CPL in an RA-Aus aircraft

[Ian Baker]

Guys/Girls, I'm going to write to CASA to try to convince them that one should be able to get their CPL in an RA-Aus aircraft.

Where would I start and who should I write to specifically?

[Frank Arouet]

Check you PM's Ian.

[Joker 10]

You need an aircraft that is capable of 115 knots for the X country, best of luck in the convince stakes.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Why not?

You'll get CASA approval for controlled airspace then too. How about the night hours requirement?

..yeah hell yeah why not?

Ultralights are as good as GA aircraft, no problem.

And the instructors - minimum requirement is a PPL exam pass (not even a PPL)... Yep having PPLs training Commercial Pilots, no problem.

:ugh:
:ugh:
:ugh:

Enthusiastic amatuers turning the Australian aviation industry into the biggest aero club in the world :yuk:

[ausdoc]

Haven't we been over this issue many times already. The whole idea of AUF/RA-Aus, or whatever it will be called next, was to provide relatively inexpensive and simple recreational flying. It was for those who didn't need or want the complications of controlled airspace or airfields, did not want or need to keep up to date with complex regulations, and wanted to fly relatively simple aircraft types that they could maintain themselves.

Now it seems that there are those who want to simply use RA-Aus as a cheap and less-regulated way to gain qualifications that are well outside the whole reason for RA-Aus in the first place.

Surely there needs to be some line between Recreational and Commercial. You can't have it both ways. Yes, use some hours on RA-Aus aircraft towoards the 200hr option for CPL, but the 150hr pathway is intended for those who undertake a structured training program to CPL - ie to fly commercially. How is an entire administrative system, designed around recreational objectives, for recreational flyers and aircraft, compatible with training commercial pilots? Surely the regulatory, governance and management structures that RA-Aus would need to have in place to conduct CPL training would increase the overheads to members to the stage that the whole reason for having RA-Aus would be negated.

Cheers,

ausdoc

[Ultralights]

I think you might be missing the point, i think he is trying to say, that a CPL student still complete all the CPL syllabus as required by CASA, exams etc, but flight training carried out in a Raaus Registered aircraft capable of speeds over 115(120) Kts such a Jabiru 230. using a qualified grade 3 or required CPL instructor, so instead of jumping into a 182 for your CPL, you get into a J23 instead, everything else remains the same.

[Frank Arouet]

relatively inexpensive and simple recreational flying. It was for those who didn't need or want the complications of controlled airspace or airfields, did not want or need to keep up to date with complex regulations, and wanted to fly relatively simple aircraft types

Such was the 95:10 aircraft, but things have evolved a lot since then where not only have we very sophisticated, but still (relatively), inexpensive aircraft, very capable of doing the same job.

Irrespective of what objections there may be from the "usual suspects" bent up in their "elitist cocoons" of self indulgence, it was them that started the whole evolutionary process by insisting hang gliders, ultralights, sport rotorcraft, parachutists, balloons, base jumpers, gliders, and ornithopters be equipped with expensive surveillance ADSB simply because these "menaces to society" may be in the same airspace as them on any given time of the day or year, and even worse, at an altitude that they may want to descend or climb through over the 7.5 million square kilometers of Australian landscape x cubed.

They obviously "expect" recreational aircraft to be there.

With NO organisation capable of looking after the interests of the private recreational above 544kg privately owned GA fleet there is a possibility that these "recreational" aircraft may one day be at one with the only representative body that can look after their interests.

There are heaps of "PILOT" organisations, some even publish magazines, but only one with the capacity and legal capability to look after private recreational aviation "OWNERS" whether they fly a VFR C210 or a Drifter.

Yes Ian, it will happen, but whether in our lifetime I'm unsure. There are too many "traditional" agenda driven obstacles to overcome.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

I assume the same Jabiru is capable of being VH registered?.
If so, register it as a VH Jabiru and go your hardest.
Does it have a CSU?.

[poteroo]

Isn't the aircraft requirement for CPL test: >120 KTAS + CSU ? This lower than in the near past where it was >120 + CSU + R/G... and probably should have remained.

A J-230 fails to qualify even on the current, (and lowered), level of complexity.

The allowance of 100hrs RAAus towards the 200hr CPL seems rather generous - where do we stop?

happy days,

[Mach E Avelli]

There's a thing called the Dova Skylark (or somesuch) which is capable of RA registry, is retractable, does 120 knots and could be fitted with a constant speed prop.
BUT, if it is registered RA it can't fly at night or IMC, so how could all the elements of the CPL flying syllabus be ticked off? Attempting to do the entire CPL in such light, low inertia aircraft does not prepare one adequately for that first commercial job where you could be hauling tourists around in a C210. Go for something with a bit of weight, a bit of grunt and a modicum of complexity and just suck up the extra costs.
I would NEVER employ a pilot who had not at least flown a reasonable number of hours in an aeroplane approaching the power, complexity and weight of whatever I had in the fleet. In the same way I would NEVER employ a pilot who took the 'softcock' option of getting a CPL or ATPL in some more lenient country to circumvent the CASA standards. Which are already about as low as they need to go. RA is great for those who want to play with their toys and enjoy a minimum of regulatory interference, but the culture is not right for budding CPLs.
Bring back taildraggers, and 3 hour written nav papers with Mercator sailings, and Morse code, and the VAR. GPS navigation indeed....pussies, all pussies. There was a time when the CPL/ATPL was made deliberately difficult to discourage the weak, meek and inept. Charles Darwin, where are you? Harumph. Rant over.

[desert goat]

You forgot celestial navigation...:}

[andrewbooth]

Hey everyone,

I was referred to this link by a friend. I am a 100% RA-Aus qualified pilot, but I must disagree with the original poster. RA-Aus aircraft just aren't the same as GA aircraft, fullstop. The Jabiru is a close specification comparison to something like a C152 or a PA38 - but not the same aeroplane. It's important that RA-Aus pilots AND GA pilots realise that there's no general comparison between the two categories of flying. One is a hobby (RA-Aus) and one (GA) is for a hobby and career if you choose to progress to the next licence (CPL).

I'm 15 years old, I went solo when I was 15 and two days old and 3 months later I got my full 'certificate'. At the moment I have no intention to fly at night, fly in IMC or fly in controlled airspace. When I want to do this, I will get a PPL. It's important that people know that the RA-Aus syllabus has evolved greatly since the pre-AUF and AUF days. The syllabus is pretty much the same as the GA PPL Day VFR syllabus & there are advantages to GA training and there are advantages to RA-Aus training. I don't understand why the two categories have this feud with each other, it's aviation, it's all flying, it's something we should ALL be very greatful to have. I know I am.

