Addendum -
White hats of the world – FCOL Unite.
Gentlemen. “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party”
The phrase originated as a typing exercise – I am certain that if, as at school, you type it out 100 times; not only will your typing skills improve – but – the message contained therein may resonate. It may even lead to 'action'.
It is the time for action; today would be good, but tomorrow will suffice; no later though, for it may well be too late.
'We' @ AP have been on a journey – and what a journey it has been. Seeking opinion and cold hard facts to back it up has been a most a global endeavour. I propose not to weigh you down with the reams of 'rock solid' research and data collected. I will simply state my opinion and leave it to your own sound judgement and common sense to decide whether the game is worth the candle. 'We' most certainty believe it is and will be putting our paperwork where it may do some good. If we must stand as Robinson Carusoe, then we will.
“Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”
In the beginning, there was an excellent thing; rules were relaxed to allow 'home made' aircraft to be made and there were many superb aircraft built – then came 'experimental' aircraft – in short; build it, fly it and, if you came to a full stop in a paddock somewhere; so be it etc.
A spin off of this was the Light Sports Aircraft – LSA. About then the Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAAus) came into being. Why not? Many folk love to fly, and where's the harm in a relaxed medical standard which allows a person to buy/ build a LSA and commit recreational aviation all day long? There is none – same as gliding great fun, good social and educational benefits – great idea. Self administering, not for profit – brilliant. Enter the dragon. Perversion of the intent and purpose – for profit. (A SORE point?).
Now, I know, for a certain, demonstrable, supportable fact that many LSA are built under manufacturer 'self certification'. To acquire such an approval certain hurdles must be jumped (hoops if you prefer). There are, cast in stone such things. Once that approval is issued – the 'official' authority is, well and truly, off the legal hook. So, the old saw 'caveat emptor' takes precedence. Joe Blogs buy's a lemon – no harm done. Joe gets killed flying (in recreational mode) in his aircraft – no skin off – except Joe's. So far - so good. Some, only a few, but some aircraft have an 'ugly' corner in the 'manufacturer certified' flight envelope; such as in the stall spin quadrant of speed limitations; some are even peculiar in the weight/ balance area. Not a problem to the owner, or to the experienced, informed pilot. Flight is undertaken 'at your own risk'. Some girls do – some girls don't -
But. And this is a bloody big but, when a clinical analysis of these aircraft, these LSA is taken, matters aeronautical begin to look a bit thin in the 'safety' department – anorexic in fact. The body count testament to the concerns: and there are a few.
RAAAus may be the ministerial flavour of the past year, Hell, he even hired their office girl (at a very good salary) as an adviser – I just hope he's getting the right advice.
There are four serious matters which the current incumbent needs to ponder: to wit:-
I) The cost v value of 'training' received by new start pilots. The inflated costs of LSA aircraft hire against the costs of 'traditional' training aircraft. This measured against the additional costs to be met when converting a 'recreational' pilot 'certificate' into a basic CASA Private Pilot Licence. My calculations, based against a 'standard' FAR 23 based aircraft training syllabus at the local flying school indicate a rip off of not only a fiscal nature – which could be lived with if the product was superior– but to produce an essentially inferior (not their fault) pilot trained in an aircraft designed and certified as a 'recreational' aircraft leaves many questions unanswered.
2) There are very good, sound (experienced based) reasons why it costs millions to 'certify' an aircraft such as the humble PA28 or C172. They are 'tested' to a FAA (23) standard. It costs money, real money to do this. The simple fact that I would, quite happily take my nearest and dearest on a joy flight in a well maintained C172/PA28 of a 1960's vintage speaks volumes. There is no way I'd even contemplate using a Bristell/Foxbat or similar. Why? Well, they ain't 'normal' as understood by professionals, within their flight envelope, development or certification are they?
3) It may seem, to the minister, to be a glamorous 'photo-op' to be seen in a cockpit of a LSA. And so it would be to the general public. However; to aviation professionals, world wide, it is seen as the minister being part of a very ugly, dangerous system which is, within a hairsbreadth of being labelled, by professionals - as bordering on a scam.
4) Airworthiness – is a big subject. Air-frame fatigue and 'vulnerability' (Foxbat undercart for e.g.) The integrity of the aircraft in a crash situation which may mean the slim margin between life and death is not a factor to be treated in a Cavalier fashion. It matters. Engines do (occasionally) falter or fail. Landing 'dead stick' in a paddock remains a skill. Shame to get it all right, land safely and then have the air-frame kill you as it crumples.
There is a very good reason ATSB exists. Pilots and operators of aircraft MUST know exactly why an accident occurred. How else is industry to learn how to mitigate, contain and control the risks? If this minister does nothing else of value during his tenure he MUST ensure that accident reports are 'professionally' provided, by competent, qualified, named investigators and that the results are published. How else are we to maintain 'safety'?
I believe there are still some professionals in CASA, I also believe that within the ATSB there are some, probably frustrated, professionals. I know, for certain sure that within the professional pilot, test pilot, certification engineer, design guru and certificate approval experts, flight instructors and even the lowly pilots that tries to fly 'em – there are deep concerns.
RAAus in its current configuration and 'importance' should not be advising a crown minister.
Fair warning – this will be developed into a case to answer. Time for the 'authority' to get off it's collective and actually be 'the safety agency' it claims to be. Get off your arses!
Toot – toot. (PWP) - blame TOM.
