poteroo

It occurs to me that the lesson in this tale of unhappy conversion experiences is - think ahead and only do your RAA PC at a school where you can then transition onto RPL and PPL. With this approach, you will be meeting the standard for RPL/PPL right from the start - same instructors, just different syllabus. For a c172 conversion over to RPL, I'd expect that an RPC with 30-35hrs TT - should be able to do it under 10hrs, and that includes the IF. This, particularly if the pilot has been well trained in 'attitude flight' from day 1. GA aircraft are 'tanks' compared to RAAus, and certainly easier to fly. I can't understand why some GA instructors make such a big deal about it. The other point that I'd make about conversions is - temper your enthusiasm and don't aim too high. Do your RPL without traffic pressure somewhere up country, and then look at doing the Class D CTR endo. Look at full PPL later on. You can fly over 98% of Australia with an RPL + D CTA - isn't that enough for starters? As to the box-ticking exercise that flight training has become - it's done to cover bums, nothing more. At my stage of life, I'm going to continue to focus on the basics, and if the student forgets a few small items, or is a little inconsistent - I'm not going to pedantically hold them back. And, I write that into their student records! happy days, and good luck RR.

Most GA & RAAus aircraft are underutilised. The real killer in the cost of aircraft operation has been the massive increase in fixed costs, eg, insurance, hangarage. Combine these 2, and you can understand why a privately owned aircraft, flying 100hrs pa, costs so much per hour to operate. If you look at an aircraft using 18LPH of P-ULP, that's $30/hr. Not a lot when you consider the aircraft might be costing you $2500 insurance + $1500 hangarage, eg, $40/hr with 100hpa usage. With 400hpa, your fixeds drop to $10/hr in this case. Your fuel and other usables such as maintenance remain the same. Aussie pilots could be flying much cheaper, if they shared and flew just a few more hours. But, Aussies want to own their own 1/4 acre block, their own house, their own car, their own boat, their own aircraft - they just find it difficult to share. Yes, there are a few very successful group ownerships around, but I stand by my contention that we are our own worst enemy with respect to costs of aircraft operation. happy days,

Like minds! The part 141/42 Flight School is only required for 'training for the issue of a licence, a rating or an endorsement on a rating' Remedial training required from a BFR does not fit into any of these stated boxes - it best fits into 'competency training' under 61.385, and an independent instructor can conduct this. I have been on CASAs case over this anomaly, but so far....silence reigns. Part 61 has been a mess right from the start: why we couldn't simply accept the FAA version, (as has NZ), is the question? Another 'make work' exercise in Canberra! happy days,

The 61.385 competency training on a different aircraft is, to all intents, a BFR for the pilot. Why CASA then state that a BFR cannot be done outside a Part 141/2 organisation simply defies logic. Likewise, the training for a RPL should be allowed outside of Part 141 schools. CASA's problem will then be with providing 'Flight Examiners' to conduct all the initial issue checks. It seems CASA have gone 'half-way' to meeting the ICAO rules - the usual 'fence-sitting' while they dream up a reason why Aussie pilots will have to be different from the rest of the world. happy days,

I'm in agreement! CASA have only recently decided that we can have 126.7 as our Class G frequency, but then, just to signify their unhappiness at having been 'rolled,' (by >80% mind you), they threw in a 20nm radius airspace for CTAFs. Talk about dummy spitting! Yes, this minor change to medicals is going to allow a few oldies such as myself, to cling onto our ability to instruct in GA for a little longer. My DAME says that once Avmed have you recorded for any specific issues, there is no way they are going to give you a Class 2 without the very same array of tests that they currently demand from a Class 1 renewal. That's progress? The assertion by CASA that it would encourage old 'airline' pilots to come and instruct in GA is laughable. Most of these pilots never want to see an aircraft again - they're off yachting or blending wines down at the vineyard. It will help keep some older (lifetime) instructors going for a few more years. But other roadblocks keep appearing, eg, the onerous new requirements for ATOs, which is likely to see many of the experienced ones exit the industry because of the changes and the lack of CASA professional Indemnity insurance cover. happy days,

My 610 has a BEW = 365kg Available weight = 235kg I weigh 73kg, my co-pilot = 50kg so, 112 kgs available for load. Full fuel = 130L = 95kg, so we can legally carry 17kg bags. Short distance flights, we take 90L (66kg), so have 46kg available. Range at 90L = 5 hrs flying = 4hrs + 1 reserve = roughly 200nm and return. As I've said previously on this forum, pax weights are where the numbers get out of hand. However, if CASA decide to allow a gross weight increase, an extra 50-100kg will make the 610 into a very capable aircraft. However, as pilots we all understand the relationship between weight of aircraft and its Vs, and the take-off/landing distances required, plus the rate-of-climb effect. You want to load it up - beware, it becomes just a little more exacting to fly, you burn more fuel, and on it goes. For many RAAus aircraft, any increase in weight may push them over the 45KIAS stall speed. I've done several 5+ hr ferry flights in this 610, and never had a twinge in my back, and my legs, whilst a bit stiff, were usable. Good seating is worth heaps - would you buy an uncomfortable car? happy days,

