HB's spot on with the comments above, a point that has been somewhat overlooked!

I've no doubt Liberty students making a transition into the Warrior, feel like its going up in an armchair!

Regards

CR

What about the accidents that go unreported?
 

After that incident on the 21st February, you have missed out the 3 OTHERS that happened while I was there.

1 Student had a prop strike at St Augustine a few days later, another had a tail strike a few days after that, and a canopy detached from another the following week. Anyone want the photos?

Lets hope he doesnt read this an sue you.

Odd how someone crashed at JAX, seeing as you don't go to JAX when a student at OBA doing a PPL?

HB

Saint Augustine
 

He pranged at Saint Augustine. The give away was when he leaft OBA in the morning in an XL2, and came home from Saint Augustine in a car? He told us over lunch at the Golf club that he had been trying to make his solo cross country before he went home. I sat my RT practical with him the day before.

The requirements for the NPPL are:

Sorry to see this thread fall to simpel arguments.
I know OBA, PPL'd there in the Liberty (august 6) and was very sorry to hear that a student, who I haven't met, crashed. Accidents unfortunately happen, and we learn from them. I hope and pray, that the student recovers.
When I was at OBA (had to go there twice due to bad weather), safety was the no. 1 priority for the instructors and for Ken and Bill in flightops. Even the slightest technical problem with any OBA plane was imidiatly handled by the very professional mechanics. Who was there 7 days a week, always ready and competent. Weather was constantly a problem (Sunny Florida....not a guarantee for sure!), but the school didn't hesitate to ground us all, if the weather, for example the wind conditions, wasn't safe. The rule for solo flight was max 12 knots, max 6 knot crosswind factor and no gusts.
I met and spoke to Thomson three times. At all occasions he was friendly, helpfull, professional and positive.
The Liberty isn't the easiest plane, but the instructors know it, and they train the students accordingly. Unfortunately this cannot 100 % prevent accidents. Of course things can go wrong.
Let's try and keep a discussion like this, originating from a terrible accident, at a mature and wellfounded level.

Regards Rune, Denmark

Hour Builder
 

How is the pilot of the liberty doing?

HB - Good luck with the CPL skills test mate, and the ATPL's.

Never mind Andy, one day you might be ferried around by HB himself! You obviously are a very bitter person.

As for the accidents you mention. Prop-strikes and tail-strikes are usually pilot errors, and a canopy came off! wow, I've done AEF in the Chipmunk with the frigger open all the way! Big deal. PA28 doors pop open for fun, so do C152/172 windows.

If you want twitchy landings, try the G109. Tail-dragger. 57-ft wingspan. Ground effect. Hundreds of young cadets manage it each year.

As for "cross-country should be done in UK" the rest of the world -USA included- turns out thousands of competent pilots each year.

Grow up man.

Hour Builder good luck with the ATPL’s .

Will you be going over to OBA to do your CPL? I’m starting my CPL with them next week and really looking forward to it. Every time I have spoken with Adrian he has been nothing but helpful and professional.

Think Andy has had one too many pints of orange juice!!:=

I've always made it an absolute rule NOT to edit a thread that has been "taken under the wing" of another moderator, but I'm disgusted at the messages I've edited out.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. The forum is for PROFESSIONAL training. You were all beyond juvenile.

The messages are, however, stored in the Toolshed and WWW is welcome to put them back if he sees fit. On the other hand, he may see fit to take his own action.

A sad day for PPRuNe to read stuff like that. Very sad.

NTSB 6120 Narrative - Aircraft Accident N550XL
 

NTSB 6120 Narrative - Aircraft Accident N550XL

1. As the above is now a matter of public record it is copied to this forum:

"The company has a policy and standard operating procedure (SOP) for all solo operations that "touch and go's" are not permitted.
Additionally for Student pilots undergoing solo flight the following additional limitations are endorsed:

Max. Wind: 12 knots
Max Crosswind: 06 knots
Visibility: 5 s.m.
Ceiling: 2,000 feet

The day prior to the accident the Student achieved solo status and pre-solo training requirements under FAA FAR Part 61. The required endorsements were made to his Student Pilot Certificate and logbook including the limiting SOP's. The student was briefed prior to the first solo flight that he was to make only one circuit of the traffic pattern and land to a full stop. He executed this flight successfully and without problem.

