poteroo

Mate, this is a pretty serious allegation. I trust you made the report/s in 'writing' so they can be substantiated. I cannot believe that any instructor worth the proverbial 2 bob is not able to fly the aircraft in whatever 'state-of-balance' that a manoeuvre requires. It would be picked up immediately by a PE during a review. Despite my comment above, have to say that I've seen some very poorly balanced efforts over many hundreds of flight reviews and low level endorsements over the years. In more recent times, I'm seeing a lot more use of too much rudder - creating a skid with the increased risk of a stall/spin 'under'.....difficult recovery unless there's a lot of airspace below! happy days,

If you do this at 200-300 ft agl, then add in 'WIND' A short final 'windcheck & runway clear' is good insurance happy days,

The Japs were able to resupply Milne Bay campaign by sea - almost every night they had ships into Milne Bay. Their troops were actually 'beaten' on the ground by continuous daylight aerial strafing by 75 & 77 Sq Kittyhawks operating off Gurney strip initially. Gurney was still sheeted with steel 'Marsden' matting in 1965 when I did my 1st PNG charter flight into there, and the place was still littered with battle debris. The Japanese were also able to maintain reasonable re-supply of their Kokoda campaign but the distance/time it took to move this stuff up a very poor track was the killer. Their shipping stood off the PNG coast until late afternoon, then entered and unloaded at Buna/Gona at night - because the weather and the 13500 ft Owen Stanley Range put a halt to Allied night ops. They also kept up a supply to Salamaua when their army landed there and set off over the range to attack Wau. Their mistake in this case was to believe a line on a map represented a passable track. It didn't - the Black Cat track was worse than Kokoda. They fared better at Lae, which had a poor harbour and wharf facility, but they had fighter protection off Lae and were able to protect their resupply ships. The knockout blow for all the Japanese resupply ops was when a 16 ship convoy from Rabaul to Lae was caught in fine weather between Finschafen and Lae. The Battle of the Bismarck Sea 3-4/3/1942, (actually fought in the Solomon Sea!), involved only Allied aircraft, and was the 1st time in history that air forces defeated a large naval force. The images taken by Damien Parer from the front of a low strafing Beaufighter were widely hailed as the real thing. Low flying Bostons,Mitchells and Beaufighters strafed the convoy end-to-end and ignited the avgas carried on deck of many ships. 6000 Jap troops took a swimming lesson, and their losses were decisive. 8 transports and 4 destroyers were sunk, the others limped back to Rabaul. They also lost 60 Zeros from Lae. It was their last surface convoy in PNG and from then on, the Japanese troops were only spasmodically supplied by submarine. A good read of the Bismarck Sea air battle is contained in Wings of Destiny by Charles Page.

In our regional location in WA, having an RAAus rated instructor available on weekends would be useful. Would really fit with us to have someone with a non-aviation career job - but a love of flying sufficient to gain the instructors rating. You need supervision for your first training work, which I'm prepared to do. It also could work insofar as my retirement plans because at 75 - who knows when my medical will last? The requirements for the RAAus rating are lower than GA, and you can do the training in many RAAus FTF's. If you happen to hold a full PPL,(even an RPL), with a few hundred hours PIC, then RAAus offer an attractive entry point by only requiring a lower RAAus hours experience. You still need to do the instructors course. (see the OPS MANUAL). I'm not sure that I'd really want a GA trained instructor with low TT and PIC. The more experienced PPL/RPL offers more industry knowledge and flying knowledge when trained as an RAAus instructor. A few years 'life' and 'business' experience would also work for our setup. Good luck with your career. happy days,

Albo was the last one in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. He subscribes very much to the Keating doctrine of 'if you're not in Sydney-you're in the bush! Doubt if he would even recognise anything smaller than a 737! happy days,

