RAA-Aus vs GA for training

[Boeingforlife]

I have been trying to do some research trying to decide a flight school weather I should be going the GA pathway or RA-Aus. It doesnt make a lot of sense paying for a 4 seater aircraft when initially when you are learning to fly its just you and your instructor. I understand that GA you have C152 type aircraft but even that is $50-$75 ph more expensive than Jabiru type.

Heard a bit about Soar Aviation out of Moorabbin and they seem to be doing more flying than any other mob excluding Swinburne Aviation School. What do you guys think?

[Horatio Leafblower]

Oh OK... I'll bite.

I have been a Chief Flying instructor for both types of school. I can only comment on costs, I won't comment on Melbourne schools because I have no idea about them.

The simple answer is that RAAus is cheaper in the short term. If you have serious cash restrictions at the moment and RAAus gets you into the air, go for it! :ok:

If you really want to fly bigger aircraft, in my observation a RAAus pilot will spend significantly longer learning the additional systems and complexity of a GA aircraft to the same level of competence they previously demonstrated in an RAAus aircraft.

Edited to note: most of my RAAus studes and RAAus -> GA conversions have been older blokes. Younger people can learn almost anything much more quickly and so the differences are less.

This means that the cost benefits of going RAAus early might be evened out by the time you qualify with a PPL.

There are all sorts of arguments that RAAus is a lower standard or lax with rules - if you pick a good professional school and apply yourself to your studies you will become a competent pilot within your chosen branch of study.

Apply the same principles and effort and you will match it in the other discipline when the time (or cash) comes for you.

Good luck and have fun :)

[Slatye]

I'm at exactly the opposite end: a student transitioning from RAA to GA/PPL with a view to continuing through to CPL. I've gone from a Gazelle (RAA) to a Cherokee (GA, only a quick stint) to a C-172RG (GA).

Learning in the Cherokee would have been pointless, I think. The transition from the Gazelle to the Cherokee was fairly straightforward, and I saved plenty of money by starting on the Gazelle.

I'm not sure about learning in the C-172RG. It's certainly not a trivial transition from either of the other two. Would I have become confident in it faster if I'd started in it? Maybe, maybe not. It definitely would have cost a lot more (about twice as much per hour compared to the Gazelle).


Quite apart from that, starting with RAA gives you a good "low-cost" (to the extent that anything in aviation is low-cost) introduction. If you get to five hours in and you don't like it, you've only spent a thousand dollars or so. After twenty hours, if you're happy with your capabilities and don't really feel like going further, you can do the test to get your RAA certificate and stop there. Total cost: not much more than $4K. If you're still loving it and itching to fly more challenging planes, you can continue straight on towards a PPL.

On the other hand, if you'd gone straight to GA then all those initial hours cost a lot more - and in a complex aircraft it'll probably be a fair bit longer before you really start to enjoy it. More money, less reward.


For me, that made RAA a much better option. If I'd spent $2000 in the C-172RG and still felt that I was nowhere near being ready to fly it, I'd probably have given up. Instead I spent $2000 for twice as much time in the Gazelle, and at the end of that I'd been going solo for a few hours and was having a great time. Now that I'm in the C-172RG, I'm sure that this is a good idea, and therefore I'm not too concerned about putting lots of money towards it.

[VH-XXX]

I always tell people who ask, if you walk away after spending $5-6k from RAA you probably have a certificate that enables you to fly with a passenger. If you walk away from GA after spending the same, you effectively have nothing... As stated it is mostly a budget related decision as both paths lead to the holy grail.

[solowflyer]

Can't imagine a172 being more complicated than a jabiru.

[Oracle1]

Unless you intend to get a CPL or you have a specific weight that you need to carry don't even bother with GA. I am in the process of the conversion from RAA to GA only because I need the payload.

The GA world thinks that ultralights are inferior, a number of schools wouldn't even recognise my hours, but the fact is that all the training is now happening in RAA. The aircraft are faster lighter more efficient and cheaper to run. If the RAA had got its act together and got the controlled airspace endorsement validated GA training for PPL's would be over in this country. CASA has its finger in the pie right now trying to stop owner maintenance despite the fact there is not an iota of evidence that owner maintenance has caused an accident. RAA has been ruined by a small percentage that you will find in any human group, but that doesn't reflect on the general membership. The idiots could have been weeded out and training improved if the leadership had been competent.

Be wary of what GA requirements the flying school sets if you convert, cross check them against the CASA requirements.

In part I do agree with Horatio though, I haven't had a problem with flying the aircraft but the procedures and rules are where you will come undone. GA standards in that regard are far more complex. Use the ultralight to master stick and rudder only. (I did have one school who was prepared to do some of my GA sequences (my aircraft) in the ultralight if it had a transponder and calibrated instruments.)


In conclusion remember that its your cash. I have a good friend of mine who flies jets in America and when I told him that we were paying upwards of 250 per hour for a 150 he laughed and said he could hire a 150 wet for $90 per hour. GA is hurting because it is very quickly becoming out of reach for the common man. If I get stuffed around I walk, I refuse to cop s**t when paying through the nose.

[tecman]

I currently fly in both the GA and RA worlds, although I'm a fairly recent convert to the latter. If I were in your position I'd be seeking out a school which did both types of training, ostensibly to the same standard (fewer hours in RA, of course). If you find the right school you can even use the same type of aircraft in both training streams, so any initial transition to GA is even more painless than it usually is. For example, here in WA one good school uses both RA and GA-registered Tecnams, as well as the usual line-up of C152s, C172s etc. Other places do the same thing around Jabs or similar.

Price is important and, as others have said, with a bit of intelligent planning and selection you can come out ahead by starting in RA, especially if your ultimate goal is a PPL rather than a CPL. For what it's worth, my own observation is that you need to take care in choosing an RA training organization; I observe greater variability in standards than in the GA world. If you have GA ambitions, I would certainly be looking for a school that offered both training streams.

Good luck!

[Boeingforlife]

I am tempted to go by the Ra-Aus way. Its come to my attention, that RA-aus flying schools are hiring more and there is more movement in the market. I live close to Moorabbin Airport and I see the jabiru's flying constantly. I think they are of Soar Aviation but a bit confused why its got Melbourne Aviation on its tail.I think they are one and the same company. I just cannot justify why I should be paying $330+ph for an aircraft with VH on it. I believe there are GA registered jabirus as well.

[Slatye]

Can't imagine a172 being more complicated than a jabiru.I can't really comment on that, since I've never flown a Jabiru. The big things I noticed (coming from the Gazelle) were the higher speed (around 120kts in the circuit compared to 70kts for the Gazelle), the CSU, and the retractable undercarriage. Combined with the need to constantly re-trim it (because it takes quite a while to go from the 80kt climb speed to the 120kt circuit speed and needs to be trimmed as that happens) it's a bit of a handful.

[Homesick-Angel]

Doesnt matter how you do it, but I'd suggest if you wanna go the RA way that you go to a school that caters for both, then you won't have any of the games/issues being played i.e "we dont recognise your hours" when/you decide to transition to GA.

[VH-XXX]

Melbourne Aviation / Soar would be a good one to be asking questions about purely because as I understand it they don't do GA training, thus it would be interesting to know how their training standard stacks up once you leave there and head to a GA school at Moorabbin.

[Boeingforlife]

somebody I know who is flying with them was telling me that they are going to be training GA soon. Dont know for sure if this is true?! Have you guys got any clue?

[VH-XXX]

They have been saying that for over 2 years if I am not mistaken....

[VH-FTS]

The OP didn't mention whether the end goal was a CPL. If it is, you need to also consider 150 hour integrated vs 200 hour courses. My understanding is if you start with RAA you'll need to do the 200 hour CPL course.

Been a while though, and please ignore if CPL isn't the intention.

[Sunfish]

Oracle:

CASA has its finger in the pie right now trying to stop owner maintenance despite the fact there is not an iota of evidence that owner maintenance has caused an accident.

1. There is no evidence because ATSB doesn't investigate ultralight accidents.

2. The recent groundings of sections of the RAA fleet over such things as non standard propellers and suchlike indicate that RAA members are not familiar with the term : "approved data" or the word "approval".

Perhaps the RAA needs to run maintenance procedure courses like SAAA.

3. As for access to controlled Airspace, tell 'em they'r dreamin'.

Still, there are some very nice light aircraft being produced these days, the only concern I have about some of them is ruggedness.

