68volksy

There are just too many factors to consider before planning a navigation exercise. Weather details, fuel planning, wind calculations, end of daylight - it's not something that's just done on the spot in my view. A school to have a policy that sends it's pre-GFPT students off on a navigation exercise with only a map and one nav complete due to a shut runway sounds a little off in my view. It sounds like the ATO might know the school you're at or its CFI if he's asking such a specific question - probably catches a few of their students out with the answer. Any ATO would take a very dim view of anyone (let alone non PPL pilots) being taught to conduct unplanned navigation exercises. I'm pretty certain the ATO would have been looking for "conduct a Precautionary Search and Landing" as the answer in this instance. Your experience would be irrelevant to the ATO as they have a very simple list of questions they ask and the answers that a GFPT student should give them. I'm very concerned at the thought that a pre-GFPT student is taught they are capable of performing a navigation exercise. Even a full PPL holder would baulk at the choice of flying an unplanned nav.

I think the very simple and correct answer for GFPT for the above scenario would have been "wait until airfield clears or conduct Precautionary Search and Landing". Hard to believe your school has led you to believe you're capable of even thinking of performing navigation exercises without any maps or planning when you haven't even passed the GFPT!

No luck there i'm afraid. I thought I did pretty well remembering the name of the aircraft! It's an aluminium hub and the Vision had a Jabiru engine at the time i think. If i remember i'll ask when i'm out there later today.

Check the prop hub next time you're out at Goulburn Eric if you haven't already - it's in the office and I can never find the crack whenever I look!

Most thorough i've seen was a guy preflighting the old vision that the school used to have who picked up the smallest of hairline cracks in the prop hub. They had it x-rayed and it went most of the way through. The instructor has kept it and it's always a challenge to find the fracture. Part of the reason I love hiring the flying school aircraft is that the owner/CFI is so passionate about pre-flights and every student/flight preflights before every flight. When there's a dozen or so people looking over it each week i feel i can trust it!

Canberra Aviation's been operating since February last year. My experience of Canberra is extremely positive I must say. The airport provides (and cleans and maintains regularly) a dedicated GA facility with large viewing deck, toilets, computer access and tables/chairs. It's on the secure side of the airport which means you need a security guard to let you in but it's a wonderful facility and completely free. Not many airports around that offer such a facility purely for the GA side. Landing fees are considerably less than Goulburn (their other base) although there are airservices charges also. Tower guys down there are also a great bunch and very helpful. So long as your ego stays in check and you're comfortable giving way to a commercial airline with a couple of hundred passengers in check there's nothing to worry about.

Welcome Andy, Very happy to recommend Canberra Aviation (www.canberraaviation.com.au) if you're after GA training in Canberra - one of their instructors flys for Aquilla helicopters in Canberra so might be able to advise on a good rotary school also although there are none in Canberra. They also do RA-Aus training from their Goulburn location. CFI is Teraya Miller and her details are on the website. Definitely follow Ryans advice above. It can be a bit hard for a novice to really judge maintenance standards and an instructors competence but my advice is ask all the hard questions and even ask to see certain items such as maintenance releases or log books for the aircraft if you'd like (sometimes it's the answers to these questions that can tell you a lot about a business!). I think a very good indicator is how long the business has been operating also. The requirements to operate a flying school and maintain instructor ratings can be quite onerous and there's very little money to be made in flying training so anyone who's been running a school for a decent length of time will generally be doing it properly and for the right reasons (unless it's obviously the only thing they can do - you can probably pick these guys a mile away). Another great indicator is the instructors level of experience. Unless you're looking to learn in a "sausage factory" school you'd expect to see a minimum of Grade 2 instructors and preferably Grade 1 instructors for GA schools and "Senior Instructors" in RA Schools. It means the instructors have been around for a while in most cases and aren't simply looking to build hours to get a job with the airlines. That said there's plenty of hour-building guys out there who train very professionaly and are good value. If you've not yet had a Trial Introductory Flight (TIF) then definitely try and book one.

With their Up, Tiddly, Up, Up And Their Down, Tiddly, Down, Down. Up! Down! Flying Around. Looping The Loop And Defying The Ground. They're All, Frightfully Keen Those Magnificent Men, Those magnificent men, Those magnificent men and their flying machines!

