RAA Increased Height, Weight and Water
I'm provoked now.
Frank:
I have a slight problem with this.........
I see the reverse attitude in sailing the Sydney and Melbourne Hobart yacht races.
I end up in a bar somewhere and hear a yachting "legend" talk about how great they are after doing the Hobart race...
I then ask about how they would like to do it;
1) With no HF radio and no possible prospect of rescue if they spring a leak.
2) Without Goretex clothing and numerous other creature comforts.
3) Without GPS.
They generally shut up rather quickly. Of course, the aviation community do the reverse.
I'm amazed that there are aviators that seem to make a virtue out of not making use of the safety equipment available to them, in some perverse belief that they are therefore being "grass roots" aviators.
Hence my comment that these grass roots aviators should not expect any search and rescue operations on their behalf, since they won't help themselves.
FFS if there are systems there that make you safer, then use them.
Me? I belong to the "squawking chicken" school of aviation, and I regard any pilot that does not avail themselves of the full panoply of safety and communication equipment, and uses it, as retarded.
I also think that most of those people are poseurs, since they seem to be highly selective about the equipment they label as "grass roots". To me, "grass roots" is cotton, wood, wire and castor oil. Synthetic coverings and CDI ignitions don't cut it.
Frank:
Yes. Grass Roots aviation at it's best, and most have a handheld radio to keep the "experts" happy. Don't know where they will fit a transponder though. I believe some even carry an ELT for those long flights of 55nm.
Funny thing while on this topic. If you want to fly any distance in a 95:10 kite, you have to do the whole cross country syllabus despite most being averse to flying above circuit height and distances so small that a simply understanding of map reading and listening to the local weather on the ABC is required for safe operation. Just imagine how many do a 1:60 check in an open cockpit single seater doing 40 Kts on a 50 mile cross country.
In this case I would say the pilot is overqualified for the task at hand. An obvious expert with qualifications to prove it.
Funny thing while on this topic. If you want to fly any distance in a 95:10 kite, you have to do the whole cross country syllabus despite most being averse to flying above circuit height and distances so small that a simply understanding of map reading and listening to the local weather on the ABC is required for safe operation. Just imagine how many do a 1:60 check in an open cockpit single seater doing 40 Kts on a 50 mile cross country.
In this case I would say the pilot is overqualified for the task at hand. An obvious expert with qualifications to prove it.
I see the reverse attitude in sailing the Sydney and Melbourne Hobart yacht races.
I end up in a bar somewhere and hear a yachting "legend" talk about how great they are after doing the Hobart race...
I then ask about how they would like to do it;
1) With no HF radio and no possible prospect of rescue if they spring a leak.
2) Without Goretex clothing and numerous other creature comforts.
3) Without GPS.
They generally shut up rather quickly. Of course, the aviation community do the reverse.
I'm amazed that there are aviators that seem to make a virtue out of not making use of the safety equipment available to them, in some perverse belief that they are therefore being "grass roots" aviators.
Hence my comment that these grass roots aviators should not expect any search and rescue operations on their behalf, since they won't help themselves.
FFS if there are systems there that make you safer, then use them.
Me? I belong to the "squawking chicken" school of aviation, and I regard any pilot that does not avail themselves of the full panoply of safety and communication equipment, and uses it, as retarded.
I also think that most of those people are poseurs, since they seem to be highly selective about the equipment they label as "grass roots". To me, "grass roots" is cotton, wood, wire and castor oil. Synthetic coverings and CDI ignitions don't cut it.
Last edited by Sunfish; 12th May 2011 at 11:15.
..."grass roots"...
The Hoi polloi who caint aford all them fancy gadgets should just be banned from flying their own aircraft. Make things easyier..
.
I don't usually stir the pot,..but just couldn't help it this time
I just think that if Poly-fibre and GPS had been available in 1903, Orville and Wilbur would have used them.
I just think that if Poly-fibre and GPS had been available in 1903, Orville and Wilbur would have used them.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 67
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grass Roots is a generic term for the basic aircraft which were the foundation of recreational aircraft around the world.
