Is it an Ultralight or a Recreational Aircraft

[octave]

If you are referring to me here let me just say that I did not contact the paper but the police media unit. The police media unit then checked on how this tragic accident was to be investigated ie as GA or RA and only then changed their press release.

 

cheers

 

Graham

 

 

[Ben Longden]

and, conversely, you do yourself a disservice if they do report correctly and you complain to them with your own errors.

Also, if the reporter HAS correctly reported the incident, why not let the editor know?

 

Ben

 

 

[Tomo]

The only way the Recreational Aircraft movement is going to get good pulblicity is to make it themselves. The likes of making the annual fly in at Narromine a charity fund raising event. There's all sorts of commercial operators gaining from it why not make money for charity?

Organizations such as "Angel Flight" /www.angelflight.org.au/ might be something that would boost RAA to the public...not sure if it's possible for an Raa-ite to do, but it is a great way to promote flying in general...

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

/www.angelflight.org.au/[/url] might be something that would boost RAA to the public...not sure if it's possible for an Raa-ite to do, but it is a great way to promote flying in general...

I second this! Positive public relations is something that will make RAA grow! Organising events within other events such as flyin's to the Red Bull Air Race and other aviation spectaculars, RFDS events and other airshows will be the best way to show the public about who and what the RAA is.

 

Also, some of these online TV show's will boost the public's knowledge of RAA.

 

 

[octave]

I agree, should be positive and negative feedback. its about a gradual education.

 

cheers

 

Graham

 

 

[shags_j]

Just read this http://www.recreationalflying.com/forum/australian-aviation-news/20697-light-plane-deaths-up-more-than-50-age.html .

 

If ever you needed to know whether the public understood what we are about then this shows you. They, nor the people reporting on it it would seem, have any idea what we are about.

 

BTW, I hope everyone wrote to the age about this...

 

 

[octave]

And here is another poor quality article

 

Ultralight trend takes off | The Courier-Mail

 

The exact weight of a plane is of little importance, the most important safety aspects are standards of training, maintenance standards and the regulations that we fly under.

 

To the public the word ultralight means poorly trained pilots in poorly built planes and who can blame them. The public dont look at the actual statistics all they respond to is picking up the paper a seeing that another one of those dangerous ultralights has crashed again.

 

The Paul Bibby article talks negatively about the proposed weight increase. If this weight increase goes ahead we will under scrutiny (and rightly so). It will be interesting to see how the media interprets a Cessna 150 incident.

 

I think it would be reasonable for the public to read ultralight aircraft and assume that the pilot must be one of those under trained ultralight pilots, (in the public mind) this to me seems a little unfair to GA pilots.

 

I am still a little puzzled about the whole under 45knt requirement for RAAus, I think someone else suggested that was untrue, anyone know? Maybe if we have trouble with the definition it should hardly be surprising that the media has trouble.

 

Cheers

 

Graham

 

 

[Guest DBT]

Never mind the weight increase, What about the proposed controlled airspace endorsement? Do you not think ATPL's and ATC's will have something to say about that?

 

 

[antzx6r]

Presumably airline pilots and controllers would have the intelligence to know the difference between RAA registered aircraft and GA registered aircraft. They also know that this is not going to lead to aircraft without radio and transponder roaming around their airspace. They have all the correct information. If they are still against the CTA endorsement it is because they have a prejudice for RAA aircraft despite their record for safety.

 

No it is the public that are being fed the BS by the media. And they will believe it even if it is complete fabrication. The media rain supreme and no-one can touch them. It's what makes politics such a hard game.

 

 

[Guest DBT]

A little off topic, but I was thinking more of their concern with RA pilots, rather than the aircraft. eg:

 

<flame>"A 20 hour trained/5 hour solo and no medical pilot is going to stuff up and wipe himself out on the windscreen of my shiny A380 and really **** up my day"</flame>

 

I think the attack will be on the RA pilot, rather than his/her aircraft.

 

AFAIK, a qualified GA pilot is already allowed to fly a *suitably equipped* RA registered aircraft into CTA.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Same counter really. A 20 hr with 5 hrs solo RAA pilot is equivelent to the same minimums for a GFPT level GA pilot. The nav training comes in the second part of the training for PPL as does an RAA pilot with the xcountry endorsement. The difference leaving the medical, which I think is only nessesary when going to commertial ops anyway to tell you the truth. You are much better off teaching people why they need to be healthy and why not to fly when you're not well (HF syllabus). And then there is the very minimal instrument training, which I also see as a mistake in GA syllabus. If your going to train them, train them and give them the rating. Why give them a taste and let them think they can handle IMC when they quite odviously can't. (see 178 seconds) Airline pilots know they are going to get the same seperation they get from private GA ops when RAA enter CTA. They might complain about half trained pilots but they know its just a 'looking down their noses' type thing. They do the same with every thing thats not a glorified bus. The cap and the stripes on they're shoulder have gone to they're head.

