Passenger carrying/ Cross country

[Ken Watson]

Geez, you blokes have got the attention span of a peanut. Can we get back on the topic at hand! ken

[asra]

Colin KirbyDaryl Patterson

[telf]

Peter,With regard to what you said about Vic Roads, it only has relevance with half of the discussion.Yes they are asking for more experience before carrying passengers and I don't disagree.To clarify my initial statement, I am not against the 80 hour ruling. The way I see it, gyro minds greater that mine have decided that 80 hours is needed as gyros are tricky beasts. No argument there.What I am against is the Nav part.By comparison, Vic Roads are not asking kids to have map reading skills, are they? NO, just good relevant driving skills.I'll say it again, 80 hours and a decent assessment by a decent instructor makes a lot of sense.A nav ticket has absolutely bugger all to do with it and no-one yet in the 'greater minds than mine' group has put up any logical argument to back up the nav ticket side.To further clarify my situation, when I get 80+ hours and an instructor that is happy to sign my skills off, I won't need a nav ticket as I already have one as I did my radio and nav with RAA.So, why am I arguing the case if I already have my nav anyway? Becouse I think the nav requirement for a passenger endorsement is just silly, that's why. (unless you intend flying more than 25 miles from point of take-off with the passenger)Please, any comments from the Doc, Waddles, Adrian, other old hand's, board, etc group?telfFlying - The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. (Douglas Adams-The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

[wflaks]

[Ken Watson]

G'day everyone, thought I would tell you all how I got involved in this debate. Before the relevant change to the ops manual the pre-requisate for a passenger endorsement was 80hrs as pilot in command which I believed I had done before the change occured. Unfortunately my local instructor viewed my 1st 20hrs as under instruction and not pilot in command and so said his interpretation was 80 plus your 20 as a student. I can see how he came up with this, but I got to 100hrs just after the relevant date and so was then required to fulfill the new requirements. Ive now got about 160hrs up. 'My initial student instructor who got me to 20hrs soloed me at 11 but bacause i had no previous flying experience I still had to do the other 4 hrs dual. I was o.k. with that as it was good fun. I did nearly all my insruction in about a week solid. Not the normal way to do it but normal for me. I don't like to procrastinate or dream. So as it stands If I had been faster I would now be flying around with a passenger endorsement and no cross country! I wonder how many got through in time. All seems ridiculous to me and I know the local instructor would pass me but he is tied by the rules. I still reckon those accident statistics would be interesting so that a logical conclusion could be reached.Pete, ive instructed people in advanced road race skills and believe me it wouldn't matter how much instruction you gave some people they will still kill themselves. A lot cannot recognise danger and have zero co-ordination. I even instructed a highway patrol motorcycle cop who told everyone how good of a rider he was because he had never fallen off. I told him he must not have rode many bikes. But to put it mildly he couldn't ride out of site on a dark night. I consistntly listen to people telling me how good they were when my description would have been pathetic. The only real lesson is learnt when you are laying in hospital with a pipe up every oriface and not game to blink cause it hurts too much . Ive been there and also won australian championships. It doesn't matter how good you are you still make mistakes. We like to call it brain fade! KenÏt's more important for people to be able to recognise their limits".

[asra]

Hi Ken, You are right that some people are difficult to train and with a real possibility of them not absorbing much of what is being taught to their extreme danger. It applies to cars, motorcycles and aircraft, none more so than gyrocopters. Some students like yourself will take to it like a duck to water, some will be far slower, and some in their own interests should eventually be discouraged from pursuing it further. The test of being able to safely riding motorcycles or fly gyrocopters is time. If you get a number of hours up successfully without incident, you must be doing something right and hence the 80 hour rule. If the cross-country endorsement before passenger endorsement rule helps prove the pilot is very safe before he is entrusted with someone else's life, then I have no objection to it. They don't let you take a pillion on a motorbike down here for your first 12 months for good reason and the logic is identical for our discipline. After all Ken we are not playing with Leggo here and have to do things right all the time, especially with a 'pillion'in toe.Pete

