68volksy

It was quite a long discussion from memory. It needed to be with a guy (me) who was very green on entering this aviation world. She basically explained all the factors that you're exposed to with flying (weather, other pilots, other instructors, different aircraft among others) and then how each of these factors might affect the aircraft and/or pilot. Main factor I always remembered and that has proved so true was the 4 seasons that we get and how the aircraft (and pilot) performs so differently in each season. Summer really bumpy with poor aircraft performance, the rainy periods when it's still ok for an amateur to fly (and the rainy periods when it's not!) etc. I've always marveled that you can look at a clear blue sky in the middle of summer and a clear blue sky in the middle of winter and the two are so very different once you're off the ground! Also how uncomfortable that "perfect" summers day of blue sky with scattered cloud can be once your feet leave the earth! The longer I've spent hanging around the airport the greater the variation in flying experiences seems to get also. I'm a risk-averse kind of chap and have always figured the more of these experiences I can discover with someone who has been through them before beside me the better.

I agree with the condensed version of training being more dangerous turbo. The CFI of my school is usually pretty blunt with people who turn up demanding a full-time course. She has always been more interested in creating the safest pilots possible rather than the dollars involved. I was one of the "quick as possible" brigade before I started and her answer changed my entire approach to training. Other schools seemed to see nothing more than the wad of cash in my pocket! I pity anyone who's been sold the "package" licence deal (unless it's from one of the airline training schools). In my view they've bought nothing more than a lot of very scary and dangerous experiences once they're set loose on their own.

Sorry - 30,000 hours flying not circuits - although that was how my pre-solo era felt... Not bad for a guy with no airline experience though.

It's funny how often the question of overtaking in the circuit degenerates into the "wide circuit" debate. As an avid flyer of wider style circuits i'm more than happy to stand up for the practice. Under constant pressure from what i'd been reading and what people had been telling me i was constantly trying to make my circuits tighter. It got to the stage where it was getting stupidly dangerous (not his words) according to my instructor so he had me fly what he termed his "standard" circuit. After 30,000 hours of flying circuits (with 14000 in Warriors/Cherokees) I was inclined to trust him. Now flying a circuit in the Warrior is a simple and extremely pleasant experience with plenty of time for everything to happen and speed adjustment. Except for when someone tries to cut me off and I can't see them! I'm more than happy to do my downwind leg at 110kts if i'm holding someone up and on a couple of occasions have done just that. No matter how hard you try the 6-8 minute circuit time mentioned above has to be pretty much spot on. I average about 7 minutes for my circuits.

This has come up over the years at the local airfield with a mix of everything from gyros to Citations. I know it gets a lot of traction at other locations also. In my view the answer is a simple "it's pretty much impossible" as all aircraft must overtake on the right-hand side of an aircraft they're approaching from behind. This is a very basic and simple rule that removes a great deal of danger from the process (especially if accompanied by polite radio communication). Need quite a big speed difference between two aircraft for one to overtake another in this manner in the circuit pattern - probably just enough to push the circuit heights apart by 500 feet also. This seems to me a safe and practical solution - what do others think?

Just sitting here stuffing envelopes and got to thinking about our current training standards. Particularly interested to know just how competent people felt (and more importantly how competent they might now feel they actually were) in their abilities when they first got their licence? I've been loitering around the pre-GFPT stage for many years now (not too fussed about it - just fly when I want for fun) but i've often thought it well and good to pass the test but having been around the aviation scene for 5 years now i'm quite comfortable admitting i've got nowhere near the situational awareness of any instructor i've ever flown with. Just sitting around the airport on weekends it's pretty obvious i'm not the only one in this boat. After many lessons with a 30,000-hour instructor and his responses when young or inexperienced pilots come wafting along and don't clearly state their location or intentions (if anything at all) it's often made me wonder about people's perception of their own abilities and whether the training we're doing can make any difference?

The articles all speak of doom and gloom at Canberra Airport but the view is quite blinkered. They keep mentioning no flying training down that way but that's not true at all. See www.canberraaviation.com.au - been providing training down there since January 2011. I'd love to see an RA-Aus friendly airport in Canberra though and do not envy these guys the mountain they've chosen to climb.

It's just so damn easy to stuff up in this world of flying. Unfortunately those stuff-ups can tend to hurt a bit more than other forms of recreation. The stuff-ups can be made by so many people other than us who we have little control over. Other pilots, aircraft maintainers and airfield maintainers being the main ones. You really can never be too careful if you value your own safety and that of your passengers. Even then its nothing more than a momentary lapse or missing the most minor of things that brings it all undone. It's a damn serious sport. We need to look after each other.

Very glad to hear all occupants walked away. Any indication of whether they were overloaded or anything out of the ordinary? I'm reliably informed it's pretty damn hard to flip a Gazelle onto its roof! Big bounce? Instructor or CFI on board? Once again very glad to hear no-one was hurt.

All well and good getting a pass in the exam - most concerning to me is how much is actually remembered and who keeps up with changes after a little while! If you head along to an Avsafety seminar or to you can get a good grasp of just how little the average GA pilot actually remembers or keeps up to date with. At a couple they asked the "How much fuel do you need to carry" question and it was stunning just how few actually knew. There were some coming out with regulations from the 70's for goodness sake! Another good indicator of how little we keep up to date is the amount of radio calls you still hear starting with "All stations". It's really the most minor of changes yet it's a great indicator of people not keeping their knowledge and abilities current in my view...

Hi Pete, Have you talked to robinsm about long distance trips in his Xair? He had a couple of neat ideas for storing extra fuel although i think it was pretty much a single-seat conversion... Plenty of room in the X-air as you say - makes the old Warrior feel very cramped!

