APenNameAndThatA

I didn't know it till last night, but they've now got a DA62 now, and doesn't it look niiiice! Still has diesel engines too!

 

Wouldn't a single-engine turboprop be better value for money, safer and easier to fly? Even if it was more expensive? Dislcaimer: not buying either. 

Have owned a Twin Commanche and flown the M20J Mooney over mountain areas and IFR.. Keeping this stuff in good order costs a fortune especially if it's IFR equipped, and it needs to be perfect if you are carrying your family as well AND you need to be  recent and competent in all situations. There's no de icing on either.  and just consider what it's like to encounter HAIL. Storing the plane safely  is another issue and getting to and from the airport. fuel etc.

 

 These considerations would make me say fly YOUR plane for fun and fly Airlines if the airlines go there. You will save money and anxiety and get there on schedule . Airline fares are  low and very competitive.  Nev 

 

Flying from home (or an office very close to home) to the hub might cost 30 to 40 % less because of tax advantages. 

Oh. Deliberately closing the airport is sad. 

At Archerfield, close to the centre of Brisbane, it is $20 to land ? 5 per day to park... and you can taxi for free! Controlled airport, too. 

Are you the same organisation that ran the Autralian STOL Championship in Tyab in April 2019. If so, where are the results posted? 

Good lord, Penname, where did you dig this up? The previous post was eleven (yes, 11) years and one day ago! July 9, 2008 to be exact.

 

PS. Cheap flying is an oxymoron.

 

Turned up in my new post feed! 

Just, wow. What was the hub you flew out of in South Australia?

Hi there. I am a long time lurker first time poster. 

 

I am looking to purchase an aircraft for commuting between my QLD and TAS farming properties. At this stage I will be landing at sealed airports and flying only myself, but I am planning one day to take the family (of 3) with me and land on either proaperty. I am happy to pay more up from to lower operating expenses. I would be keen to hear some suggestions. Note: please don't bother to suggest a Cirrus.... i had a friend in aviation insurance who made me swear never to fly in one.. I am aware of the diamond and tecnam twin piston offerings. 

 

From what I have seen on the internet, the recent extra training that Cirrus has introduced has decreased the Cirrus accident/death rate to a little below the GA average. That means that your friend is wrong to insist that you should not fly in one. It sounds like your friend has had to organise for payments on fatal accidents involving people that he knew and that that has skewed his thinking. 

As for taking your family flying, the fatal accident in GA is about 1/100 000 hours. If you fly your family 50 hours per year, then you have a risk of death of 1/2000 per year. The all-cause death rate for middle-aged people is about 1/2000 and for older children about 1/500. Those deaths include expected deaths, such as cancer, not just traumatic deaths. Assuming that your family members are healthy, and you fly them 50 hours a year, if they die, it will probably be in your airplane. Does that mean that you should not fly them? Nope. But it does not mean that you have nothing to think about either. 

Others have pointed out that if would be cheaper and more efficient for your to fly on an airline. It would also be cheaper to hire someone to fly you back and forward in their light aircraft, too. This means that the aircraft you should by is the aircraft that you will enjoy flying that will still be halfway sensible at meeting you needs. Which is will be more *fun*, a Cirrus, a Twin Comanche, a King Katmai, a Barron, a turboprop, a touring Extra 300? 

My Answer: one or two of the funnest planes around and fly between your farms and the nearest commercial hub. Or, to take your family, one or two Cessna 172's if they are short hops. You can work up to bigger and better planes. 

Disclaimer: I am learning to fly in an Aeroprakt A22LS Foxbat and have about 10 hrs so far. I am not interested in fun, but in being able to land on rough strips. Taking up one family member at a time will be plenty. 

Hi Tony

 

I think the schools are not focusing on teaching RA- AUS training - just a longer stream of income. They use it as a marketing tool and bambusal we poor folk are are very green.

 

You see I could not care less if I had to have a PPL or CPL or what ever. All I knew was that I wanted to fly. I will end up buying an RA-AUS aircraft soon - now I know about it. I am not a rich cash cow that the schools hope for.

 

It seems to me some internal marketing to RA-AUS qualifed instructors could benifit all. Even RA-AUS advertising in the flying magazines themselves. I expect the respose would be rather unexpected.

 

I have been reading them for years and had no idea what RA-AUS ment, just thought it was one of the things I needed. When it is gold on its own.

 

The common thread is that schools seem to meld RA-AUS and PPL stuff all together. I now relise I need all this ERSA at some point etc - but for crying out loud - I am there to learn to fly. Right now I can't afford lessons and I have a big blue Jefferson bag, cross country maps rules and books, I don't seem to need for some time. Suring to build my passion and get me into thte air for recreational flying is what is should be about.

 

So they seem to loose the plot that RA-AUS is a cheaper and different alrernative to PPL that is designed for the purpose of recreational flying. And unless you have some idea about what you actually need - they don't tell you. I visted 3 schools this year, several last year. Spent several hours talking to people on phones and face to face. Yet none of explained RA-AUS. As it turns out a PPL is not what I am after.

 

The point is I would have rather bought this stuff I need later - at a later date, and spent the money actually flying and "proper brief"s.