[asra]

OK Telf, I'll say something. I was told to butt out early in this thread when I tried to make helpfull suggestions which apparently did not suit Wal's agenda.As you come from another discipline that allows flight up to 5000 ft, but now fly gyros limiting you to 500 ft until/unless you get an Instrument allowing you to return to 5000 ft, you will find that low level navigation is much more difficult as landmarks can be hidden due to your perspective.At altitude the resemblance between the chart and what you see is great, while at low level things can be very confusing.In my opinion ( based on real world experience ) we would be irresponsible to turn someone loose with a passenger in a 25 mile radius training area and under 500ft without ensuring his navigational skills are adequate.I know you come with a credit for your nav experience, but would caution you against thinking that it guarantees your proficiency at low level.I hope this helps understanding of our requirements.John EvansThink logically and do things well, think laterally and do things better.

[asra]

Good point John, I never thought of that.I also have a little concern that to some people these days, navigation means being able to operate a GPS. In the last few years I have met some FW jocks that worry about the GPS quitting andleaving them lost, litterally.This is one reason that I have stated in the past that I want a fullpanel in my Gyro. The GPS would be a backup.Cheers.Robert DunnMackay. Qld.Growing old is good while it lasts.

[asra]

Gentle Bodies,I must agree with John, during my FW stint I had to do eleven (11) nav's, all at three hours min, on one of them my instructor told me to go down to 500ft and take him home, it was almost impossible at this height as the plain of view disappeared.Pete Barsden

[wflaks]

[telf]

Thanks for sticking your head above water again, Doc.Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, mate, as I don't see any logic to your argument.I certainly understand what you're saying about the differences between 5000ft and 500ft but it doesn't have any relevance to the number of people on board.If it is (to quote you) 'irresponsible to turn someone loose with a passenger in a 25 mile radius training area and under 500ft without ensuring his navigational skills are adequate', why is it not irresponsible to send them out in the same situation by themselves?Do people learn to navigate all of a sudden when they are on their own? No, of course not!If there isn't a problem with people getting lost solo, how can it become an issue 2 up.I can't remember anyone saying, 'Yeh, it was pretty bad at the club on the weekend. Five gyros took off for their normal weekly flights. Two had passengers. We never saw those two again'.Or even, 'He never did get lost solo, but the day he took his mate up.....'Or, 'Sorry, we don't do TIFs at this club cos people keep getting lost.'I know you like a good discussion, Doc, so back up what you're saying with a logical argument.Whenever I took someone up in the Drifter I would always fly where I was familiar.Most passenger flights in recreational aviation (ASRA, RAA, HGFA, gliders, etc) are fairly short, close to the strip and to show the passenger what this flying stuff is all about, not to take them on a long cross country jaunt.Over to you.......telfFlying - The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. (Douglas Adams-The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

[asra]

Dudes,It all becomes a little clearer if you "think coroner". You can't stop a man from killing himself. But if you licence him to carry a paaenger (and potentially kill him) on the basis that he has stayed alive for 80 hours, then you are asking for coronial trouble. The more checks and balances that you use to demonstrate competence (whether it be for pilotting specific, or other aviation type skills), the more the coroner will be satisfied that ASRA did all things possible to ensure the competence of the passenger carrying pilot. I was never a passenger with a licenced driver that advised me "Don't get in with me mate. I'm a raving looney." But some of them should have. Likewise, ASRA has the obligation with gyro pilots in the case of passenger carrying. You would be more confident explaining that a pilot was competent and worthy of the endorsement if he was a TA, had a radio operators licence, had x-country endorsement, had instrument from CASA to exceed 500ft, as well as "80 hours". Didn't necessarily mean he was more competent than an "80 hour pilot only". Just means that there was more justification for stickin' yer neck out and giving him an endorsement. If you can find a coroner that is happier with "just 80 hours" instead of the additional requirements of ASRA, then he's the man you want to book for the hearing if yer happen to kill a passenger.CheersFred