With money to burn, Australians have progressively upped the specifications to the point of overlapping the bottom end of GA aircraft in specification and speeds, thereby creating a blur in the airspace between 40 and 150 kts.
Which is why this thread can be a useful discussion
With money to burn, Australians have progressively upped the specifications to the point of overlapping the bottom end of GA aircraft in specification and speeds, thereby creating a blur in the airspace between 40 and 150 kts.
Which is why this thread can be a useful discussion
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish as a Sydney Hobart sailor and committed Ofshore Competitor I must defend the regulations set out in the Yauchting Australia Blue Book and corresponding ISAF regulations which are predicated on a principle of self sufficiency for competing offshore yachts and are based on the stabilty requirements Base SSS or STIX/AVS in the IRC rules as well as the distance ofshore as set out in OSR race categories.
This is necessary as Cat 2 and Cat 1 offshore racing is conducted over extended time (days) and crews must be able to be self sufficient as one of the fundamental principles in offshore racing is to keep your tactics and thus course chosen as secret as one possibly can from your opposition save that mandatory position reporting after the fact is carried out in Australian Offshore racing, no forward estimates of position are required or given, such is the nature of the tactical battle.
To compare Aviation with Offshore racing is somewhat misleading, very few General Aviation aircraft have endurance beyond 4 hours, yet the average yacht with a TCC of 1.100 will take 72 hours to get to Hobart, a significantly different proposition in terms of time and exposure to differing weather systems as well as "climate" change going South, it gets cold ! and protective clothing HPX and Gore Tex are absolutely necessary as Yachts unlike powered aircraft don't have heaters and can be very wet.
Whilst I agree with your potential comparison in where one now gets the best bang for your leisure buck, offshore yachting wins hands down over aviation now, and in the past 10 years my personal spending has been 10 times more on yachting than aircraft, much more satisying and less intrusive regulation even though yachting is potentially more personally hazardous and now very technically challenging.
I will line up for Hobart this coming Boxing Day, 2.5 days to the QLD.
This is necessary as Cat 2 and Cat 1 offshore racing is conducted over extended time (days) and crews must be able to be self sufficient as one of the fundamental principles in offshore racing is to keep your tactics and thus course chosen as secret as one possibly can from your opposition save that mandatory position reporting after the fact is carried out in Australian Offshore racing, no forward estimates of position are required or given, such is the nature of the tactical battle.
To compare Aviation with Offshore racing is somewhat misleading, very few General Aviation aircraft have endurance beyond 4 hours, yet the average yacht with a TCC of 1.100 will take 72 hours to get to Hobart, a significantly different proposition in terms of time and exposure to differing weather systems as well as "climate" change going South, it gets cold ! and protective clothing HPX and Gore Tex are absolutely necessary as Yachts unlike powered aircraft don't have heaters and can be very wet.
Whilst I agree with your potential comparison in where one now gets the best bang for your leisure buck, offshore yachting wins hands down over aviation now, and in the past 10 years my personal spending has been 10 times more on yachting than aircraft, much more satisying and less intrusive regulation even though yachting is potentially more personally hazardous and now very technically challenging.
I will line up for Hobart this coming Boxing Day, 2.5 days to the QLD.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I regard any pilot that does not avail themselves of the full panoply of safety and communication equipment, and uses it, as retarded.
Perhaps, so I can have the benefit of availing myself to the equipment available to me, (but unaffordable I confess), you can buy me one. Or perhaps ask Airservices to include this in a "grant" with the ADSB "thingy". I have 2 radio's, but another would be safer I guess. Can I have that as well, and I had my eye on a nice bomber jacket so I can look the part in the club bar, if you could include that too. Oh, and a new transponder and radar altimeter. Nearly forgot, an auto pilot also for when things get bumpy. Have I forgotten anything. Oh yes of course. A new aeroplane to fit it all in. Mine's a bit short of space.
