity of non-towered etc airfields.

 

 

 

Please read the regulations and the associated CAAPs very carefully.

 

They will actually tell you that what I have said above is correct. Not quite so bluntly, but it is there.

 

They suggest you might consider letting a RPT in ahead of you, even if you have legal right of way. However, they make it very clear that larger/faster/RPT have no right to demand a priority, and have no right to demand other aircraft in a circuit area stand off or give way or otherwise feel they have to obey "directions" from said "assumed more important" aircraft.

 

Know the rules, use your common sense (aka airmanship, or as the new CEO of RAOz calls it, CBS) always be courteous, never indulge in tit for tat over the radio --- don't lower yourself to the same "standard" as that percentage of "professionals" who give the majority a bad name, but:

 

Always clearly understand your rights and obligations as the pilot in command ----- regardless of which bit of paper or plastic you have, and whatever kind of aerial locomotion you are engaged in!!

 

Regards,

 

 

[shags_j]

So angry I can't speak.

 

Unfortunately we can't just let comments like these go. It's the same reason that people sue for defamation. If they make these comments uncontested then it will be accepted by those who do not know anything about the subject.

 

When I was obtaining my PPL I didn't even know about RAAus. It wasn't until I quit the school I was at and was looking for another that I stumbled across RAAus. If I had read this article before doing RA training I probably would have not started.

 

For the record, the three close call incidents I have been in have all been due to GA Aircraft, one of which was a meatbomber (so I assume cpl? not sure if that is requried). In each incident when I reviewed after and discussed with other pilots they agreed that I was in the clear.

 

Ian: Do we know if the RA committee can or will make comment on this?

 

 

[Powerin]

Sorry...a bit off topic...but after reading CFI's excellent letter and some of the other responses I got to wondering if RAA pilots are actually more experienced (in hours) and more current than their PPL counterparts on average. I'm willing to bet, because RAA is cheaper, more accessible and more fun, that most RAA pilots fly a lot more often than most PPLs do. I wonder if RAA pilots fly more hrs/year and if any stats exist to prove it?

 

 

[monty]

Sorry...a bit off topic...but after reading CFI's excellent letter and some of the other responses I got to wondering if RAA pilots are actually more experienced (in hours) and more current than their PPL counterparts on average. I'm willing to bet, because RAA is cheaper, more accessible and more fun, that most RAA pilots fly a lot more often than most PPLs do. I wonder if RAA pilots fly more hrs/year and if any stats exist to prove it?

Good point Powewin,

As a RAA pilot I fly every chance I get, About 80Hrs a year. I know a few Raa pilots and they all fly beteew 50 and 100hrs a year. I know 3 GA PPLs and they would be lucky if they fly 30Hrs a year and that would be a good year. As for RAA pilots I belive they would fly a lot more hours than PPLs. I am not talking about Pilots that do it for a living but pilots that do it for enjoyment. As I do!!!

 

This is just my opinion and the pilots that I know.

 

It would be great to find out what the real stats are.

 

Monty

 

 

[Admin]

Ian: Do we know if the RA committee can or will make comment on this?

Tizz - the RAAus CEO is responding to the "rag" (sorry mag)

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Even the pictures used are missleading. They chose a cirrus, and a drifter. Neither of which indicate the 'norm' for either form of flying. They should have used a 1960 cessna 152 and a jabiru or sportstar if they wanted to be accurate.What schools offer cirrus acft for hire or training, and not many raa schools use drifta's anymore, not a comment on drifta's at all, they are a great little acft, but you can see what the mag had in mind b4 reading a word..

 

Poor, poor journolism. Rubbish. Im enclined to keep it in the toilet for when we are running short on TP.

 

 

[sseeker]

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

Hi Ian,

 

Have you got statistics for that? You're the second pilot I've heard/seen say that, wouldn't mind seeing it on paper (I've got a few GA pilots interested )

 

Thanks,

 

Andrew

 

 

[Admin]

No unfortunately not in a hard/soft copy that can be distributed - only what I have been told by CASA rep at a board meeting.

 

The interesting thing is that the USA doesn't have as good a record in ultralight vs GA as we do here in Australia (per EAA news report) so obviously the RAAus training and Administration is doing something right - or then again perhaps it is the exchange of information that is available here on this site ;)

 

 

[shags_j]

Tizz - the RAAus CEO is responding to the "rag" (sorry mag)

Thanks Ian. That's good news.

 

 

[sleemanj]

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

Hear hear! Totally agree with Nev on this, contrary to what Bill suggests we do see it here in NZ too.

 

Certain elements (particularly the more aged among us) in all the different areas of GA have serious "them and us" issues, it's not just GA to RA, both sides tend to think the other is in some way undesirable.