Welcome General, I must say it's a beautiful plane indeed that Aeronca. I can't say how nice it is just to see it every time I head out there.

75 hours seems nowhere near enough hours in my view. Even the GA limit of 200 hours minimum seems pretty much useless. However if the CFI in charge is competent then things should, in theory, be fine. By competent I mean hard-nosed and immobile when it comes to safety procedures and pilot competence. They'd also need to actually be there supervising these 'green' instructors. There are plenty of (mostly young) instructors out there waving around a fresh "Instructor Rating" from schools who care more about the fees generated by the student than they do about pilot competence...

One thing we found with the finance companies that take the aircraft as security was the extra insurance requirements they have. Whilst it's generally accepted in the industry that $1mill public liability per seat is adequate, the finance company was asking for $10mill minimum. Put the annual costs of the finance up substantially. As the aircraft was being cross-hired to a flying school we were able to obtain a simple business loan using the equity in a house as security. Cross-hire makes good sense tax-wise if you're after deductions also - the government will pay up to 48.5% of the costs of running the aircraft!

I'm with robinsm on this one. The more options available the more people we'll have in the air doing what we all love! I think it's more of an amendment to the GA licencing regs rather than the RA-Aus regs so rather than a weight increase for RA-Aus aircraft, it's an option for GA licenced pilots to fly GA aircraft in a restricted way. Seems a very sensible half-way point between the unrestricted GA licence and (what some people see as) the 'heavily restricted' RA-Aus licence.

That's a very good point Nev. Factoring in the depreciation of the aircraft would be a major consideration in any RA v GA investigation and I don't seem to hear many people talking about it.

I'd like to pose a similar question (hope it's not too far off-topic): Does anyone have an aircraft that is GA registered and maintained but which could be RA registered and maintained by the owner? Do we have someone who maintains such an aircraft themselves? Might be a good chance to actually see the difference in cost between the two. I'd ask owner-maintainers who keep very good records (receipts) if possible.

All the Cherokees were dipped at the factory according to Piper and a couple of old LAME's. The old ones we fly have certainly seemed to hold up well. Old mouseketeers however...

Personally the GA option is the only option for me when looking to own an aircraft. Everyone loves the fact RA is "cheaper" and then go on to say it's because "you can do your own maintenance". Not for me. If you ever come over i'll show you my lawnmower as a prime example of why i don't think i should maintain my own aircraft! If you're interest is primarily in flying, you value your own safety and you've no interest in spending countless hours fiddling/fixing then GA is the option. That said if I could find a LAME willing to maintain a RA aircraft to GA standards (and sign off as such) then it would look a lot better for me. I started doing up a 1968 Beetle when I was 19. At the age of 31 I finally figured out that i'd rather be driving the damn thing then sitting there up to my elbows in grease with no skin on my knuckles swearing at a lump of inanimate metal... Each to their own in that regard. I'd recommend a Cherokee 140 in that bracket also. More power, considerably more carrying capacity and pretty much the same price. All factory corrosion proofed with no spar life limits. If you can find one maintained by a reputable LAME then you can be pretty confident it's in good flying order. As a few LAME's have pointed out to me the old Lycomings can fail but they'll give you plenty of notice that they're on the way out. You'll pick one up with a half-life engine for $30-40k. Keep it rated night VFR instead of IFR and you'll save a fair bit come maintenance time.

Engine out on take-off. Put it down in a paddock off the end of the strip. Pilot suffered minor cuts and passenger was taken away on a stretcher as a precaution against possible back injuries. Local media reporting it as a "miraculous" escape from certain death. We locals are calling it a good example of why our training involves so much practice of engine failures on take-off. He actually used one of the paddocks we've all picked for this exact occurrence! The pilot has only owned the plane for a few months so it's a pity to see the poor bird hurt. http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/news/local/news/general/plane-down-near-goulburn-two-hurt/2436570.aspx

Anyone heard of an ultralight down Wollongong way deciding to refuel on the golf course in the last day or so?

They hand them out as prizes at the Avsafety seminars. You could also get them at CASA stands at airshows and flyins (along with those squeezy planes). I love 'em. The guys at work are even nice enough to return them to me once they're finished with them...

I think the ATSB/CASA were waiting patiently for an RA-Aus incident/accident to involve more than a pilot and passenger. The last ATSB investigation involving an RA-Aus aircraft was the LaTrobe valley mid-air from memory. That aircraft was an amatuer-built and, apart from saying it had no maintenance records for over 10 years prior to the accident, they dismissed any construction issues. Pilot had 2400 hours also so they could dismiss training standards - although the instructor of the first-solo pilot of the 150 involved was dragged over the coals a little. This being a factory-built aircraft, flown by a low-time pilot into a public gathering has a much better 'bang for your buck' from the ATSB/CASA's viewpoint i'd think.

Just talked to Teraya about her ultralights and Avdata fees and she says she does get charged at other airfields that use the Avdata system. It's the right thing to do for someone running a business.

The "charging RA-Aus through the Avdata system" debate has been on for quite a while. No-one was really fussed about things when Council owned and ran the airport. People would have paid if anyone had asked but Council's focus for the past 10 years has been to sell the airport rather than run it properly - that's a debate for another day and anyone who has any energy left to do so. The current lessee of the airport is out there a lot of the time and if he felt like it could walk over and demand payment. Teraya's always paid the Avdata fee for her ultralights - I can ask her whether they get charged at other airfields who use Avdata unless robinsm can answer directly.