 

 

[poteroo]

Whoa there!

 

Lets' not infer that RPT, and Charter pilots have it 'in' for RAA - they are, more often than not, just lacking information on all the changes being introduced. There is an occasional 'anti-RAA attitude' expression by younger GA instructors, but it's not so within the more experienced GA instructors who make the big decisions.

 

I'm a believer in the term LSA. 'Recreational' is a very vague word, which can be interpreted as unskilled, or undisciplined, or even un-regulated. Any category of aircraft is 'recreational' if that's the purpose of the flight. Maybe a flight plan should show the purpose of the flight, rather than the category of the aircraft per se. It will take 50 years, and lots of re-education, to overcome the fact that the wrong name has been chosen.

 

Unfortunately, the press and media rarely investigate their facts sufficiently, to be aware of the real differences between GA and RAAus skills and aircraft capabilities. But, we are probably stuck with the terminology.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Tomo]

I was telling my Granddad that I'll be starting my flight training next week, and the first thing he said is, 'Don't fly those ultralight aircraft will you, there to dangerous'.

 

So I just politely went with the flow and didn't dare tell him I would probably be doing it in a Drifter....;)

 

I think it will be along time before people see the safe side of the RAA...but I guess all we can do is act safely, and keep the safety records up...and try to convince people that not every aircraft they hear that's crashed is an ultralight....

 

:big_grin:

 

 

[Spriteah]

Wow, this thread got some serious action. Matt I concur with your comments and many of the others in this chat.

 

As aviators we must always try to promote the good. As members of clubs I believe we should always try to give back to the community. I say that in the belief that as Australians we are given great privileges. What other country can you say to yourself hey Im going to buy a plane and fly it (and yes there are some, but lots of people just hope for food!).

 

As to plane safety any small plane is a light aircraft, GA or Ultralight. As we seek a weight increase the lines will be blured more. As has been previously stated we must try to improve the name of the industry, hobby. I suggest all RAA peoples should chat about the sport, always stay within the rules and maintain a high level of safety. Then the only media we will get is the charity work we conduct as clubs and thanks from the community.

 

Cheers,

 

Jim

 

Geelong Sports Aviators.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Presumably airline pilots and controllers would have the intelligence to know the difference between RAA registered aircraft and GA registered aircraft.

Folks,

 

I would suggest a presumption based on a triumph of hope over fact.

 

The lack of knowledge of a proportion airline pilots, beyond their narrow focus has often surprised me, and it is not limited to ex-military with no other civil aviation experience, either.

 

The view that everything that is "VFR" is flown by "the terry toweling brigade/blundering bug smashers/otherwise incompetents" is virtually an article of faith with a "particular" group of "professional" pilots and some ATC, you only have to have a look at the Australian sites on pprune to verify.

 

In my experience, this is a particularly Australian thing, you only have to go as far as NZ (NZCH) to see light aircraft operating on the grass parallel to everything up to B744 operating on the runway, imagine suggesting that at any major in Australia.

 

Regards,

 

 

[bilby54]

Sounds like a good reason to dissolve the GA/RA split and make it Commercial & Recreational instead. If you fly for money you are run by CASA and if you fly not-for-money, i.e. private and recreational then not dircetly controlled by CASA but a body like RA-Aus.

I think that a lot of people have missed the point here.

 

CASA call all recreational aircraft and pilots "Ultralight". It is publish on the charts and in the ERSA. Every VTC has a picture of a hang glider with a big 'U' beside it and the index calls it an ULTRALIGHT.

 

If the safety regulator is still calling us ultralights, what hope does Joe Public have in disputing it? i_dunno i_dunno

 

 

[John Brandon]

I think that a lot of people have missed the point here.

CASA call all recreational aircraft and pilots "Ultralight". It is publish on the charts and in the ERSA. Every VTC has a picture of a hang glider with a big 'U' beside it and the index calls it an ULTRALIGHT.

 

If the safety regulator is still calling us ultralights, what hope does Joe Public have in disputing it?

 

 

 

 

Just to add a little more to that. If you are flying a two-place three-axis aeroplane with RA-Aus registration then you had better be flying an ultralight aeroplane otherwise your flight has no legal standing. The exemption legislation which allows such flights is CAO 95.55 which states as the preamble:

 

Section 95.55 (Exemption from provisions of the

 

 

Civil Aviation

 

 

 

CAO 95.10 has similar wording, CAO 95.32 refers to 'weight shift controlled aeroplanes and powered parachutes'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the ladies and gentlemen of the fourth estate are quite accurate when they refer to a RA-Aus Jabiru or Tecnam as an ultralight.