One last thing if you would. Can you tell that vile Chaser person I'm not talking to him. I'd hate to improve his education and I shiver at the thought of another educated idiot, especially with his necrotic psychosis.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another salient difference I failed to mention, there is NO Mention of Strict Liability offences in the Yachting regulations or Supplementary Sailing Instructions for Hobart.
The event attracts significant sponsorship so could be classed as a "commercial operation".
Contrast that with the new poroposed part 91 and it is plain to see why much more is being invested in up market sail boats ( $2.0 million+ ) than recreational aircraft.
The event attracts significant sponsorship so could be classed as a "commercial operation".
Contrast that with the new poroposed part 91 and it is plain to see why much more is being invested in up market sail boats ( $2.0 million+ ) than recreational aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if The Skull's latest announcement to hurry up the regulatory reform programme which has dragged on for the last 20+ years means RA-Aus will be included in the laws as they are to be written. (As they should be by now).
Australian aviation is administered in effect by "instruments" or "exemptions" from existing inadequate laws because of this incompetent attempt at regulatory reform. RA-Aus is no exception, being an "exemption" from existing laws in it's own right.
This "exemption" is now granted further "exemptions" from the "exemptions" to fly above 5000 ft.
I've heard rumours that CASA find it easier to grant "exemptions" than address the reform project. I've also heard it has gone on for so long there is no way to just abolish "exemptions" because in effect it would ground most every aircraft flying in Australian airspace.
Had the regulatory reform been completed, and the "spirit" of the original recreational licence been written into law, we wouldn't have RA-Aus certificates and we wouldn't need special permission or priveleges to fly VFR where VFR now has the ability to fly.
My first impression of the concept of a recreational licence was a replacement of the existing RPPL with "add ons" like the PIFR to improve the basic theoretical and practical skills pending upgrades like medicals, endorsements etc..
I get the impression if CASA could, they would be happy for anyone to take the administrative workload off them and they would lump all non fare paying operations into a self regulatory institution like RA-Aus. Unfortunately they have probably found out what I've known for years that there is no harmony or cohesion with any in the GA community. Further they compound the problem with their policy of "divide and conquer" so no amalgamation can gang up on them. (think about guilt or paranoia here).
Regulation has not kept pace with aviation evolution and I remember the balking of allowing the first twin engine jets to overfly oceans. If sport and ultralight aircraft have demonstrated their evolution and ability, and if pilots have done likewise, why should they be left struggling for permission to fly above reasonable convective heights? Why are half the pilots in Australia forced to fly under "exemptions" granted by a sometimes, (sometimes not) benevolent bureaucracy.
Why is there the perception that a 100 hour PPL has more intellegence or manipulative experience than a 100 hour RA-Aus pilot? And how does one gain experience except by the process of lessons learnt over time?
Australian aviation is administered in effect by "instruments" or "exemptions" from existing inadequate laws because of this incompetent attempt at regulatory reform. RA-Aus is no exception, being an "exemption" from existing laws in it's own right.
This "exemption" is now granted further "exemptions" from the "exemptions" to fly above 5000 ft.
I've heard rumours that CASA find it easier to grant "exemptions" than address the reform project. I've also heard it has gone on for so long there is no way to just abolish "exemptions" because in effect it would ground most every aircraft flying in Australian airspace.
Had the regulatory reform been completed, and the "spirit" of the original recreational licence been written into law, we wouldn't have RA-Aus certificates and we wouldn't need special permission or priveleges to fly VFR where VFR now has the ability to fly.
My first impression of the concept of a recreational licence was a replacement of the existing RPPL with "add ons" like the PIFR to improve the basic theoretical and practical skills pending upgrades like medicals, endorsements etc..
I get the impression if CASA could, they would be happy for anyone to take the administrative workload off them and they would lump all non fare paying operations into a self regulatory institution like RA-Aus. Unfortunately they have probably found out what I've known for years that there is no harmony or cohesion with any in the GA community. Further they compound the problem with their policy of "divide and conquer" so no amalgamation can gang up on them. (think about guilt or paranoia here).