During the post first solo de-briefing the Student Pilot was informed of the limitations applicable to his solo operation of the aircraft and specifically that "touch and go's" were prohibited.

A second solo flight that followed a dual training flight was carried out later that day. During this flight the Student Pilot was observed executing "touch and go's". Post this flight the Student was debriefed by both the instructor that authorized his initial solo and the instructor who conducted the flight immediately prior. He was reminded of the limitations applicable to his solo authorization and told in no uncertain terms that "touch and go's" were prohibited.

On the day of the accident, the Student Pilot was executing his third solo flight following a successful dual training flight during which go-arounds were again practiced. The first landing was made to a full stop and a taxi back executed. During the second circuit ATC broadcast a report, two possibly three times, that winds were gusting to 14 knots. The student pilot executed a touch and go on his next landing and the tower questioned his actions, he apologized.

During the third approach to landing, the Student Pilot executed a go-around, during which the aircraft was observed to climbing poorly and appeared to be at a slow airspeed. During the go-around the aircraft started to traverse to the left heading directly towards the VOR and VHF antenna installation. Shortly before collision with the VOR and VHF antenna installation the aircraft was observed to abruptly pitch up whereupon it commenced to yaw and roll to the left. The aircraft then stalled, hit the ground suffering severe structural damage after which a fire started and destroyed the aircraft. The Student Pilot exited the aircraft unaided but after the fire had started.

Post accident examination of the accident site and aircraft confirmed that the engine was operating at a high or full power setting evidenced by the multiple propeller strike marks on the ground and the wing flaps were at 30 degrees (full-flap) at the time of impact.

2. The Pilot

Our understanding is that the pilot is continuing to make good progress in recovery from his post accident injuries having been listed as “critical and unstable” at the time of admission to hospital. All at OBA wish him a speedy and full recovery and our thoughts are with him.

3. NPPL Training
OBA does not conduct training for the NPPL and never have. Any issues with prior JAA flying training being acceptable for credit towards an NPPL are a matter for the FTO executing the training for the NPPL, the CAA and nothing to do with OBA.

4. Posts by Andy Nichols

We are very sorry that you did not complete your JAA PPL Completion training on the Piper PA28 (not Liberty XL2) with us post the flying you had completed in the UK.

You are aware that this resulted from you being unable to be authorised to execute your Qualifying Cross Country (Q X/C) flight due the metrological conditions being outside the safety limits that OBA very sensibly impose on student pilots.

You were only with us for 10 days as I recall to attempt to complete your JAA PPL.

Given the circumstances of this accident it appears that the OBA student pilot operational limitations are there for good reason, safety!
I am very glad we did not allow you to “push us” to authorise you to fly outside our student pilot limitations as it is self evident that there is good reason why we have them.

Given your behaviour since your return to the UK post your unsuccessful course completion (due to weather) I can only imagine what we would have been dealing with had we allowed to you fly when conditions were not within OBA limitations and you had had a similar situation to the one above.
You are also aware that you could not execute training for a JAA Night Qualification until all the requirements of the JAA PPL syllabus were completed, including the QXC flight. (See CAA LASORS for reference).

The friend who accompanied you for training for an IMC rating did successfully complete his course and has never to my knowledge ever posted on this or any other pilot forum.

As far as I am aware all matters between us are resolved so quite why you take every opportunity to post negative information on OBA and comment on the operations of the Liberty XL2 (an aircraft you have never flown) is a mystery.

5. Posts by JABI

I have no idea who “JABI” is (maybe he/she will publicly identify themselves here on this post, possible but unlikely!) but having researched his/her posts they almost exclusively focus on U.S. FTO’s, accidents and absolutely anything negative that can be found with U.S. flying training, I suspect without any first hand knowledge.

Clearly “JABI” is motivated by something other than “balanced, constructive and truthful” comment as evidenced by the “mathematical” comparison of C150 and Liberty XL2 accident statistics, where the "few" Liberty XL2's operating are virtually all used in a heavily utilized training environment and the large number of C150’s are used in a variety of different theaters of operation, from minimal private owner operation to flying schools. I also strongly suspect that more than half of the C150’s registered are not even in an operational condition and never fly.

