Jerry_Atrick

We don't have the draconian security requirements of Aus, despite being far more susceptible to terrorism attacks, but the GA scene here, too has required some mettle to stay involved. We are losing airfields left, right and centre; the CAA is interpreting rules rather strictly, the level of bureacracy at airfields is on the increase, out airspace management is a joke (go to skydemonlight.co.uk and check out the airspace in SE England), ATC is fragmented, class D transits are fast becoming a thing of the past, etc. And then add EASA on top of it, many people either went LAA, which seems reasonably well run, or simply hung up their headsets. But, I like to take a different approach and look at the positives - The CAA here have a strict liability rule, too. But they will only enforce the real bad or persistent breaches. I busted Heathrow's airspace back in Sep by about 400'. At the moment, the UK is taking airspace busts very seriously. The Farnborough West controller was right onto me, I immedately acknowledged and thanked him for telling me and entered a steep descent (after looking out). On landing, I gave Farnborough a call and again thanked them and let them know why (which was I was so focussed trying to get my call in on the overloaded frequency that I momentarily lapsed in concentration of where I was heading and went through a TMA step). They said they had to file a report by law, but given I was listening, responded and took action, it should make things easy for me. I never heard from the CAA. One of the columnists of a flying magazine described how he had a similar bust on the same day but was required to attend an online training session and test - he was not responding to calls from Luton, who he was speaking to in order to get a clearance. A Cessna pilot busted Luton to the overhead, orbited a bit, flew out of their zone, busted back into itand did the same before moving on. He claimed he thought he was at some mil airfiled miles away. Had his licence suspended for a year, I think. So, for me, despite the strict liability obligation, so far, it seems to be being applied rationally. Our LAA has had its critics in the UK forums, but is generally seen to be a reasonable self-regulator and the CAA give them virtual complete autonomy. They don't seem to have the restriction RAAus pilots have with respect to controlled airspace and flying over populated areas (they don't have full FRTOL's but I think they have to pass a cut down version anyway)., suitably equipped planes (which I believe can include some GA types like C172s an Warriors) can legally be flown in IMC as long as a) the LAA has expressly approved that aircraft for IMC flight and b) the pilot has an IMC rating (or IR® as it is now known). Also, they can go to France, Germany, Spain, Italy and I think, Austria without the prior permission requirement (but they can't fly IMC there). Despite the moaning, there is plenty to look forward to! @KRviator - I don't know your personal circumstances, but assuming nothing untoward, you have a great plane; you live in a country with open skies that affords you some fantastic flying. And the club scene is virtually unrivaled, giving a great social dimension which is lacking in most countries. Unless you think you are at grave risk of breaching a rule, don't let the pollies and jobs-worths win and shut you down. Unf, my SWMBO pulled the plug and our return to Aus at the last moment.. OK, the bushfires and the rain put a damper on things for a bit, but while we have Europe, which is also spectacular, I would bite someone's arm off to be back flying in Aus.

