Aldo

FT Resale not generally a problem, most don't want to sell them. Aldo

Oh dear!!

FT at no stage have I said anyone in particular was responsible but based on any number of posts on this and other sites it probably isn't too hard to have a speculative guess (but that is not what I'm doing). As far as the instrument goes it has not affected me at all, I can still fly to all the places I need to fly to in my 230. The only restriction it has placed on me is flying to YBAF (Archerfield), YSBK (Bankstown) etc and if I really need to go to any of the restricted places I take the Navajo (as I did yesterday) or 182, if CASA were to place a complete ban on Jab engines I would just buy and install something else in it (19 reg), for as a commute vehicle I don't think there is anything better in the market, it has better speed and payload than the 172 uses less fuel and overall operating costs are less than my Ford Ranger. In my correspondence to CASA (which I copied RAA head office and Jabiru on) I did suggest an increased maintenance regime I also suggested that the Jab may not be the best aircraft to use in a training environment (personal view). My opinion (and lots of people won't agree) is the 152 or Tomahawk are the best training aircraft on the market (tricycle) and that is what should be used, RAA should push to have these aircraft made available to RAA for training purposes and then do conversions to U/L. I have over 800 hrs in my Jab and have done 2 top overhauls (adds about $20/hr to my operating costs which in my opinion are low anyway) do 20 hour services (all by a LAME Al McV) and I do my best to ensure my engine management is second to none and I'm the only person who fly's it. You can carry on with your line of thought as much as you want, like the CASA instrument that doesn't affect me either. Peoples attitude to the rules and regulations within recreational flying will have a greater impact on recreational flying than anything to do with Jab aircraft in the long run. Aldo

Gee read the post FT not to hard to comprehend that one really simple words

I have no evidence but I think you will find quite a bit of intense lobbying came from within RAA member ranks by a select few. Aldo

Geoff Congrats mate 20 hrs a month is a mammoth effort when you don't own your own aircraft that amount of hours will ensure you remain very current. A word of caution though, it is a known fact that between the 200 and 500 hour mark is when things can go to hell in a handbag due to our confidence levels being quite high, treat every flight like it is your first one. Keep up the good work. Aldo

First solo for me was extrordinary, for some reason I had wanted to fly from about age 10, have no idea why no other family members flew and we didn't know anyone who did, closest airport that aeroplanes used was about 100 miles away. I believe I was extremely fortunate in my choice of flying schools I had no idea what to look for and just got lucky the instructor who was CFI was about 45 had logged 6000+ hours in New Guinea in pistons and another couple of thousand instructing he just wanted to pass on his accumulated knowledge, he took me all the way to restricted PPL and I feel extremely privileged to have had him for an instructor. Precision was everything if you are supposed to be at 1000 in the circuit why are you at 1050 but it was never delivered in a demeaning way. I was also lucky in that I was able to fly every day first solo 8.9 but I'm glad it was in a 152 and not an ultralight the 152 is much easier than any U/L I have flown. Other memorable moments First passenger - wife (sadly later killed in an aircraft accident after solo but before certificate in a Foxbat). Landing at Brisbane international (original one) during one of my navs Current wife going solo Found a way to include flying with business and get to fly every day. Aldo

Guys Really are we trying to p1ss this person off and test the waters here. Aldo

Dutch Two pretty extreme ends of the spectrum there QF & U/L but we should be able to get somewhere near zero on the accident rate with U/L. At the airline & commercial GA end of the spectrum you can regulate people into submission because if you don't comply you don't have a job, the U/L end of the spectrum is a little more difficult. Regulation is the framework around which we should educate pilots, part of that education should be policing of the regulations and enforcement such as loss of licence for pilots who don't comply this would start to get most people to pull their heads in. For that to happen recreational & private GA pilots need to start reporting unsafe/dangerous activities, we all see these happen but how many of us actually make the report (I would say not many as it is generally someone you know or a friend) and yes the old story "if they are a friend you will report them as you will be doing them a favour and possibly saving their life" the trouble is not too many people being reported actually see it this way. The best way is to sit your friend down and say hey listen John what you are doing up there from my perspective looks pretty dangerous (and I have done this on many occasions) the trouble is they generally don't listen or don't understand. So if the above is true then our training system is breaking down or is not to the standard that it should be (I'm not having a go at the instructors here) but I did have a (recreational ) student ask me recently if it was normal for an instructor to take a student into cloud to show them how difficult it is to know where you are (this was done in a RA training aircraft) I nearly fell off my chair. Aldo

Nev I thought this would have been played when you learnt to fly, haha. Thing is nothing has changed in 70 years pilots still kill themselves the same way for the same dumb avoidable reasons. Aldo

Charmaine Let me pass on my condolences, I have been in the same position as you are now and understand the emotional roller coaster ride that you will be on. The aviation community is quite small as I'm sure you would be aware and that community learns by discussion especially when something happens to one of them and hopefully that discussion is as factual as possible and the lessons learned can be passed on, so that it may prevent it happening again. As far as the question about registration goes you may want to take that up with the Daily Telegraph as it was reported by them (I have attached the link), obviously once that was made public by the media there will be discussion around that issue as if that were the case it would bring our sport into disrepute. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...in-hunter-valley/story-fni0cx12-1227366388263 Regards Allan

