Bandit12

What is scary is that the motivation seems to be to save some dollars.....aviation is not a cheap hobby. It can be affordable, or stupidly expensive, but it is never cheap. Getting a membership at the local library and loaning books to read is a hobby for those looking for cheap. Perhaps some people forget that the expense continues after gaining a license until deciding to give it up. Better to encourage people to stop asking for the cheaper options, and to instead ask about the better options (such as good instructors, whether they are RAA or GA).

Never say never Solomon. The odds were against you getting in before the age of 21 anyway, so you have time. Go for Australian citizenship, you have plenty of time.

I do wonder though if someone decided to take RAA on in court whether they would have any luck? Surely if it has been done previously and there are currently regoed C150s then the precedent has been set? Not saying that I would really want to go down that route anyway, and there is nothing to stop an owner from reinstalling a removed seat. But there have been a number of incidents that I have read over the years of over gross (legal gross, but still within design gross sometimes), 2 people and an infant, animals.....people will do silly things regardless. So if people wanted to go down that route of a modded C150, I really can't see the issue.

First time I have forwarded something this year - pure gold!

Old K is spot on. I forgot to mention team sports - very highly regarded. My chosen sports were always lone sports and they definitely prefer team sports. Ideally you are the captain of the team sport too, as well as actively involved in the community etc etc. If you haven't already done so Solomon, have a look at the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme, or Scouts, as a good little grounding in teamwork and leadership, and community service.

Quite a few years ago I wanted to do pretty much that, except I wanted Army. I jumped through the hoops, went to Tamworth to do Flight Screening and the Officer Selection Board, passed all with flying colours and for a variety of reasons chose not to pursue that option. I often kick myself for doing so, but did for really what were the right reasons for me. A few pointers: I went in with about 250 hours. They had much higher expectations about what I should be able to do, and also a number of snide remarks about how I had learnt to do everything wrong. That really didn't upset me as I knew it came with the territory, but it seemed unnecessary at the time. I would agree with what others mention about not having too much experience, as it won't be a big advantage. Secondly, you are applying to be a commissioned officer, and need to keep that in mind. Average piloting skills will be overlooked if you can demonstrate real leadership potential, and real passion about the job and the RAAF. Work on your ability to stand up in front of a group and give your opinion, learn to be assertive (but not too authoritative), and take every opportunity to demonstrate to the selection board that you are THE BEST person for the role that they have ever had. Finally, expect to be knocked back at the start. Ask for feedback about why, go away and work on what they tell you, come back in 12 months time and do it again. And make sure they know that you will be back every 12 months until you get in. Best of luck with it anyway!

Ah....I have stopped to admire that aircraft a couple of times Turbs!

Found a link: http://www.englisheng.com.au/spitfire-aircraft.html Pricey, but Spitfires will always have a certain "wow" factor and I'm sure there will be some who line up for it.

Not even I suggested he wasn't an experienced instructor - in honesty, I have never heard of him before. But instructional experience aside, I will disagree with his methods of motivating people, and I suspect that while he has successfully vented his frustration, most of the good instructors who already teach the right thing will continue to do so; the ones that teach the wrong thing will disagree and continue to do so; and those aviators that were taught correctly but chose to contemplate, prepare and practice a turn back will continue to do so because name calling and emotional blackmail doesn't work. You don't see it working for smokers. You don't see it working for gamblers. You don't see it working for hoons in cars. It won't work with aviation either.

Now this is an interesting argument my friend. If we presume that all we need is the information, then we would have no problems with obesity (could lose a few kios myself) or smoking (luckily I never went down that path). Just knowing better is no guarantee to a reduction in risk taking behaviour. After all, it won't happen to me, will it? Surely not. Learning vicariously through others mistakes only goes so far.

I've seen it referred to as a 270 degree turn because if you are trying to reverse heading, a 180 turn will have you tracking in the opposite direction and parallel to the runway some distance. So the reference to turning back further to intersect, followed by a second turn back to the runway. So probably approaching 270 degrees turned in total by the time you add it up. Hardly feasible in most of the aircraft I fly. The Alpha for example glides like a brick and I wouldn't expect to be able to change headings more than 15 degrees either way below 500 AGL.

Feel free to scan some pages and share if you feel like it!

That's what I said Turbs - it is interesting to understand the discussion from others who may be trained to do it, and the different situations in which they do. It helps to understand why we don't.

For those that might enjoy reading the debate, it has been discussed over at pprune a couple of times.... http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/481400-efato-turn-back.html If nothing else, there are some interesting points made by serving RAAF pilots where it is apparently still taught at some levels and for some specific airfields. That said, there still isn't anything to support that any civvie pilot should make a turn back. Certainly I have never been shown one in training, never practiced one and was certainly trained never to attempt it under any circumstances.

I have watched that video so many times over the years Turbs.....it is a very sobering reminder not to turn back.

Ah Wayne....someone who saw the irony in my post! I wondered whether anyone would comment, and in a sense, hoped that someone would because it sort of confirms my point. Use that sort of language and your argument falls apart, no matter how well intended it is. All credit to you for calling me on it Wayne, and no forgiveness needed. This CFI obviously has friends here, and my comments really should have stayed factual rather than personal. If those points caused offence, then my sincerest apologies. As for the rest of my thoughts about his style, I will continue to stand by them.

I must admit to having looked at that freeway as a possible runway if needed a few times!

Kite!

I can't see why the author had to use the language he did. And somehow despite Darwin's theories, we manage to have people continue to do the wrong thing generation after generation despite taking themselves out of the gene pool in an often spectacular fashion. It isn't about technique. It is about training and culture. But it takes a lot more than someone to point a finger and say "halfwit" to bring about any positive change.

An acrobat does acrobatics - surely you need an aeroplane for aerobatics!

The hardest thing when you are on the sidelines and feel like it was "one of your own" is that sense that a reason why is so slow in coming or in some occasions will never come. This is discussed after every accident here and we get so little information. And so the frustration continues.

Was that for me Win? If so, to answer your first point, I am, and your second point - I don't feel insulted. But I do feel that the author knows very little about motivating people or encouraging change. Now if someone like Motzartmerv or Facthunter were to write an article on the same topic and submit it, I feel that it would have an entirely different tone, wouldn't offend anyone with childish name calling or emotional blackmail, and would have a much better chance at getting through to people. Both of those gentlemen have more than enough credibility, experience, knowledge and style to do well what this bloke has failed at.

My money is for aeroplane, otherwise I would use airfcraft but never airplane. Here is another one: aerobatics or acrobatics?

I don't like his language at all. Too confrontational, too derogatory, too much name calling. If I won't be swayed because of a sound, scientific argument backed up with excellent practical examples, what makes him think that I will be swayed by being called stupid, arrogant, pea brain, and halfwit? Honestly, some people would do better by shutting their mouths (or word processors) and let others try to put a constructive approach to improving practices and training. And finally - "you don't care about your family and what they have to go through"...??? Lets just put something out there - emotional blackmail is NEVER an effective and positive manipulator of behaviour. I am far more likely to discount any good points he has for all of the drivel that comes with it. Because I know that he wouldn't be swayed by my more tempered argument, I'll just go out and call the man an unthinking moron and primitive bully who shouldn't be encouraged to present such crap in public. For the record, I don't support turning back. Some may do it and make it. Many do it and don't make it. So regardless of the mechanics, the odds aren't in your favour if you turn back. But I won't support rubbish like what was written by the unapologetic Kevin Walters, CFI, as helpful either.

Static revs Oil and temp in the green Airspeed alive and increasing