Quoting myself here.. that is pretty conceited On the raw numbers, no... but... see later... Again on the raw numbers, yes (note, I just had a quick look and wasn't sure why you were dividing kms by 30... but it doesn't really matter). I had my thoughts (based on the UK) .. .Intuitiuvely and anecdotally, my thoughts (as with others here) is risk could be expressed as Car < LSA+GA < Motorbike (I am GA but know a lot of LSA folk who thik the same). If I said I could have anything more than a guesstimate of how risky LSA flying is compared to car driving, I would be lying. But if came out with a straight, 1 fatality per 40,000,000 hours v 1 per 100,000 hours, that would tell me it is possible, even probable, that the risk of LSA flying is more dangerous than driving mainly because of the difference in magnitude - but it is not necessarily so. The road deaths are all road deaths.. we think this as drivers/riders and pax/pillions; and unhelpfully, there is no definition in the docs, but I found one here: https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/Road_Safety_Australia_1117 INFOGRAPHIC 2 March 2018.pdf and it includes "vulnerable" road users, which includes peds and cyclists (and motorcyclists). The data you cited for motorcyle fatalities (which I read as 15% of the fatalities, not 30%) was in 2008, and according to the infographic, vulenrable user road-deaths has been increasing as a percentage, so more up to date data could be used, but for our purposes it should be good enough. However, we would have to exclude all other vulnerable users as they don't figure in LSA fatality statistics - well.. they shouldn't have an impact as one would hope with the rules, we aren't taking out too many innocent bystanders when we bite it. And, as per previous posts, I would be looking to remove or smooth statistically irrelvant data until it is not significant. It may presently not be significant, but without analysis, I can't tell. Thinking for cars, I would expect that there would be a lot more journeys that are way outside the bounds of what would be attempted in an LSA weather wise, urban v. highway driving, etc that would materially skew the results. I have many times driven in thick fog - as have others. You mentioned the number of people per car/motorcycle..that is one other area to look at because the number of people dying per fatal incident may also be a factor. Maybe a split by factory and homebuild - there aren't too many homebuilds out there in road user land and there will be a huge difference in homebuild quality despite inspections, so including all homebuilds may also not be a fair comparison. You have to look at the numbers to work out what is statistically significant and for the purpose of what you want to compare. Some of the above may not make sense to smooth/leave out depending on the context you are comparing the risks for. I would believe these based on the fact the stats are compiled and analysed with appropriate model governance to provide assurance. As I mentioned earlier, motivation is not a factor, but the context is. Rarely is airline flying used as part of the enjoyment of the trip, especially long-haul. But, it is about from getting from A to B over longer distances So, a more accurate comparison of risk would be to exclude or smooth all those small car trips, or change the model to affect it. So instead of saying how many deaths per mile or hour travelled in an airline, you may use how many fatalities per passenger (or more accurately, occupant) mile or hour travelled and compare that to the same metric on a per-passenger/occupant mile/hour for road users. This can help smooth the dataset inconsistencies. You could seriously write a book on it. As an example, a few years ago, on a London radio station they made some comment about how polluting large ariliners are in that a one-way flight from London to Miami is the equivalent of the emissions of 8 family cars per year. So I called them up and on air explained why the logic may be flawed.. One of these aircraft hold, say 300pax. To keep it simple, multiply the 300 pax by the c. 4,500 miles. This is the same as taking one person 1.35m miles (give or take). Now, taking an average family car, and lets assume 4 people per car for the average of 12,000 miles per year. This gives us 384,000 miles for 8 cars; the airliner is c. 3.5 times more efficient than a family car. In other words, if we all drove the same pax miles as airliners do, the world would be a lot worse off than it is.

