Ian

Hi as someone who recently went down this path I'd recommend the compressed approach, especially if you have other commitments, ie work, family etc. After a few weeks of sick kids, work commitments, bad weather, instructors changing, aircraft issues you're so far behind that you're paying money just tread water. Unless you're old or have significant problems you can leave the medical until you're actually doing your in training. If you're overweight or have some other risk factors do it early. I can't comment on the US pathway however someone I used to work with went down this path and it was economical at the time and might be the way to go. I went straight to PPL in two relatively short intensive bursts space not far apart, you learn faster and build upon what you know quickly. In hindsight it would have probably been better to do it in the one run however it is quite stressful as you're never as good as you'd like to be. From a business perspective flight schools prefer the once/twice a week fliers spread over 12 months as it makes for a more predictable cash flow. If you're negotiating with a flight school ask for all the costs up front, hourly rates for training, costs of practical exams, etc. Also discuss who will be your main instructor and meet them, often you do the introductory flight with a senior person and then are handballed to a fledgling instructor or passed around between a few. As for your comments in relation to the technology, it is a bit of a farce. I suspect I was one of the last people to use a slide rule in the general education system, I came across them again learning to fly, some folk still think their whiz wheel is a good thing however that view won't be shared by anyone under 50. I'm not saying that they can't be useful however they're inaccurate, error prone and out of date and shouldn't be at the core of a flying theory course. You can't even take in a calculator that does trig let along something programmable. When I fly I have two tablets plus a phone with an electronic flight book, yes there's a risk that they may fail however it's unlikely and they're more accurate. 1950s technology is bad, the engines burn oil, you can overheat the engine, carburetors ice up etc vacuum pump fail, magnetos burn fuel inefficiently and don't advance or retard the spark, engine detonation can destroy the engine, engine don't have roller tappets. None of these things happen with automotive engines built since the late 1980s, they have fuel injection, electronic ignition, higher tolerances, better alloys, detonation detection, fully computerized engine management and the engines last longer with less care. I'd like to see all planes with ADSB out, entry into controlled airspace being managed digitally and less of a focus on certification and more focus on capability. But that being said I find that flying is an absolution joy.

Given the choice, and there generally is one, I will choose the place with no fees. I will specifically avoid those places with higher than average fees. I don't mind bearing some of the costs associated with running an airfield as long as they are reasonable and reflect the requirements of the aircraft involved. There are a number of caveats associate with this though. Airports tend to attract business into the community so from a business point if view they are and should be a loss leader funded by the community. Airports are public goods and service a far wider community than simply those who use it on a regular basis especially in times of duress and emergencies. All levels of Government should recognize this and contribute accordingly. If you want water bombers to be able to operate effectively when there are bushfires you need an airport, if you want mass evacuations in times of duress airports are very handy. If you want large tankers to operate you need a large airport. The requirements relating to bushfires control will continue to escalate as it's extremely unlikely that effective responses to global warming will occur until its an absolute disaster, the science is crystal clear however people stuggle to comprehend basic math and logic. The recent bushfires have just been the prelude and a distributed network of forward airstrips in fire prone area will be a key strategic asset in efforts to manage these risks. In relation to the collection of fees, if a significant proportion of the fees ie more than 5% are being siphoned off in management charges that should fixed and the parties involved should be named and shamed. If the councils involved are party to this they should also be named and shamed. Agreeing to high commission deals just because you don't directly bear the cost is simply laziness and incompetence and funneling money that should stay in your community back into the bid cities. Trying to charge for gold plated solutions is commonplace, for example when the surface is upgraded to cater for RPT, that upgrade cost shouldn't be expected to the borne by those who don't need it however these costs are typically used to justify fees. You will often seen local councils spending millions on a terminal building and then claiming this as a cost associated with running the airport when in reality it's just a vanity project.

There's always hope 😉 Does anyone know if there has been any hangar space at Canberra airport for GA in living memory and what the going rate is? There appear to a lot of planes parked outside that I assume people would prefer to see out of the weather.

It might be good for CASA to have greater visibility over the operations of a smaller airstrip and the compliance burnden. They could use it as a pilot site for upcoming ideas in relation to how to do "light touch" low cost regulation.

