poteroo

I have concerns about an airstrip which is not 'depicted' on WAC, (and probably these outnumber those on the WAC), as falling into Section C. It has always been the case that it doesn't matter whether the airstrip is shown, or not shown on the WAC - if it does not have a discrete frequency approved - then it becomes 126.7 first preference, area frequency last preference. I can't think of a single case of where area is 1st choice. This is just confusing the punters. In any case, there's very likely to be non-radio traffic so it becomes see and avoid. Joining overhead becomes your safest option. happy days,

There only was ever the prototype VH-MVR. Is that it?

Can only go on ones' own experience. 12,000 hrs behind Continentals & Lycomings for 2 total engine failures v's 800 hrs behind Jabirus for 3 engine losses. And my choice to fly Bass Strait is.........?

Yes, an interesting aircraft that I did see once. The Continental IO-360 210HP engine was heavy, but wasn't a bad choice at the time. (the Cessna 336/337 series, and the first M5 Maules all used this engine).These days you'd probably be looking at an IO-360 Lycoming with 180HP as the power source . If it was ever going to be a kit aircraft, then any of the uncertified 180HP engines could be used. Whether you'd use a CSU is debatable. If the new 'Aircruiser' is intended to compete with the C172S or a Piper Archer II or III, then maybe fixed pitch. If looking to compete in the Mooney,C182,or RV10 range - then a CSU is affordable and probably necessary to lift the higher gross weights that might be required. All speculation of course. I think that there'd be some careful market research going on here because the buyers for 140-150 KTAS 4 seaters is definitely smaller than for the C172/Archer end of the market. (speculation again!). happy days,

Agree in principle, but you could make this argument for any aircraft - not just RAAus. As you are aware, height is a factor in this argument, but because of the overlying CTA steps - most VFR lighties have to traverse many miles of 'unsafe' terrain around major cities. As well, maintaining VMC requires lighties to usually remain below the cloud base, which limits the gliding distance and the choice of emergency landing areas. If we think about these 2 factors - it gives CASA's rules, (for RAAus at least), a bit of support. happy days,

Brumby have had great publicity for their aircraft, and have a good, solid product to sell. I know most of us have reservations about dealing with foreign companies - but the world has changed. Overseas investment has been happening in Australia since the 1800's, and it was needed as we couldn't finance ourselves. I can remember Esperance farmers grumbling about the 'rich yanks' who were going to takeover our best farming land. Well, that didn't happen. In the 70's and 80's - golfers were aghast at the thought of the Japanese buying up all our east coast golf courses and overcharging Aussies for a round or two. That faded away too. Now it's the Chinese buying residential housing, farms, and coal and iron ore mines. But they can't ship these assets to China - so Australia isn't losing its' assets - maybe just temporary control over their use. If the Chinese were to invest in local manufacturing - that would be good for Australia. We have a far better opportunity for QC if things are built here under a 'Made-in-Australia' logo. Speaking of aviation and local manufacturing, I looked back in my logs to see where my investment in Aussie aircraft began. I began flying at Archerfield in April 1963. I received my endorsement on Victa Airtourer 115 (VH-UQX) on 25/9/1965 with the one and only Frank Woodfall at Archerfield. On 8/10/1965, I ferried UQX from Archerfield to Bankstown via Coffs Harbour. At Bankstown I took delivery of a brand new Victa 100, (VH-WHO), and ferried it back to Archerfield on 9/10/65. At this time I was doing my CPL and was a member of a Brisbane flying group. We flew the wings off that little Victa - I took it to Mackay, Longreach, Moree..... it was a neat little unit but no great shakes on a hot day! I sold my share in 1966 after returning to PNG My 2nd Aussie aircraft was a Jabiru 160C, (24-4889), which I picked up in Bundy on 15/1/2007. It worked here in Albany at our RAAus FTF through until 2013, when I sold it to a SA private owner. To say that I didn't have the greatest experience with the 160 is something of an understatement. I was more than happy with the aircraft structure, its' comfort, and it's handling. But we had our difficulties with the engine/s and that is the main reason we have moved on. So, being ever the optimist, I placed a deposit on a Brumby 610 high wing in 2013. I had previously travelled to Cowra twice, and flown both the Rotax 912 powered 610, and the Lycoming powered version. I had previously flown a number of LSA's including Tecnam and Evektor, but, with the future prospects of Part 61 and RPL conversions out of RAAus in mind - chose Brumby because of it's more similar feel to the 172's which we run in our GA school. We also use a number of private natural surface strips, and the Brumby undercarriage is a real winner on these. My experience with the Aussie manufacturers of my first two aircraft has been neither rewarding or instructive. It was always a case of 'ignorant pilot and whingeing owner'. Now in my case, with 50 years in the game, owning 12 different aircraft, and instructing in a whole suite of types -that's nothing short of insulting. In the travel industry, the unhappy customer will tell their story to 9 other people. In the aviation industry - they'll do the same, and that's damaging stuff. At this stage of my relationship with Brumby, I have found they are receptive to some ideas on improvements - which augers well for the future. happy days, Ralph