For the purposes of deciding when to ride my motorcycle, yes.. for comparing the relative safety of motorcycle riding to recreational (in the general sense) flying, no. We wouldn't normally "dump" data; we would normalise it to make a meaningful risk comparison... This might mean excluding outliers, smoothing spikes and troughs, using randomising and/or gaussian functions, etc.. Or it may be that one data set is not able to be normalised and does have to be dumped. There are so many differences between recreational motorcycle riding and recreational flying, I could have just said they are too differnt and left it at that. We don't; we say lets find the best way to correlate them and exlcude the worst to get a meaningful comaprison. Otherwise, I am simply distorting the figures, nominally to support my view? Who knows? The motivation is alsmost irrelevant.. but the factors that apply for a given situation or classification are. In this example, I was using similarities - not motivations. I may ride a motorbike because I want to feel the speed, live the leans and forces felt negotiating the twisties, or take my helmet off and feel the wind in my (two) hairs. I may want to fly a plane to be free of the bounds of the earth, avoid the crazy motorcyclists or just not have to sit behind other traffic (except at the airport). These are the motivations. I was simply looking for common data points with which to express risk or probability that are valid between the two activities. BTW, in terms of risk of fatality, we are taught the more experienced and current we are, the less risk we have.. this would intuitively hold true and I presume is based on statistical analysis; we may suffer an engine failure but if we are current and experienced (and practised), we may have a much better chance of survival than someone who isn't.. It does not stand, if we are looking purely and probability, that the longer we do an activity, the more likely we are to suffer a problem, but assume we are. We should then all fly once a month for an hour and we will all be OK, right? See above, and also this may be a definitional thing, but isn't the best selling LSA range, Vans? And don't they travel at decent speeds and altitude - better performance than your average GA machine? Morgans? And a plethora of other LSAs? Even microlights are getting faster and higher (the VL3 is probably exceptional, but blows the pants of most SEP GA high performance aircraft for speed and altitude). Over here, we can have almost calm ground conditions and at 2,000' easily hit 20kt winds... And higher speed winds the higher you go. 5kts average headwinds (without the numbers) seems incredibly small to me. There is an issue of cross-wind takeoffs and landings with lighter aircraft, but winds aloft are not representative of winds (or lack thereof) on the ground. Either way, it is still not a valid comparison anyway, because once in the air, you tend to fly constant airspeeds and more or less constant direction with well defined turning points. On the ground, you still have varying speeds per hour and are constantly changing throttle, braking, changing direction, slowing, speeding up, etc.. It is simply not a valid comaparison. As an example, my 170 mile one way trip to London on a Sunday evening ahould be able to be done in well under three hours; I try to maintain a motorway speed of 80mph and only 25 miles of that is not on motorway - 8 miles is on 50mph and the rest 30.. I can't be bothered with the math, but that would make it in the order of 2:35, but I rarely get it below 3 hours because there is always something to slow you down, somewhere.. Not so with flying normally. Agreed.. My stance is you have to drill down to a certain level before risk comaprisons are useful at all - the level you have to drill down to will depend on the differences in what you are comparing. But you are right, it is somewhat subjective as to the level of statistical error (or inaccuracy) any one person will tolerate before they will accept the finding. Re the below, I will go through in more detail later (I actually don't do the math anymore; I finished in model governance). Have to look for work now... ------------------- Let me say the same thing differently by asking you some questions. 1. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is safer driving a car? 2. In the light of the above calculation, what do you think the probability is that LSA flying is more dangerous than riding a motorbike? 3. Before the above statistics were presented to you, did you have any idea if LSA was safer or more dangerous that driving? If so, what did you base your assessment on? Was the thing more or less reliable than the calculation above? 4. Do you have a better way of comparing the risk? If not, do you not have a clue how dangerous LSA is compared to travelling by car? As in, no clue? 5. It is generally accepted that travelling by commercial airline is safer than travelling by car. Do you accept those statistics? Why? Commercial airlines travel vastly greater distances vastly faster than car, by people who travel for different reasons and motivations, and less often, so how can you compare the risks?

Bloomin' typical!

I like the new site... But a couple of suggestions: - Can we have the same likes that we have for RecFlying? I still have a problem of blowing a love-heart to other men for some reason? - Can it be configured like recflying in that when you click on a thread, it takes you to the next unread message? Otherwise, good for me...

You're only as young as thewoman you feel, they say ;-)