The point I was trying to make was that there are a number of aircraft which are deemed suitable to fly and train in however not all of these aircraft are equally reliable or safe. It may have been better to pick an example where there are fewer emotional attachments, however I still think that's it's good example As I stated I'd like to see the Jabiru engine series evolve into a best of breed engine. I think that its great that a small company has the engineering chutzpah to compete against the likes of Lycoming, Rotax and Continental. I'd actually like to see a graph like the one above post 2016-2021 showing the current failure rate. Anyway how this relates to the original question whether a single or a twin is a suitable for an new pilot is look at why you want a twin? If it's safety I would recommend that you do some reading along the lines of this article on twin safety

My understanding is that Jabirus still requires some additional procedures when training compared to other aircraft. CASA imposed these due to their perception of risk (rightly or wrongly) This is partially based upon this report which led to the following report created by Jabiru engineers where explicit design changes and changes to the maintenance procedures were made to make CASA happy. It would appear that there was a real issue associated with the through bolts. For instance my understanding is that through bolts are now replaced at 1000 hours and recessed pistons are fitted to attempt to provide for the possibility that some power may be retained in the case of a stuck piston. The graph below is from the report. Now I'm aware that Jabiru contested a significant number of the engine findings however even with these taken into account they didn't have the best safety record. This would indicate that aircraft powered by these engines are a higher risk, not an enormously higher risk however a higher risk none the less. I'd like to see these engines evolve to become the best is class engines from a safety perspective however new designs tend to fail more than older ones. I'd also like to know the alloy used in the heads and whether this was a high temperature alloy like hiduminium

I understand the NIMBY perspective however this infrastructure would be an ACT Government proposal and there are no ACT voters in this area. It would be a great spot from the ACT Government's perspective. Its located in a corner of the ACT, lots of NSW voters but not ACT voters. It would also provide protection for Tharwa which without being on their doorstep and it is central to the fire danger areas. Currently if smoke were to obscure Canberra you have nowhere to go. Were the grazing interests NSW based or ACT based, I wouldn't see ACT as having much of a grazing industry?

Not all experimental airplanes are high performance vehicles. While of I know people who learnt to fly in their own experimental aircraft with instructors willing to teach them, the ownership requirement is a significant impediment. While there's a degree of risk involved, there's also risks involved in flying in something that was built by people who are now in their 90s. Does anyone know the average age of certified GA training aircraft used by flight schools in Australia? Jabiru airplanes have been identified as higher risk vehicles to consider training in and require special procedures however people still train in these airplanes. There are also experimental Jabirus which might provide a good training environment. Essentially it is a risk based decision, current policy precludes the experimental approach unless you are the owner. I'd like to see a policy change where if an experimental plane was available, and you believe the aircraft is sound, and can source an instructor who was willing to teach and also believes the aircraft is sound there should be no bureaucratic impediments to training in said aircraft. I'm not sure if a shared ownership approach could gets around this, ie you buy a share for $X, training in the plane and then sell your share when you complete your training. I know of numerous people who are keen to learn how to fly, however the cost barrier holds and the lack of infrastructure in the region holds them back.

Hi All, I was reading about and wondering whatever came the of Canberra second airport proposal. There's this website and there would appear to be a reasonable market demand and the spot chosen wasn't surrounded by any ACT voters. There was also a Deloitte's study which was reasonably positive. Was it canned because they wanted to deploy a solar farm nearby and has this infrastructure made the site unsuitable? Given the recent fires and the expectations of significantly more into the future wouldn't an airstrip situated near where the fires actually occur make more sense that one to the north west of Canberra where the operation of heavily laden planes can cause incidents like this. The planes were located so far from the infrastructure they were meant to protect that it took them about 90 minutes round trip for each flight. The Williamsdale site is also very close to the angle crossing pipeline that they they use for refilling Googong Dam so it would have easy access to copious amounts of water. There's probably a larger Federal Government business case to builds and support numerous airstrips right across the fire prone areas to support continuous operations but that's probably another discussion. I noticed that Tumut airport received funding along these lines.

Hi Skip, The thread became confused because Nev stated that he would prefer a barbed fitting to the barbless one you were recommending. Images were shown of your recommended fitting and a fitting showing a single barbed or collered fitting. Comparing the images you showed a straight fitting and the comparision object was a single barbed. You responded effective stating that barbed connectors were marketing drivel. Right after the image of the single barbed connectors (I think that this led to the confusion as you've indicated you really dislike the multibarb type and felt the urge to make this point, we get this now 😉 Of the pictured images are you happy with the claim that the coopers filter with the barbed neck provides a better mechanical fit and greater pull off resistance than a straight connector or the type that you displayed? So in an ideal world your ideal filter would be a mesh filter with a single raised barb or collar (Given all other things are equal) The reason that I cited the Kitplanes article was simply because it was relevant to the discussion at hand and I thought that it was a reasonably balanced approach, yes there were some mentions of some brands however he also provided some good advice about making and connecting hoses. We're big kids and know that if the article mentions ponies we may choose to not buy a pony. For example it did make me think about areas where marking fittings might make sense. I was taking to someone the other day who said that on a flight after some off site maintenance they noticed that their foot was really cold and realised that fuel was coming in through a vent. It was a fuel line issue which was created while doing the other work.