Any aircraft that is operated exclusively in a training environment will have a far higher accident/incident rate that one which is not or, has a broad mix of operational environment. The Robinson R22 is a prime example of this situation as due to its use in a primary training role, its accident and incident rate was statistically extremely high, did it make it unsafe NO, it was the role in which it was used that caused the statistics.
PPRuNers can draw there own conclusions on “JABI” posts.

6. Aircraft Accidents

Anyone who engages in general aviation flying whether as a pilot or passenger must surely realise that this is classed as a “hazardous pursuit” as is Skiing, Parachuting, Mountain Climbing, Motor Car Racing/Rallying etc. and that engaging in these pursuits has inherent risk to be exposed to bodily injury or death.

Aviation accidents attract huge media speculation and publicity, it sells their publications/television and therefore their advertising.

Fortunately aircraft accidents are a rare occurrence unlike the literally thousands of fatal car accidents that occur each day and therefore attract little or no media “hype”.

Additionally there is always speculation in aircraft accidents generally that they occur due to technical issues or mechanical failure, in reality the vast majority are caused by human (Pilot) error.

You never hear this type of speculation in car accidents e.g. when someone “rear ends” another car - “The Department of Transport are investing possible brake failure as the cause of the accident and resultant fatality”, no it is just that the person who hit you was traveling too close and too fast to stop!

Neither do we ever hear that Hertz or Avis, the owner of the vehicle involved were asked for information on the accident and replied “no comment”!

7. The Liberty XL2

Some on this posting have commented as to the suitability of the Liberty XL2 in a training role, most of the negative comment comes from individuals who have no knowledge of the aircraft and have never flown it or in it. Draw your own conclusions here.

Does the XL2 have its own specific handling characteristics, YES! Does it handle like a C150/PA28/AA5 – NO, it is a different aircraft!

Do XL2/C150/PA28/AA5 aircraft types have there own idiosyncrasies, yes of course they do, but given training in the type this is no problem to any competent individual provided they operate the aircraft as trained and comply with its/their limitations.

Incidentally the Liberty XL2 achieved full certification in Europe with EASA earlier this year (another factual error in this posting correted).

8. OBA Operational Limitations

OBA has been training pilots in a primary role since 1991. Over the years we have experienced almost every issue imaginable, new ones do surface from time to time and we would naïve to believe otherwise.

We closely monitor all flying training and PIC flying and impose strict limits on pilot operation of our aircraft, often to our detriment both financially and from the negative PR generated as a result when individuals think they are capable of flying under conditions outside our operational limits which are:

OBA policy and standard operating procedure (SOP) for all solo operations no"touch and go's".

Additionally for Student pilots undergoing solo flight the following additional limitations are endorsed:

Max. Wind: 12 knots
Max Crosswind: 06 knots
Visibility:5 s.m.
Ceiling: 2,000 feet

We impose these limits for good reason, SAFETY.

In the Dirty Harry film Clint Eastwood said “It is a good man who knows his limitations” regrettably some pilots do not know their limitations are often over confident and reckless generally.

When a pilot is flying solo an instructor cannot be present to "hold your hand" and stop you getting into trouble by operating in conditions outside your abilities or "catch" your mistakes. This why OBA impose limitations on solo and PIC operations. Regrettably some pilots do not comply with these limits or “push” to be excluded from them.

The results of this kind of behaviour speak for themselves.

Regards,
Adrian Thompson
President OBA

:mad: :ugh: :mad:

I have feared for some time that this thread would wander dangerously off course and I issued a few posts in anticipation.

Unfortunately one or two people with agendas have caused unnecessary problems by posting untrue, unhelpful and unwanted messages. They have been removed and the instigator is now banned.

I hope that will be an end to it.

I strongly suspect that the A.N. who posted the obnoxious material is a former failed customer of OBA and all comments and allegations made by him should be disregarded.