 

I know they all need ot make a quid - but if they seperated RA-AUS and promoted the benifits instead of a stepping stone to PPL, I think that it would keep more students and more RA-AUS members too.

 

RA-AUS has a limited visability to the uneducated. I only knew of "PPL" as a way to fly. I will never need 4 seats, and I want to fly for personal pleasure !

 

It seems to me that weight-shift trikes, powered parachutes and paragliders are what has replaced the cheap, rag-and-tube ultralights. I don't know much about it, but if you want to fly as cheaply as possible, at all times of the day, a weight shift trike might be the way to go. 

Unable to maintain straight and level flight. Sad, really.

Actually, the use of words that are not used in common conversations is an example of poor communication. When was the last time someone asked you if you would like a drink and you answered, "Affirm"?

No so. The communication is standardised and the words used in standard conversation varies with time and place. The words cant be the same as in common conversations.

Affirm and negative are better than yes and no because having more syllables makes them sound more different. Like yankee and November sound more different than y and n or yes and no.

Expedite has a technical meaning that distinguishes it from “whenever”, “soon” and “NOW!!!”

I too have learnt a lot from you, Nev.

Jack just ask twr to repeat, slowly - I told one major atc guy that was way to fast (you get some like that) I had Alzheimer's - say all again! - it took him 20 seconds to stop laughing and repeat. They don't have a problem when asked.

True that, they seem to be really polite and helpful. One was a *tiny bit* bit testy when people apparently did not read the NOTAM and kept requesting a departure that apparently was not available that day.

I guess the best part is I am training in controlled airspace, being chucked in the deep end is probably going to be beneficial in the long run. I do do listen to radio where I live as I have a hand held Aviation radio. My aim is to be very proficient on radio, it’s important.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

There is an iPhone app called LiveATC. I use it to listen to Archerfield. It has helped a lot. Looking at a map of the aerodrome and the approach points and picturing them in my mind as the pilots speak helps a lot, but is demanding. Knowing what they are going to say helps me understand what they said. Also listening to music at the same time as the app helps me get used to directing my attention to the radio when it starts. I suspect that if I talk to the tower slowly, they will speak slowly back to me. Disclaimer: have about 10 hrs recently. Archerfield has people say "dual" or "solo" if they are training, when they request to taxi. I suspect that that cues them to speak slowly or extra slowly.

What happened?

I think the best glide speed will be equal to Vy, which (without flaps) will be faster thsn 55 kt.

Wanting to know the approximate glide specs in distance per 1000ft @ optimum glide speed (which I think is 55kn?)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

Dunno. But Foxbat Australia knows a lot that is not in the POH. Suggest you find out the ratio and best speed with flaps (1/2 and full) and without flaps while you are at it.

Perhaps just a slip of the tongue. Maybe a quick call asking them to confirm their choice of runway would have resolved the runway direction issue.

 

I have heard inbound calls to Warwick on 126.7 and also heard someone else advise that they were calling on the wrong frequency, to which, the pilot responded with a “thank you”.

 

A few times I have heard professionals make basic position mistakes on the radio, someone queries them, they correct themselves and keep flying.

Hi

I am wondering how much I should charge my flying school to do TIF's and dual instruction on my Foxbat. I suppose I am wondering what hourly variable cost is, minus fuel; and what margin to put on that. It would be nice to keep it flying and have it pay for itself a bit. Thanks!

Correct.

 

[ATTACH type=full" alt="TGTP236.jpg]42333[/ATTACH]

Hay, more puns? Vote yay or neigh. Sur, a cingle extra pun, please?

Even if they go broke tomorrow, they will still be richer than I will ever be.

From the newsletter.

"You know when you’re flying along nicely, the landscape sprawls out in front of you, the sun is overhead and you are as free as a bird. You’ve done your fuel checks, heading checks and temperature, oil pressure, and airspeed are all OK. You think to yourself, wow what a great place to be as you listen to your engine hum. Then your aircraft bumps you, almost imperceptibly. Was it some turbulence? A bird strike? The smooth flying returns for a few minutes as you settle back down. Then you’re bumped again, rougher this time. And again. You now recognise it: your engine has started running roughly. Its pitch has changed and as you scan your dials you see you’ve lost some airspeed.

This is where RAAus is today in regards to our safety. The glorious autumn weather across our country has meant most of our members have gone flying, but it has also resulted in four weekends and four serious accidents, one of them proving fatal.

We’ve had a serious accident in Tasmania, where both members walked away following some quick work in the cockpit to get the plane back on the ground: a broken ankle and some cuts and bruises were the result.

A Victorian pilot while conducting a test flight encountered engine trouble, he made it safely back onto the ground in a nearby paddock: minor injuries upon landing were the result.

We had a fatal accident in remote Queensland on a property as part of a mustering activity.

And just last weekend, two members in Wagga, NSW, using all of their skills, got an aircraft back on the ground safely after an engine fire in flight.

In all of the press reports the headlines read along the lines of “lucky to escape”, “crash landing” etc etc. But generally, we know better than that. In three of the four incidents, pilot skill and training handled the inflight situation.