Regulation has not kept pace with aviation evolution and I remember the balking of allowing the first twin engine jets to overfly oceans. If sport and ultralight aircraft have demonstrated their evolution and ability, and if pilots have done likewise, why should they be left struggling for permission to fly above reasonable convective heights? Why are half the pilots in Australia forced to fly under "exemptions" granted by a sometimes, (sometimes not) benevolent bureaucracy.
Why is there the perception that a 100 hour PPL has more intellegence or manipulative experience than a 100 hour RA-Aus pilot? And how does one gain experience except by the process of lessons learnt over time?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hey Frank
As hard as you may find this to believe, I Agee with most of what you said in that last most, until the last paragraph.
20-25 hours compared to 40-50 hours in training will generally yield two different outcomes. Surely you can see this. You certainly have more dual and training in your log book during your first 100 hours than 20-25.
As hard as you may find this to believe, I Agee with most of what you said in that last most, until the last paragraph.
20-25 hours compared to 40-50 hours in training will generally yield two different outcomes. Surely you can see this. You certainly have more dual and training in your log book during your first 100 hours than 20-25.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 hours will only get you a restricted RAA license, that is very, very roughly the same as a GFPT. Realistically, you need
RAA License + Passenger Endorsement + Cross-country Endorsement
Which works out to be just over 30 hours minimum - but if you don't know your stuff naturally it'll take longer.
The extra time in a PPL is instrument flight (possibly useless if your RAA aircraft does not have them!) and controlled airspace (and I bet a fair number of pilots would willing accept it, in exchange for a CTA endorsement).
RAA License + Passenger Endorsement + Cross-country Endorsement
Which works out to be just over 30 hours minimum - but if you don't know your stuff naturally it'll take longer.
The extra time in a PPL is instrument flight (possibly useless if your RAA aircraft does not have them!) and controlled airspace (and I bet a fair number of pilots would willing accept it, in exchange for a CTA endorsement).
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba;
What's that, intelligence or manipulative skills. I know surgeons who now also fly ultralights and some "primates" who fly C172"s. But if it makes you happy, pick any number over 50 hours of dual instruction. And before you start, the surgeon I mentioned took 70 hours to get his RPPL, can't change a tyre on his Merc and probably earns half a million a year. (owns a Mooney and a drifter if that helps).The primate, well, how much time have you got? It's all about manipulative skills.
Concentrate on the general thrust of the post, not the mathematical irregularities or the "pecking order" of the piloted gentry.
EDIT to add to the above. You also need a tailwheel endorsement if you don't have one, a variable or adjustable pitch propellor, high or low performance, two stroke, low inertia, low level, radio, human factors, float, floating hull, and anything else that comes to mind. I have seen jet powered motorgliders in GFA guise as well.
What's that, intelligence or manipulative skills. I know surgeons who now also fly ultralights and some "primates" who fly C172"s. But if it makes you happy, pick any number over 50 hours of dual instruction. And before you start, the surgeon I mentioned took 70 hours to get his RPPL, can't change a tyre on his Merc and probably earns half a million a year. (owns a Mooney and a drifter if that helps).The primate, well, how much time have you got? It's all about manipulative skills.
Concentrate on the general thrust of the post, not the mathematical irregularities or the "pecking order" of the piloted gentry.
EDIT to add to the above. You also need a tailwheel endorsement if you don't have one, a variable or adjustable pitch propellor, high or low performance, two stroke, low inertia, low level, radio, human factors, float, floating hull, and anything else that comes to mind. I have seen jet powered motorgliders in GFA guise as well.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Superdimona
Yes 30 hrs is most pokey the full kit, but pax is not a function of training is it ? It's a function of solo PIC so nags is the rest, some solo. Being realistic as you suggest the PPL will also take typically 50-60 hours so it's still a heap more one on one time with an instructor.
Frank.... You always claim "that's anecdotal" get real facts Jaba, but now Frank you are sprouting on with ?????
Get real mate. Your expels are pretty lame.
Ohh and is that your wishist of endo's? Not sure why I would but but seems I better do the floats then, then I will be to your pecking order.