I'm no mate of Adrian Thompson and no advocate of OBA or learning to fly in Florida but I WILL NOT tolerate libelous allegations and mischief making about FTO's on this forum. Any attempt will result in an immediate ban.

Adrian, I welcome your informative posting on this thread, thank you.

WWW
:mad:

A little more info...
 

Hi,

Thankfully the pilot survived, that is the main thing.

I spoke to Orlando Beach Aviation in the week following the accident, from the perspective of someone researching which school to go with for my PPL. I asked if the accident would have implications for me looking to train later this year.

In short, there wouldn't be any implications. The pilot, was carrying out a touch and go, specifically against instruction. He had already been warned the previous day that he should not attempt a touch and go but chose to disregard this instruction, did it again and lost control.

Horrendous as the accident was, a solo flight is surely just that and no one outside of the plane can do anything if someone chooses to deviate from what they have been briefed to do.

That incident in itself did not put me off going with OFA, I especially was drawn to the fact that they have the new fleet of Liberty aircraft rather than some 25 year old machines that have been knocked around a bit.

I'm set now to start my course in about 3 months. The advice that I would love now, is having just received my study pack for the PPL, is where do I start with the modules? Beging with the one on law and then progress to...?

I'd be grateful for any help.

Regards,

Jason

This is not at all an attack on OBA (pletty of other US clubs have the no solo touch and go rule) but I do find it rather tiresome and unnecessary that the rule exists. Plenty of clubs in the UK allow solo touch and goes, on 700m grass strips as well, there is nothing dangerous about doing them if your take offs and landings are OK. All it means is that less of your hours are spent in the air and you waste hobs time taxiing around and waiting in take-off queues. If a student can't handle a touch and go then maybe they shouldn't be going solo.

I agree that a school should ban touch and goes especially when low houred PPL students are concerned. Their level of experience is too low to cope with all that is going on and this is when the danger creeps in.
I don't think it is necessarily a competence issue, as in how good their take-offs/landings are, but it is a human factors issue.
I do think a blanket ban is a good thing and then once the student is assessed and shows they can deal with touch and goes, then it should be lifted.
I know it's a pain in the @rse for the person concerned taxying around to take-off again, but at the end of the day, it is a safety issue and in my eyes, it is well justified.

Maybe your right, but I did touch and goes from my second solo onwards and never had a problem. I did find though it was a good idea to slow to a walking pace in the Super Cub while I dumped the flap, checked the carb heat was off before going again- with a crosswind the take off swing can be quite severe. But in a nose gear spam can I really don't see the issue with touch and goes.

What a strange rule? I've been instructing for a while now. I've also been involved with several flying schools in one capacity or another and I've never heard of such a rule. I can only see it being an issue on very short runways. Is it mainly an american rule of are there schools in the UK with this rule?

TB

You would surprised at how many people get a total mental overload when they start flying. Some people take to it like a duck to water and cope very very well and have no problems, like yourself CT.
I know of someone who was killed doing a touch and go and was a very low houred PPLer. The error that was made (whether it was pilot error or mechanical, I do not know) was that the flap was not retracted for take-off and in my opinion, if a touch and go was not performed in this instance, the tragedy could have been avoided.
So, when it comes to PPL students (early on in the PPL), I say they are a no-no, but once they demonstrate they can do a touch and go without any major hassles, then lift the ban on them...but that is only my own opinion.

I am amazed that this pilot ignored distinct instructions not to t+g on various occasions and had been censured during a debrief.

It would be interesting to know what was on the ATC tapes ie if the pilot had requested clearance to land or clearance for touch and go, or clearance for the option (an american expresiion which icludes landing, t+g or go around). The contollers are familliar with the t+g policy at OBA and know that solo students are require to land and taxi back.

AFAIK the reason for the no t+g policy at OBA is due to a solo student failing to raise the flaps on a t+g until airborne, the resulting sink caused the plane to end up in the trees at the end of the runway. Don't know how true this is but that is the story that was going around when I was there about 5 years ago.

I have flown at Ormond (not with OBA) and cleared for the option is not usually used, its either 'cleared to land' or 'clear touch and go'. The pilot in question probably just read back 'clear to land' but went and did a touch and go anyway.