Now that all the wheeling & dealing has been transacted - Brumby needs to accelerate it's production - or it's going to lose it's future markets in Australia to the competitors. And no, I won't be applying to instruct at their new flying school. My Mandarin isn't up to KRudd standard. happy days,

The classic Freudian slip - and from a lawyer yet! Could have been any one of us with some knowledge of the issue. happy days,

Folks, you have just seen a good example of the tyre-kickers who waste the time of FTF's in our fair country. happy days,

This isn't the 1st fatal accident involving a minor flying a highly publicised 'charity' mission. A few years back a quite young girl in the US lost control of a c182 in storms near the Rockies - killing her adult 'safety' pilot as well. I know that regulators have to approve these flights, but it does occur to me that there would be more than a little 'get-thru-itus' and 'get-home-itus' involved. Consider the long stages and the fatigue involved. Being the youngest to achieve any physical feat of endurance is important to some - but at what risk? Doing it to raise money for charity is laudable but where do we draw the line? Not impressed by these 'youngest-to-fly-to Mars & back' events.

Reckon that epaulettes are really overkill for RAAus schools. It's easy to look professional and casual if you try. A collared golf shirt or a short sleeve cotton shirt looks fine, and even better if you have your FTF logo and trading name sewn into it. Some GA charter companies have a set of wings sewn into the shirt along with the company logo and name. That looks professional - yet restrained. If you want to go further - then have your name, with your job descriptor too, on a name card and attach that to your shirt each day. happy days,

ozzietriker, suggest you thank Cr Lex Martin, and the other Gnowangerup Council members, for showing good old country common sense and bringing their landing charge back to a reasonable number. [email protected] But, regardless of the above, I don't believe that even the reduced charge is at all necessary, it will not be cost effective to recover, and it will adversely affect the aviation industry's perception of Gnowangerup. And you can quote me. happy days,

We have Councillor Lex Martin to thank for this policy change. Called him on 14th June and it was soon sorted. happy days,

I agree with your last statement David. I'm going to highlight a few of what I thought were the really important lessons from this accident report. Time-on-type is just so important - in this case it was < 10 hrs total for either pilot. IMHO - this isn't enough to safely fly the aircraft yourself - let alone train someone else. I've long been sceptical of how CASA can allow a junior instructor to obtain an endorsement, (eg, t/w, r/g,), and then immediately go out and conduct training of an often very unskilled pilot. And it need not just be junior instructors - a high hours CFI at Jandakot, (but with only a few t/w hours), did, many years ago, groundloop a C180 on the 1st circuit of a t/w endo. I also have some suspicion that instructor-to-instructor endorsements may not be as thorough as they could - sometimes it could be a little cursory just to get the capability into the flying school. CASA are quick to apply some, (arguably impractical), rules - but here's one example of where they could immediately improve safety. 25hrs on type? Flying-in-balance is a skill which has been in general decline for years. I watch unknown pilots like a wedgetail eagle when it comes to turns in the circuit. (If a pilot can't perform a continuous series of 45 deg left and right turns without the ball moving from the centre-then they are, IMHO, fundamentally unsafe).The number who lead with, or overapply, left rudder in turns from downwind-to-base, and base-to-final is an eyeopener. As we know, skidding the aircraft into the turn is a recipe for it to spin under = unrecoverable. Many pilots also load the wing up during the base-to-final turn by steepening the turn without lowering the nose, or adding some power to at least maintain airspeed. If you can feel some wing loading in the base-to-final turn then you need to have the student minimise this - don't sit there and assume they know what the risk is. This all becomes more obvious in higher performance aircraft where the added drag from gear and flaps down requires more power to hold a stabilised descent - 500fpm and no more! The owner/pilot effect is another factor. Instructors do tend to relax more with owners and this is dangerous. I've noticed an approach of 'well, they are going to fly it more often in future so they'll work things out for themselves' attitude. They might - or they might bingle it with only low total hours on type. They need to be treated with restraint - even to the point of being a bit pedantic about it. As an example: I have a new RV6 owner with 200TT and have done 25 hrs dual endorsing - then sent him off on a few trips - and now doing a little more to cover wheel landings in x/w's. At 45 hrs time on type he is now able to position the aircraft accurately for x/w ops. Sure - it's far more than most pilots want to do - but if you think this is expensive - try having an accident! Comment?