[Tee Emm]

Anyone wanting to learn to fly whether in a general aviation or RAA flying school will save money by initially training on a synthetic trainer. Five or more hours on a synthetic trainer, FTD (Flight Training Device or whatever) will make you familiar with the terminology, the basic flying controls, the radio procedures, and no turbulence, no ATC delays.

Same for those intending to train for their Command Instrument Rating, single or multi-engine. Stay on the simulator until you could pass the instrument rating test on the simulator. Then and only then, start training for the CIR in the real aircraft. Start in a single engine type until you would be competent to pass the CIR in that, and then switch to a multi-type to finish off the asymmetric stuff. Careful planning as above will save you heaps. But as always, the secret is to have the right instructor who knows his job and won't rip you off. Word of mouth is the key - not the size of the flying school or the shiny uniforms of the staff.

[SgtBundy]

I did flight simulators for years before I started, and all it did was cause me to look at instruments when I was supposed to be flying visual once I started for real. Mind you my instructor was astonished how quickly I was able to get a hang on setting trim and some other progress, so maybe it does help have a better understanding when setting out.

Useful for practising some procedures and getting a handle on what is to occur in a lesson, but just so far removed from actually having the aircraft in your hands its hard to bring more than that to it.

[skkm]

The OP didn't mention whether the end goal was a CPL. If it is, you need to also consider 150 hour integrated vs 200 hour courses. My understanding is if you start with RAA you'll need to do the 200 hour CPL course.

This is true. The outfit I'm doing my CPL with at the moment does the 150 hour course –*and so my 65-odd RAA hours I had before I started are worth nought.

[Homesick-Angel]

"Anyone wanting to learn to fly whether in a general aviation or RAA flying school will save money by initially training on a synthetic trainer"

I couldn't think of anything worse for a new student unless you cover ALL the instruments, and even then it would probably involve hours of remedial flying with a folder in front of the instruments once you got in the real thing..

The longer I instruct, the more I see proof that the only important thing is the attitude (IFR or VFR).. even power is secondary to that, cos if you can't hold the aircrafts nose in a steady position in relationship to the horizon no matter what the configuration is, you're gonna battle all the way through your training.

You'd be surprised how many pilots I see who I start flying with well into their training who have this fundamental wrong.

[Centaurus]

I couldn't think of anything worse for a new student

My students saved heaps of money by learning on Microsoft flight simulators before going into the real thing. More importantly, they rapidly gained confidence which some students lose after bouts of air-sickness.

At no point during their flight training did they lock exclusively on to their flight instruments at the expense of looking outside, and there was no problem with their situational awareness. In fact quite the opposite. Their familiarity with flying the simulator allowed them to relax more in the air and keep their eyes swivelling for other traffic. Most went solo in under ten hours of dual. Nowadays it seems the average time to solo at the big well established flying schools is 15-20 hours or more. In my experience it is drawing a long bow to claim that synthetic trainer instruction prior to first flight is detrimental to student normal progress.

I read somewhere that learning to drive a car is available in a car simulator and that has measurable benefits in terms of road safety. Of course if the flying school instructor is there to make money for himself and his school, then forget simulation and get cracking on the VDO asap.

[Homesick-Angel]

Centaurus - Id be genuinely keen to hear how its been a positive/advantage for your students, or if you directed them to do something in particular while in the Sim??, as Ive only ever seen over-reactive VSI/ALT reading eye flicker with the tell tale "quick fix" movements of the control column, and a general inability to hold straight and level.. Eyes focused inside...

It can take a fair bit of time to remedy the really troubled ones. Generally speaking where I work, the Students are going solo on average 12-15 hours with a few quicker, and a few slower.. If im going to get students to do simulations, I usually encourage them to Sit in the aircraft and simulate checklists, transitions etc, and as with many training aircraft, the attitude of the aircraft sitting on the ground is quite close to the S+L attitude.

Im always looking for ways to improve, so if you've got anything specific that works with regards to the sim or anything else, Im all ears..

[Jack Ranga]

Yep, I'd be interested (genuinely) too Centaurus. Any student I've had that's come from flight sim stare at the instruments when flying some sequences. If it could be integrated, great, but it's not working in an informal way.

[Sunfish]

Off topic, but a certain instructor permanently cured me of looking too much at instruments with an A4 sheet of paper and four bits of blu tack.

[6317alan]

Yes, I always used the flight folder to cover the instruments to make the student look at the attitude outside if needed!

[Jack Ranga]

Yes, we all do that but we're talking about a habit that a student has developed well before they've set foot in a cockpit. This one particular habit takes some breaking and shouldn't need the instruments covered for the first 5 or 6 lessons. So, back to how simulators can help ab-initio flight training ;)

[Centaurus]

I appreciate there are differing views. Briefly, the student is usually initially over-whelmed by the complexity of a cockpit in the real aeroplane and even the noise level of the engine which is very loud even with a head-set.

He won't have a clue on the radio selections let alone what is being said over the intercomm from ATC and his instructor. If it is bumpy, and there is the slightest hint he is feeling queasy, then further instruction in the real aircraft is a waste of learning time and he may as well return to base. He has just forked out anywhere from $2-300 bucks for the experience so far.

If the instructor's concern against a synthetic trainer to start with, is purely based on the fact the student might not look outside when he first flies the real thing, well surely it is merely a question of his instructor reminding him to scan outside as well as scanning his engine and flight instruments inside.
After all isn't that how you should fly, anyway?

With a fixed pitch prop we all know that a regular check of the desired RPM is needed and the student has to look inside the cockpit to see that as well as scanning his altimeter and heading and airspeed. With early synthetic trainer experience, this will enable the student to scan these instruments naturally. Same principle with radio procedures, transponder selections and physical touching and switching of radio knobs in the synthetic trainer before venturing in the real thing. At least the instructor can "freeze" a synthetic trainer to teach and discuss which of course cannot be done in flight.

I am sure most first time students who are generally keen and enthusiastic and don't have much money, will have already "flown" a Microsoft Trainer even though it might be a 737 or a C172. Would an instructor then throw up his hands in horror and tell an enthusastic student to never ever play with a microsoft trainer lest he forever be doomed to fly with his eyes inside the cockpit and run into another aeroplane? I jest of course but you get my drift...

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Bottom line is how well a new student can absorb a new motor skill. RAA or GA? It comes down to the quality of the instructor!

....from my experience, FS saved me heaps in getting confident again.

[in-cog-nito]

Why don't instructors ask the student if they play on Flight sim? Then the instructor can advise bloggs on the pros and cons about use FS while learning to fly.

After being briefed and taught on the school's sim, I used the crappy old version 4 with ML scenery patch to practice NDB intercepts and tracking during my PPL and NVFR training. Saved me heaps of $.

[gasurvivor]

We introduced RAA training to our GA school 5 yrs ago. We did so because we felt that RAA aircraft require a higher standard of hand/feet/eye coordination than traditional Piper and Cessna GA aircraft. Hence we could make better pilots.
At the same time we wanted to simplify the dead hand of bureaucracy, which was turning good practical pilots away from aviation because they could not pass the regulation-ridden CASA exams.
During training the RAA route is less expensive but as the instructor has to eat whether he flies GA or RAA then the difference is only 10-20%. The pay back occurs when the RAA pilot can fly solo almost anywhere in the country at 90% of the speed of the Piper for 1/2 price.

Although we find that nearly all our graduates end up flying with only 2 on board either as GA or RAA, many are seduced out of RAA into GA because "in GA you can take more than one Pax"

If you are SURE that you are learning to fly with a career in mind then perhaps you should go straight into GA. If you just want to experience the joy of flight, then save the money, save the frustration and, if it suits, make the transition to GA when you know a bit more about flying.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

At the same time we wanted to simplify the dead hand of bureaucracy, which was turning good practical pilots away from aviation because they could not pass the regulation-ridden CASA exams.

And the penny drops!

[wishiwasupthere]

because they could not pass the regulation-ridden CASA exams.

Seriously? :ugh:

Considering that at that stage your only talking about the PPL exam, it's not that hard.

[Avgas172]

I learnt to fly in a Tomahawk, converted to a PA 28, then 172 RG, then 182 and C210 ... I have done 10 hours only on a J160 then a few in J230 ... I cannot see for the life of me that there is any significant advantage in learning the ab initio in the RAA machines over the course of a CPL, and with the new medical now available to the ageing pilot community I can't see much advantage to the GA pilot either ... On the simulator subject I personally use a (fairly advanced) MS X
Program with FTX scenery and a range of Carenado planes .... With the limited real time I can now enjoy in the real thing I find the Sim experience very helpful and my biennials thank me for it ... If I had the $$$ I would install a Redbird but that's for the aero club to fund I think.
Cheers A172

[OZBUSDRIVER]

For a start, I got 98% on my PPL first go. I found the old PPL course way harder. However, there are people who get scared off by the task of sitting that test. BAK can even be an issue. Yet, they can fly an aeroplane like a pro. Bookwork scares people...it doesn't make them less safe in the air.

[VH-XXX]

Bookwork scares people

You're not wrong. There's so many RAA pilots out there that are s:mad:t scared of sitting down to do a PPL exam that are missing out on the ability to enter controlled airspace. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO GET A PPL !!!

[tecman]

Thanks for the post, gasurvivor. I think you hit a few good points. I'm not personally so sure that the bookwork is such a GA dis-incentive to many but the cost often is. That "only 20%" cheaper in training is worth a lot to a young person struggling to afford flying lessons (for example), and the ability to see Australia at half the hourly gas cost is not bad, either! After a lifetime of GA flying, even "mature" folk like me can enjoy beetling around the patch at 95 kt on 15 lph of premium mogas. In my case I do still fly (and enjoy) larger GA aircraft, and my puddle-jumper is actually GA registered, but it is certainly possible to enjoy aviation for usefully less than the hire rates of traditional offerings at the local GA flight school.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

XXX the idea is to get people flying...then, with a bit of confidence, go for the PPL if they need to.

gasurvivor:ok:

[pokeydokey]

Discussion of these matters always seem to centre on cost. In my mind that's not the number one thing to look at - i'd rather look to the reason behind the cost savings. The major reason that the two types are so different in cost is the maintenance standards. We've done the sums and run a Gazelle, Sportstar, Warrior and 172XP among others. Basically if you're paying a competent professional to do the maintenance on your RA-Aus aircraft the cost difference is negligible. In reality the price difference comes down purely to the difference in fuel burn.

It's a simple fact that RA-Aus aircraft maintenance has little to no oversight. We all like to think that people are doing the right thing but that's not always the case. I was told by a student of a local school the other day of the school's entire fleet of 5 RA-Aus aircraft being grounded as unairworthy after CASA decided to look over the RA-Aus records during an audit. Worrying stuff really.

If you find a good school they'll proudly show you the maintenance logs of the aircraft you're flying and spend as much time as necessary explaining who performs the maintenance and their maintenance programs.

[VH-XXX]

I was told by a student of a local school the other day of the school's entire fleet of 5 RA-Aus aircraft being grounded as unairworthy

For the record, this sort of thing is not just limited to the RA-Aus fleet.

[tecman]

Pokeydokey, you also need to consider the likely amount of maintenance. Where I live, you can go and train in, or hire, a C152 with 22,000 hrs on the clock (yes, you read that right) or walk across the road and fly a fairly new batch of LSAs. It's hard to generalize across operators and aircraft so I'll give you a number I know: a good annual on my P2002JF, which is a GA-registered certified aircraft with 650 hrs TT, typically runs to $2k. My LAME has no hesitation in saying that a 22,000 hr C152 does not get out of his shop for anything like that, even before the spectre of SIDS arises.

My aircraft could equally well be RA Aus registered, but being a certified version the savings are not as great as most people think. In any case, there is no short-cut to airworthiness and I'm quite happy to pay a good LAME to do what needs to be done. (And, in all aircraft - big and little - I expect surprises occasionally.) Evidently at least one local flying school and various private operators think the same way: their RA Aus LSAs are maintained by the same LAME.

Aircraft, including LSAs, are not as cheap as we'd like and operators will always have more capital investment costs to recover than we'd like. But to re-state the point I made a few posts ago, the 30% or so you can save by hiring a well-maintained LSA/VLA is worth it to many people. As others have said, it's all about getting people in the air and keeping them flying.

I say this with the experience of having owned a number of GA aircraft, and with a background of being a fan of the C15x etc trainers. And I don't have any problem with spot checks on all maintenance - in any registration category - because, as VH-XXX implies, we've all seen some shockers in the GA world, too.

[VH-XXX]

P2002JF, which is a GA-registered certified aircraft with 650 hrs TT, typically runs to $2k.