As far as trees at the end of the runway are concerned, yes they are there and they could pose a problem if you got sink after retracting the flaps. I think the accident in which a plane crashed on the golf course a few years ago was caused by this and actually I think this was with an instructor as well...the runways are 17/35 3700ft and 8/26 4000ft.

If the pilot went ahead and executed a touch and go on a landing clearance this could have many ramifications such as separation. ie a plane ahead in the circuit may be slower than the aircraft doing the touch and go. Would it be an offence to totally disregard a landing clearance and execute a t+g?

Hi,

As an Ex-Student of OBA i must say that i received the very best of training available. When i was sent on my first solo the instructor filled out my Endorsment which said in huge capital bold letters "NO SOLO TOUCH AND GO`s" and i was made very aware by the instructor of this limitation.
I can however understand this limitation, i would not feel comfortable doing a touch and go solo as in my dual touch and go`s the flaps were operated by the Instructor and took a couple of seconds to retract.
In my opinion the Liberty XL2 was a very good training aircraft as mentioned above the liberty does not take as much "Landing Abuse" as the usual pa28 C150 and making less room for errors and better pilots.....

Just my opinion,

W2

The phrase, "request the option" is used by Instructors and/or examiners on downwind at OBA-at least when I've been there. Reason for this, is that they were going to train/test you on a particular maneouver, normally an engine out glide approach. It was the their way of getting a clearance from ATC with an option for touch and go, full stop, or go around without making it too obvious to the student. If the student was paying attention is was their way of knowing what to expect in the next few seconds.. :-)

I wouldn't use this phrase when solo, there wasn't a point, as it was always a full stop landing, be it when I was training for a licence, or hour building.

HB

some raw data
 

Folks, with all due respect to Adrian and OBA let me give you some raw data to absorb. Registered Liberty XL2 aircraft - 90, accidents since 1.1.2004 (when the aircraft was given its certification) - 5 (the one's we're reviewing isn't on NTSB db just yet). Registered 152s - 3807, accidents since 1.1.2004 (in order to compare to XL2 - pure statistics) - 101. Registered Diamonds DA20 - 397, accidents since 1.1.2004 - 2. Registered 172s - 26662, accidents since 1.1.2004 - 596.This puts XL2 at 5.56% accident rate (of all operational aircraft), 152 at 2.65%, 172 at 2.05%, da20 at 0.504%. All of XL2 accidents have occured at the landing phase and 4 out of 5 involved "improper recovery from bounced landing" according to NTSB.
OBA is a good school, all the CFIs are Riddle alumni, maintenance is fine..
I'd say xl2 is no match for something like da20 for example..:oh:

All right, not bad, not bad...(OBA anthem:)

The anthem of many FTOs :)

Flydog

Yes your statistics are I assume very accurate however they do not tell the real story, I bet there are some registered C152 spamcans sitting in the corner of an airfield unused whereas the XL2 being a new aircraft will and does have a high hourly usage rate (definately at OBA as it is a very busy school). We are comparing apples with pears here, to get a true comparison, we need the total hours flown per a/c type vs no of incidents/accidents, not the total number of planes vs incidents/accidents.

That will only make the accident rate % higher

I trained there in june when they were fully uterlising the liberty's. within a week i think 4 had to be sent back to the manufacturer, 3 had to be put into storage untill an engineer from liberty could come and look at them. whilst a friend of mine was on one of his first solo flights the electronics for the flaps failed and this was during a landing. numerous other problems occured such as small holes appearing at the leading edge of the wing where it joins to the fuselage after 1 to 2 weeks of use. overall this aircraft is very poor for training in an accident was waiting to happen since they first bought them.

Can I please point out that the above post was not written by me. I trained in the XL2 in June and would not have given this account of my experience with them. Could the author please remove this post. Please note this has been reported to pprune.

coodem

No it wont, it will reduce it

I saw with my own eyes the problems OBA had with poor students, the trouble is some people cannot be told they are doing somthing wrong/ take criticism, or in some cases listen to anyone :ugh:.... They then go out of thier way to cause trouble and bring OBA's reputation into disrepute.