I'm not biased.

Thanks,
Andrew

[illusion]

The CPL training is there to give you qualifications and experience necessary to safely operate a commercial aircraft. cannot imagine an operator letting a new CPL loose in a C206 or a C210 with no experience on anything heavier than half a tonne.

Why don't you ask for a dispo on 50% of your instrument rating training because you have Flight Sim 2004 on your laptop??

[MikeMike]

Oh Ian - I truly have heard it all now but then again a question like this from someone like you shouldnt surprise me!

[Homesick-Angel]

Ultralights are as good as GA aircraft, no problem.Yawn..

RA-Aus aircraft just aren't the same as GA aircraft, fullstop.This is mostly true.In a lot of ways RA planes(tecnams and Jabs anyway)are harder to fly because of the lack of inertia.When you do finally step into a 172 or an Archer you will find them a piece of cake(and a pleasure)

There is a great deal of fear in the GA community over the RA movement i.e membership booming, and more airspace being taken up with RA aircraft(their all out to kill us etc), and I think that many GA pilots have an image of 10 years ago when RA's poor safety record and terrible training standards were the norm.Its just not the case these days,although there is still a long way to go in some "schools", but just go research the number of members over the last ten years vs the number of fatalities and serious accidents over the same period to see the truth.

The vitriol that the uneducated portion of GA pilots show towards their RA counterparts is laughable..It will only get more humorous the more that RA takes the market share of Ab-initio training away from the overpriced sausage factories.If you want pleasant, financially pleasing recreational flying in modern aircraft with minimal red tape then RA will be your thing, but just like GA I would research my pick of schools well..

As for the topic at hand..I am an RA member(with a GA CPL) who doesn't want all the ratings and endo's to be available to RA because I think in the end more than anything else it will take away the Recreational element to that kind of flying and will end up with the huge problems that face anyone wanting to fly for fun in the GA world.GA is just not set up at all well for non professional flying unless you are loaded and have a high threshold for bullsh1t of the CASA variety...

It is really good to be able to do a portion of your CPL time in RA aircraft..There is nothing wrong with it at all as long as you are working to the GA Syllabus.But a portion is more than enough as an RA only CPL syllabus wouldn't give the full experience needed with planes of a higher weight and inertia among other things.

[Snatch]

Homesick,

I don't think there is a lot of anti-RAAus vitriol here... but as you say yourself, it's fundamentally different.

The enthusiasm of people like Ian comes, almost without exception, from people with zero understanding of Commercial Pilot Licence standards.

I used to drink at an aero club but I left because I was sick of all the RAAus pilots telling me what I was doing wrong when I was working. They have an RAAus licence (as do I, as well as my CPL and MECIR) and on that basis they seemed to believe they were qualified to criticise my work - criticising me for flying in cloud, for example :ugh:

It is tantamount to a Boy Scout holding a 1st Aid badge watching a paramedic or a doctor and criticising their work. It springs from ignorance and arrogance.

When we point out that there are higher standards and greater requirements in CPL training than can be achieved in an RAAus machine, we get the Frank Arouets of the world accusing us of "eliteism" :yuk:

Commercial Pilots are trained to the standards of a professional, able to handle a far wider range of variables and conditions than a PPL or a RAAus pilot. THAT is because they are charged with transporting the general public.

I'm not a doctor, but I hold a Workplace First Aid certificate... would you let me operate on a member of your family?

I'm not a licenced financial advisor but I have had a bank account since I was 7 - that's over 30 years experience! I MUST know what I'm doing with money! Would you like me to handle your Superannuation? :8

No of course not. But while you would defend your money with your life, you are willing to lower the standards for the training of professional pilots... even further... yet again... and put your family in an aircraft with them? :confused:

...just to feed your schoolboy fantasy that you really are just as good as a Commercial Pilot, even though you only have a Pilot Cert?

Man I just don't get it.

[andrewbooth]

In my eyes the most appropriate way to get your CPL from an RA-Aus background is to convert to a PPL and work from there. The RA-Aus pilot certificate with passenger and cross country endorsement is very similar to a PPL. But you will have to get used to the aircraft, complete 2 hours instrument flying, demonstrate your ability to fly navs, handle controlled airspace etc... Then you can work towards your CPL once you've gained your PPL.

I haven't really heard of a percentage conversion, i.e 1 RA-Aus hour is worth 50% of a GA hour (example!!). By the time a person has achieved the certificate with all endorsements to convert they would have a very minimum of 40 hours, which in reality if taught properly is not possible. I have my certificate with no additional endorsements and I have 35 hours. (Basically in GA terms it's less than a GFPT)

-Andrew

[MikeMike]

What he said :D:D:D- Snatch you have put it so much better than I ever could have.

[Homesick-Angel]

Good post snatch.

Sounds like you found a right wank3r to talk to at the Aero club...Im suprised you found a know it all drinking at an Aero club:}.

I guess the thing that really gets my goat about some of the comments made about RA is they paint All of it with the one brush and it often tends to be with either subtle put downs or flat out false statements.Its just not possible to do that with any accuracy just as we couldn't sit here and say that "every pilot under 25 studying for a CPL in Moorabbin thinks he is cooler than Maverick from Top Gun when in reality the aviators just look stupid"..

Or could we:}.

I think this is the last time that I bite to this RA/GA crap because in reality I dont care that much.Its more the principle of the thing . Continually seeing and hearing false, broad statements that have no merit gets up my nose and annoys me no matter what the topic is. That's why I pay no attention to elections.

[MikeMike]

What he said :D:D:D- Snatch you have put it so much better than I ever could have.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Why would you want to fart around in a slow little plane when you gonna fly a big fast one??

It's like learning to drive 18 Wheel Mack Truck in a Daewoo!

[Frank Arouet]

Snatch;

Personally I think the idea of doing CPL in a rec aircraft is absurd.

My point is that it may well come to being that PVT GA recreational VFR aircraft may one day be part of Recreational Aviation in any of its mutations.

Oh, and since when did any CPL test aircraft have to be IFR? Limited panel experience is even part of the PPL syllabus and that is done regularly in C150's.

accusing us of "eliteism"

You obviously didn't read any of the ADSB threads did you. Pity, you would have seen the concept in all it's glory.

[maverick22]

The other thing to consider is even if you could do your CPL in an RA aircraft it might work against you (or atleast not help you) when applying for that airline job.