It occurs to me that instructors are, perhaps, taking more than acceptable risk by agreeing to instruct or flight check in experimental category aircraft - be they GA or RAA. A subject which I have recommended to RAAus Ops that they include on the agenda for the November CFI meeting in Dubbo.

Yes, but ATC can accept flight plans regardless of how many NOTAMS are current, or indeed for what subject - unless it's for a definite NO operationally. It's up to the PIC,(acting as representative of the company), to make the go/nogo decision. I can't help but think that the wording and intent of the reported NOTAM will have significance when the liability claims are being prepared against MA.

NOTAM Is it possible to sight the specific NOTAM which gave advice about flight planning through the Ukraine region? The degree of compliance with this/these advisories would make interesting reading. Perhaps some airlines just plan via the shortest route - regardless? Does the degree of compliance with advisories account for the lower airfares which are obtainable with certain airlines. Maybe cheapest isn't safest?

I have to agree in principle. The chain of responsibility can lead right back to day 1 of a pilots' training. The instructor is really responsible for each pilot they train. That may actually not be tested for 20 years or more - until pilot does something really stupid. Then it's a question of attitude or skill. Whether the regulator or the courts decide to actually determine the instructors liability is only a guess. I can give you an example: I trained a CPL in low level for mustering endo. He subsequently crashed. CASA on blower: Q - how well did you train joe blogs? A - to competency in low level Q2 - did you train him in fuel management? A - I explained that you have a higher fuel burn at low level Q - did he understand this A - perfectly...so where is this leading? CASA - nowhere, we're just checking. Presumably they also checked his CPL school in respect of fuel management. Now this is most unlikely in RPT because there are SOP's giving the necessary checks and balances. Now here's the interesting bit. I've conducted some 150 low levels over the past few years - and, not once have I received a CASA call about any of these pilots conducting illegal and/or, dangerous low flying. But, I have had several contacts in respect of other,(non LL trained) pilots doing beat ups and general hooning around. I think this re-inforces a point. If pilots are properly trained in these more high risk flight operations - they are less likely to misuse them. So, if the training syllabi, (GA and RAA), are expended to include items such as low level - it will improve safety and reduce the liability that may be searched out from some future event. happy days,

