ExJourno

There's other factors I'd worry about before the fact he isn't flown a Foxbat... Ticks in my book would be... - he checks the manual - takes the plane for a fly - ensures he is familiar with specifics of your aircraft - all the above are done before he starts teach you I look at it this way... a quick famil is all you need to jump in another plane in our class of flying. Your Pilot Certificate doesn't say "allowed to fly a foxbat only"...

Let's assume 500hrs is a year... Office/hangar lease $40k to $80k Insurance (not the plane.... professional indemnity, liability and general business policy)... $2500? Phones/Net... $2400 wouldn't be unreasonable. Admin/accountant $2200 plus Xero at another 900 Marketing.... $20,000 would be easy to spend. Pay yourself (or a CFI) modest wage... say $64000. Plus.... electricity... general office expenses... non aviation equipment like printers, a computer... radio... oh, and loan interest plus capital payments. Doesn't leave a huge amount for actually running the plane for those 500 hours. Damn... I forgot to pay the CFI super and allow for holidays and sick leave. Can't imagine why anyone would be interested in buying a $150000 plane and "profiting" by starting a school. Training should be more like $400 an hour.

Different planes... Australian Lightwing GR912t though Coominya Flight Training is circa $155hr and $60/hr ground training time (both plus GST). Hire is $135 plus GST. Prices were current six months ago.

I disagree with you. (In reply to Admin) They didn't die to allow others to fly on at all. They died. That others learned from their mistakes or misfortunes and/or things then changed to ensure others didn't suffer the same fates is not a result of sacrifice. A sacrifice would be if a pilot went out and deliberately demonstrated a circumstance knowing it could kill them and did so specifically to create that learning and/or change in operations. If this was news media, to describe it as you have would be called sensationalism. Words are powerful things. They should not be misused. Sure, hold off and set up an award. Debate who is deserving until the cows come home. But I object to misdescription - my 2c.

How did anyone make the "ultimate sacrifice" so others could enjoy recreational flying? Have I misread you? It reads as though you infer some have died to allow others to fly on.

This is from a document that dictates no specific height for deployment, but suggests 2000 may be the minimum safe decision alt... somewhere else it stated 133kts max demonstrated for deployment... 500pages... Sorry, couldn't be bothered wading back through to find it again.

Ahh damnit I typoed. They are not really a first plane, it was meant to say. Mate, if you properly read my comment you'll see I said twitchy and added that this means responsive. Contrast it to some planes needing bigger inputs versus the smaller inputs required for similar movement in the cirrus. Trimming... you can refer to my note about pondering over whether it had been bent at some stage. I was there and saw this happen first hand:. When the GPS failed, the auto-pilot went too. Perhaps it was not dependent on it, in which case they failed simultaneously. Let me be clear - the GPS shut down and the autopilot disengaged Immediately. To be fair, I will admit I took the assumption and I did not hang around when it was bitched about at the tech's hangar... I was well into overtime and went home the second we pulled up. And now that I'm thinking about it, this was the same flight that the transponder turned itself off while still in the circuit at the Sunshine Coast... that particular first version SR22 spent a lot of time have electrical items fixed, and fixed and fixed... Make of that what you may. You just got me wondering if the failure was related to other electrical gremlins. I'd go ask, but the company that owned it started liquidation a few months ago... I pity whomever buys it. Edit: I neglected to mention your answer re IMC chute deployment... Yep. It may well be the lifesaving factor, I agree, hense my choice if the word "interestingly". I find it of interest that the manual dictates as it does. I'm not sure if you were bolstering some parts of what I mentioned or correcting me... gotta love the Internet for that. So many people do not read the literal meanings of words... it is downright bemusing at times. The chute deployment height, I took a look, it may change between models (series)... See below:

Have been in an SR22... They aren't poor handlers, they are, however, at least the very early ones, twitchy. Or, in other words, responsive to inputs and really a first plane. The one I've been in was cruising at 165kts. The SR20 models were slower, I believe. I can say I did watch a pilot get very tired flying one of these a relatively short distance when the GPS failed rendering the autopilot useless... He had to work hard and it never seemed to just settle, I've often wondered if this plane had been bent at some stage. I do like them. However, I know of one too many that have had ludicrous maintenance costs (one. One was too many). And as for the chute thing... I looked hard and never found any formal documentation that they had to have one... only conjecture and mostly that was from those who could never afford one anyway... Go figure. As for the arguments over pull the chute or not, the operators manual for the plane I was in dictated pulling it in almost every conceivable circumstance of emergency above (I can't recall if it was 2000 or 4000ft). This included, interestingly for a fully IFR plane, entering IMC as a non-IFR pilot. Enter cloud, pull the power then the chute. Declare mayday. I dunno if I'd try to glide one. It would likely depend on where I was, what was under me, who was I the plane with me and my mood on the day. One thing is for sure, with a failed deployment they have been shown to still glide. However, it is too late to pull the chute if you're smashed on the ground. I wonder if the types that will pull the chute without a second thought are also the types who will take a gentle (relatively) straight ahead crash in EFOTA.