I was formerly a combined RAA/GA instructor and out of the 1000+ hours instructing I did in the RAA reg aircraft, how many of those did my current employer recognise? None.:sad:

[Homesick-Angel]

I was formerly a combined RAA/GA instructor and out of the 1000+ hours instructing I did in the RAA reg aircraft, how many of those did my current employer recognise? None.

So when you got to your interview they said.Ok Mav.You have 3500 hours, but Im afraid that we are only gonna count 2500 of em because you were RA..??

Thats really odd..What was their explanation for ignoring command hours?Specifically I mean?

[boltz]

Just remember if you make RAAus more complicated it's going to become more regulated.
But isn't that the benefit of the RAAus. The fact that it's not that regulated.
That's why we have RAAus and GA. It's always going to be that way.

[maverick22]

So when you got to your interview they said.Ok Mav.You have 3500 hours, but Im afraid that we are only gonna count 2500 of em because you were RA..??

Thats really odd..What was their explanation for ignoring command hours?Specifically I mean?

It's a company requirement that only fixed wing aircraft time (exluding ultralights and gliders) can be counted towards company aeronautical experience requirements. They knew about my experience at interview time but nothing was mentioned about it not counting, I merely stumbled across that whilst reading through the manuals after joining the company.

At the end of the day though, I'm not fussed about this, as I enjoyed my time RAA instructing. It's how I got a break into a GA job and I had a ball doing it. I just worry about some flying schools who will convince their students to get an RAA licence and then convert them to a PPL/CPL later on in the belief it will be more economical (that's a big maybe). In actual fact you are better off having time in a GA rego'd machine for down the track. Yes, you can count up to 750 hrs of 3-axis ultralight time towards your ATPL, but there's no point in having one if you still have to do that same time again to meet company requirements for command upgrades etc.

[cficare]

..sucked-in homesick....
\

[superdimona]

Atlas, if you already owned a fast RAA machine (well, fast compared to the typical aging C152 - not all RAA aircraft are Drifters), I can see why someone would want to train in it to save some money. But I'm with Frank on this one; if you seriously want to fly for a career it just seems a silly idea.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Maybe if RAA pilots want to play with the bigger boys, CASA should start enforcing similar rules in regards to maintenance as well?
How about the RAA instructors having to meet CASA standards?

"Huh? A selective radial scan? What's that?"

Maybe CASA should start enforcing the rules for all things RAA anyway.
There are a lot of these weekend warriors that would benefit from some "guidance" from a "friendly" FOI. :E:E:E

Really think you will get more benefit and experience from taking some mates along on something that can carry more than just a cut lunch.

[Hornet306]

I have some small experience in GA, RAAus and GFA aircraft; I'm an instructor in the latter two categories. I don't put a lot of emphasis in "selective radial scan" instrument flying when teaching our instructors as maybe lookout, attitude flying and adult learning principles have a bit more priority, something that some GA instructors that I have known could do with a bit of refresher on.
The RAAus flight school I fly has only 3 regular instructors and we try (under a very inspiring CFI) to maintain the most professional standards we can in flight instruction and briefing/debriefing, mainly because we are so enthusiastic about flying ourselves.
Some of the pilots I trained in gliders now grace the command seats of B747, A320, B737 and FA18s, it is my constant job satisfaction that they got a good a start from me as I could give.
On the other hand, I am disappointed with some of the airmanship demonstrated by visiting GA pilots.:ugh:
Anyway, my humble opinion is that there are very transferable basic skills from GFA/RAAus/HGFA through to GA and commercial flying (eg the Gimli B767, the Hudson River outlanding) so lets have a bit of respect for that and the fact that there are true aviators in all flight disciplines. :}

[MikeMike]

Hornet - I dont think any of us have a lack of repsect for any pilot even if they do only hold a pilot certificate. I think what is being debated here is the ability for a RAA certificated to pilot move on to a commercial license

To be honest to defend the "visiting GA pilots" I think we all could sit here and tell stories about Commercial and Private Pilots and RAA flyers all day long because lets face it we all make mistakes - but really in my opinion some of the RAA guys take the cake I mean have those guys even heard of radios? Serpentine guys need to really discover 135.25 its amazing what you get to hear when you change from 92.9 to 135.25 you get to hear traffic alerts, hear other aircraft broadcasting their position, hear them advise you when they are over your field, even when they are just in the area they'll jump in and say "Hey Serpentine traffic just wanted to let you know Im within 30 miles of you clowns so next time you are buzzing around without a care in the world how bout you let me know your in the area and Ill do the same and then we wont bang into each other and make a big burnt hole in the earth together hey????"

Well I suppose I can hope and dream - Safer Skys for all....thats all Im after.....my wife wants to see me home tonight

Mike

[Horatio Leafblower]

For god's sake...

It's not about one group being better than any other group of pilots. RAAus is Primary school. GA CPL is High School, and it is what qualifies you to go on to University.

Nobody is saying that Primary school kids can't go on to University.. it's just that you have to do more, learn more, learn some different stuff.

Life is full of barriers to entry. Hard work is rewarded. If you want to achieve the prize, put in the work.

...or do you think we should all automatically qualify for the olympics because we could run pretty fast when we were kids? :ugh:

[Jabawocky]

Leaffie......... can you copy that post into the POTY thread. Thats Goldmate! :ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Agreed, Leafblower has put it in a much more concise context.
My point was RA doesn't teach IF, which is a required item of the PPL and CPL syllabussessesss.

You want to fly at a CPL level, go to CPL instructors at CPL schools.

BTW, I know plenty of GA instructors who have crossed to RA and do teach to the GA level, but I have also had MANY RA students who have had to be restarted from the beginning because their standard of knowledge was absolutely pathetic.

Best was a student who took four lessons to get anywhere near a stall because he kept trying to grab the controls off me to stop the demo.
His first RA instructor thought it would demonstrate what a fantasic pilot he was by putting the Jabiru into a spin as his initial demo for stalling.:mad::ugh::mad::ugh::*:=:eek:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Best was a student who took four lessons to get anywhere near a stall because he kept trying to grab the controls off me to stop the demo.

I had a 350 hour CPL/MECIR holder on a company type check - not his first job - his first stall was piss weak but when I tried to demonstrate what I wanted to see he repestedly pushed the stick forward before I got anywhere near the stall.

:ugh:

Frank Arouet
Oh, and since when did any CPL test aircraft have to be IFR? Limited panel experience is even part of the PPL syllabus and that is done regularly in C150's.
That's true, but they are certified aircraft. Every synthetic trainer has to be individually put through a fidelity test by CASA before students can log anytime in it... can you see CASA viewing Gazelles and Foxbats in any other way?

I have over 800 hours instructing in (ex VH) Gazelles with a full GA panel. However, over the last 3-4 years I have seen a lot of factory-built RAAus aircraft with some pretty wierd setups for attitude instruments and some very strange panel layouts :=

[poteroo]

I like post #34 by HL.

If instructors in RAAus properly teach the fundamentals of attitude flying - then this hoary chestnut about a couple hours IF making all the difference will disappear. More & more RAA aircraft now have full panels, and it's not hard to cover attitude interpretation when referring back to the panel for confirmation of performance in the course of ab initio training.

Lets' keep some perspective here. If we strike a poorly performing pilot, whether it be GA or RAA - it's not the syllabus, or the system - it's an instructor problem. That's where we need to look.

I guess you can then make the comparisons between GA and RAA in terms of the minimum standards for instructors. My wishlist includes the new CEO of RAAus looking at the whole instructor structure, and lifting it's skills accross the board.

happy days,

[Frank Arouet]

can you see CASA viewing Gazelles and Foxbats in any other way?

No.

But again;

My point is that it may well come to being that PVT GA recreational VFR aircraft may one day be part of Recreational Aviation in any of its mutations.

My "gut feeling" tells me CASA is trying to exterminate PVT GA because it is of nuisance value to them. They may as well give it to some organisation that is capable of administering it better than they are. They can then "attempt" to do their primary job of looking after the poor suffering paying public.

If that ever happens in my life time, and there is anything left of PVT GA to administer, Ian Baker should put his question to CASA then.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

If instructors in RAAus properly teach the fundamentals of attitude flying

How about if ALL RA instructors taught to the same standard as GA, or even were certified by CASA?

I acknowledge there are quite a few who do, but there are many who don't. I have even heard of an RA examiner who tells instructor candidates they are giving too much information when they present a standard GA turning brief! The explanation is they don't need to know why the plane flies, just how to do it. Same person who says they won't make radio calls because the AIP only recommends them. Apparently they aren't mandatory so shouldn't be made.

ABSOLUTE BULLS:mad:IT.

RA wants the priveledges of airspace and now CPL instruction? What next? Aerobatics, NVFR and IFR?

For f:mad:ck's sake! IF YOU WANT TO FLY AT THIS LEVEL, FLY THESE AIRCRAFT AND GET TAUGHT BY COMMERCIALLY EXPERIENCED INSTRUCTORS.

[superdimona]

I still think that doing a CPL in an RAA aircraft is a dumb idea, but

The explanation is they don't need to know why the plane flies, just how to do it

How many millions of people drive cars, each day, and have no idea how they work?

It seems to me that a ton of stuff could be chopped out of the syllabus without compromising real-world safety. I hate to think how many brain cells are wasted on decoding weather and NOTAMs written in Aviation gobbledygook when it could be offered in a plain english option.

[poteroo]

The original post was an obvious windup - intended only to polarise opinion, and it's certainly achieved that.

99.99% of RAAus members have no need of, or intention to, usurp GA's role in flying. Only a few dreamers and wannabe's are involved in the stirring of GA.

The mainstream of RAAus has no interest in CTA flying, in night flying, in aerobatics, in doing CPL's, in charter, or in anything other than A to B flying on a nice day in a little 'ol 2 seater.

As to the instructor quality within RAAus, as mentioned in a recent post - well, it ranges from high hours GrI's with RPT and GA CHTR experience right thru to the basic RAA rating. Yes, it does vary, and that's undeniable. CASA clearly doesn't want to become closely involved in micro-managing every splinter group in aviation - that's why each group, (eg, GFA,HGA,RAA), is self administering. So far, their intervention hasn't appeared necessary, and even were it so, they are too busy with closer surveillance of GA instruction quality as a priority.

happy days,

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

How many millions of people drive cars, each day, and have no idea how they work?


And I keep telling people I feel much safer in an aircraft than a car.:rolleyes:
Other stuff I keep telling people is THIS SH:mad:T WILL KILL YOU IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

You can't just coast to the side of the road if something goes wrong.

The complacent attitude of too many GA and RA pilots needs to be rectified. If you aren't willing to understand what you are doing, STAY ON THE GROUND.

This is not a dig at Super or Potts, but yeah, agree the windup worked.:\

[brad_nz90]

I just moved from New Zealand and I like the idea of RA license gives people like my dad the chance to fly, he only gave it up because he was sick of having to keep up with all the rules.

But any way I just moved over and I have 260TT CPL and Multi engine instrument rating, I went to a aeroclub the other day where they had RA aircraft and VH registered air craft they are only Technams. They are cheap to hour build but my question is will the hours be frowned apon when I go for interviews

[major_tom]

i have thought about this as well (seeing i am only a low hr PPL ~120 hrs). However the aircraft has to be a VH registered. And in australia... i cant seem to find a flight school that has VH register LSA's. Any ideas people?

[VH-XXX]

RVAC at Moorabbin have LSA Sportstars. LSA is irrelevant in the scheme of things, it is either LSA RAAus or LSA GA registered.

[major_tom]

@ VH-XXX are RVAC LSA's VH registered?

[VH-XXX]

Yes, to the best of my knowledge. I believe the Sportstar isn't 95.55 certified. Apologies if I am incorrect however I can't see that LSA is relevant to anything.

[major_tom]

sorry im a bit confused :confused:. I guess the bottom line is... if an aircraft is VH registered (regardless if its LSA or not) the hours can count CPL? If its not VH registered... then the hours are pretty much useless?

I know there are a number of rural flight schools that teach in aircraft that are registered under RAAus (ie - not VH). If i were for example to get a job with them flying - will the hours count for anything at all (for instance towards ATPL?)
cheers :)

[maverick22]

I know there are a number of rural flight schools that teach in aircraft that are registered under RAAus (ie - not VH). If i were for example to get a job with them flying - will the hours count for anything at all (for instance towards ATPL?)


Yes, you can count a maximum of 750 hrs in 3-axis ultralight aircraft towards the ATPL.

Like I said in an earlier post, they might help you get an ATPL, but that's about all. Some operators won't recognise ultralight hours to meet their requirements. You're better off having VH time

[SW3]

We're looking at two different scales, RAAus and commercial flying. However who in the world jumped into the left hand seat of a jet without learning to fly?

RAAus can teach you how to fly a 3 axis aeroplane, which is what a jet is believe it or not. So lets not all forget where we came from.

RAAus is a cheaper option for ab-initio training as many don't have the thousands of dollars to start in GA from scratch. These aircraft are no different to fly to your basic C150, C172 or Piper Cherokee. So why learn the basics carting two extra seats around and paying for them.