I was very worried when I discovered lots of anti-OBA posts just after I had booked with them, but as always I decided to make my own mind up. I am glad I did, I recieved superb training in the air and in the groundschool (hi Echo Mike if you are still around :ok:), and had a fantastic time as well, met lots of top people. Some people think it is a holiday and they can just "bimble" through the course. Sorry, it takes effort and dedication, if you put the work in OBA go out of thier way to help you.

And I spend a good few days sat cursing the winds, as I could not go up solo, but OBA do not control the weather, it was just the way it was. I booked 6 weeks out there to make sure I had enough time to do everything I wanted to, and I came away with my JAA PPL, night rating and 27 Hrs extra flying time, and lots of very good friends, and lots of happy memories.

So, don't listen to the horror stoires, it is a known fact that more people shout about a bad experience than a good one, just go fly!! ( Kens favourite phrase :ok:)

I would echo the last input. I trained for a PPL at OBA 2 years ago now. I had no problems with the set up or staff. Sure, back then the planes were old, but they were well maintained and safe to fly. The CFI'S were on the ball and generally very good. Adrian Thompson was polite and seemed very good at what he did.The PPL sylabus was followed correctly and I thoroughly enjoyed my time there.

OBA've
 

As Above, AT is a fountain of knowlege and full of decent banter. The Instructors are very good and above all, its great fun to be there!

I'll be living la vida OBA again in feb and wouldn't change owt about it!

Regards

CR

T&G
 

Hi all

I was reading this thread and feel like I must say a few words adding a breeze of objectivity to the mist of previous posts. I am an old "veteran" student of OBA, done PPL there, had a great time, came back for hour-building (had an amazing time), then came back for IR, FAA CPL, JAA CPL, FAA/JAA Multi, then ME/IR, CFI. CFII. MEI - the whole lot. I am instructing now in Beijing PanAm (China), building my PIC time on DA40/42's and being paid one of the highest CFI salaries in the World. :E

I must say that OBA is a very flexible school when it comes to flight packages. they can Taylor anything according to what you actually need. I started with JAA ATPL package which I then transferred to FAA CFI. I just spontaneously came up with the request and they re-scheduled my training in one day. I was quite impressed. Also, when I finished my training having a 5-figure sum in credit, they refund me the whole thing within 7 days of my request!

I know some stories about Phoenix East and NAC who would use any legal trick in the book to keep your cash. I personally had a very bad experience with Naples Air Center and will never do any training with them again (perhaps it's not the most objective statement, but it's the fact).

The only thing that OBA is inflexible with is the safety standards. When I was doing my PPL there, I almost have not finished because of some bad weather at the time (it was September). Despite my frustration, it was obvious that the chief CFIs (Ken) had only the best in mind by restricting my VFR X/C in almost IFR conditions. I appreciate this now and would never let any of my students to do the same in China. I'm sure any other FTO would not allow this either.

The touch and go situation is not quite understandable by me personally, since even in a strict 141 school like Beijing PanAm, T&G's and fully authorized for solo students. On the other hand, in our school students solo on their 30th or 40th hour rather then 13-15th like in OBA. Early solo gives students a lot of confidence but the ability is not there, hence it's a lot more dangerous to allow. It should not be surprising that in such robust training environment like OBA and Ormond Beach Municipal airport in general, accidents and incident happen. I think the only person to be blamed for this is the student himself (considering earlier report post by OBA)

Finally it must be said, that since I finished my training in OBA February 07, I could see how far has this school gone: from small place in a dilapidated flight center operating a bunch of beaten-up 1970's C150's to a first-class refurbished facility with brand-new aircrafts, fantastic CFI's (most are Embry-Riddle graduates) and some solid customer service. Thumbs up to Adrian on this one ! :D

I got a friend who is considering JAA PPL in the nearest future and at the moment I can't recommend him an FTO better then OBA.