Frank That was not directed at you, take a look at post #42 wording may not have been exact (apologies for that) but the inflection is the same. Aldo

Bull There were two reports, the first one said the driver a former pilot found it as he was driving down the road the second report said that all 60 (I think that was the number quoted) of the customers heard it immediately stood and raced into the paddock to investigate or something to that extent. What Dutch is trying to get across here is that when an accident happens in close proximity to the general public and it has to do with aviation it very quickly becomes public property and grows a life of its own. From this point onward it becomes pure perception (reality no longer has anything to do with it) peoples perception is their reality. This could get very ugly for recreational flying if not managed very carefully. I'm sure the board and the management team are doing everything in their power to ward off the wolves and we should be doing everything we can to help including not posting dumb sh.t like aviation is dangerous and we know the risks so we should be left to our own devices. What we should be posting is how this one maverick broke the rules and caused this accident (that comment is not necessarily directed at this accident as we are not yet aware of what has happened) and we as pilots do not accept people who break the rules in aviation. That would show that we are proactive in promoting the safety of our chosen pursuit. Aldo

They like most others probably won't listen to me. It's like the more hours you do as a private pilot the higher the premium that doesn't make sense the more hours you do should mean the more current you are and therefore safer you are, but with insurance companies it is all about risk and perception is reality. Insurance is a bet with an insurance company that something will happen to a piece of property you own, the insurance company is betting that it won't in the majority of circumstances (and based on their profits reported) they are right more times than they are wrong. I don't insure my vehicles (cars or planes) once I own them (apart from 3rd party property). Aldo

Bull Aviation is not dangerous if it is done correctly, aviation leaves no room for error and does not tolerate fools for very long. Understand your aircraft Learn what physics and aerodynamics make it fly and what stops it flying Don't show off and do beat-ups or fly at low level (unless trained and you need to do it) Don't fly in less than VMC Remain current Fly the aeroplane for what it was designed for within the rules applicable Fly the aeroplane the same way you would expect another to, who had your 14 year old son/daughter as a passenger Follow the above and it will go a long way towards keeping you off the statistics pages. Most people don't think cars are dangerous yet there are on average over 20 people killed per week in Australia and most don't even rate a mention in the news, to me that makes driving cars dangerous and flying planes fairly benign. Aldo

I wonder if we can entice this guy to move to Australia and practice here!

And this is the attitude that all need to adopt, this is from someone who has more IF hours than most people have had hot dinners and encompasses all the relevant human factors and airmanship qualities that all need to adopt. Aldo

Ozzie Every accident has it own set of circumstances that got it to where it is, one of the biggest issues is that there is little information available to be able to make an informed comment unless you were onsite at the time of the accident. Therefore I believe each accident should be discussed to see if we are able to garner any information that will assist the rest of us, eventually someone will know something that is relevant. You mention scrolling through all the emotional posts, one way to fix this is for the moderator/s to remove accident posts from the forum, generally within an hour of an accident being reported it is on this site and everyone is able to have their 2 bobs worth about it, we all want to know what happened and why and as more information comes to hand we all have our views on what went wrong and how it could have been avoided this is normal human behavior, as we are a very inquisitive animal. Sadly (in context) most aircraft accidents are not from mechanical/structural failure (if they were that could be fixed easily) and that leaves only one reason (the person behind the throttle) I don't know the answers, but I try my best to ensure that I'm not the next person discussed. Aldo

Frank I agree 100% once you strap your skinny butt to the seat it is you and only you that is able to determine the conclusion, if you are not current, capable, medically fit or competent in all aspects of what you are about to do you shouldn't be in the seat. For mine there are no excuses once you push the throttle forward. Aldo

Roundy I disagree, as far as I'm aware the board position is a voluntary position and providing the board members are objective in the discharge of their duties I don't see any reason for Andy not being able to have a personal opinion. Maybe you would prefer if he changed his name to Billy@Benowa to allow him to have an opinion! Aldo

Ozzie Why not if this hadn't happened we wouldn't have this thread? Aldo

JG Excellent, still a forecast but I will be interested to see how accurate accurate it is BOM obviously use all this and more information when they put out the aviation forecasts. Aldo

For what it's worth I posted the below a couple of years ago and I still believe it's relevant to the current HF/accident discussion, knowing when to say no is the most important thing. Flying is a manulitative skill (i.e. the more we do the better we get) so we are at the mercy of what we learn, doing what we like. I don't know anyone who wants to die, so why do we get ourselves into situations in which this is the most likely outcome - confidence/overconfidence & peer/passenger pressure. To fly well we require confidence, to gain confidence we need to practice/fly in situations that are at the limit of our abilities - i.e. we improve, when we do, the next time we are presented with the same situation we know that we have done this before and therefore we continue, thinking this will be no worse than the last time (if we do this without first having a way out we are heading for disaster). The problem with this method is that sometimes we are not able to deal with the situation or are not able to make the decision to deal with the situation early enough that is at our limit or beyond and it ends in disaster, are we able to prevent this - yes & no - we need to understand when we are at the limit of our abilities and change our expected result - this is HF or airmanship. Aldo

David I understand all the reasoning for the coastal CTA transit especially where you are located but it would need to come with some very intensive training to be able to be accomplished in any form that would be acceptable. Aldo

Good for Darren I'm always impressed when someone puts their money on the line to have a go, I hope he succeeds. Aldo