I was hoping that you were using mogas and was going to get you to try avgas and see if the issues went away. :-( The volatile components of mogas vary somewhat and are higher than avgas. Also winter blends may contain higher proportion of volatile components compared to summer blends.

Hi Skip, We weren't talking about sales were were talking about design. You were of the opinion that paper filters were no good and ventured the opinion that mesh filters were the "aviation grade" ones which could be seen as a sales gimic. Nev mentioned that he wouldn't use a filter without barbs as the filter you displayed didn't have barbs. You then stated that barbs were just for a warm fuzzy feeling. Thruster88 showed a hefty turbine with an paper filter I stated that barbs and raised collar provided a mechanical advantage especially when used with a clamp. The rest is just going around in circles.

I think that the key point is that push/friction fittings are most suitable on vacuum lines or where some other mechanism enforces integrity. When a greater degree of assurance is required, use a raised fitting with a clamp. Most automotive fittings use some form of clamping mechanism combined with a raised fitting simply for reliability. It probably makes sense to do the same on an airplane. The article specifically states that "Not every hose offered by an aviation parts supplier will satisfy all of these criteria for any particular application. Also, your search for suitable hoses and fittings need not be restricted to aviation vendors." they're not promoting aviation parts however they are asking you to think about the compromises you make when selecting a part. The fuel system is a critical system and you may want to take some degree of additional risk mitigation compared to system which you would use to attach to a vacuum line. I am somewhat sympathetic to your view in relation to the mult-barbed fittings however where a single barb provides an area of greater diameter also allowing the attachment of a clamp its simply better from an engineering perspective. The automotive industry moved away from push on fittings without a mechanical retainer on fluid and electrical connectors decades ago.

Out of curiosity were you using avgas or mogas in when you were seeing the empty fuel filter. Avgas has a lower vapour pressure than mogas which may have contributed to the vapour issue. While the engine continued to run this is vapour issue is a bad thing. Most modern vehicles use submerged fuel pumps which solves the issues by creating positive pressure, only on flying dinosaurs does it remain an issue. For those interested in wikipedia has a good vapour lock article. While Lycoming has come to the mogas party in recent years issuing the following service instruction the mechanical injectors and the associated heat creates a significantly higher vapour lock risk. In tank pumps would resolve this issue and have the potential to make aircraft more reliable, especially when using non-aviation fuels.

I won't comment from a push fit perspective however when used with a clamp a barbed or raised fitting does provided a significant mechanical advantage and added safety, you can also buy aviation clamps with safety wire holes which should give you an extra feeling of safety if you've ever had a fuel hose come loose. The following kitplanes link also provides an opinion as to the mechanical advantage or barbed or raised fittings. It's written by an A&P mechanic, Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR), and was a member of the EAA Homebuilt Aircraft Council so I'd rate this advice above the general run of the mill fluff.

2.3m sounds pretty tall. Australia's tallest person.

Has anyone used an electric bike/scooter or similar to get to/from the airport?

I actually think that there will be a resurgence in flying due to the ability to work remotely far from the office. Modern knowledge workers don't need to live in major cities and these cities are perceived as unattractive by a significant number of these workers. The attractive places to live are often poorly served by RPT however many of them have airfields in varying states of repair and it takes too long by car to get to a meeting and back. The requirement to go onsite is often just a monthly or fortnightly requirement however there are still the issues below. Planes as a package needs to get better, the fact that a homebuilt plane can be better what the market provides is a bit of a damming indictment. You can't build a car that comes close to what the market provides. Secondly costs of training needs come down significantly if you actually want people to fly, why is a driving instructor with a car $45-$75/hour and the cost of flying so much higher. However if this pans out, the majority of this new group of "aviators" will be simply commuters and may not have a passion for flying. But at the very least it could stop the atrophy which appears to be occurring at the moment with land developers buying airports. You may also be right about drones, doing most of the flying as generally they can do a better job for less, a military pilot hasn't defeated an AI in the same planes in a decade. However drones will need airfields, hangars and other infrastructure. Given the choice between $20000 of instruction and the ability to buy a self flying commuter what are most people going to choose? But that's sometime off right ;-)

