68volksy

You do get a lot of life out of a GA airframe though. Take the Warrior as an example - at 50,000 hours there is a mandatory wing spar inspection. Not a replacement - just an inspection! The cost comes down to finding a good LAME. There are plenty out there that will allow you to work on your own aircraft under their close supervision also. Take the wing walk repairs for example - a lot of the time in that is removing the old rivets and getting the old walk area out - something that most people would be able to handle doing themselves under a LAME's supervision. If the aircraft was RA registered the repairs would be either completely ignored or the job would be done by the owner. The whole argument about which is cheapest to maintain goes out the window if we start comparing paying a qualified LAME with doing the work yourself.

A very interesting discussion. I'd very much like to see some figures on depreciation of RAA aircraft. My feeling is if we put 5,000 hours on a 182 which already has 5,000 hours you'll still be able to sell it for the same price you bought it for. Be interested to know what a tecnam with 10,000 hours is selling for? Does the depreciation on the RAA airframe offest in any way the extra maintenance costs on the 182?

And the owner is out there actively photographing and notating whenever an ultralight aircraft uses the strip. One pilot on the weekend took off on 08 which was all fine however an hour later when they returned they were looking at a 15-knot blustery crosswind on 08 so chose to use 04. There were no other aircraft anywhere in the sky or taxiing and the pilot felt they it was a safer decision. Not long after one of the owners minions advised that they were under notice. Unfortunately Goulburn can be a very hostile environment unless you're renting the airport owners ultralights, jumping with his skydive operation or mowing his grass. If this flying thing wasn't so enjoyable most of us would have well and truly given up by now... On a positive note i'd recommend looking a little very closely at Canberra - especially with the RPL coming up. For $2,500 per annum you get parking, all landing fees and the wonderful little Gate 3 "Clubhouse" with toilets cleaned twice per week, tea/coffee facilities and a wide verandah with one of the best views in aviation today.

Attended all 3 days. As far as Fly-ins go it was one of the best you could ever attend. Great airport, great facilities, great food/coffee available from a couple of tents from the early hours well into the night and most of all a GREAT group of passionate aviators with which to swap stories and share in the whole aviation experience. Many seem to be commenting on it as an airshow and in that regard i certainly agree that attendance numbers were down and the exhibitors didn't have much new stuff to show. One thing though - the aerobatics shows were great. From where i sit Natfly is straddling the divide between airshow and fly-in. I think those that went expecting an airshow are probably right in feeling a little disappointed whereas those that were expecting a Fly-in seemed to have a great deal of fun and loved it.

I'm hoping the schools around the place will start looking at some of the very nice GA 2-seaters that are coming onto the market - the Diamond DA20 for instance. 138 knots, 20l/hour - even a rotax if you're keen. At $220k new not really much more than a Tecnam and with a proven record behind it in the US in a training environment. Even a few of the old 150/tomohawk's might start getting a clean-up. More bums on seats will help the bottom end of the GA market for sure. I don't think RA-Aus has anything to fear. They may lose a few members but at the absolute very worst the organisation will find themselves back where it all began - low, slow, and grinning like loonies...

Good on you TK! I've been to the last 3 Natfly's and must say that the layout of last years event was brilliant. Bringing it all together really created a much more festive atmosphere. Food was great. One thing i'd love to see more of is flying displays. Just simple things like the display aircraft popping out for a few circuits every now and again. Maybe the displayers could provide some commentary also? I also agree with the other suggestion to get a vintage car/motorcyle club or two along and on display as others have mentioned above. My last suggestion would be something for the kiddies!! A jumping castle (Jumping Beans in Wagga) and some rides maybe? Face painting? I noticed there were a few lost-looking kids and non-flying spouses wandering around each year and I think it would be nice to show we're thinking of them.

Just for information I know our flying school requires all RA-Aus aircraft to have $2 million public liability and we strongly suggest all aircraft are owned, operated and maintained by a company. This provides a level of cover to people injured and limits the liability of the owners. Insurance cost is around $2,600 per annum (with $60-80k hull coverage). All student pilots and instructors are then covered by RA-Aus for public liability purposes is my understanding. The school then holds its own Public Liability and hangerkeepers insurance on top of this. The GA aircraft have the same requirements however the Public Liability for them is included in the policy also - $500k -$1 million per seat. Cost is around $3k per annum for $70-80k hull cover. Also all owned and operated under company structure. The beauty of having a good accountant?

I'd very much like to see some proof that standards are being maintained and that justice is being done. Even a simple statement such as "RA-Aus removed the training approval for 1 school during 2013 and suspended 1 L2 licence" would be great. I'm glad to hear they followed through with at least 1 school. I know on the whole that RA-Aus administration are a friendly bunch, as are many of its members. Would we describe it more as a "toothless kitten" or a "respected policeman" though.

There are rumours around but i haven't read anything about it. The same rumour says that RA were also in attendance during the audit (CASA was looking over their shoulder at the time to see how they did things). Yet while the GA side has shut down the RA side continues on...

Good to see some things happening motz. Nothing too scary though in your list? I was hoping for a few more examples like Maj mentioned and your point 4. With 30 years of history, 3500 aircraft, 162 FTF's and 10,000 members i'm hoping there's still a lot more out there. Anyone know of any L2's being revoked or flying school authorities/instructor ratings being suspended? The thought did just occur that most individuals/organisations probably give up their approvals or let them lapse prior to having them forcibly removed. Perhaps that's why i'm not reading much in the newspapers and magazines about such things? I feel for anyone trying to operate a viable school or maintenance business in RA-Aus if there's little to no oversight or protection of standards.

I know i'm probably getting a bit of a reputation as a grump around these parts and always having a go at RA-Aus but i must say the more i learn the more i'm utterly disappointed. In an attempt to assuage a level of despair that seems imminent i am hoping that someone can show me an example of where RA-Aus has taken enforcement action against an individual or organisation. I mean actually suspended/removed a pilot certificate or an individual or organisations training or maintenance approvals. It's all very well assuming that everyone on the planet will do the right thing and that's a lovely fantasy world in which to exist but it's a simple fact that not everyone will do the right thing. In order for an organisation to be "self-governing" one would think it necessary for some examples of individuals or organisations to be made by the "government" of the organisation in an effort to keep everyone doing the right thing. So hit me with those examples people!

Qantas took us for that ride a couple of years back. Cloud a bit higher on the day we went in though - just as we were about to enter the clouds i glanced out the window and could just make out the top of a mountain. The heart rate went through the roof!

I do have to ask the question of what airliner captains are left with when ultralight instructors are sporting 3 gold bars?

Read the last sentence - seems a perfect example of my point? I'd love someone to find me a single law in this country that caters perfectly for every minority group in existence.

My point was to try and direct blame away from CASA. They're trying to juggle "pressure" from so many angles and personal interest groups it really gets my goat. Everyone wants to change everything to get a perfect set of laws to suit themselves. Rather than adapting to work within the laws as they stand and waiting for change to occur.

Well having been to 2 of the CASA presentations on the new Part 61 I would have to say pilots would have to be grouped with some of the stupidest people on the planet. I'd like to think of myself as a stand-out however my grasp of the whiz-wheel technology drags me back down... The only real change that the recreational GA pilots were going to see immediately was they'll get a new licence in the mail. The amount of times I heard the CASA presenters making this statement was quite unbelievable. That and so many of the "but i'm a night-rated frozen ATPL and CPL holder with an american licence who only flies in the right-hand seat (because I prefer it and why doesn't everyone etc...) of my SAAA-registered RV7 but I get paid by my wife who flies in the left-hand seat so I can claim a tax break and you're taking away my right to fly" statements...

Yes indeed!