It seems like some think it was the turn back that caused this. And there was a comment about a similar circumstance. I refuse to give the comment the credence of quoting it - but I will say it is remarkably bold to presume to make inference around skills and experience in such a way without full information being available. One thing is certain. Something went wrong. Whether it was error, failure, mistaken estimation or other, it will be surmised far better by those with direct access and that means those privy to the investigation findings. It is almost never as simple and often nor is it as per, any initial news report. Sad loss. Equally sad is this guess work. At least it proves some will analyse without real and tangible knowledge of specifics regardless to if it is someone they know, or not. I would dearly love to see, just once, a universal restraint from assumption and folks instead waiting for the report and some credible closure on the event. Have at me, but some of the comments here are bloody pathetic and self indulgent. Remember, this forum is publicly viewable, not only visible to members.

Went back for looks, FT. Up until the current Wellcamp website went live, the initial marketing site contained a similar list on what might be suited to operations/facilities at Wellcamp - it was behind the SITEPLAN tab. This was up all through this year and, unless I am mistaken, late in 2013 as well. It was also put, even back then, that negotiation (by any industry sector business) could be entered into for infrastructure to be built specific to the need and those facilities leased by the applicant. You may notice the list included "Aviation training and support industries". Regarding USQ... you are a little misguided as to the actual realities of that institution's offerings. Just in case anyone is reading this thread and mistakes FT's 'information' as accurate and intends making decisions around it (you fail at life, by the way, if you take this info as gospel when it would be more credibly sourced directly from USQ et al's websites) I have included a little clarification below. While the university is intending to base an aviation-aligned professor or associate professor at the Ipswich (on the Yamanto side) campus, the courses forming the currently offered aviation degrees are offered at multiple campuses and externally. Those courses are absolutely available on campus at Toowoomba. As far as the Wellcamp education facilities - yes, the training operator does current operate from elsewhere. What you fail to consider is fairly obvious implication that this could either represent that service moving to a multiple site operation OR a relocation. I would not presume to know which... but in either case, technical/practical training was very clearly articulated as intended for facilitation at Wellcamp. FT, as is becoming a fairly common happening, has inferred incorrect information.. again.

Surely you are taking the piss this time... surely.

HAHA!!!!! Do not.... I REPEAT.. do NOT allow Facebook to charm you over. Just don't. The Chinese do not know how lucky they are! The point was, however, which I would imagine most/many would have cottoned onto, is that joining groups to see only posts within those specific groups is pretty much a function similar to the groups of Facebook.

Have you met Facebook?

Not quite... at certain times when a particularly painful twat won't stop their twatiness, they are blocked indefinitely.

Um.... FT... I thought the idea of a training facility (at the large jets level) was noted back at the start? Meanwhile... commentary about light aircraft access to Wellcamp was never a blanket 'no'. There was a statement that public access by private flights at the lighter end of the aviation was not happening - in context, this was in relation to an assertion Wellcamp could allow Toowoomba to close as all operations including private flights generally could come across. That point was clearly articulated as not an option as Wellcamp was not going to be a free-for-all facility (not free as in no landing fees, free in the other sense) like Toowoomba. Light aircraft housed at the airfield due to hangar/facilities ownership were always going to allowed to operate... Frankly, as an individual, I am utterly over the continual bullshit being spread on the topic of Wellcamp. Some of this garbage is being perpetuated via traditional media, significant amounts online (what a shock...) and this site, in particular, seems to be home to a disturbing level of farcical commentary. The range of crap is from mild (which would be amusing if not for the sustained less mild carry on), to the contemptuously uneducated and manifestly wrong. Flippant remarks aren't out of place anywhere, but some people ought to get a grip on reality. Yes, FT, I will admit that I am referring to you as one (but by no means the only) to whom I refer.

I like the BikeMe! method... no smilies, no likes, nothing but commentary. When one is being a twat, they are told as much. Swearing is not moderated. Calling some-one out for being a twat unfairly results in the masses calling the caller a twat. It works. It works well. Amazing that...

