Mazda

Camden is fantastic, stay there, don't go to Bankstown! Airborne and Curtis are good, and if you like volunteering there are some youth organisations there which aren't bad either.

Flying is NOT perfectly safe, I've lost too many friends to say that it is. However nothing in life is perfectly safe. What we do in aviation is to learn all the hazards and learn how to minimise risk in every way. Systems are duplicated, checks are always done, maintenance is regularly carried out, and it is up to you as a pilot to learn all you can about flying, systems and regulations, and develop good decision making skills. This minimises the risk enormously. Car drivers don't learn about engines, systems, meterology, threat and error management, decicion making etc. Car driving is dangerous. If you don't want to accept that risk, don't drive. If you can't accept that flying has risks, don't fly! However there are ways to reduce risk and you will learn that in your training.

Get hold of a Basic Aeronautical Knowledge book, either the ATC one or Bob Tait, check with the school which they use, and get stuck into the theory!

I'll do this in bits, it keeps dropping out. The TIF sounds pretty normal, it's an overview and you do more detailed lessons as you go.

There are two Centres, Brisbane and Melbourne, and yes they have different frequencies depending on where you are. The "area" frequency may be Centre or radar, depending on where you are. If you are close to major centres the frequencies are published on the VTC and VNC. Beyond that coverage you can check the frequency on your enroute chart (ERC low). You may think of it as an IFR chart, but outside of VTCs and VNCs they are the charts which have the radio frequencies, airspace (including restricted areas) and grid lowest safe. If you are only navigating by WAC you won't have that information.

Brett my hotel is on the Langley park side, I could probably walk to there, is that a reasonable vantage point or should I head over to the other side?

Very good Country Kid. There's a bit more in the GA theory, but that's a good thing. If you do the GA theory exams, you can go to GA should you choose.

Remember that the airspace end state is NAS, where there should be quite a few recommended calls but few mandated calls, leaving the airmanship up to the pilot. Spin at the moment he couldn't legally join on base, but if the proposed changes go ahead base joins will come in with the CTAF changes.

As it stands with the pilot walking away, it is still an aircraft accident, not an incident.

I'll be back in Brisbane on Sunday so won't be able to catch up with people then!

Country Kid I seem to recall you were in the air cadets, could one of the older guys or leaders pick you up on the way to the airport? That seems to be what happens quite a bit with the youth groups I've been associated with. Otherwise, do get stuck into the theory. Just be careful about when you do the exams though if you plan to do a 150 hour syllabus because if you get ahead with the exams you have to do the 200 hour syllabus instead.

Shags I'm not far from you (and Crezzi from the sound of it!) Wouldn't it be great to have an airport somewhere nearby? Since moving here from interstate I have been astounded at how unprofessional some of the schools are. I really can't recommend anywhere in Brisbane for GA (for the type of training I've been after anyway). Archerfield is a complete disaster. One school has been given a wind up notice, another has had a disastrous run of instructors coming and going. Caboolture has a good variety, the schools have limits on what they can teach but I'm sure you could do CPL. It's not that far. Not a bad place. Redcliffe has that new school, probably the one you are talking about, I'm not sure what they are like. My experience with the aero club there was not good, but they do concentrate on other types of training (ME CIR I think). You might think Caboolture is a long way but I haven't found anywhere that can help me so I need to head off to Toowoomba, and that really is a long way!

Flying from Lilydale, as Darky says you could try Lilydale flying school, with RA-Aus and GA. Djpacro on here is a good instructor that area, you could ask him too. It is cheaper to fly RA-Aus aircraft but talk to the school because sometimes it seems people take longer to solo in the RA-Aus aircraft for some reason. Extra hours means more money. Ask advice from the school. I prefer sticks, I think most people do. Cessnas and Pipers tend to have yokes but there are plenty of other GA aircraft with sticks, and plenty of RA aircraft have sticks. It doesn't really matter whether you learn with a stick or a yoke though because you will most likely fly all sorts of aircraft as you progress and it doesn't take long to get used to stick or yoke.

I'll be there on the Saturday only. I didn't even know it was possible to book a grandstand seat. Is that worth it or where are good places to watch from?

I didn't see it so can't offer much, but if there were any regulatory breaches it should be reported to CASA. By the way, there's no approval required to do a formation flight as long as the pilots are endorsed.