[Ken Watson]

The coronial enquiry argument is ridiculous. Do you think that CFI's ,Instructors tech advisors, CC and Passenger Endorsed dont have accidents? They do and the coroner will still ask why such a person was allowed to carry a passenger when they had accidents in the past or how they managed to keep such privilages. The most important thing is passenger safety and a nav ticket won't help that and I reckon your argument backs that up John. I don't care how good your nav ticket is John and can guarantee i can get you lost at my place in 10mls or 10 min.Familiarisation with the local area is the most important nav instrument you can use in a 25ml radius. Have you ever noticed that when bushwalkers get lost the authorities go to locals first for help, not some buffoon with a nav ticket who could get lost on the back of a rice bubble packet. I think the accident statistics I asked for would be relevant. I know of highly qualified people who have the relevant endorsements who have had accidents. The piece of paper does not give immunity from stupidity or negligence. C'mon John give us a real argument. So does the cross country endorsement teach you to interpret maps at lower than 500ft, or show you how to pick out prominent landmarks? Should our interest in weather conditions be restricted to below 500ft? My strip is at 1500ft and within 1/2 mile in nearly all directions it drops to sea level. Within 2 to 5 miles it then climbs to 2000+ ft. I don't care what nav ticket you have it won't help you here. Familiarisation and an understanding of the local wind patterns and strange occurances is your best bet. My instructor knows i know the area well as I have proven it to him on many occasions and yet his hands are tied . Some of the incidents and accidents I have read of lately must put into question the ability of these people to carry passengers and I think they would still hold their endorsements. I think a "history of safe operation"may be more relevant. No one is exempt from an accident and I noticed the cross country didn't help these people , even the most highly qualified. C'mon John, read back through some of the reports and tell me if the nav ticket was helpfull in respect to the outcome.The assessment for the passenger endorsement should centre on his practical ability not his theoretical prowess. The operations manager should have the power to issue a passenger endorsement to limit its use to your local field (25ml radius). I think if you can pass the endorsement course and prove your practical ability to the highest level to a CFI then that should be enough. If the emergency landing competition at Cooma is any indication then I don't know how a lot of the endorsed pilots got their endorsement; "safely complete a minimum of 3 power off landings to a full stop". Some must have forgot about the power off thingy! Item h in the ops also seems relevant:ensure that the flight is conducted in an area that, in the event of an engine failure , the safety of the passenger is not compromised.What could be better than the area you know best.KENp.s Don't forget about the unreported incidents, there is a few of those too!Forgot to answer Wal's Q. I could find my way home in that distance with my eyes closed. I grew up with an old man who sent me out to get cows on a bike at 6 years old, and I had to get back cause I don't think he would have come looking for me. I think navigation is an instinct for farmers, a bit like self preservation, unlike our city counterparts who need signs to tell them to do everthing.

[wflaks]

Hi MembersR.A.A. (A.U.F.) Passenger Carriage Endorsement A) R.A.A. pilot certificate.B) Minimum 10hrs pilot in command of an aircraft.C) Minimum 2hrs approved two seat ultralight.Boy will the coroner have field day with this lot.Walter

[asra]

Walter, We already covered that subject earlier. You appear to conveniently forget that most accept that gyros are more difficult to get a handle on in the early hours and more likely to crash than ultralights, so your comparison between RAA and us is again flawed.Ken, you do Fred an injustice in dismissing what he said. I have had a fair bit to do with Coroners and they would definatley look far more closely at any Licensing Authority in circumstances where novices were killing themselves or others. I agree with you that a history of safe operation would be considered under those circumstances, and that would include evidence of hours flown and additional training. I am also aware that Coroners commonly recommend placing restrictions on individuals freedoms if it may prevent further deaths. We should therefore protect all our existing avaition priviledges carefully lest they go away in the blink of an eye. Rather than debate the subject, we who want to take passengers should seize the opportunity to show we are 'fairdinkum' avaitors who want to support our movement and do what our Regulations require.Pete