Slightly off-topic but have you thruster boys read a book called "Propellerhead" by Anthony Woodward? My instructor has a copy and lends it out to students. It's a very enteraining tale of the aviation adventures of a man and his learning to fly and then owning a thruster in the UK.

Rylstone had an article in Australian Flying an issue or two ago I thought? Looked like the place was very well maintained and welcoming to pilots. Someone was creating a proper flyaway destination if I remember right?

No tongue in my cheek... Perspective perhaps though - after many years of working with local Councils and the ATO I just have to say that CASA is a bloody well-run organisation that leaves these two for dead!

Don't forget a lot of the "it costs less to fly RA" argument comes from having to do your own maintenance! If people try and relay to me how wonderful the RA world is and the fact you can do your own maintenance I'm always more than happy to present to them my lawnmower as an example of why I shouldn't be allowed to do my own maintenance! That said thankfully there are some organisations out there you can trust enough to hire their RA registered aircraft and get around this also. Definitely get both licences though. For one it takes you out of either camp politically and secondly learning anything new in this world of aviation is just good fun!

CASA is only ever going to get bigger and badder. Every little incident/accident the pollies throw more money their way as is the case with pretty much any department with "safety" in their title. They are charged with being the arbiter in the world of aviation. As with all large organisations (government or otherwise) there is no shortage of red tape. They are also run by individuals at the end of the day so if you don't like the answer you're getting it's usually simplest to try someone else. I'm constantly amazed by people who keep on with someone in a large organisation they find difficult purely to boost their own ego in trying to prove them wrong. What a waste of time! Once you get to know someone reliable at CASA you'll be amazed at how easy dealing with things can be. On the other hand if you go in with the wrong attitude or aren't polite to people there's no end of pain they can cause! As an aside i'm curious as to how many pilots pick up their "CASA Sucks" attitude from the school they learnt at? If any instructors are openly anti-CASA (more than the usual whinge about red tape and bureaucracy anyway) i'd be quite concerned personally. I still think CASA rocks though. It's all better than not flying at all or we all would have given up by now!

I believe Adam was employed by RA-Aus previously wasn't he?

I've heard the collective noun for a group of pilots is a "whinge". (ATSB guys tell me the collective noun they use for a group of RA-Aus pilots is a "crash" but that's another topic...) Of course we couldn't fly if they didn't exist - you honestly think the public going to allow aircraft flying all over the place with no controls? We'd be shot as soon as we started the engine! You guys have it all wrong i'm afraid... CASA rocks! Flying rocks! Any of you guys with even the slightest whinge obviously aren't spending enough time around aircraft or in the air. Honestly - get in the pilots seat, fire it up and tell me it's really all that bad!

CASA Safety Advisors now undergoing training on the new standards (they'll be the some of the ones on the front line) after Greg Hood was moved to Canberra office to implement the suite of new rules over next few years. Some of the changes will be quite soon from the sound of it whilst others will be a little drawn-out no doubt. Every time there's an incident/accident the general public/politicians demand CASA do more to increase safety - it's been that way forever. Unfortunately all RA-aus events find their way onto the desk of the pollies and CASA and reflect badly on them. All the general public sees is 150s crashing into suburban backyards and Sierra's crashing into fairgrounds. CASA's got no choice really but to try to do something - the public doesn't seem to tolerate "it's someone else's responsibility"...

Just sitting here and thinking of how much many pilots seem to enjoy ripping into poor old CASA. I don't but - I love 'em! If they weren't around I wouldn't be able to fly at all. Regulated flying (no matter how heavily) is better than no flying at all - and I know none of you can argue with that.

I think CASA's view on RA-Aus in the future is quite clear. The new Recreational GA license is an active move to gather more pilots on the GA side and less on the RA side. The creation of a new form of training organisation that does not require an AOC removes a good deal of the disparity between GA and RA training organisations. I guarantee we'll see more and more GA-registered Jabs and Tecnams out there being used by organisations to train in the Recreational GA License. They're actively moving to push RA back towards its roots in doing these things. The reasons are many and varied and there can no doubt be innumerate arguments one way or the other but actions speak louder than words. In my view CASA's using a good deal of common sense. The more RA-Aus pushed for heavier aircraft and to be allowed into controlled airspace the more they pushed towards the above results. Good result for aviation as a whole just maybe not the result the Board was hoping for?