Welcome Winston. Yes, you are in the right place, there are plenty of GA people on here. GA is general aviation, and in this sense we are talking about aircraft on the civil register (the VH ones) and CASA licensing. The other option is to fly RA-Aus aircraft, which are cheaper. Risk is an interesting subject. Flying does have risk, and as you gain skill as a pilot one of your responsibilities is to manage that risk. Don't let people tell you flying is perfectly safe, because it isn't. Sometimes I think that's why people want to fly, like they want to ride motorcycles. Flying gives you the freedom of 3 dimensions, views the majority will never see, and enough variety and constant learning to ensure you won't get bored. Risk is minimised in every possible way, right from the aircraft design, to the pre-flight inspection and engine run ups you do before you take off, to learning aircraft systems, and knowing what to do in the event of any issues. Part of the training is actually called "threat and error management" to identify and address any potential risks. It might even come down to things like weather - should you fly today, or go out for lunch instead? To start with your instructor has to make those decisions, so for the first few lessons just try to relax and learn!

Thanks for the vivid description!

Well done Moy! It could be worthwhile to do some limited panel flights with your instructor. The aircraft flies just fine without an ASI, and you did the right thing by going back to "power and attitude = performance." I remember doing circuits with most instruments covered during training, and it was a useful experience to have when I did end up with dodgy airspeed readings (often from water in the pitot line after rain).

No need to despair! It's very normal to have some good days and some bad days, especially when conditions are different to what you are used to. As you progress you will find the bad days become fewer, and the good days become more frequent.

Here we go again. Firstly, Rocket. You've quoted the lift equation, well done. The problem is we are not talking about lift alone, we are also talking about thrust. You might remember there are 4 forces acting on an aircraft (plus the tail balancing force). If you take away the issue of thrust to overcome the drag, you are talking about gliding - hence of course you have to use attitude as there is no thrust to overcome the drag. Graeme. Which way will it go? Depends on the thrust/drag configuration of the aircraft, the centre of pressure (eg swept wings). So for those giving examples, that may be true for that type, but don't think that is the case for all. What WILL happen though is if you maintain the attitude, the aircraft will slow down, and of course at some stage you will have to lower the nose to keep flying speed to avoid a stall, because you no longer have thrust to overcome the drag. For many RA/GA aircraft, the thrust/drag couple is designed to do this automatically (idiot proof?!) so the nose is likely to drop to maintain speed. This is a design feature, not an aerodynamic principle. Now, for the students reading this. I really, really don't want to get into complex aerodynamic debates here because from what I've seen, there are some basic misunderstandings of aerodyamic principles. My advice is to take advice from the real experts - those who have studied the subject in detail - experienced airline, military (such as Mr Kruse - one of the most successful GA instructors), competition aerobatic pilots, or suitably qualified professionals. Please don't take advice from those who have been shown one way decades ago and believe anything else is WRONG. When I started flying I was taught to use attitude for speed, and I did so for many years, until an aerobatic instructor said "let's try another way." Like some people here, I thought the guy was an idiot and was clearly WRONG because my other instructors taught me differently - I'd managed OK so far. Until I actually took the plunge and did what he suggested. It worked, and worked far better than the old way. Yes, of course you can get by using attitude for speed, it works - up to a point. If you are only ever going to fly as you are doing now, stick with what you know if you are not interested in trying an alternative. But when you start flying something of higher performance (or if you start flying instrument approaches) that technique fails. My issue for the students is why not start out with a method that you can use in everything from Jabirus to A380s to fighters? For those who are using attitude to control speed on a powered approach and say anything else is WRONG, have you actually tried both techniques?

Wise words Dog, it pays to be sceptical. However it also pays to take advice from experts in their field, and Mr Kruse is one of those.

Here's one way to think of it. Imagine you are in the circuit and decide to slow things down a bit. Maybe you are in a higher performance aircraft than usual, maybe there is traffic ahead. What do you do? You use a lower power setting. i.e. you reduce power to reduce speed. Imagine you are trying to get somewhere in a hurry. You don't lower the nose, you fly at a higher power setting. Increasing power = more speed. Everyone does these exercises in their second ever flight, straight and level, cruising at different airspeeds using different power settings. You are in bumpy conditions and need to reduce speed to turbulence penetration speed. How do you do that? You reduce power which reduces airspeed. You are doing a cruise descent and want to maintain your cruise speed. So you reduce the power setting. Reducing power = less speed. You are flying in instrument approach and need to remain within the category airspeed and on profile. You control speed with power and stay on profile with attitude. You are flying in formation and need to catch up to the leader. You add power to increase speed. If you are flying too fast you reduce power to slow down. You are taxying and approaching an intersection. What do you do? Reduce power to slow down (then brake if necessary). The times when pilots don't use power for speed is when there is no power available - i.e. in a glide, or in a full power climb when there is no excess power available. I think this is how the attitude for speed on approach started, when approaches were set up to be glides, with no power available, however that is not the way we fly in normal powered stages of flight.