More than a little paranoia showing here. It's very likely that RAAus OPS/TECH need to demonstrate a certain level of auditing, (compliance checks), in order to satisfy a criteria of their Safety Management System,(or whatever it's called this year!). It would eventually lead up to a CASA requirement perhaps. I'd be surprised if it presented any great threat to privacy or individual freedoms. Harking back to my earlier career, I was involved in widespread and repetitive checking of plants for diseases and pests in order to 'prove' that Australia was able to maintain 'area freedom' from those things which our intended customer country didn't want in the Aussie exports. It seems all a waste of time, but under WTO rules, if we don't do it, then we lose an export market. I see any 'internal' checking by RAAus as being rather similar. We, (RAAus), actually need to demonstrate that checks have been done - here's the results - and if you are unhappy - then check through the raw data yourself. The probable alternative is 'on-the-spot' physical checking by an RAAus employee or delegate - at considerable cost to everyone. happy days,

What are we worrying about? It's not a question of whether we call Center,multicom or local ctaf - the underlying problem that we have in Oz is that the radio is being overused. Too many calls are just rubbish. Calling at 15,10,5,joining circuit,downwind,base,final,backtracking and.......at last, 'clear of runway! These are just overkill - yet my fellow instructors in both GA and RAAus are teaching it. We're getting to the stage where, if I'm checking a 'city' pilot on a BFR or other competency flight - many press the mic button and blurt out a mayday as soon as the throttle is pulled. Others spend so much effort on 'obeying' the radio - that it takes forever to get out onto the runway and fly. They hear 'traffic' but can't sensibly react to it in terms of time and distance - better to sit tight and block the entire flow! Talk about a Pavlovian society! It's a wonder pilots are not taking selfies every leg of the circuit! Probably no time because they are reading off a checklist which would challenge War & Peace. Some 20 years ago, CASA used the phrase Simple systems for simple aircraft. Whatever happened to that sensible intent? As with most other industries, it has been subverted by the management geeks. As you may have guessed, I've had a gutful of radio frequency discussion! Have a nice day obeying your radio master! Our aviation industry has become too procedural - to the detriment of actual skills. No wonder people are killing themselves. It can only go further downhill from here.

Not unheard of to have out-of-date info on WACs. Not uncommon to have a well used local strip not shown on WAC's for years and years. Can't beat local info. And what you get from local government offices depends on who you are speaking to. The Shire foreman is likely a better source than the office staff who joined last month. This fact of unreliable strip info is fundamental to my strong objections to CASA fiddling with the use of Multicom v's Center frequency. happy days,

Control locks and flags need to be very obvious, or they can be missed on the initial walk-around of the aircraft. However, they shouldn't be missed when the controls are moved through full deflections from the inside, and then inspected and moved again during the 'detailed' preflight. I know of 2 serious errors in preflights which resulted in the aircraft being taken-off with the pins in place. In both cases there were no flags or red plastic covers attached to them. In one case the pin was a 3 inch nail with a 90 deg bend at the top! In the other case, (a C55 Baron), the correct pin didn't have any of the wires and plastic warning pieces attached or in place over the engine controls or switches. The C182 with the nail conversion control lock was flown by an instructor on a 'maintenance' check. He managed to operate it on power x trim, landed safely and had his licence suspended within half an hour. The Baron episode was at night with a full load and unfortunately saw 5 fatalities. It's one check that you really need to do both thoroughly, and at several times in the pre-takeoff phase. Students need to have it front & centre of their training. happy days,

Correct, and with SIDS for Cessnas already culling a lot of airframes out of the air, it's likely the remnants might become very expensive 'RAAus' aircraft. I have seen several Grumman and Piper aircraft which were also proclaimed 'dead' due to corrosion - these owners 'crystallised their losses' as the stockmarket saying goes. Have to admit that it was a thought bubble of mine to buy up old C150's and slot them into an RAAus flying school under new weight rules. But after seeing just how expensive SIDS can be - no way Jose' In any case, it's old technology, and they often need a lot of expense to update avionics, engine parts,paint and upholstery. It would be useful to have a higher MTOW for some types, but human nature being what it is - there will be no incentive to discipline oneself, and the ever upward demands will continue on weight. Storchy Neil was on the right track - pilots could help themselves a lot by slimming down several kilos. happy days,