White hats of the world – FCOL Unite.
Gentlemen. “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party”
The phrase originated as a typing exercise – I am certain that if, as at school, you type it out 100 times; not only will your typing skills improve – but – the message contained therein may resonate. It may even lead to 'action'.
It is the time for action; today would be good, but tomorrow will suffice; no later though, for it may well be too late.
'We' @ AP have been on a journey – and what a journey it has been. Seeking opinion and cold hard facts to back it up has been a most a global endeavour. I propose not to weigh you down with the reams of 'rock solid' research and data collected. I will simply state my opinion and leave it to your own sound judgement and common sense to decide whether the game is worth the candle. 'We' most certainty believe it is and will be putting our paperwork where it may do some good. If we must stand as Robinson Carusoe, then we will.
“Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”
In the beginning, there was an excellent thing; rules were relaxed to allow 'home made' aircraft to be made and there were many superb aircraft built – then came 'experimental' aircraft – in short; build it, fly it and, if you came to a full stop in a paddock somewhere; so be it etc.
A spin off of this was the Light Sports Aircraft – LSA. About then the Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAAus) came into being. Why not? Many folk love to fly, and where's the harm in a relaxed medical standard which allows a person to buy/ build a LSA and commit recreational aviation all day long? There is none – same as gliding great fun, good social and educational benefits – great idea. Self administering, not for profit – brilliant. Enter the dragon. Perversion of the intent and purpose – for profit. (A SORE point?).
Now, I know, for a certain, demonstrable, supportable fact that many LSA are built under manufacturer 'self certification'. To acquire such an approval certain hurdles must be jumped (hoops if you prefer). There are, cast in stone such things. Once that approval is issued – the 'official' authority is, well and truly, off the legal hook. So, the old saw 'caveat emptor' takes precedence. Joe Blogs buy's a lemon – no harm done. Joe gets killed flying (in recreational mode) in his aircraft – no skin off – except Joe's. So far - so good. Some, only a few, but some aircraft have an 'ugly' corner in the 'manufacturer certified' flight envelope; such as in the stall spin quadrant of speed limitations; some are even peculiar in the weight/ balance area. Not a problem to the owner, or to the experienced, informed pilot. Flight is undertaken 'at your own risk'. Some girls do – some girls don't -
But. And this is a bloody big but, when a clinical analysis of these aircraft, these LSA is taken, matters aeronautical begin to look a bit thin in the 'safety' department – anorexic in fact. The body count testament to the concerns: and there are a few.
RAAAus may be the ministerial flavour of the past year, Hell, he even hired their office girl (at a very good salary) as an adviser – I just hope he's getting the right advice.
There are four serious matters which the current incumbent needs to ponder: to wit:-
I) The cost v value of 'training' received by new start pilots. The inflated costs of LSA aircraft hire against the costs of 'traditional' training aircraft. This measured against the additional costs to be met when converting a 'recreational' pilot 'certificate' into a basic CASA Private Pilot Licence. My calculations, based against a 'standard' FAR 23 based aircraft training syllabus at the local flying school indicate a rip off of not only a fiscal nature – which could be lived with if the product was superior– but to produce an essentially inferior (not their fault) pilot trained in an aircraft designed and certified as a 'recreational' aircraft leaves many questions unanswered.
2) There are very good, sound (experienced based) reasons why it costs millions to 'certify' an aircraft such as the humble PA28 or C172. They are 'tested' to a FAA (23) standard. It costs money, real money to do this. The simple fact that I would, quite happily take my nearest and dearest on a joy flight in a well maintained C172/PA28 of a 1960's vintage speaks volumes. There is no way I'd even contemplate using a Bristell/Foxbat or similar. Why? Well, they ain't 'normal' as understood by professionals, within their flight envelope, development or certification are they?
3) It may seem, to the minister, to be a glamorous 'photo-op' to be seen in a cockpit of a LSA. And so it would be to the general public. However; to aviation professionals, world wide, it is seen as the minister being part of a very ugly, dangerous system which is, within a hairsbreadth of being labelled, by professionals - as bordering on a scam.
4) Airworthiness – is a big subject. Air-frame fatigue and 'vulnerability' (Foxbat undercart for e.g.) The integrity of the aircraft in a crash situation which may mean the slim margin between life and death is not a factor to be treated in a Cavalier fashion. It matters. Engines do (occasionally) falter or fail. Landing 'dead stick' in a paddock remains a skill. Shame to get it all right, land safely and then have the air-frame kill you as it crumples.
There is a very good reason ATSB exists. Pilots and operators of aircraft MUST know exactly why an accident occurred. How else is industry to learn how to mitigate, contain and control the risks? If this minister does nothing else of value during his tenure he MUST ensure that accident reports are 'professionally' provided, by competent, qualified, named investigators and that the results are published. How else are we to maintain 'safety'?
I believe there are still some professionals in CASA, I also believe that within the ATSB there are some, probably frustrated, professionals. I know, for certain sure that within the professional pilot, test pilot, certification engineer, design guru and certificate approval experts, flight instructors and even the lowly pilots that tries to fly 'em – there are deep concerns.
RAAus in its current configuration and 'importance' should not be advising a crown minister.
Fair warning – this will be developed into a case to answer. Time for the 'authority' to get off it's collective and actually be 'the safety agency' it claims to be. Get off your arses!
Toot – toot. (PWP) - blame TOM.