Don't think the others are going to answer you, so I'll step in. Once you become a senior, with a few aches and pains, some difficulty in getting into/out of aircraft, and need seating comfort and cabin space, before worrying about weight - the answer will come to you. I've instructed in all 3, am 77yo, and can say that the Brumby is just a cut above in cabin space and seating comfort. It's also a little faster, but uses a little more runway, tho this shouldn't be a dealbreaker unless you plan to operate off your front path. happy days,

Agree When China Southern 'contracted' to the WA 'China Southern' flying school at Merredin/Jandakot to train its' cadets, (20 yrs ago), - the rumoured figure was USD120,000 per head to get them up to CPL +ATPL subjects + CIR + ME. Now, we have Qantas thinking they could do the same thing on a A$150,000 price. It does not seem to add up. Yes, I'm sure that Asian and other o/s airlines would be very happy to fill a QF branded school - simply because of the 'name'. And if you were an Aussie student pilot, having passed the QF school standards would open doors for you outside of QF. Methinks that QF might find very few of the pilot output actually want to work for them in the end. If you've paid for your entire training, then you'd hardly want to sign a contract 'bonding' you to QF indefinitely. It will be interesting.

Good advice. By the time you've completed your licence, you'll have changed your mind about which aircraft you might buy, or whether you'll join a group ownership scheme, or whether, (in the light of costs etc), you'll rent what you need. Most pilots who envisage flying the 'family' away for holidays, or friends to wherever - usually find that after the novelty wears off, and/or the pax have a rough trip - there will be empty seats forever. Be selfish - it's your hobby. Schools are regularly asked to teach in owners aircraft. It's not a problem if: it has sufficient load carrying, it has adequate instrumentation, avionics, intercom + decent headsets, fully functioning dual controls, it is insured to cover solo student flying,(ouch!!), and it is maintained according to RAAus/CASA rules. All this costs! The fully functional dual controls is a very relevant item: and it includes brakes with RHS controls. happy days,

Is the ball precisely centered while on a/p? Your a/p may well fly you on a straight track, but it could do this with crossed controls.

May not have been due to any carby effect of the negative G's in the reported pushover. May have been due to 'unporting' in the fuel tank outlets - especially if the tanks were low on contents. However, the wreckage carried a strong fire, so there must have been some quantity of fuel remaining. I've flown a large number of C180s and, because I always select BOTH ON with fuel - very few of them drain fuel out evenly. Try as one may at holding perfect balance, it seems that one tank will drain ahead of the other - L usually. Once the 'usable' fuel is drained down to the 'unusable' level, the fuel port is close to exposed and air could get into the fuel lines. Unporting due to negative G might create this situation - even with usable fuel remaining in the tank. With the fuel selector set on L or R tank, the unporting, (of the tank in use), could happen while the aircraft still had adequate flight fuel on board. In which case, the aircraft engine could suffer temporary/intermittent fuel flow, which could be critical if flying low, as this aircraft was reported. I'd be very interested if the NTSB had published where the fuel tank selector was set. As a warning to Aussie pilots, if you have been taught to always select C100 series aircraft fuel to L or R, instead of BOTH, then go and read the POH. You'll find that it says - fly on BOTH unless you have a damned good reason not to. I have seen so many 'Pilot Notes' which say to fly on one or the other and time your use. Yes, time your use, but don't fiddle with the fuel tank selector!! If your Cessna 100 series tanks don't drain evenly: (1) learn to fly in balance (2) adjust the tank vents Explanation: The fuel tank selector handle is locked with a pin/screw arrangement onto the vertical shaft, which gradually bells out, and you can feel the sloppiness in the handle. The ports in the selector body are only open for a few degrees, and for them to be fully open - the selector must click into the relevant detent. No click = not full fuel flow. Failing to get the selector to click into the detent can, and has, caused fuel flow interruption and a forced landing. Therefore - don't rely on your visual check that the selector is pointing towards the desired position - turn until the detent is felt, regardless of the selector indicator being as much as 10 degrees 'away' Fuel selectors come as a complete unit and cost a 4 figure number - as you'd expect with Certified aircraft.