@APenNameAndThatA, I do disagree and the reason is you are picking an arbitrary comparison for a start... Based on @M61A1, post citing c. 90% of motorcycle accidents happen on days in good weather, and a good deal of those on the weekends, then this would imply two (or more, but for the sake of argument, let's leave it at two) things: a) Motorcycles are generally only ridden in good weather and mainly on the weekends; or b) of all the motorcycle trips that are ridden, 90% of accidents occur in good weather and of those, most occur on the weekend. There is a subtle difference between them, because, it may be that 90% of all motorcycle kms or hours ridden are during the week and variable weather and for work (courier, emergency services, etc) or to commute. If it is more towards the latter, then that would imply a few other things, namely either most of the good weather/weekend riders are recreational only - only bring their shiny chromed machines out on good days and although they may be travelling somewhere, the main purpose for the ride is to enjoy the ride.. the sort of equivalent of the $100 hamburger.. or that all those motorcylists that are extremely careful and safe during the week and in bad weather become lazy when they are recreationally riding. What matters is if you are lumping everything together, you are not making any meaningful comparison of risk, because recreational flying (be it in RAA or GA machines) will not nominally have the same characteristics by which to comapre risk. For example, the professional rider is riding much more frequently, in different conditions and in a different state of mind; he (or she) is more concerned with miles covered and getting to and from their destination in the quickest and (hopefully) safest time as their livelihood (and possibly someone else's life) depends on it. His bike is a means to the end. The recreational rider, like the recreational flyer, is more interested in enjoying their pastime - the journey is more often than not the reason for picking that mode of transport; taking in the sights, enjoying the weather, enjoying their destination, but possibly not bhe the main reason for their destination. Also, they are generally lilely to be periodical users of their aircraft - maybe once a week, fortnight or even month... (yes some are more frequent), and what about in the winter months (although granted, winter in most of Australia is a more forgiving environment for aviaton than winter in the UK). The professional motorcylist is likely to find themselves in urban and suburban situations; stop-start, slow traffic, etc (as well as other risks such as peds, dogs, stoopid drivers and the like). The recreational rider is likely to be on urban/suburban roads for the period it takes to get to the freeway/highway to get to the mountains or ocean roads, etc.. but they are more likely to be in rural or open road situations. The bike for the recreational rider, like the aircraft for the recreational flyer is, if not the end in itself, a big part of it. How you would compare the risk of flying to urban riding of a professional is a leap of statiscial analysis I have yet to see made valid. So, in order to compare the risk, you have to compare most like-for-like. We would remove the professional daily rider (or rides) from the equation because in terms of environmental, purpose, state of mind and other factors, they are not in anyway a valid comparison of correlative factors that make up the risk (except that they are both a mode of transport - may was well compare them to shipping accidents in the atlantic ocean). By the way, by cleansing the data, I am making recreational flying seem even more safe compared to our motorcyling brethren. Picking factor to express risk has to be valid, too.. The distance travelled, I think is not valid and here are the reasons: - As recreational biking, driving or flying is concerned, distance travelled is probably not the key purpose of the trip - the time on the favoured mode of transport is. If you decide you want to do a day trip, you work out how long you want to be flying/riding, pick a suitable destination and go for it. In when biking, we may look at a distance, but it will be based on how long it will take to get there at a speed, which is pretty constant. In flying, we may pick a destination, but due to a stonking headwind component, may bin it for something else in the time we have available; or we may extend the entire duration of the trip (say to an overnighter) so we spend a comfortable x hours in the aircraft. My point is for recreational biking/driving/riding/cycling/whatever, it is more about time (for flying, your licence requirements are measured in hours with only the x-country component requiring min. distance). - Comparing distance based on an average calculation of speed is erroneous. We are comparing ground speed to airpseed and in the air, we are almost always subject to a wind component that speeds us up or slows us down.. and I don't think one can reliably assume a net zero for many reasons. inclduing prevailing winds, time of day, rarely are routes flowin reciprocally, etc. At a couple thousand feet, you can easily experience a 20+kt headwind and by the time you get to your destination, the wind has dropped and you are experiencing a small tailwind on the way back. This does not affect ground vehicles in the same way. As another example, we have heard on these fora how people have been able to almost hover their aircraft in stiff headwinds; you may in theory take off into a 50kt headwind (somehow) and hold it there for your friends to see your death defying skill and get absorbed by it all that you forget that you had only an hours fuel, exhaust that fuel, stall, and lights out. You have not flown 1km, but have been aloft an hour.. To me, per hour seems a more realistic risk comparison. Going to your project analogy - say we were comparing the risk of bespoke software development and implementation v. buy off the shelf and implement. Th risk we are comparing between them is failed software development. Sounds reasonable, but I would not use the average of all software implementations - SCADA and ERP are different beasts with different risk profiles that makes the comparison meaningless. If I was doing an ERP implementation, I would strip out from historical data non-ERP projects.

I don't think it's double standards at all.. They have to take practical decisions; normally, the decision is to impose and enforce appropriate social distancing. For the demonstrations, it was a question of allowing it to happen to minimise as much as possible the contravention to social distancing; and as I understand they were conducted under a watchful eye in case things got out of hand - or interfere and guarantee maximum social interaction - and also put your police at unnecessary risk as well.. They had a developing situation for which they had to assess and determine the best (or in this case, the least worse) course of action. We may differ in our assessment of what the appropriate course of action was, but it is not a double standard. Any of those protestors in the normal course of events breaching or endangering social distancing et al would have been dealt in the same way as those in Rye - or anywhere else.

Of the airfields/airports I have been to, it is still one of my favourites, but I was filthy at them knocking down the playground to put up an office for Oxford Aviation...