Drones are a fact of aviation life - for better, generally. They are revolutionising aerial photography - we rarely do professional photoshoots these days. In agriculture, they are going to change the economics of remote sensing of diseases, pests and nutrition. They won't change aerial ag because of the loadings involved. We have a fleet of Bellanca Scouts with an an 'airforce' of pilots doing firespotting and controlling ops here in the SW of WA - but in time, all of this will devolve to a couple of operators sitting in an aircon room and watching realtime vision from a fleet of drones. Locally, we have several commercial drone operators, whom I know have done PPL theory, and are responsible citizens. Their equipment is too valuable, as is their CASA approval - so we don't expect they will be risking anyone else' life. We face far greater risks from the 2 pairs of wedgetails that live under our circuit area, and the flocks of wetland birds that traverse the circuit at all altitudes. We would have at least 1 close shave per week from them. happy days,

I think it was a turbine conversion Islander. Strange as it may seem, I never experienced carby ice in quite a lot of C180 and 182 flying up there. Most of the charter aircraft in the 60s-80's were fuel injected anyway.

We used to have an avgas stock located in Kiunga and Kerema in the 60's. Despite our best efforts, there was often water in the fuel and it was a mongrel job trying to get it out once in the tanks. Remember, the Fly River basin in PNG receives around 200 inches of rain per annum - some reportedly up to 350 inches. It's wet, wet, wet.......and humid, humid, humid! Just one of the many traps for young players in PNG. Btw, I have no knowledge of the cause of this accident, but it does fit the above suggestions.

I thought that everyone already did that? Both my RVs have had AFM/POH compiled for them as I did the test flying. Best time to collate all the numbers. Both have fuel computors, and surprisingly accurate fuel gauges. In both I was very careful to run the initial calibration of the fuel computer by running both tanks dry, then refilling so that the fuel computer shows your real usable fuel. The electronic fuel contents gauges were calibrated by draining the tank, then adding in 5L increments. When I eventually fail a medical and have to sell my RV - the new owner will be pleased to have a most comprehensive AFM/POH included with the aircraft. happy days,

Don't bet on this. Maybe/maybe not. With your hours, and given you've had the disruption of the collapse of RQAC, plus a change to a school having different ideas on progressing students - you might well be better advised to pass your RPL test with the schools' in-house Flight Examiner. This will sort out any weaknesses in your flying, which you'll need to remedy before starting navexs. Reason I say this is that if you have any skills or procedural deficiencies - the extra workload of navexs is going to overwhelm you. A navex isn't where you 'sort out' any weaknesses in your general flying - you'll be too busy for that. Good luck with your flying. happy days,

Some interesting viewpoints above. I've seen many bumps in AOPA's progress since I joined it as a PPL in 1963. I'm still a member, (#6150) but have also been a member of SAAA for 20 years,and RAAus for 12 years. I've often disagreed with AOPA policy, and have often vented my frustrations in letters,emails to them. Can't say that any changes resulted, but at least I felt it was contributing. But, as a group, we owners and pilots don't project sufficiently via the more general media - we tend to gripe and vent- our- spleens upon fellow travellers. How many of you wrote to the Australian in support of GAs' concerns over the CASA area frequency/multicom fiasco - on which there was an article in last Fridays' Australian 'aviation section'? If the Australian was bombarded with letters from real pilots, flying real aircraft, and in recent times - then it would trigger a lot more journalistic activity. There is a direct positive correlation between expressed public concern and media interest. Pollies hate being criticised in the daily press, and that's the soft underbelly we need to attack. Get to it! happy days