 

It's not helpful, it's not productive. There are not bad RA pilots and bad GA pilots, there are just bad pilots full stop.

 

If GA pilots have problems with RA pilots, there's no point just saying "oh those RA pilots, they're rubbish" these people should stand up and say how they think the situation should be improved, and "get rid of RA" is not a valid or even possible resolution!

 

And the same goes in reverse.

 

 

[shags_j]

Maybe their jealous of how little we pay per hour for similar performance...

 

 

[Tomo]

Got a hit out of something yesterday - I was taxing in and got a call from a big twin, and he asked me what direction the wind was - I guess because he couldn't see the windsock sufficiently to make a decision.

 

I gave it to him, and he thanked me - something simple I guess, but we're all aviators whether I'm flying an ultralight and him on a commercial twin and we all help each other... the situation just made me think of this thread for some reason.

 

Moral to the story, he wasn't 'stuck up' to ask someone likes of myself (small ultralight) for something even though he was the 'big one'!

 

 

[Spriteah]

All I can say is remember the dils name (Doug Nancarrow). And in the future if you speak with him express your concerns.

 

Jim.

 

 

[shags_j]

I'm pretty sure this statement by them covers the three requirements for defamation in media (printed, identifies plaintiff, and colours ordinary opinion of them). Every time i think of this it XXXXes me off.

 

That's a good story Tommo. It's good to see that stuff. Why can't we all just get along :(

 

 

[leestanley]

many good comments on this one, and especially cficare's letter to the editor but a couple of points:

 

1. I'd be interested in the reaction from schools that instruct both RA and GA - surely they wouldn't find the comments helpful...

 

2. Paraphrasing the comment "if you can fly a Jab you can fly anything..." - am I the only person who found 172s after gaining my Jab PC and XC incredibly difficult?.. weight, inertia, ground steering, required flare and that infernal wheel!!

 

Lee :)

 

 

[shags_j]

Lee I actually found it the other way round. C172's are so damn easy to fly. We need to be much more proficient to fly well than someone in a C172.

 

Though due to your statement I am wondering whether it is is a matter of I first learned on a c172 so I find them easy. You learnt first on a Jab so find that easier?

 

Just a though and a little off topic.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Took me an hour or so to get used to the C172. It's just different. It does seem easier once acclimatised, may be because of its weight.

 

First crosswind landing nearly bit me though. As soon as I relaxed the into wind aileron it jumped up on one wheel.

 

 

[facthunter]

Different planes

 

Some people get used to things and don't like any change. The C-172 can be flown by out of practice or lazy people who are not quite on the ball, but a Jab. not so. You have to finesse it a lot more to make a good job of it. Having said that " a plane is a plane is a......... Nev

 

 

[shags_j]

. Having said that " a plane is a plane is a......... Nev

That would be a woodworking tool wouldn't it?

 

 

[hihosland]

I've just read the offending piece.

 

Nancarrow's one example of RAA poor airmanship is based on hearsay and does have a ring of improbability about it. Where outside CTA did the writer get a radar vector that brought him down to circuit height and a specific runway alignment??. More likely he was brought to minimum safe where it was up to him to visually identify the active runway and communicate with other traffic.

 

Most probably the RAA aircraft was much slower than the IFR beast and therefore had much greater need to ensure that it was set up to land into wind and consequently is the most likely to have the correct circuit direction.

 

I would not be surprised if the complete story was a spot of over confident arrogance on the part of the IFR aircraft who failed to change to the CTAF freq when leaving radar's control and who came barreling in to land in the same direction that he always does. Fortunately he took his eyes off the clocks in time to see the poor unfortunate RAA craft ( Drifter ? ) in time.

 

 

[sain]

I don't know. Its probably bollocks, but the situation itself is not that improbable. I shared a circuit with a IFR flight doing a radar vectored approach and had absolutely no idea what the other plane was going to be doing.

 

Fortunately we both had working radios and the other pilot was helpful and polite (i keep writing that as pilot) and we were both able to figure out what the other was going to be doing on the conflicting circuit. Now the plane I was in had a working transponder and Radio, and we were both on the right frequency but apart from that you've got the situation the guy described. Not a great danger to either aircraft, but easily described as a near miss.

 

I could, with no particular stretch or exageration, be described as having no idea about the basics of flying circuits in poor weather conditions (being a fine VFR day it wasn't particularly required). I was, and had been for a while, established in the circuit before the other pilot gave his 10nm inbound call. From his point of view though, I would have been flying against the circuit direction.

 

The only part of it that really strikes me as as a load of horse manure is the "significant littoral airport". Anybody aware of a significant airport in Queensland that is beneath the high water line? Seems improbable to me. I call bollocks. Or perhaps the need for a dictionary.