I'm a few weeks behind on this thread... but surely you jest. It is as clear as regulatory authorities are a circus, that almost no-one bothers to look for information first before racing off not-even-half-cocked to discuss/debate/profess-to-have-knowledge on a given topic. I particularly enjoy the ones in which people post about what the "rules" around <any given topic> happen to be... in complete contrast to what the "rules" of <that topic> actually are...

Without a doubt, you are either one of the great trolls I have encountered, or special. I'm thinking special.

So when is Fly Tornado's Bulletin Service starting up? I can't wait to buy my copy of the first FT's BS...

Yeah, 01rmb... I think you missed that I am fully aware of this. Sometimes a point is best put across with a question... rhetorically asked. And, uh... it's a student pilot IS able to and that "NO" people thing isn't quite right. The requirements reflect the need for a non populous area to land, very different to 'no people'. Also, the draft is not quite how you put it... the draft instrument requires "at least one" control position to be occupied by a holder of a pilot cert or higher or (for VH) whatever the GA bit was... the pilot in command is responsible for this being followed... the pilot in command, under the instrument (not the summary) need only be flight crew. A student pilot cert is a flight crew certificate. A student is not a passenger. Amusingly, the burden of compliance seems to rest, potentially, on the student, not the supervising instructor, through I would imagine instructors would be captured by their obligation to ensure students adhere to all relevant provisions of law and policy in executing their role. It may appear nit-picking over a few words, to some, however there is a difference between what you just wrote and what I did... I suspect you got yours from the wording of the required notice proposed for placement inside each subject aircraft, rather than the instrument draft. If these documents were to be formally actioned, the sticker wording does not carry weight in interpretive argument over the mandated requirements. It is more a general overview and it doesn't adequately capture what the instrument actually says, in my view, on account of the inconsistent, in isolation from the entirety of the instrument itself, wording.

Hysteria is always hilarious to witness.... So... has anyone bothered to have a look and see what flight crew actually encompasses? Reason I ask is that it occurs to me that student pilot certificates are flight crew certificates. They afford the privilege to fly as pilot in command under supervision and preclude them flying with a passenger other than the instructor... So where does it say students can't continue to learn in jabiru powered aircraft?

Yawwwwwwn. Oh wait... she's the skinny one. Damnit!!! I'm busy.

I say "no" to this... some one else did too. Funny thing is, some people who threaten action actually will follow through. However, yes, there is a disgraceful willingness by many to beat their chest and say "I'll call my lawyer!" whereas precious few have their lawyer's direct number to do so and even fewer are aware they need a more than just one lawyer's numbers to cover various areas of specialty... Anyway... my point was going to be that I always find it satisfyingly amusing on the occasions I am afforded the witnessing of the pure shock those on the receiving end display when they realise <whomever> actually went ahead and lawyered-up. It's priceless... well, it's pricelessly about to become billable at a catastrophically high hourly rate... usually. However... if there is found to be a serious deficiency (of any engine, really) that needs urgent rectification, this delay would be seen as unacceptable and the proposed draft will be seen as a instrument that should have been effected immediately. Such actions, for the real cases (not saying that this is a real or otherwise, case) needs to be bloody swift and cannot function properly if cost is a factor in the decision on pathway. It sucks, but, assuming the case for sanctions has merit (re there being something to get fixed, so to speak), what other way is there to strong arm a manufacturer into making good? Well... not exactly. CAMit, as I understand it, owns half the intellectual property on the design of the engine. And, as such, had negotiated something of an agreement for the manufacture of the Jab engine to be done by them. However, as I understand it, there is nothing stopping CAMit from profiting from a design the owner part owns. And, despite being the same, it is not a Jabiru engine. Even Jabiru will tell you that. The internals have differences... specifically stated as being in place to overcome the issues spoken of with such fond-banter, on forums such as this (attributable to CAMit, this sentence). Funny, I replied saying something incredibly similar, to the email from RAAus.

The minimum you put is for rotary aircraft. Fixed wing minimum charge is $200. Interesting that you'd have heard that prior to about 1700 today (EDIT: yesterday... the clock ticked past midnight as I wrote this)... the info you were told *should* have been on the website was and is on the new site... it wasn't launched until this afternoon, however. Those discussing the lack of detail on the site maybe could consider the site was set up for the lead-up to now. Launching a site like the one you'll now see (be sure to refresh, ladies and gents) is not something that can be done in a short time-frame. Anyway... the site, as discussed up until the post preceding this one is not the site that now will appear. Have a look around. Enjoy.

Yes, FT, you are an arsehole. I wholeheartedly agree, there.