Cost-of-Recovery is something that most airport owners seem to conveniently forget. In our case - consider the CoR for an $11 landing fee. It requires transcription from the aural recording - is then taken to the main office in town-where it is converted to a hard copy on a computer- and then mailed out. (has to cost $25 per invoice). But wait.....there's more. Pilot doesn't pay on 30 days - so airport owner mails out a reminder, (cost probably $15). Old pilot forgets this reminder letter, (complete with little red bowtie on finger!!), and then receives a threatening letter from a cost recovery agency @ $50?? So, old pilot fires up office PC and EFT's the airport owner the original $11......job done! My estimate of recovery cost is now $90 or thereabouts. Are the airport owners clever - or are they not? Can they see the folly of their accounting ways........ no way! It appears they are in complete denial. Now if every owner were to severely extend the line of credit that these ignorant airport owners are in effect offering - there would be some interest in that magic word profitability. I've no problem with user pays. However, there's no logic in these make work/lose money transactions. In many cases airport owners have offered an annual charge for unlimited use. This is very useful if you are using your aircraft 3-4 times weekly. Our airport offers $180 annual charges on private aircraft, which equates out to about $3.50 per week - in my case = $1 per landing! So, I'm not unhappy, and they shouldn't be either - because they're paid on a single, annual invoice. They have up to now baulked at an annual charge for 'commercial' aircraft - but this year have seen reason. It's steep at about $600 pa - but to be fair, that's really 1 training flight per week. @ 2 flights per week and you're way ahead. So are they - because it's a single invoice - which, (given their undisclosed, but probably $20+ cost of raising), is probably good for them too. You may well ask why airport owners seek to extract maximum revenue out of the smallest flying machine. It has much to do with the good old Aussie 'tall poppy syndrome' or better known as the 'green eyed monster disease' (ENVY). One senior staff member of our local airport owner allowed his guard to slip on an occasion when charges were being discussed - ' a bunch of fat cats sucking off the local ratepayers' was his most unwise outburst. He didn't retain his position for long after this - but that's not an uncommon perception amongst the bureaucratic community. Interestingly, this boofhead would not entertain the thought that the CoR was greater than the landing fee. Not an unusual problem with Bachelors of Business Management. I've carefully studied this airports Business Plan, and it's annual budget. With 70,000 RPT passengers annually, they need only 25 cents per head more to recover more than all of the landing fees from GA. This would be all profit. They could easily drop the lower end GA landing fees to zero - thus saving them the CoR which currently exceeds the actual fees. (Many airports have done this - Geraldton is one in WA). If they instituted a charge on aircraft using our ILS for crew training, (practical, because the unit is privately owned) - it would return many thousands more. (the cost of shooting an ILS at Perth is $200,300 ?? - hence Albany is used up). If the airport reached an arrangement with other regular airport users, (RFDS, Firebombers, RAAF), for contributions, then it could really claim equitable charging. All 3 bodies mentioned here are funded by the state or federal government and it would appear only fair that they all contribute. Then we have vehicle parking - a sacred cow if ever we had one! Some airports are finally charging, particularly the FIFO and 1 week in Perth travellers. There are many sources of revenue available to airport owners - all they need is some lateral thinking, and to ensure that which they do collect is not costing them more than it's worth. happy days,

Was not present so cannot make any first hand observations. Understand that the 'accident' 172 was the last to land of about 8 aircraft, and that all of those 'landed' crews viewed the accident at close hand. Parking is just off north side of the 06/24 strip. Large windsock is midway along on N side of strip and in clear view on the approach from either direction. Wind said to be 'approx' 10-12 kts from the N. This strip has been in use some 10 years and is frequently used by local and visiting pilots. We use it for advanced student training in C172's which have no problem handling it's length, width, surface or most winds. Aircraft said to have initially collided with trees on S side of 06, and then turned by the right wings' impact so that it faced almost 180 deg to its' approach direction. (no comments or opinions as to how it managed to get so far off line - perhaps ATSB will ascertain this?) Young trees along the taxiway to the buildings appear to have absorbed a lot of the horizontal impact and this probably allowed for the crews survival with minimal injury. Add to that, the fact this was an R model C172 which reportedly has stronger seats, belts and general cabin structure than older models. The absence of fire - despite damage to the tanks and system - possibly attributable to a 10 kt breeze shifting the vapour away rapidly and the thick kikuyu grass not allowing any pooling of fuel on the surface under the wreck. Hear that it is probably a write-off. Lucky people! Go buy a Lotto ticket asap. happy days,

Well - it was blowing from them over the strip so who knows? Only my opinion of their skills though.

And whilst our esteemed ATSB are doing all this interviewing, I hope that they interview the many experienced pilots who were within 100m of the strip, and who viewed the aircrafts' approach, the accident, and also have a very sound recollection of the wind parameters at that time. happy days,

Kelmac have their Tecnams serviced in Geraldton, and Bunbury A.C. have theirs done in Bunbury. I'd ask around a bit more before committing to the suggested JT operation. happy days,

Spare us the victim roleplay! It was a courteous, logical and simple request on my part. I'm concerned that you've chosen to dummy-spit over such a trivial matter. happy days,

Only since 1972. Ferry flights probably 2-3 times annually. happy days,