Had a discussion with a few of the students/aircraft owners at the airfield about VNO at our BBQ last Saturday actually. Instructor asked if any of us knew/remembered the VNO of the aircraft and what the maneuvering speed was (VA?). VA is best indicator for dealing with flying through turbulence I understand as that's the speed below which you can make abrupt and/or full control deflections if needed. There was a big difference for a couple of the Jabiru owners as VNO was 108 knots whilst VA was 90 knots. The Gazelle was a non-event as VA and VNO would probably only be seen on the ASI if the wings had fallen off. Personally I don't mind a bit of a bump if i'm doing the flying. When i'm a passenger on flyaways i'm not so happy in the turbulence. My old instructor Mike (now retired) seemed to enjoy it thoroughly though - you could tell if it was a rough day as he'd have the hood/foggles ready for us. Most unbelievably draining 40 minutes of my life was under the hood on pretty much the bumpiest day i've ever been in the air. Just keeping altitude within 200 feet of instructed altitude was enough, let alone trying to keep the wings relatively level. Gusts had tail wagging like a dog at times which made keeping my bearing damn hard also. I'd avoid any situation like this at great cost if I was on my own but when I've got an instructor with quite a few thousand hours in Warriors sitting beside me i actually quite enjoy the challenge.

$300k is a lot more than a simple resurfacing by the sound of it. Brand new 8m wide bitumen road generally around the $300k per kilometre mark. A lot of the runways built in the 30's and 40's were a bit of a rush job in my understanding. Goulburn spent around that as when they tried to lay the 8metre wide new surface it gave a little - turned out to be next to no foundations in the middle of the strip. Ends of the strip were reinforced but the middle was a bit of a rush job in the pre-war era from the sound of it. Massive amount of earthwork then required. Can't help with how to change the mind of backwards Councillors - Goulburn Council's gone and sold theirs after 16 years of hard battle. The deactivation idea sounds like the kind of thing that would have come up during a CASA inspection maybe - if the airport is a registered airport it has to meet CASA standards. Simple idea could be to lower the registration of the airport - there are several lower standards. Unfortunately as the owner of the airport the Council has final say on the level of liability they're willing to accept.

Hi All, Not sure if this is the right place to ask - please let me know if it isn't. I was just wondering if there were any (or anyone knew of any) RA-Aus instructors who'd be interested in some work at Goulburn NSW. Goulburn Aviation are putting feelers out for anyone who might be interested. Looking for people with a good amount of experience who thoroughly enjoy and are passionate about flying training with a very high regard for safety. Good pay and hours on offer. Preference is for someone to work one or two days on weekends. Suit someone with other work already or retired/semi-retired. Assistance with accomodation and travel costs also available to a suitable candidate. Anyone interested please PM me. Cheers

I believe there's debate inside CASA at the moment about the use of RA-Aus aircraft in the more advanced licences. They're frowning upon guys who've done very little GA flying trying to pass their Flight Instructor Rating for example however haven't made a final decision as yet. I'd expect them to come down on the "won't accept" side rather than spend copious amounts of time developing policies and deciding which RA aircraft they'll consider and under what circumstances. In the end I think it comes down to common sense - try and fly the planes you want to fly as much as possible. Poteroo's advice above about cost-sharing in bigger machines to build hours makes a lot of sense.

Expert opinion? I stated pretty clearly it's my own personal opinion from observations and discussions. The above has gone a long way to elaborating on my point however - it's started to highlight there's a great deal more to all this than simply stating "these maps are Airservices maps". Isn't there already a certification process for devices similar to these? Why are we trying to grey the area when there is an accepted process already in place? Call me cynical also but if the sellers of these products have to consider all the above then who is checking they're doing it properly?

It wasn't Waldo Pepper?

On ABC2 i believe. It was a latish movie on last week.