To the lay person, and the non tailwheel endorsed pilots, it's hard to understand how a pilot couldn't 'see' another aircraft. My initial response was very much the same. However, let's look a bit closer, as all may not be so clear cut. This RV6 has a tip-up canopy, which partly obscures forward vision - you need to have your head out the side. And, which side was the pilot flying from? In this case, where the impact was on the left side - it could point to a pilot operating the aircraft from the right hand seat. If you look at the pics, it will become obvious that the right hand position offers rather poor visibility to the left side. Now, given that one usually has the canopy in the 'trail' position after landing and when taxying - where the locking latch rests on the rear structural bar and is set so that sudden gusts won't lift the canopy up and damage hinges - the visibility is still less than great, and this still applies to a PIC in the right seat. Seating position in RV6s is also very limited in the vertical. If you pack cushions under yourself to improve your forward vision - then you have about 3/5th of 5/8ths of a mm between skull and Perspex. And this can become a worry in turbulence at RV6 cruise speeds. Most RV pilots seem to prefer more skull clearance to visibility over the panel. As someone who flys t/w RVs regularly from the right seat, I can vouch for the limited cross-cockpit visibility. I'm a convert to more cushions, at risk of head bruising. And, I insist on clean windscreens at all times, and, no clutter on top of the panel. Now, the RV taildraggers are far from the worst for forward visibility. Sit in a Cessna 180 or 185 one day, and you'll appreciate why they have such a fearsome record for loss-of-control. Let's reserve judgement on the actual cause of the accident until later. Leaving the scene is entirely another matter. happy days,

Roger, I'd suggest that you talk with several CFI's around our large country. Becoming a 'successful' instructor/SI or CFI has a lot less to do with passing Certificate IV or PMI, but more to do with being empathetic and perceptive with students. You also don't have to be Chuck Yeager insofar as aircraft handling is concerned - just steady and safe does the trick. Not meant as criticism btw. happy days,

Accident #1 Deliberate low flying in Cessna 206 for mates' party - struck tree - crashed inverted - fatal. Accident #2 Maintenance test flight in Cessna 207 - pilot overcome by CO in cockpit from non-standard heater muffler installation - fatal Again, a good program showing the US NTSB working through GA accidents in Alaska - although both of these accidents could have been anywhere in the world.

There are many considerations with purchase or building. Probably most important, (IMHO), is how experienced you are, and what is your proposed mission with the purchased aircraft. Low time pilots need the extra hours flying that a lower speed aircraft brings with it = experience in dodging wx, with flight planning and with wringing the best performance out of oneself and the aircraft. A fast aircraft tends to make a pilot complacent...even lazy. In a final analysis, it can be a case of hare v tortoise. I've flown a number of slow, (90-100KTAS), aircraft over a 30 year timeframe in the WA wheatbelt, (averaging 300 hrs pa), and found my absolute best value aircraft was not a C180 or 182 - but a humble C170 which flew beautifully at 95 kts and 27 LPH of avgas or Super/PULP. I could have done pretty much the same job with a modern day Brumby, Tecnam, Sling, etc - but they have only recently arrived on scene. happy days,

Question of the many twists in the English language! I think what is a certainty is that it's very difficult, even dangerous, to make a sudden transition from VFR to IFR when the pilot is close to mountainous terrain. Unless the aircraft can be turned away from higher terrain, and then climbed while safely over lower terrain, all while suddenly entering into cloud, rain, and turbulence - then CFIT is inevitable. Given that almost every US Commercial Pilot would hold an instrument rating, and has a fully IFR aircraft panel in front - there would be great temptation to just go 'IFR' when the going becomes non-VMC. These weather related accidents have been happening since aircraft have been operated in places like Alaska, the tropics and mountainous regions like the Andes, Himalayas. The old timers managed to find their way about in Cubs and Cessna 180s - with only VFR panels - but they took considerable risks. I well remember flying with a couple of older PNG 'legends' who went through conditions that stretched the very limits of VMC. It used to be known colloquially as 'New Guinea VFR' - a bit of a sick joke really - because it surely wasn't! When asked why they didn't bother obtaining an instrument rating - the response was 'there are no approved letdown/approach procedures for the locations that we operate into'. Most told me that if they couldn't get to their destination in some semblance of VMC - then any instrument approach would probably fail because the conditions would likely be below the IFR minima. This weeks Alaska Aircrash Investigations looks at 2 more Cessna accidents and I expect it to be very interesting.

A new series has begun on Channel ONE (in WA ), and it appears to be largely dealing with GA accidents. I watched the 1st program of the series last night, wherein a Cessna 207 collided with terrain during marginal weather conditions in coastal Alaska. I thought the NTSB, (US), were presented in a very fair way, and the findings were, unfortunately, that for reasons unknown the pilot flew a serviceable aircraft into terrain. Again, another weather related accident, but one of many in Alaska, which has a combination of high terrain and rapidly changing weather. With this combination, being IFR qualified/current, and in an IFR equipped aircraft, may help, but is not the full solution. Only staying VFR is going to keep one alive. I'd recommend watching this series as the issues are far more relevant to RAAus and GA than the original 'Accident' series.