As usual you have drifted this so far from the thread topic it's crazy. I love a little drift like most do, but you drift out of the range of the navaid!
Yes 30 hrs is most pokey the full kit, but pax is not a function of training is it ? It's a function of solo PIC so nags is the rest, some solo. Being realistic as you suggest the PPL will also take typically 50-60 hours so it's still a heap more one on one time with an instructor.
Frank.... You always claim "that's anecdotal" get real facts Jaba, but now Frank you are sprouting on with ?????
Get real mate. Your expels are pretty lame.
Ohh and is that your wishist of endo's? Not sure why I would but but seems I better do the floats then, then I will be to your pecking order.
As usual you have drifted this so far from the thread topic it's crazy. I love a little drift like most do, but you drift out of the range of the navaid!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum hours are irrelevant; you won't get your license until you are competent. Typical RA-Aus is closer to 50 hours for high performance plus cross country endorsement.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drifted this so far from the thread topic it's crazy
When you have been around as long as I have, they are not anectodes but observations made by the first party, (me). I've altered the aircraft types owned by the Doctor thats all to hide his identity in case he reads PPRune.
Why is there the perception that a 100 hour PPL has more intellegence or manipulative experience than a 100 hour RA-Aus pilot? And how does one gain experience except by the process of lessons learnt over time?
How about my gut feeling about CASA ridding itself of the administrative burden of GA and who, (if there was sufficient co-hesion in the industry), is capable of running the show to their satisfaction????
As for endorsements, if I get a need to fly a 2 stroke boat, I'll just go to the pub and think about it a bit. Now a PBY would be more my speed and style.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well Frank.....I will remember that for future, my observations are anecdotal stories, your anecdotal stories are FACTS observed by YOU. I am sure everyone else on these boards now understands like I do. Sorry to doubt you.
NEWSFLASH
Thread topic about the new privilleges was discussed by/with me one of the folk at RAA ops management today............
And gues what Frank and T28D and anyone else who has bagged me up over this. Without prompting and I kid you not.....he almost word for word said EXACTLY what I have been saying on this thread. Talk about LMAO........and not at RAA pilots and the changes but the fact that everything I have argued here is 100% in line with his views on the need to sort these issues. I was stunned but not not surprised.
Remains to be seen what he can get done. This guy IS a good operator and also a good progressive influence on RAA. Only downside is anything he observes with his own eyes, including bead pilot behavior at the flyins he is observing at, can only be anecdotal stories because Frank says so....he is only in his 40's so he can't be trusted as a source of fact and observation.
................pretty good chance this thread will drift down the queue now I reckon.
GAME OVER
NEWSFLASH
Thread topic about the new privilleges was discussed by/with me one of the folk at RAA ops management today............
And gues what Frank and T28D and anyone else who has bagged me up over this. Without prompting and I kid you not.....he almost word for word said EXACTLY what I have been saying on this thread. Talk about LMAO........and not at RAA pilots and the changes but the fact that everything I have argued here is 100% in line with his views on the need to sort these issues. I was stunned but not not surprised. Remains to be seen what he can get done. This guy IS a good operator and also a good progressive influence on RAA. Only downside is anything he observes with his own eyes, including bead pilot behavior at the flyins he is observing at, can only be anecdotal stories because Frank says so....he is only in his 40's so he can't be trusted as a source of fact and observation.
................pretty good chance this thread will drift down the queue now I reckon.
GAME OVER
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't be bothered arguing with you sunshine. However your post only reinforces what I have said about "elitism".
Now I'm not quiet sure what 100% of your views are and I'm unsure what I, or anyone else bagged you for, except for an unhealthy attitude toward RA-Aus, but I am concerned at the anectdotal evidence you post here today as coming from either of the two Ops Mgrs and purporting to be any sort of RA-Aus policy or dogma.
I can guarantee your claims will be subject to scrutiny tomorrow to ascertain what validity and what they specifically agreed with you on.
one of the folk at RAA ops management
I can guarantee your claims will be subject to scrutiny tomorrow to ascertain what validity and what they specifically agreed with you on.