Notwithstanding this though, as CEO, I am a little concerned by these accidents and want to re-affirm our commitment to safety and remind our members of the need to ensure safe operations at all times. Whereas it is too early in any of these occurrences to fully understand the causal factors, they do serve as timely reminders that things can go wrong and that safe operations are the responsibility of all pilots.

For over five years now RAAus has steadily and deliberately improved our safety outcomes. These outcomes have been brought about by a shifting culture at all levels within the organisation. This has included our regular safety updates, member forums, online training, our annual professional development program, safety videos, safety management system implementation and occurrence management system. All of this is underpinned by our open and fair reporting culture.

We will look at the last four weekends and try and understand more about why these accidents happened. We won’t be throwing the book at any member, we want to learn and understand what went wrong, so we can use that as a tool to both educate those involved, but also educate our broader membership.

I know I speak for our Board, staff and every member: we all want RAAus to be the safest it can be. In achieving that we all have a role to play as a safety ambassador and talking to, communicating with those around us to ensure when we are up in the air all of our dials remain in the green."

I make the following observations.

1. Because randomness is lumpier than one intuitively expects, a short-term decrease in accidents does not mean that underlying safety has improved. The CEO seems to think that the good fortune over the last few years meant that underlying safety had improved. If you don't understand randomness, you can't understand the outcome of statistics for events that do not occur often. You can't "steadily and deliberately" improve safety outcomes over a short period.

2. The "glorious autumn weather" did not result in the fatal mustering accident, because they didn't go mustering because of the glorious autumn weather.

3. "Lucky to escape... but we know better than that". Actually, in all the good outcomes, there was some good luck and some bad luck. In the fatal accident, there was just bad luck. To say that luck was not involved was ludicrous. There were factors other than luck, but that was not the only factor at play.

4. "We won't be throwing the book at any member". I am not suggesting that anybody should have the book thrown at them. But what if an investigation shows up repeated disregard for safety and training standards? Suppose an employer forbade an employee for getting low-level flying training? Suppose if you don't lift the bonnet for 1000 hours a fuel hose might fall off? Presuming the results of a safety investigation is ludicrous. There are well-established ways of having a just culture and throwing the book at people who deserve it. James Reason is perhaps the best-known author for dealing with this.

5. "The need to ensure safe operations at all times". There is no such thing as "safe operations". There is only hazard multiplied by probability, and the balancing want/need to fly. I know it is counter-intuitive, but it is true.

6. "we all want RAAus to be the safest it can be" Ah, but you don't, and you shouldn't. The whole idea of RA-Aus is to enable people to fly more cheaply. And that means, fly with more risk. The CEO identified that training makes things safer. The bigger the airplane someone flies, and the more passengers they carry, and the greater the passenger's expectation of safety, the more training and regulations are present. (Whether or not the training and regulations actually make things safer is a related, but different, issue.) Stated differently, because RAAus has the smallest planes with the fewest passengers, lower levels of training and regulations are accepted. In other words, quite reasonably, higher risks are accepted in RA-Aus.

If the CEO *really* wanted to make RAAus the safest it could be, the first thing he would do would require PPL levels of training and GA quality of maintenance. But he won't and, for obvious reasons, he shouldn't.

7. "We will look at the last four weekends and try and understand more about why these accidents happened" This ignores that the underlying issues will have been present, and knowable, since before the accident.

8. Using a cheesy metaphor/simile to compare flying on a nice day and getting engine trouble, and a fatal accident is just a bit sick. Having someone die is just gut-wrenchingly awful.

Landing my Savannah S at our strip in Wairarapa, NZ. Janine on camera duty. The aircraft has 72hrs flown so far since July last year.

 

In my view this thread has drifted into collapsing two related issues into one and ignoring the original point-

1. Right or wrong there is a perception that RAAus registered aircraft operators are not paying landing fees AND unlike GA the register for RAAus aircraft are not visibility to airfield operators to seek recovery of landing fees claimed

 

2. In an attempt to address the perception of 1. RAAus management wanted to make thecregister visible to airfield operators to allow them to directly seek recovery from RAAus members of landing fees claimed.

 

This thread was about the actions of RAAus in agreeing and facilitating 2. By allowing third party access to RAAus database data of RAAus aircraft ownership and address details. 

 

If if you put aside the rights and wrongs of 1. And focus on 2. Only the issue is much clearer - access to personal information about RAAus aircraft owners is being made available to people outside RAAus for which there is no legal obligation in law to disclose nor direct consent from members.  

 

Put aside the moral or political “right” of aircraft operators paying landing fees and you have a clear issue.  

 

As a parallel- your doctor is asked by your insurer to provide them

 

directly with your medical history so they can decide on your premiums at renewal.  The information is potentially beneficial to you ...   should you object if you were not asked?

 

Similar - you are working part time following an accident at home and you are getting income protection payments from an insurer -  your employer is asked by the insurer to provide your payslips to your insurer to allow them to pay the correct part pay each fortnight ... feel you should be asked?  

 

And this is without ANY consideration of will the data RAAus allow others to see be held in their IT systems and how it will be used.