As it should be. However, in GA, CASA will now allow a PPL to hold an instructor rating - but only to do design feature endos, flight activity endos, and Part 61.385 competency training. This is exactly what a CPL qualified instructor is allowed to do when operating independent of a Part 141 flying school. In the UK, there is some differentiation between PPL vs CPL qualified instructors, but I understand both do the same instructor training as here under CASA rules. I have no problem with instructors doing it for love. My overheads are high, and I couldn't not try to recoup something for my time. It makes instruction more widely available and that's helping to grow our pilot base. We need more younger instructors coming through because there is a looming shortage of experienced instructors in both GA & RAAus. So far, in 12 years of operating this school, I've had one - yes 1, enquiry from an SI about doing some instruction at the school. And in that time, only 2 enquiries about doing an instructor rating. RAAus might need to look into just where the next generation of instructors is coming from? happy days,

You can check the listing of RAAus schools on the website www.raa.asn.au - I'm unsure if either of the 2 previous schools in Northam are active. Closest to you is at Jandakot, otherwise Bindoon is next closest, followed by Bunbury. Northam Aero Club is still active in GA, (AFIK), but probably only on weekends. Pay to go up there on a w/e and ask about. I don't think SABC at serpentine will allow training there? happy days,

Agree. Same with GA procedures. Most engine fails are not going to happen at 3500' agl - they'll be more likely at 500' agl. There won't be the luxury of time to run a long checklist. In my current RAAus training, I keep it very simple - following the 'aviate/navigate/communicate' sequence. happy days,

I'm really curious about your quoted BFR costs. $400 would be a bit below average for GA I'd think, unless it was done in a 2 seater. Anything less than 1.0 hr flying time would be arguable, I think, = $280 dual ? For a C172, probably charged out @ $330/hr dual. Add to this another 1.0 hr 'instructor' time doing either a written test, or an aural one, plus some time for a pre-flight briefing. 2.0 - 2.5 hrs of an instructors time. An RAAus BFR in a Jab for $200? Recently? Lastly, a 'free' single seat BFR? Never heard of one. Surely it required the aural or written test, a pre-flight briefing with instructions as to the sequences to be flown in full view of the airport, plus an hour watching you? Anyway, as I mentioned, I'm curious, because I couldn't get within a bulls' roar of operating for what you've (fortunately) been able to negotiate. happy days,

The nosewheel is adequate for landings done onto the mains first, holding it off until you run out of elevator command. They should be taxied very carefully on rough ground. On soft ground you can have problems unless power is used with full flap extended to hold the nosewheel off while taxying. Generally speaking, pilots fly RV's too fast on approach and just don't bleed off the speed before plonking them on - which is really testing the front wheel! happy days,

Increasing security is likely to be a fact of life for we aviators. It's all based on emotion, fear and politicians employing the precautionary principle. As an example: our local Member was dismayed to find that when REX took over the contract for Albany/Esperance, they were able to operate Saab 340s without full security screening. (SkyWest/VA had previously operated 20.8 tonne F50's which required full security). It's unsafe, the public is being endangered wailed he. Bring back full security immediately - everyone feels safer! Believe it, or not - many punters wrote to the local rag in full support. There was also some sympathy from Councillors of the City, which now has a room full of security stuff and nowhere to use it! It's difficult to refute this idiocy. The press and media are very unsupportive of our viewpoint that current security at regional airports is farcical.

Wait up! You've told us to exclude the cost of gaining a licence, and now you've revealed that you will need a Conversion to RAAus plus a full AFR to regain your PPL. You'll be spending a fair amount to achieve either, or both, (to convert you need your PPL to be current) - but lets overlook that as you've asked us to. In aircraft specifics - there is an advantage in not spending money on RAAus registration every year. Most other costs are the same, as I noted above.

So, if we assume you hold both an RPL and an RPC - then your 'cost' of operating the same aircraft at a private strip in Class G airspace will be cheaper in GA. Many costs will be the same - insurance, hangarage, landing charges, ASIC. Your BFR/AFR will cost more in GA than RAAus, probably by $200/2 years. But your aircraft doesn't require a registration fee in GA - it does in RAAus. I estimate a net annual saving for an EXPERIMENTAL amateur built GA aircraft which is maintained entirely by the owner, and is not flown in CTA. There will be a range of opinion on this, and I think if you search the site you'll find a previous thread on it.