For those who want to move onto CPL there is a need to move on to larger aircraft, a la my first statement. The regs (Another hotly contended issue) state how many hours count from RAAus to PPL, CPL and ATPL.

To land your first job you will need to have flown something bigger and faster than a Jabiru hence the reason for the regs containing a requirement to complete your CPL in a contstand speed, >120 knot aircraft.

In short RAAus aircraft have their place in the career of a pilot should they choose to begin there. They provide a fantastic starting point to a successful pilot. From RAAus onto high performance singles, twins, turbines and then jets dependant on personal desires. (Then back to RAAus to fly for fun!)

[mates rates]

Major Tom
If you want both and are in the BNE area Redcliffe Flight Training have both RAA and VH aircraft.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

CPL training in an RAA aircraft and your first job is in a C210 in remote NT?

Have to think about that one.

If a RAA flight school wants to train to CASA CPL standard with AOC and Ops Manuals and FOI audits....why would you want to submit yourself to such regulation? Unless....you want to capitalise on the streams of money that wannabes expend on the dream.

Sidetrack on this argument...whats more important...training wannabe jet jockeys or developing a base of consumers that actually spend discreationary dollars in the aviation economy. I would say more people who want to spend money on their passion/hobby/sport for their entire life.

There is nothing wrong with RAA training. It's just not to the standard expected of an operator who uses aeroplanes for hire or reward. If the standard is raised...it is no longer recreational!

[Ian Baker]

I beg to differ, I really don't understand why this keeps coming up. Most if not all RA-Aus instructors are GA instructors these days and the standard of RA-Aus training is very high indeed, often as high or higher than GA schools offer. With the number of GA schools closing at present due to a lack of interest and nearly no new students, RA-Aus should be considered for the full 1,500 hours for ATPL, otherwise there will be a pilot shortage.

For those interested in Recreational Aviation just google it and there you will find links to fun and friendly places to talk about Recreational Aviation in Australia. Most airline pilots these days in the large jets started in ultralights and I know of a few off hand that are flying the A380. Ultralight flying made them the pilots that they are today! Ultralights have come a long way though, from 2-stroke Thrusters to Jabirus that go faster and are better equipped than many GA aircraft on the market.

[bankrunner]

RA-Aus should be considered for the full 1,500 hours for ATPL, otherwise there will be a pilot shortage.And I'm sure there'll be plenty of NVFR, ME command and instrument time in those 1500 ultralight hours, eh?

[baswell]

Seriously, dudes. "Ian Baker" = proprietor of recreationalflying.net and RA-Aus board member. I seriously doubt he would post here.

There is, however one person here that has an obsession with Ian and is also know to work under several alter egos both on this and other sites.

I think it is safe to say that person would be the one making these postings. Mods should really delete anything posted by the Ian Baker account and the rest of us should ignore it.

m'ok?

[Horatio Leafblower]

Baswell

Nice work - I was thinking about posting exactly the same info myself. Oooh look that person has made several contributions to this thread too.... :yuk:

[SW3]

Raaus definitely has a place in basic training. Day VFR syllabus is Day VFR Syllabus. Funnily enough a 3 Axis recreational aircraft is no different to fly than a Warrior, just cheaper so for basics there's no reason why not. Then move onto CSU etc at appropriate time.

[VH-XXX]

The current 750 hours which counts towards the 1500 ATPL is a happy medium that should keep both sides of the fence happy! You can't complain about that no matter where your allegiance lies. It gives a good balance of stick and rudder, along with procedures and paperwork.

[SW3]

Agreed XXX.
Many of us started in Raaus and now have successful flying careers, and none of the jobs I've had ever scrutinised me for flying and beginning in Raaus. They are great for the basics and the 750 hours that count for an ATPL.
Start off in Raaus then move onto more sophisticated aircraft, it's exactly the same reasons as why u can't complete an entire CPL in a C172 or Warrior, however much can be covered in these aircraft.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Forgive me for playing both sides of this debate...

...but how many of you guys have actually taught RAAus -> GA conversions?

....how many have taught back the other way?

it can be BLOODY HARD to teach a RAAus guy how to pass a PPL flight test, let alone to fly properly. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it very much depends on the student's motivation and aptitude and the foundation instruction they received.

[SW3]

Horatio in actual fact it's harder to convert a GA guy to Raaus as they often think (not always) they know everything and shouldn't need to do a conversion onto a smaller plane. Fact of the matter is it's this attitude and a lack of speed awareness and getting used to less inertia that often results in a hard transition. You must fly them properly to get the best out of them. Raaus aircraft are more demanding to fly because of the lighter weight and so Raaus have better stick and rudder skills. A GA instructor recently had no idea what aileron drag was! Look at guys who learnt in a Tiger Moth, they can all fly!
As for the theoretical and regs side, this is subjective. Raaus pilots are not rogue pilots. It's up to the individual and the same goes for any pure GA pilot. Regs are regs and we all must follow them, GA or Raaus.
If you want professional standard, do a CPL as a PPL just doesn't cut it on those stakes either. Raaus/PPL are on par as they are for private ops however they both lay the foundations for a CPL.
You speak of Raaus pilots as if they are below the knowledge level of your average person off the street and untrainable essentially. I'm a living example it is possible if you need proof. Many of us still fly Raaus for fun too.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Sorry SW3,

I guess I am letting my experience cloud my judgement. Maybe I should just post based on my prejudices instead?

in actual fact it's harder to convert a GA guy to Raaus as they often think (not always) they know everything and shouldn't need to do a conversion onto a smaller plane.
This assertion is every bit as wrong, for the same reasons, as my assertion in the post above.

Fact of the matter is it's this attitude and a lack of speed awareness and getting used to less inertia that often results in a hard transition. You must fly them properly to get the best out of them.
Can't disagree with you there.

Look at guys who learnt in a Tiger Moth, they can all fly!
..what standard was their instructor trained to? :hmm:

To be honest when it comes to a student's success on either side, as I posted above:
...it very much depends on the student's motivation and aptitude and the foundation instruction they received.

The prejudices you describe in GA-> RAAus conversions are often eased by a competent briefing so the candidate knows what to expect.

You speak of Raaus pilots as if they are below the knowledge level of your average person off the street and untrainable essentially.
Horsesh!t.

I'm a living example it is possible if you need proof. I have plenty of clients from the last 10 years, converting in both directions, for all the proof I need thanks. :rolleyes:

[VH-XXX]

You are really stirring the pot there SW3!!!