 

cheers

 

John Brandon

 

Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest terry]

ah John, your just destroying a good argument with facts.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Blah blah blah

 

 

[Methusala]

The enemy(ies) as I see them

 

I've flown Gliders, ultralights from the Pteradactyl through Tyro, Jeep, Javelin, Robinson B1rd, Cessnas, Volksplane, Thrusters (both single and 2 seaters), Piper Aerostar , RV 4, Karatoo etc, etc. and they are all aeroplanes! The distinction is simply in the minds of them who seek to control us.

 

Now I don't mind a bit of sensible rule making (our late sainted CFI used to say that rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the observance by fools) which probably puts me firmly in the anarchistic group - but so be it! I read somewhere (don't quote me) that Mark Twain said that those individuals who sailed small craft on the oceans were a special breed because they took responsibility for their lives. I regard air pilots to be in the same league.

 

Today we had a very special flight from our base to the nearby place owned by a freind who has built 3 planes and 2 ocean going cats. This took 28 mins airtime by Thruster. I feel privileged to be in the Tony Hayes cohort who regard Thrusters as one of the best aircraft ever built.

 

The point that I would like to make is that the airplanes that we fly put us in a special place. It matters little what we call them but we must all do our best to preserve our lives and those of our passengers by taking responsibility personally and by doing this we can avoid the worst of name calling (by our shallow detractors where ever we find them)and the "overcontrollers" (we all know who they are!). Regards, Don

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

WELCOME BACK BRETT CAMPANY !!!!!!!!!............The press always have got it wrong, and probabily always will. Good example was the recent sad Moree crash which was widly reported as a Cessna, when all could see clearly it was a Piper.

 

Who cares?....an Ultralight will always be an ultralight to me, a recreational aircraft, a recreational aircraft, a lazair a minimim aircraft, and a Cessna a spamcan or a piece of Witchita tin................................What's in a name anyway ?, they are all flying machines, or anti-gravity devices to me ! ....................................maj...

 

 

[nong]

I reckon the term 'RECREATIONAL' is INACCURATE, LIMITING and POLITICALLY EMBARRASSING.

 

INACCURATE? It is naive to think that our small aircraft are only being used as toys by hobbyists. Whilst a lot of activity is of a recreational nature, there is also a lot of activity that is more accurately described as business or industrial. A light aircraft can be a tool just as easily as it can be a toy. If I need to make some on-site decisions at a construction site 150nm distant, yet be back home for a 1.00pm appointment, and I use the firms Jabiru for the trip.....is that recreational? If I use the Brumby to train a student who I know is already studying CPL theory and the student has said that he is aiming to be a commercial pilot.....is that recreational? If I conduct photographic survey (espionage!) of my competitors operation from the Lightwing.....is that recreational? This, and much more, is typical of the uses to which these machines are put around this nation, in addition to recreation.

 

LIMITING? It beggars belief that a useful thing such as a light aircraft should, by government compulsion, be limited to recreational roles only.

 

POLITICALLY EMBARRASSING? At times when one might be faced with defending access to airspace and facilities, RECREATIONAL doesn't cut it. One needs to be an AIRCRAFT OPERATOR so that one can look the other OPERATORS squarely in the eye and state one's case.

 

So.....back to the question. I would say that the machines are AEROPLANES or AIRCRAFT. If a distinction based on say, weight, is thought necessary.....then the machine might be a LIGHT AIRCRAFT. A Jabiru is a LIGHT AIRCRAFT. So is a Javelin or a Maxair Hummer.

 

Time to rename the organisation....again!

 

 

[facthunter]

Currently you use a certificate to fly an "ultralight" aircraft. You need a CASA issued licence to fly a light aircraft or anything heavier, or with more people on board than one passenger. Waive the distinction and you PAY more. What we have would cease to exist.

 

Being fair, RECREATIONAL, covers more than what we operate. If I was wealthy, I could fly a CATALINA recreationally.. If you are worried about what the rest of the aviation fraternity think of us GET OVER IT.. There will always be this false pecking order amongst pilots of a certain mentality. They're most likely underconfident deep down.. Your skill as an AIRMAN is not dependent in the size or cost of the plane you are flying. The more basic types often require more skill to handle safely as they don't have the development . Nev

 

 

[BigPete]

Currently you use a certificate to fly an "ultralight" aircraft. You need a CASA issued licence to fly a light aircraft or anything heavier, or with more people on board than one passenger. Waive the distinction and you PAY more. What we have would cease to exist.Being fair, RECREATIONAL, covers more than what we operate. If I was wealthy, I could fly a CATALINA recreationally.. If you are worried about what the rest of the aviation fraternity think of us GET OVER IT.. There will always be this false pecking order amongst pilots of a certain mentality. They're most likely underconfident deep down.. Your skill as an AIRMAN is not dependent in the size or cost of the plane you are flying. The more basic types often require more skill to handle safely as they don't have the development . Nev

You nailed it, Nev :thumb_up:

 

regards

 

 

[bilby54]

Brilliant piece of wisdom, Nev!!:thumb_up: