Do you get the RAAus magazine? Perhaps a letter to their editor with reference to both our letters could do well? You OK to send one in?

Thanks for pointing out this story. It, and your comments, made me react on a couple of points.

Firstly – oh, how tiresome it is responding to misinformed aviation reporting by people who know little about aviation (and bother to find little out before coming to broad and often wrong conclusions). Sometimes I wonder whether we should bother, or just leave them to it. Of course, the answer is, we should bother, since the future of aviation depends upon it.

As for the article itself – although your response mostly sums it up, I have a couple more thoughts:

1. Not sure whether it’s the writer’s motives we should be questioning… more likely he was just naive and believed AIPA and ALAE’s lines that the RA-Aus weight increase and or the RA-Aus category generally is dangerous; despite these organisations’ apparent vested interests against RA-Aus. (I say ‘apparent’ because looking at the big picture, The RA-Aus movement – as an affordable entry into both piloting and aviation mechanics is critical to the growth and survival of civil aviation!)

2. What on earth does two hours of instrument training have to do (a) with safety generally and (b) with the recent accidents specifically? (a) As you point out, all were in the VH category anyway, so the instrument training / RA issue is irrelevant anyway, and (b) There is no suggestion, let alone evidence, that instrument proficiency would have averted these accidents, since they were all in VMC! Does the writer even know what instrument training is for?! To someone who knows nothing to little about aviation, I’m sure “flight instrument training” sounds very critical and important… but what the hell does that have to do with not hitting each other in the circuit, or clipping power lines at bush strips?

Whew… I guess I’d better calm down now. Happy new year :-)