Which is why there are so many of them throughout the state. We have 2 pairs that live somewhere within our circuit area, and we see them up every day there's some thermal activity. Guess they have learned to stay clear of the Runway 14 ILS track as the RPT crews don't report any close encounters. Luckily, they don't seem aggressive and we share the air with no dramas. The damage they can inflict on an aircraft can be quite severe. Saw a T6 Texans' wing caved in to the spar by a wedgie some 20 years ago - if the pilot hadn't been one of the best aerobatics/ag/warbird drivers of the time - it would have been lost. happy days,

Impatience - an unfortunate trait evident in todays drivers and pilots. IMHO, it's the fundamental cause of most landing accidents. happy days,

To be fair to the medical profession - they earned a reputation from the high number of US accidents back in the 60s,70s, and I doubt it applies to the Aussie medicos. The 2 that I know best are both DAME's, and very steady pilots. Many of these were due to fatigue induced loss-of-control when they extended their day and flew home at night. Whether you are NVFR or IFR, flying through extreme weather after a long stressful 'day at the office' is a recipe for loss-of-control. Sure, there probably was a little 'invulnerability' involved, but all that the high performance aircraft achieved was to get them into the heart of the bad wx a lot faster than they planned. happy days,

Agree. SAAA is the organisation which is in trouble - not RAAus. RAAus already has a sound pilot training operation, and SAAA has a good MPC, (Maintenance Procedures Course) for Experimental aircraft, plus a good Builders Program. The MPC could well be broadened to include 'EXP' < 600kgs. How the pilot training aspect of RAAus could be expanded to cover what is allowed under the RPL licence is more difficult. Maybe it would need to start by harmonising the instructor training, although there are already a lot of dual rated instructors in the RAAus system. Heaven help us if all our organisations 'fail' and suddenly we're all back in 'GA'. happy days,

CORRECTION: 101 GA plus 24 RAAus = total 125 total. Given the awkward crosswind that the only (03/21) runway suffers through summer, some of the arrivals were nothing short of breathtaking. Well done everyone, especially some of the classic taildraggers. YBSL can be quite challenging! happy days,

I made particular mention of this, but their response was 'you have a Board member' That's not going to be the case in future as RAAus moves to a smaller Board and voted in on the basis of individual competencies/qualities - without any geographical requirement. I think we need to try for some form of RAAus member meeting at future Aerofests - perhaps a members meetup with any visiting Board or staff member, then a CFI's discussion group would be useful. I'm also asking Aerofest if we can have a separate parking area for just RAAus rego aircraft. If we want something in the 'in between' years, then maybe we have to start thinking about that event pretty soon. Autumn or Spring? RAAus only or GA as well? Not public? Have just received the final numbers for aircraft visits to Busselton Aerofest. 121 were GA, and 24 were RAAus rego = total of 145 visiting aircraft. A very good response. happy days,

That's most unfortunate. I did the last part of my CPL with RQAC in 1965 and they were the top school at Archerfield in those days...... (there were only 2!). $414/hr dual is pretty high for a C172R. The award rate for a Grade 1 instructor is barely $80/hr, and lectures/briefing would usually be less than that. Avgas use for training would be around 33-36LPH @ $2.00 these days. If you flew 500 hrs pa at this rate, it's difficult to see how it could be losing. They must have experienced unusual losses elsewhere in the operation? Overheads? Bad investments elsewhere?

A good reason to choose a school where the instructors are qualified RAAus + GA, and operate both schools together. happy days,

And therein lies a problem, because by the time you think you are in trouble - what can Center or ATC do for you? But, you can ensure an expeditious arrival in the bush - if you speak out to other traffic. There was a case many years back where a Baron didn't uplift fuel from a take-off limited location, and was en route a regional airport when one tank ran dry. That engine was feathered and secured, but the aircraft was then flown past a good airstrip because there was no fuel there. On arrival at the regional airport, the pilot chose not to declare low fuel, and instead flew a full circuit to allow other traffic to land. Unfortunately they lost the remaining engine on short final and the result was fatal for all 5 on board.