[SW3]

Horatio,
My comments came from past experience and not prejudice. You may recall I did say "Not always" as it is not always the case however predominately so. As did I say it is up to the individual to comply, and here I completely agree with you that attitude is the key to success.
By saying it's "BLOODY HARD to teach a RAAus guy how to pass a PPL flight test, let alone to fly properly." is leaning to the fact you believe them to be substandard, attitude is imperative whether someone be from RAaus or ab-initio. So what in fact were you getting at if it's "Horsesh!t" as you say?
As for competent briefings... Have any of your students been able to pull off perfect landings straight after a briefing alone? The point I am making is a lack of attention to speed and inertia is very common, a habit to be broken no matter how much briefing is involved. This is a throw back from flying Cessnas and Pipers which are far more forgiving. There is no washing off speed and letting inertia carrying you in, yet it continues to happen. Rudders are no longer footrests, and many comment their GA aircraft flies much more nicely using it. Why is a lack of stick and rudder skills creeping in? Because aircraft are being engineered to cover these things. Hence the "Tiger Moth" comment, as they have all the habits of a good trainer. Easy to fly, hard to fly properly.
I am neutral to where or what a student learns to fly in, as long as they learn to fly and are taught properly. The points I put forward are points from experience and am in no way anti GA if you were thinking that way. What I am against is those putting down RAaus pilots and instructors, citing lower standards and that GA is "so much better". Glass houses and stones. Funnily enough there aren't many Raaus pilots attacking GA here, and any time one of us hits back in defence no one likes it.
Once again we all have a common interest and a love of flying. Who cares what you fly. This whole post was about from Raaus to CPL. Go for it, it's possible and works as long as the steps are followed.
I'm glad you have all the proof you need, congratulations. I'm standing up for the little guy, the young people who want to fly and who don't have loads of money. Raaus allows people to move from the outside of an airport fence more cost effectively, but not at the expense of standard. If they wish to move onwards and upwards this is fantastic, they have their break into the industry.

[SW3]

If I'm stirring the pot then GOOD. I'm tired of people attacking the Raaus and what it is doing. It's about time someone stood up. Attack what I say all you like, I'm on the fence and fly both and can see both sides. We're all entitled to opinions and all share the same sky as far as I'm concerned.

[AussieNick]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f22/hangover_boy/reaction/21j0hli.gif

[Ultralights]

i dont think the GA to RAAUs, RAAus to GA argument is valid, i have taught out of bankstown for the last 3 yrs, both directions, we train RAAus to the GA syllabus, and some RAAus go on to GA and a career, and some GA come to RAAus for the far cheaper costs, and want nothing more than to enjoy their flying on weekends.
there is no distinction between skill sets from both sides, some RAAus guys struggle in the faster stuff, and some GA guys struggle with actually having to use a rudder and lack of inertia. its all the students ability, thats all, nothing to do with which side of the line your licence is from, hell i have even had a 10,000 hr plus MD11.DC10,747,767 driver find the tecnam, interesting! and yet a 22 yr old PPL holder with less than 100 hrs will pick it up in the time it takes to demonstrate the differences.

The students ability to learn, and the instructors ability to teach is totally individual, and every one is different, licence background is irrelevant.



It's about time someone stood up. Attack what I say all you like, I'm on the fence and fly both and can see both sides. We're all entitled to opinions and all share the same sky as far as I'm concerned.

If only the GA and RAAus communities could learn to support each other, then great things could be achieved to the benefit of both camps......:ok:

[SW3]

Spot on Ultralights, you hit the nail right on the head with that post. Love your work! All is spot on correct.

[Ian Baker]

I didn't realise my thread would spark such debate. As soon as I registered on this site I realised that people don't use their real names, doh! Seems to be a case of mistaken identity. I am not an RAAUS board member and I do not own a website.

[superdimona]

You're telling me that there is another Ian Baker out there who posts only about the RAA, who is totally unrelated to the 'other' Ian Baker? Bullsh!t. We have enough pointless RAA vs GA debates without obvious sock puppets.

[Homesick-Angel]

ahhh yeah..Whatever..

Getting back to an earlier point re the 750 hours....

or more specifically the 100 command of the 200hr course required for a CPL that you can do in an RA aus plane ..

Money talks and bullsh!t walks and unless you have rich parents or rob banks, money is always tight for the student pilot..

looking at some average prices..

GA
100 hours in a 172 at 250.00 approx = 25 grand
Cruise at 100kts(ish) go anywhere with the right licences, 4 seats..most of us know the performance blah blah

RA
100 hours in a Tecnam at 120.00 p hour = 12 grand..
Cruise 100kts(ish) go anywhere with the right licences, 2 seats .. good allround performance..

A thirteen thousand dollar saving..

Its a no Brainer..

Use the spare 13 thou to pay for whatever rating suits your chosen direction best...

[SW3]

$13,000 will come pretty close to the price of a Multi Engine CIR or an Instructor Rating as well so this would work out well.

[VH-XXX]

Don't expect mainline companies like QF & QL to consider any of those hours towards your total flight experience though.

You might save $13k, but it might cost you a better job.

[SW3]

Not necessarily, one may be surprised.
Group A 3 Axis goes into the same column as a C172 etc. I've never had any criticism of my log book in an interview in regards Raaus hours. And at the end of the day one needs ME hours, IF etc to get an airline job. Once again Raaus hours are gold for getting your career up and going, gaining the hours for ypur CPL and then landing your first single job. You'd have to be one lucky pilot to jump from singles straight into RPT without some decent twin hours. The old ladder we all must climb!

[Homesick-Angel]

Don't expect mainline companies like QF & QL to consider any of those hours towards your total flight experience though.

They dont have a choice..It is counted toward your total time, but as was mentioned twin/instrument/night time is what their looking for, and this is what you would be after in your first few jobs after gaining a CPL..

How you get the CPL wont matter, and again if you have saved 13 thou there is your twin endo and a few hours.

The Jobs getting you from 200 hours to 1000 or so will matter, and I wouldnt advise banging around in RA during that key time if you want to fly for Qantas..

[maverick22]

I'm amazed how this thread keeps coming back to life so randomly. Yes, RAAus hours are counted towards your total time, but as I and XXX have said some companies WILL NOT recognise them towards their requirements. The company I work for specifically says that Glider and Ultralight time can not be counted towards their requirements.

[superdimona]

Any idea of the logic behind that decision? Something like a touring motor-glider (with a constant speed prop and retracts) or RAA-registered Piper Cub is more of a handful to fly then a Cessna 152, so why only count the latter?

In a perfect world I'd say how you spend your hours is just as important as what aircraft you happen to be in. A round-Australia trip should count for more then flying in circles in the training area on good weather days.