Just picking up this thread and haven't looked at the maths in great detail, but if we are talking comparing risk of flying to risk of driving (or more accurately road use), then it is an almost impossible comparison. For example, we could use the absolute fatalities per time unit (hours) or distance travelled, but at best, both are crude comparisons best left to the senationalistic press. For example, what is the big factor (outside of the pilot/driver/rider/pedestrian) missing from this the above that would have a major bearing on the numbers if it were consistent between the two? Weather. If we took away all of the accidents that happened in driveable, but poor weather (and assuming most LSA flying is done in good weather, of course), we may find the statistical averages of fatalities per hour or per distance travelled quite different for the road users.. .but would that not be a more valid comparison? Also, traffic density... and other obstructions/distractions... In financial engineering, we have to do back testing of our risk models. This means that we have to effectively scrub yesterday's and historiucal and current data sets from all the noise that will distort the key findings and then apply the models. The maths applied to the scrubbing is usually as complex as the models themselves. Referring back to scrubbng the datasets so that we can approximate the weather conditions and model accordingly, well, you do the math.. It is not simple. Wherever we are with respect to operating vehicles, we can mitigiate most of the risks, but not eliminate them all.. But we should strive to minimise it to the lowest practical value.

@Roundsounds - I said get the nose over ASAP (for low mass types) - not ram it over - subtly different. @andy310r - at Royal Vic, their emergency checklist for PA28s when I was learning there was something alonng the CMF checklist... Very first item: Convert Excess Speed to Height. Over here it's trim for best glide, find a field then try anf find what you can to get it started. When I fly, I realise - especially as I get older - that I want to eliminate as many things to worry about in the event of things going awry. So, I always have enough fuel in the tanlks for at least 50% longer than my trip (or leg if it requires a refill on the way) and while I am flying, I try (don't alkways do it) to identify a good landing field if the engine gives up the ghost. When I am out of glide distance of that, I find another (always ahead of the nose). They have to be close to easily identified landmarks so I can get back. I sometimes forget to update the landing field as I fly out of glide distance of the previous one. But the idea is that if the engine gives up the ghost, I already know the field and don't have to to the WOSSSS (Wind, Obstructions, Size, Shape, Surface, (S)civilisation) and using precious time to ensure everything goes right.

LSAs are basically lower-regulatged GA machines these days... They give the GA pilot a great alternative to full GA. Over here, a suitably equipped LSA can be approved for instrument flying under what is now known as an Instrument Rating (Restricted); oddly enough, only available in the UK from all European countries.. Thrusters, Ikarus, et al are the domain of the British Microlight Aircraft Assocation. There was an attempt to merge with the Ligh Aircraft Association (LSAs), buit it failed because, apart from the peronality issues, they seek two different types of flying. Microlight flying is more expeinsive than ever, and I can't understand why. An Ikarus C42 has been around for a long time and is a basic aircraft, yet the cost for dual intruction at the local school is £148/hr. The GA school scharges £180/hr dual for a C150 - much more expensive to run and insure. I have to be honest, at a $32/hr difference when the price would be less than half to run even though they have to be slightly more regulated than non-school machines would move most people to the GA side. A C152 is still grass roots flying; A PA28 or C172 is really also.. The cost difference between them would be about £1500 all up... but give me much more flexibility and onluy a check out for the microlight.. apparently.

