CFI may make determination

[Arm out the window]

Have been going through some to-ing and fro-ing with CAR1988 Part 5 to see how various sections relate to one another.
5.83 and 5.84 say that a CFI can make a determination about how much training a person needs to satisfy the requirements of the Day VFR aeroplane syllabus as long as they have 40 hrs (including various amounts of cross country, etc) as a pilot in, for example, helicopters, gyros, gliders.

As I read it, then, a gyro pilot, say, could go to a flying school with the appropriate 40 hrs, the CFI would determine how much training was needed to satisfy the syllabus, then put him or her up for the PPL flight test once training complete and exams passed.

Has anyone had experience with this either as the licence seeker or from the flying school's point of view? What sort of hours would we be talking about for a successful completion of syllabus requirements? I understand that it would of course vary depending on circumstances, but was interested in how much this happens and what issues arise when it does.

[Richo]

Hi AOTW

I have not had any experiance with this particular senario, but I have done a few for CPL training, where the PPL holder has more than the required hours.

This particular senario occurs very frequently. As for your example (GFPT/PPL), I have heard of, and seen it used on several occasions.

Under Day VFR Syl. the CFI must make a recomendation after an assessment flight (conducted by suitable Gr1). The assessment is conducted to determine the ability and suitability to pass a CPL flight test. The person doing the check flight makes a recomendation and the CFI will either sign off on it or make changes, based on whatever they feel or know.

I have done 7 CPL assessment flights and each time have found that the training seems to be very similar for a varied level of candidate. I find myslef mostly looking at the half way figure (from normal training). If you go too little, without good justification then CFI will most likely baulk at it and demand more, go too much and the student/candidate/customer may walk away.

The Day VFR Syl. does allow for adjusting (up or down) the reccommended and approved hours if using this system, again you just have to justify it.

The real trick is to make a good assessment. To do this effectively we need to look at the whole syllabus and break it down into the key points (performance dependant) and do your assessment on the skilll dependant aspects of this. While I have not made a lot of sence here, what I am trying to say is don't make an overall training asessment on only one aspect of the candidates flying or flying history.
Ie They may take only 3 hours to solo, but then have to spend 10 hous on the IF or advanced turns parts.

For someone with signifcant hours from another field of aviation, the assessment flight would be just like a GFPT/PPL flight test with all of the standards ect from the Flight test form. Clearly if the candiate can pass this assessment then after checking they meet the knowledge requirments put them up for the test. I have seen this done for a very high hour glider pilot/instructor who passed a PPL after very few hours of training.

Richo

[Arm out the window]

Thanks very much, Richo.
For the experienced PPL holder going for CPL, I take it that as long as they've flown the hours required by the CAR in a registered or recognised aeroplane, and as long as the syllabus requirements are deemed by the CFI to have been met (with extra training as required) and exams are passed, they're good to go for the flight test?
As far as I can see, it's only for the PPL aeroplane licence that it specifically mentions a CFI determination, but the CPL orders seem to imply that the same kind of thing would apply, given that the person has flown the right hours.
So from your estimate of about half the normal training being needed, say the candidate has a PPL and has the 200 hrs as a pilot with the correct requirements re cross country etc, you'd be giving them 75 hours more to get to CPL standard (ie half the 150 hr commercial course), or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

We do a lot of these, and I've found that the extra dual training required to get the PPL with 200 or so hours to CPL standard can vary from 5 to 25 hours depending on the quality of the initial training, and what good or bad habits may have been built up over the "hour building" time. Also getting up to ten hours IF can take up some time, but some of this can be done with another PPL as safety pilot.

The CFI determination is revised after each flight depending on the progress.

As well as the candidate being able to be within all the specs for the CPL, they also have to be ready for the workforce before we will put them up for test. This involves ground training, lots of case study type scenarios, work experience etc.

[Arm out the window]

Thanks for that, CFI; the 'ready for the workforce' criterion seems to be the key there.
I assume that even though the 'CFI determination' isn't mentioned in the CAR1988 CPL section, it's still what is practically applied - ie someone turns up with a PPL and the hours, you assess them by means of checking their background/training and do an assessment ride, come up with a proposed abridged training syllabus to get them to the required standard and adjust that as they go through until they're right for the test.
I'd imagine that any extra IF time would be better done with an instructor than another PPL as safety pilot, or do you find there's merit in giving them some of each?

[grade-3]

Hi AOTW,
The Day VFR Syllabus also has bearing here, sections 2.9.2 and 2.9.3 of Section 1 (overview) apply to the scenario you describe.
http://www.casa.gov.au/fcl/download/vfra_s01.pdf
Cheers,
grade 3

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

getting up to ten hours IF can take up some time, but some of this can be done with another PPL as safety pilot.

Most people can be up to the standard required for units 23 and 26 in less than ten hours, if so then any hours remaining to make up the ten can be done with a safety pilot rather than have the cost of flying dual.