Tailwinds! :ok:

RS

statistics
 

Flydog, as I told you on the phone :E this statistics does not mean much. LX2 is a brand-new aicraft. If you look at the same C-150 crash statistics from 70s, when the a/c appeared first, it had a very high rate of accidents as well. As my examiner (Capt. Raskey, I'm sure some of you have heard) once said, "There are no bad airplanes, just bad pilots" (I know that i will probably crash tomorrow for saying something like this here with my low hours), but I certainly believe it. If the aircraft was tested and certified by several international authorities, it would be safe to assume that the problem is not with the airplane. Sure, it would take time to master it, perhaps years to learn all the tricks, do's and don't but many new training airplanes have been through this stage. I'm not saying that XL2 does not have a character, but so do any other planes (speaking of which, I scared myself !!!!less yesterday by doing a cross-control Power ON stall in a DA40 with my student: at the end of the stall, the a/c just rolled in a direction of the rudder and got stuck in a 90 degree bank :mad: No matter how much we were pushing the opposite rudder, the bastard would not budge! Had to continue the roll and recover nose down. Told the othe guys about it - they never tried this before and were thankful for the warning).
At the end of the day, the question you have to ask yourself is, "Do you really want to do your PPL in something pre-historic or would you like to fly on a bleeding edge of technology which is also affortable?:cool:

RS

smith, I meant it will increase all the cessnas and warriors % Rate, hence decreasing the xl2 % rate

Minefield - where to start
 

Hi WWW,

I am new to PPRuNe and have had a little look through some threads regarding OBA (I'm considering studying there). I stumbled across your post on the 'OBA crash' thread and wonder if there is a specific reason that you do not sympathise with the school or owner in this instance?

I'm not asking for you to justify your comments, rather, share any info that could make my decision easier in finding an appropriate school to study at. I have limited resource and will be self funding. I'm aware that there are a lot of sharks in the water, so to speak.

I am not keen on flying for an airline, more a small bush flying career - your direction in this would be much appreciated.

Also, I apologise in advance if I have instigated this in the wrong way.

Kind regards

Be30

It would be better for me not to comment on a particular school.

My advice has been and remains thus:

Find a FTO that is preferably withing 50 miles of home that can do PPL CPL and IR.

In many cases they will have been trading for 10 years and have instructors who are career.

Rock up and announce your intention of going the whole way there and then.

Specify you want a single or as close as possible single instructor from day one PPL to IR 1170A.

This will be more expensive than going to Florida and then hour building or converting or doing blah blah blah.

It is however the cheapest least stress way of getting the most training bang for your buck.

Cheers

WWW

Bald Eagle,

I've been out here for a couple of weeks now at OBA doing my MEP CPL and have been really impressed with them.

I can highly recommend them, please post me if you have any questions.

Regards Mark.

OBA Crash.
 

Chaps,

Thanks for this! WWW I appreciate your position and thank you for yoor advice - it makes sense that a consistent teaching approach from end to end of the training would be beneficial - food for thought!

Mark, where I think that www has a valid point, I am still interested in hearing about this FTO, the facilites themselves and the accommodation etc. It would be good to catch up with you on completion of your training to discuss. PM me if you can and I will respond accordingly. Good luck until then and thank you once again.

Be30:)

I love flying the XL2
 

I did a JAA PPL, Night & Hour Build in the XL2 with OBA in June/July this year. My personal experience was one of a professional and friendly school with high standards. My advice to any career pilot is that what you get out of a flying school depends on what you are willing to put in. Yes learning to land the XL2 with grace does take perciverance and many hours of practice with an instructor. I remember being so frustrated that my instructor wouldn't release me to solo but thank heavens for his determination as eventually I became proficient at making consistantly safe landings and he let me go.
Wannabe pilots come in all shapes and sizes, some are hard working, safe and professional people and others are just dangerous.
With regards to the accident it appears the cause was loss off control whilst performing a prohibited manouvre with high winds being a contributary factor. I hope the student continues to recover and will not be put off flying. Perhaps he has learned the hardest way that there are reasons why aviation has rules. I disagree that touch and goes are suitible for student pilots. The t & g requires a high work load - power control, flaps, and of course 'flying' the plane - which can overload even the most experienced of pilots. I think the recent events in Phuket illustrate this well as early investigations suggest the pilot attempted a go-around in high winds (ring any bells?) and clearly failed.
My experience of OBA was excellent and I will be returning there next year to continue my flight training.