You beat me to it, @Flightrite. Also, increased urbanisation, public transport and ebikes are not the reasons urban kids are abandoning getting their car licence - computer games and interactive technology where kids can real-time communicate with others across the globe are a big part of it.. Unlike the games of my generation - those with enough money to have a colecovision, a Commodore64 or whatever could be geeky, but they still had to emerge from the BO-smelling rooms to interact with people. While some are happy never to interact with another soul, most need interaction. Today's technology, where you can multi-play games over the internet and at the same time talk to your team playing the same game and orchestrating against another team - and aspire to become an e-sports team member where they earn much more that AFL footy players - well, it's a lose lose and I genuinely worry about the next couple of generations. This is having the biggest effect on car licences.. games and tech are far more important.. In fact, I can comfortably tick off the list some countries I was going to visit because of the quality of tourguide webcasts and youtube videos. For private flying, the biggest issue is that satisfaciton of the senses for everything these days has to be gratuitous and immediate. How long and what sort of perseverence do you need to get a RAA ticket? A PPL here is now 9 exams (though the content hasn't changed) with all sorts of whacky rules if you don't pass one in a number of sittings (which is not what you think). Then you have to do all the training, etc. For a much lower price, you can get a VR simulator and enjoy it without the risk of crashing - no exams, learn as you go, etc. Though, I think flying is less impacted than driving. As a kid, I had no flying heros - I just loved aeroplanes and being in the air. I can't recall stories of any great flying heroes being regailed at any air league camps I went to . So, kids with an innate interest in aviation will take to the skies (finances providing) in the same way kids with an innate desire to drive will take to the roads (or, if they have a need). Also, in the old days, those Sandmans were decked out to attract another form of entertainement and I could never believe how successful they were (nor impressionable the willing participants were). They don't seem to hold the same allure these days. With respect to the market, I can only speak to the CoA aircraftover here.. It seems at the moment to be holding steady. In fact, I have noticed the asking prices of TB10s have been increasing steeply. Yesterday I sold my TB20 share more than I paid for it, but it had a bare metal respray.. in real terms I got my capital back as we contributed the difference to the resprary. However, I wasn't actively selling... since I am now out of London and the TB20 is based near London and the buyer was enthusiastic, it was a good time. He paid as much for my 1/8th share as a shabby but perfectly useable C150. Private (well, any) flying is a discretionary expense. In recessions, those whose spending power is most at risk will tighten their belts first. Which means, the bottom feeder aircraft prices will suffer as the people who can barely afford those will fall away. The higher end will probably hold steady or may take a slight hit. Think of the GFC - Sirrus and Diamon twins weres still doing well, thank you very much. Piper Malibus were still doing well, Archer DXs, not so.. The second hand and old twin market dies a horrid death - the latter never to recover; the former recovered slightly. In the UK, this could be a boom time for LAAs and BMAAs.. Except for the top end Vans, et al, which command pretty heft prices for what are two seat plastic fantastics, which will probably hold their value more or less anyway as they are top-end machines, bottom feeder CofA private flyers may well throw it in for the cheaper and moer grass roots LAA and BMAA flying. One can get decent one or two-up performance that competes with the 80 - 100kt range of bottom feeder GA planes for a fraction of the money... For example, my income has dried up with COVID.. COVID just brought it forward, it was a declining area I was working in; the problems was I was working on the next career transition (about the third) but it put paid to that. So, I am now contemplating what my next aviaiton move is.. There is a C172 non equity share (private rental agreement) at Exeter not too far away with a pretty good hourly rate compared to a school. There is a microlight school at Dunkeswell I am thinking of speaking too as well (problem is - dual instruction not allowed). I may well make the transition which will add 1 to the LAA membership.

I didn't know abouth Heath's vids, but often watch Scott's...

Would glide pilots requie ASICs if they oeprate from a field that requires ome?

I have to admit, I don't get the convert excess speed to height- maybe at low altitude and fast speeds.. but if I am crusing at even, say 5k' and I gain an extra 200' or even 500 - so what? I hae lost that time climbing and keeping an eye on the airspeed and then pushing over the nose, rather than looking for a good landing site (if I didn't already have one in mnd). If fact, over here, they teach just trim for best glide.. Obviosuly in a low mass RA, it is nose down ASAP.. but for your average GA even at 2,000', trimming for best speed while finding a good field sooner is better than pointing the nose up as you will get time at that height and not looking at the sky. . Also, imagine if you had an EFATO - habit to pull the nose up will kill you.. no worries, there.

Welcome back, Bcav!

Welcome, Fred.. Warriors are great, reliable planes. I used to fly with RVAC.. They still have a few of the Warriors I used to fly many years ago...

The go arounds were the right thing - so no mistakes... And some of those landings were smooth compared to mine ;-) Great vid.

Makle or female, compared to what we have today, an astounding achievement.!. For women, more so because while there is still a way to go in terms of gender quality, it was far more dofficult for them them. I top my hat to her (and all the others above). They have done much better than me.. and I have arguably had much more opportunity!

Welcome ol' chap! Let us know a but about yourself and your flying! JA

When we moved back to Aus we went with a service that provided an all in cost. About half was the landing fees and duties...

Hi Dave., Not on the other side of the world for some ;-) Welcome to the forums... JA.

Hi Andy, Welcome... I did it the other way round to you.. although not the CPL.. I flew from Redcliffe while I lived in Brissie for a short while -great aeroclub...

Many congrats @GoFly241! The C172 is a great platform (although I still prefer manual flaps and a low wing). Of course, there are LSAs that are quicker and use less fuel, but there is something about Cet a/c that keep me with them...