Holy crap Batman ! That's getting up there for an aircraft that is essentially new.


P2002JF, which is a GA-registered certified aircraft

Good job (with the certified model). LSA's have their fair share of problems; better off with something that has a bit more paperwork behind it.

[tecman]

XXX, the aircraft is now 7 years old and time takes it's toll, even with the best of them. Tyres wear out, instruments need the occasional bit of work, the original 121.5 MHz ELT needed replacing, etc. And, as I said, that's for a respectable annual: all trim etc removed, cables inspected and so on. A dozen or so hours work, minimum. Could I get it done cheaper? Maybe, but I've taken pride in all my aircrafts' condition, and this one is no different.

I think the initial choice of LSA is probably more important than the difference between a certified and non-certified version of the same thing. That said, I don't object to having a tighter-tracked product. As you'll know though, it's entirely possible to run a GA registered LSA version but I have no data to tell me whether the reliability is better/worse than my EASA VLA certified model.

To return to the point, I guess it doesn't matter whether it's an LSA or whatever category of newer aircraft - providing good maintenance is costing less, and the capital cost is lower by a useful amount. The two factors combine to give a worthwhile reduction in operating cost.

[VH-XXX]

I think the initial choice of LSA is probably more important than the difference between a certified and non-certified version of the same thing. That said, I don't object to having a tighter-tracked product. As you'll know though, it's entirely possible to run a GA registered LSA version but I have no data to tell me whether the reliability is better/worse than my EASA VLA certified model.

They are the pretty much an identical aircraft as you would know; it's just that LSA is a little scary as to what can happen in terms of the paperwork. When the factory goes bust someone needs to own the C of A and if that doesn't happen, you are grounded in LSA. I heard that Fly Synthesis went under recently, which could potentially mean that owners are grounded in 30 days from then. A properly certified version gives added reassurance. If it's a half-baked LSA from some Euro country that didn't sell many of them, kiss your LSA status good bye and bye-bye flying school revenue from that aircraft.

I would say you made the right choice with your aircraft purchase :ok:

Is yours the one where the backing plate on the tacho has been changed to only show max 3,000 rpm? I found that quite interesting.

[tecman]

Yes, I think that's a good point XXX. I had a very illuminating conversation with a helpful CASA guy about the merits of LSA vs VLA. It'd be academic for most people but a bit more interesting for me, with the aircraft as it is. In addition to the picture you paint, there's an equivalent GA twist. Put simply, if your LSA manufacturer goes bust, and you're VH registered, you're back to 'experimental' and all that entails. Another reason to choose your manufacturer carefully, I guess. While 60 years of Tecnam gives a bit of confidence in their corporate longevity, the discussion was enough to curtail any thoughts, however academic, of (possible?) re-certification to LSA.

That said, one downside with the VLA certified version is that new installations come with all the change order requirements etc that we know and love on other GA aircraft.

I didn't buy the aircraft new but the particular model and outfitting ticked a few boxes in terms of what I wanted as my Sunday afternoon puddle-jumper, so I was prepared to give the VLA world a go. So far, so good.

To answer your other question, yes the JF model tacho reads prop rpm, rather than Rotax engine rpm. I've always presumed it's to make pilots see more traditional numbers in GA training applications. I guess it's just a case of re-scaling the tacho face appropriately. JF also has Hoffman prop, btw.

[flyinkiwi]

From one who comes from the GA world, the LSA's promise of cheap flying is hard to resist, until you realize that for a large bloke like me the range and useful payload is severely restricted. Having said that after flying a Tecnam P2008 I could not stop myself going back up in it, it's a wonderful way to fly.

[tecman]

Definitely no such thing as the perfect aircraft and the MTOW restrictions on LSAs mean than you're never going to get a C182 or Saratoga in the load carrying ability. That said, I'm no lightweight either but flying solo I get my 5.5-6 hrs endurance, 20 kg of baggage and a spare right seat in which to strap another 50 kg or so (if I could do so). It's true, though, that with a pax and 3.5-4 hrs of fuel, we'd both better have lightweight toothbrushes! Although my aircraft has been across the Tasman and around Australia, there are certainly times I'd be hiring the C182 for a comfortable trip. But for the frequent flights around the patch, the P2002 works well.