[mcgrath50]

I would imagine it's an arbitrary insurance thing unless it's just prejudice of course.

[LeadSled]

Any idea of the logic behind that decision?

Superd,

Blind prejudice and ignorance, mostly.

---- as so clearly expressed in this thread and its predecessors.

And I speak with some detailed knowledge of who has been doing what in QF selection procedures over quite a number of years ----- right back to when QF did not recruit from GA at all ---- only ex-military or other airlines.

Tootle pip!!

[baswell]

Here's a joke I heard recently:

So this guy walks into an interview at a scenic bush operator and the chief pilot says: "I see you have 1000 hours now, how many of those were instructing?". The pilot responds: "800". "So you really only have 200 hours then", says the chief.

Seriously, there's a lot of prejudice everywhere in aviation. Having a few RA-Aus hours at the start of your career is likely the least of your worries...

The "only 750 RA-Aus hours for ATPL" is a joke. It would make sense if the rule was "only 750 hours in non-complex aircraft", but when you can do 750 hours in an RA-Aus Jabiru, then put the same jab on the VH register and do the other 750, clearly someone hasn't thought this through very well.

[Macchi 408]

How hard is it to understand the differences? :ugh:

Either go through GA, do the training to get a Commercial Pilot's Licence and move up in the chain (if that's your goal)
-or-
Go through Recreational Aviation Australia and fly recreationally, on aircraft that are designed for recreational purposes.

If you want a CPL, do it like everyone else does. Don't try and cut corners. :=

[superdimona]

Who are you responding to macchi? If it's Baswell, then do you think it makes sense that a Jabiru legally counts for more CPL hours with a VH rego then the exact same aircraft with numbers?

If you're responding to the first post, then keep in mind that the 'Ian Baker' here exists solely as a wind-up account.

[Macchi 408]

I'm responding to the first post (only just caught up with times).

I think that yes, someone needs to have a rethink in regards to A/C such as the Jabiru which can be registered both ways. But when flying under VH- I have only ever seen them in PPL operation, not as an A/C which flying schools use for their CPL training.

[VH-XXX]

The "only 750 RA-Aus hours for ATPL" is a joke. It would make sense if the rule was "only 750 hours in non-complex aircraft", but when you can do 750 hours in an RA-Aus Jabiru, then put the same jab on the VH register and do the other 750, clearly someone hasn't thought this through very well.

If you truly believe that Baswell, then you need to learn a little more about the system under which you (and everyone else) operates.

If you think you can just do 750 hours in an RAA Jabiru and follow up with another 750 in a GA registered one, you're dreaming.

[PyroTek]

If you think you can just do 750 hours in an RAA Jabiru and follow up with another 750 in a GA registered one, you're dreaming.
Why would you bother? Best way to get an ATPL is the cheapest way, AKA, get a job doing charter or something?:ugh:

[SW3]

At the end of the day to land an airline job you need plenty of hours (preferably plenty of Multi engine IFR), however your first job won't be in a twin! And as far as hours go Raaus hours are just as useful as low performance GA such as C172 time.
Raaus is useful at the beginning of your career for initial hour building for your CPL and ATPL. Get the single hours for your first single engine job, and as many as you can in whatever you can. CASA counts 750 hours Raaus for an ATPL which is fantastic. What is extraordinary is that it is possible to complete all the required hours for an ATOL in a low performance GA type (IE C172/cherokee)! These types are just as far away from what one would be flying with an ATPL as a Jabiru is for example.
In short, single engine hours lead to Multi engine hours which leads to the big time. Single hours will get you a Multi job. Raaus hours will gain you single hours which leads to a single engine job which leads to a Multi engine job.

[drpixie]

Some history at the end of the thread ...

The ATPL started out as the Senior Commercial License and still means just that - commercial ops with a bit more seniority than just-starting-out. It doesn't really have much to do with airline ops.

All the ATPL demonstrates is that you know a little more classroom stuff than the bare minimum, have flown a little under instruments, and have a bit more than minimum hours.

Then all the ATPL gives you is left-seat privileges where 2 pilots are required (there are plenty of CPL FOs out there). And, of course, employers (airlines) like to see that extra seniority and experience.

[VH-XXX]

There seems to be the opinion that you just do 750 hours in a Jabiru and then switch into a GA reg'd Jabiru or 172 and do 750 more and you get a shiny piece of paper with ATPL written on it.

[Horatio Leafblower]

There seems to be the opinion that you just do 750 hours in a Jabiru and then switch into a GA reg'd Jabiru or 172 and do 750 more and you get a shiny piece of paper with ATPL written on it.

...and if you hold a CPL and a CIR and you have the requisite night experience (the sticking point for most people), AND you pass the exams, is there any reason why what you describe above is not correct? :confused:

[baswell]

There seems to be the opinion that you just do 750 hours in a Jabiru and then switch into a GA reg'd Jabiru or 172 and do 750 more and you get a shiny piece of paper with ATPL written on it.
Please explain, beyond the theory subjects and required PIC, IFR and night hours, what else do you need?

There are plenty of ATPLs out there who have never flown anything bigger than a light twin; possibly only to gain the CIR part of the MECIR.

[maverick22]

:bored: I really fail to see where all this is going.

The requirements for an ATPL (aeroplane) are:

5.172 Aeronautical experience: minimum requirements

(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.165 (1) (f), a person’s aeronautical experience must consist of at least 1,500 hours of flight time that includes 750 hours as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane.

(2) The 750 hours must include:

(a) any of the following:

(i) at least 250 hours of flight time as pilot in command;

(ii) at least 500 hours of flight time as pilot acting in command under supervision;

(iii) at least 250 hours of flight time, consisting of at least 70 hours of flight time as pilot in command and the balance as pilot acting in command under supervision; and

(b) at least 200 hours of cross‑country flight time; and

(c) at least 75 hours of instrument flight time; and

(d) at least 100 hours of flight time at night as pilot in command or as co‑pilot.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) (b), the cross‑country flight time must include at least 100 hours as pilot in command or pilot acting in command under supervision.

(4) The balance of the 1,500 hours of flight time must consist of any 1 or more of the following: (a) not more than 750 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane;

(b) not more than 750 hours of recognised flight time as pilot of:

(i) a powered aircraft; or

(ii) a glider (other than a hang glider);
(c) not more than 200 hours of flight time as a flight engineer or a flight navigator calculated in accordance with subregulation 5.173 (7) and the balance of the flight time under paragraph (a) or (b).


So yes, you can count up to 750 hrs of 3-axis ultralight time to your ATPL. However, those hours aren't going to be particularly useful to you down the track though.