My real point related to the original question - ie why can't we all simply be taught by someone with experience. My point was that in RA-Aus especially there is not as much difference as people generally believe between someone with experience and someone with an instructors rating. Generally it's simply a course taken over a couple of weeks. Yes some may find that course hard but I haven't found anyone yet that's given it a go and not got through. And that is probably the way it should be in RA-Aus to keep costs down and passion high. I was in no way having a dig at instructors generally. I'm not one to give insight into my life beyond the keyboard but let's just say that instructors contribute a lot to my way of life. The dodgy instructors with their cornflake packet ratings and the schools that take their money undermine the very fabric of my aviation world. They also keep money out of the pockets of the truly capable and dedicated pilots who'd contribute a lot more to the aviation world if they could afford to do so. Everyone in this industry loves it with a passion however I do not believe it is everyone's god-given right to become an instructor. The amount of young kids I see out there willing to work for next to nothing are ruining aviation in my eyes and taking jobs from the 20 year veterans who have so much more to contribute. Since when did instructing become the domain of the 19 year old! No other industry in the world that I can think of promotes the training of fresh new students by those who've only just graduated themselves. I don't think many universities or colleges would employ a newly minted graduate to a lecturing position. It's even more rife in GA. It turns my stomach to see so many CPL's with 250 hours who've been trained by CPL's with 250 hours who've been trained by CPL's with 250 hours who then get an instructors rating and off they go teaching new pilots themselves. I am very fearful that the general and recreational aviation industry, in removing age and experience from its very footings, is doomed for collapse.

Same reason not everyone has learnt to fly I suppose. Some people love flying, some don't. Some people love teaching, some don't. Personally I'd make an atrocious teacher due to my impatience and tendency to get distracted by shiny things... Just out of curiosity (and seeing as you've made this personal) how many people have undertaken an instructors course with you and have not then gone on and passed their test?

For goodness sake! A 30 hour course cannot be difficult in any sense of the word. Even if it takes you 120 hours to pass it's not exactly a phd in advanced physics! Yes it would take some hard work and some learning but really? Trying to make it out as being attainable only by those with the grit and determination of Mawson is really stretching the limit. Taking the rating and actually building on it to make a good instructor is the challenge. Unfortunately the new student knows not the true difference between a 20 year or 20 thousand hour veteran and a 1 year or 100 hour kid.

I think i'll have to correct the spelling of my avatar! Thanks FH.

So we should probably be comparing the minimum hours for grant of an instructor rating then rather than the minimum hours for the CPL? I don;t have my CASR's here but from the amendments regulation - just to compare apples with apples.... 61.1185 Requirements for grant of flight instructor ratings 2 (d) (ii) in any other case: (A) at least 200 hours flight time as a pilot; and (B) at least 100 hours flight time as pilot in command. But again this is not my point.

From your post motz - 70 hours PIC plus 20 hours cross-country as PIC = 90 hours total. Not sure why everyone keeps asking if i live under a bridge? Not the nicest name to be calling someone and something that I honestly thought the members of this forum would have been above. Teckair - read my post again that included the line you ripped out of it. You'll realise that is not my opinion in any way but rather an attempt at trying to rationalise the 75 hours that was decided upon. They were simply the only two aircraft I could think of that might have been around at the time the decisions were made. If however you're arguing that the guys that decided on the 75 hour minimums were wrong (as the aircraft that were around back then were very difficult to fly) then that's a different matter and would go a long way to support my argument.

Learned is a bit of a leap... RA - 75 hours as pilot in command Integrated CPL - 90 hours as pilot in command Non-integrated CPL - 120 hours as pilot in command Am i missing something? I really didn't want this to turn into a GA versus RA discussion though. I simply wanted to point out the minimums to people. The GA minimums are also not as high as many people would think. Hence the reason there are dozens of unemployed junior Grade 3's with shiny degrees wandering around the country willing to sweep the floors and fly for free just to get some hours up.

I haven't belittled the trade in any way. All i've done is state some simple facts. If stating the facts undermines the authority of the instructor gods then i'd argue they shouldn't be on such a pedestal to begin with. The whole point of RA-Aus was to reduce the cost and red-tape of flying and to get people into the air doing what they love with minimum fuss. I believe the 75 hours came from a realisation that you could quite easily teach someone else to fly a Thruster or Gazelle after that much time. Further it was a simple fact at the time that the RA-Aus certificate was not in any way to be considered a stepping stone to flying 747's. Again i point out that this is a good thing! As i said above though there is a massive difference between accumulating epaulet stripes and actually being any good at what you do. That's the same in every industry around the world. A lawyer or accountant isn't good at what they do simply because they passed their exams. A mechanic isn't good simply because they passed their apprenticeship. It's their approach and years of continued learning and experience that makes them truly valuable.