One of the things that I like about Rutan was that he tried things and moved on. Some of the designs worked and others didn't, in his later years there's nary a canard design to be seen. Personally I thought the Voyager was a really clever design. All design is a compromise, in exchange for simplicity and safer flight characteristics you get longer takeoff and landing rolls because you can't approach unsafe angles of attack to wring the last bit of lift out of the plane. Rutan worked on spin recovery for the F4 Phantom and this strongly influenced his views on how planes should behave and this is reflected in his designs. The RFDS requires the ability to operate out of less prepared dirt airstrips so if the P180 was shortlisted I'd question their judgement. It's a bit like choosing a Ferrari as a police car. In relation to the comparison between driving, boating and flying there are different risks however all of these activities can kill. Luckily in planes there's a whole other dimension so you're unlikely to collide with another vehicle however the consequences are generally higher. There will always be people complaining that there are too many drivers who shouldn't have a licence or that pilot training is inadequate however in reality the industry is dying. I'd prefer a thriving industry with a lower barrier to entry supplemented by technology to assist people with their judgement. For instance weather cams at popular airports, simple web apps which provide advice on routes weather conditions. A single desktop computer with a graphics card is more than capable of calculating proximity alerts for every single active plane is Australian airspace based upon ADSB data and performance characteristics.

Have the options changed around the ACT and is the following summary accurate? Comments appreciated Canberra Airport, rumours are that it's not GA friendly, is there any GA hangar space available at all? If so at what price? Can anyone comment on this. Tralee, closed/developed Goulburn Airport, unusual fees charged on some taxiways, some discontent between the existing leaseholders and and the owner. Court cases relating to fees. Tumut Airfield, very nice looking area, but a long way away through the mountain pass, much longer by sealed road. Polo Flat, purchased by Snowy Hydro and not interested in GA Cooma Airport, privately owned no hangars Nice looking private strip near Michelago, limited by council with powerlines across the strip. Williamsdale Airstrip - Great idea just never got off the ground. It would have come in handy during the fires of 2020 to help control the fires in Namadgi and Michelago. http://www.canberrasecondairport.com Kennedy Field near Adaminaby, great rates and it appears to be a group of people with a passion for flying but it's a bit of a hike from Canberra and the strip is a bit shorter than other options. Cootamundra, Young, Cowra are all a hike Did anyone keep running with the Williamsdale option?

No, not common and I'm just in the process of taking possession of it so it's a bit early to comment as yet. Once I've done a few hundred hours in it I might be more confident.

Not sure if it was one of his better designs but yes there STOL canard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Grizzly

Why do you say that canards are harder to fly? The following link would appear to imply that's not the case, accidents related to control loss are significantly lower than the rest of the homebuilt fleet in canards (except for the quickie which has ground handling issues). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4016414

There is still a lot of interest in flying however there are significant barriers to entry and ongoing accessibility issues and a government bureaucracies which aren't interested in GA. To learn to drive a car or boat costs a few hundred dollars, to learn to fly costs about $20,000. If you live in Sydney and can afford a plane you're not going to be located anywhere near where you can house a plane. Canberra has to be the only capital city in the world with only a single airport, and that airport doesn't cater the general aviation. For example to drive a car I can learn from someone with experience in the vehicle of my choice and pass and examination provided by a Government body or a private examiner. To get a boat licence I can pass a test and gain experience with an existing boat owner. To fly a plane I need to interact with a flight school with multiple levels of instructors, chief instructors etc, fly in certified aircraft etc. Some schools can offer shortcut training programs where they qualify with fewer hours, for example commercial pilots can qualify with fewer hours through some programs. While I agree that the training associated with flying should have more rigor than a car licence that doesn't justify the current broken system. The system should be broken out into instructors and assessors who are individuals with qualifications rather than the present mess which tries to create a business model.

As someone who recently went through the process if getting their pilots licence and buying a plane there's a few things that you might want to consider. Find an instructor who you're comfortable with and do the training from start to finish in one or two runs. The whole couple of times a month doesn't work as you need to constantly reinforce skills and life gets in the way and suddenly you're back to square one. Do the theory and exames first, it might give you a clue about your ability to complete the program. What the mission, do you want to cover distance, visit family, fly with your partner, fly over mountains and oceans, short field operations or hard long strips. Do you want to go further with your qualifications IFR, night operations, fly above weather I ended up going down the path of a centreline twin, experimental as I have a family dispersed around the country, run a business where I sometimes need to travel to rural areas at short notice, and wanted the reliability of twin engines without the problems associated with asymmetric thrust. Flight schools may push you towards longer training periods however that's to suit their cashflows and resource constraints rather than your needs. Personally I think that the experimental pathway is a much better approach simply because it's the part of the aviation industry that's thriving. I would have preferred to buy a commercial offering however the industry is moribund and overpriced and sells decades old technology which isn't fit for purpose. There should be a vintage airplane licence and any plane which doesn't have a completely automated engine management regime should be classified as vintage. The theory about how to manage fuel/air mixtures turbocharger wastegate operations, carb ice, detonation management etc should be relegated to this category.