I agree with SW3, in that some RAAus hours are good to help you get that first job. That's how I got my first instructing job. But if the goal is to move on and get into an airline, then don't persist with accumulating lots of RAAus hours when you could be building them in a VH reg doing something else.

I did have a ball though flying the ultralights:ok:

[VH-XXX]

Thanks Mav; clears it up for those that seem to think that you just magically receive the piece of ATPL paper when you reach the 1,500 hour mark.

Why would you bother? Best way to get an ATPL is the cheapest way, AKA, get a job doing charter or something?:ugh:

Exactly right Pyro.

C172 @ $250 p/h * 750 hours = $187,500
J230 @ $150 p/h * 750 hours = $112,500

= $300,000....

THAT is what I was on about. It's not gonna happen like that without a job flying charter or after 1,500 hours of instructing.

[baswell]

Thanks Mav; clears it up for those that seem to think that you just magically receive the piece of ATPL paper when you reach the 1,500 hour mark.
LOL, it is, just using more words, the same as what Heratio and I have been saying.

Nothing in there requires you fly anything more than a C152, it's just the kind of operations you've done in it. (i.e.: instrument and night time)

But never let the truth get in the way of a good bashing, VH-XXX? Especially when you are wrong and don't want to admit it.

[VH-XXX]

Especially when you are wrong and don't want to admit it.

Which bit am I wrong about?

How many IFR 152's are out there?

Do you TRULY know anyone that has done 750 hours in an RAA Jabiru and then 750 in a Cessna 152 and obtained their ATPL? Anyone? I'm listening...

[SokPuppet]

I do know of someone who's done a few hundred hours in a VH Jabiru and likes to pretend that he's got one.. does that count??

[Horatio Leafblower]

Nothing in there requires you fly anything more than a C152

Actually - technically - if you have to hold a CPL(A) to then get a ATPL, then you will probably need to have a CSU endorsement.

Let's say, a 172 XP :}

VH-XXX I have seen a few fully IFR C152s. Not very exciting, but the box was ticked on the MR.

Nobody is saying it's ever been done... nobody is saying it's even likely to happen... but it is technically possible. I know couple of PPLs with >3000 hours (and yes, they're RAAus instructors too as it happens) :E

[SW3]

Yes it is technically possible, but in reality for catching jobs no. An ATPL is a lot of work theory wise and covers jets, this what it's intended for.
Practically it works quite simply.
- Raaus/low performance GA for your first single job. (Most likely C172/C182 etc).
-High performance single (C210 for eg)
-Light Twin
-Turboprop
-Jet

This is not always the exact order if you're lucky and you may even jump a few.
As for Raaus? Single engine hour building. 750 hours counts which is fantastic and a huge help along and so it should count. They are legitimately earned hours. But it's the same case as the C152, no one will give you a job if you completed your ATPL in a C152! Experience and insurance companies rule the world. Also if you jumped from a C152 into a jet (to emphasize a point) you'd never catch up to it. That's what progression is for, to ease you into speed and systems such as pressurization etc.
End of the day, enjoy your career and all the types you will fly.

[baswell]

Do you TRULY know anyone that has done 750 hours in an RAA Jabiru and then 750 in a Cessna 152 and obtained their ATPL
That's irrelevant to this discussion.

The point you and others were making is that of course you can't do the other 750 in RA-Aus because it has to be a "real" aircraft.

[VH-XXX]

Baswell, re-read post # 60 by myself.


The current 750 hours which counts towards the 1500 ATPL is a happy medium that should keep both sides of the fence happy! You can't complain about that no matter where your allegiance lies. It gives a good balance of stick and rudder, along with procedures and paperwork.


My latest comments were aimed at those (including yourself) that made it sound like an "easy" process do just "do 750 hours in a Jab, then other 750 in a GA aircraft" (possibly the same aircraft). I was commenting on the practicality of doing so and that it would not be likely to be as simple as that (GA wise) for a number of reasons. eg, the IFR 152 comment, the cost, not to mention the requirements that Mav has so kindly posted.

Slight mis-understanding there. No RAA bashing today from over here.

I did however state that Qantas and Qantas-Link for starters unfortunately don't count RAA time for their entry requirements and this is an unfortunate reality that might upset the plans of some aspiring pilots.

[SW3]

XXX these days applications are made online and the hours column doesnt ask to differentiate where your hours came from. Besides this Raaus hours go in the same single engine column as GA as it is a Category A 3 axis aeroplane. The only way Raaus hours come up is on an interview when they check log books, and I've never been queried.
Besides this as I've mentioned any single engine hours are in addition to all the Multi engine hours required. These hours are worth gold and are what one should be aiming for. As long as there is a good balance of experience you'll be fine.
Baswell, can you define what a "real" aeroplane is? Two wings and an engine? Does the ex VH registered Jabiru I once flew change from "real" to "not real" once numbers were put on the side? This "real aeroplane" thing always amuses me.

[baswell]

Baswell, can you define what a "real" aeroplane is?
Beats the hell out of me! If it carries a person aloft with a reasonable chance of getting them down safely, it's a real aircraft as far as I am concerned.

However, there are plenty of RA-Aus bashers here and elsewhere that seem to call some aircraft "real" and others, not so much. "paddock bashers" and "fly swatters" and the like are terms often used.

[SW3]

Yeah I agree! I think your definition is the most suitable. Its such a commonly used term but makes no apparent sense! If it wasn't a "real" aeroplane how would it fly? Would it be like a fly with no wings and called a "walk"?
Maybe Raaus aircraft aren't "real" because they are "unreal" and fun to fly? Let's go with that.

[Ng5]

I have held a PPL since 1975 and currently have a Basic Class 2 medical. I currently own a Bristell LSA which is registered with RaAus . My last BFR was in this aircraft with a GA instructor. I made enquiries the other day about flying into a Primary Control Zone and was advised by the CFI that I would need to be checked out in the School’s 172 and do a BFR in his aircraft before I could legally fly in controlled airspace. Is he correct?

[Aussie Bob]

Without looking at the rools, I would say yes. To fly a RAA aircraft into controlled airspace the pilot must have as a minimum, a CASA issued RPL with CTA endorsement and a current GA flight review. This flight review must be done in a registered aircraft. I think the CASA definition of a registered aircraft is one on the civil register.

The rules are asinine, recently I conducted a GA flight review for the owner of a “24” registered Jabiru 230 which is hungered at a Class D airport.. We couldn’t use this aircraft, instead, he hired a VH registered Jabiru 160 for the review.