PAOS and other admin question

[yep_ok_whatever]

Im thinking of doing a PPL in the states or SA. However I am told the conversion of the licence can be a little bit more than just a hassle.

Has anyone got info besides knowing that you have to sit PAOS exam?

I was looking at doing an intergrated course in Aus afterwards but also understand that the PPL will essentially make it non-intergrated.

[LeadSled]

yepok etc,

Go to the US, it will be a great experience, you will come out with better stick and rudder skills than is usual in AU, and at PPL level, the CASA hassles will be minimal.

All the flying will count towards a CPL course. As for the conditions for integrated courses, they can be negotiated (in theory, but will the course provider see it as revenue lost ??) so that you get some credit for having a PPL.

Tootle pip!!

[yep_ok_whatever]

Thanks LeadSled. I have been told that when people come back over from the states their skills are LESS than adequate when comparing to the Aus schools and they have to do extra hours to brush up before doing a CPL.:confused:

[glenb]

My advice would be to avoid a PPL outside of Australia.

Flying done outside of Australia cannot be counted towards the "150 hour integrated course". When you return you will only be able to count the hours towards the 200 hour CPL. As well as an forcing you to do an extra 50 hours compared to the student training under the 150 hour syllabus you will also have GST. The ATO has made a ruling that the 200 hour course attracts GST. By the time you factor in the additional 50 hours, the GST, and the costs of converting the licence, there will be no cost advantage.

If its the experience you are after then go for it, but it will be a less cost effective way to achieve a CPL.

My feeling is that US based training can be fairly hit and miss regarding standards whereas you will find a more uniform standard between the flying schools in Australia.

[Aussie Bob]

Thanks LeadSled. I have been told that when people come back over from the states their skills are LESS than adequate when comparing to the Aus schools and they have to do extra hours to brush up before doing a CPL.What a load of bull**** .... I have seen plenty of pilots from Australia that have a PPL and need an enormous amount of work to get to CPL

[Wally Mk2]

'Bob' in some ways I'd have to agree with you there. When I was driving in & out of many country strips inc some of the bigger ones all around the place the amount of 'back-wood' drivers out there was scarey! Some really didn't have a clue!
Somebody (instructors) wasn't leaving a lasting impression on these private cowboys.
Personally I believe it's way too easy to get a plane drivers ticket/license these days & it shows!

Wmk2

[LeadSled]

their skills are LESS than adequate when comparing to the Aus schools

yep, OK,
You have been told by somebody who didn't have a clue, in general PPL flying skills ( straight stick and rudder stuff -- the things that keep you alive) are of a higher order than in Australia.

The reason are easy to see, just have a look at what must be demonstrated in the US PPL flight test, compared to Australia --- the skill level ( easily learned with a decent instructor) is as different as chalk and cheese.

All this is part of the reason why the US air safety record is so much better than Australia --- because the US system concentrates on the cause of actual accidents.

I carry license from five countries, the US being one, once you fly and train with US trained pilots, the reason for the outstanding safety record in the US becomes obvious.

When I talk to people here, the ones that are so critical of the US usually have nil experience in the US or of US pilots, and the prejudice show --- and almost always manifests itself as criticism of "radio work" --- because the rest of the world uses radios to communicate, as opposed to the anal retentive devotion here to "radio procedures".

If achieving an Australian CPL at the minimum cost is the object, to become a CPL of very limited skill, knowledge and potential, go for the 150h course here.

If you want to be a real pilot, with some knowledge of the big wide world, as opposed to the narrow parochial and inward looking Australian approach to aviation, a start in the US would be a great way to go.

Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

And to reinforce a few things discussed so far, when you pop out of the 150 hours, and you may need more than that, you will be a 150 hour pilot who needs to go find another 50, 150, 250 hours anyway before your resume starts to be taken seriously.

At the end of the process, the total net cost to you will be about the same, and it may actually be more. I have seen plenty of examples. Some do not have a commercial job still, and it is not because they are bad operators, its they need the extra experience that only time brings.

So in my opinion, the 150 hour thing is really not worth it. I would not do it myself if in your shoes, rather I would do the US PPL, learn whatever you can, then do your CPL at a good school, not a sausage factory.

On that topic, in a sim recently with Jaba Jnr and a integrated degree CPL who was heading for an airline, flat spinning something big, the recovery demonstrated by a 10hr BFTS trained Airforce flight screened student was so good that the CPL doubted he could even do that! To be honest, I was surprised and impressed, but then it dawned on me later, the CPL should not have been in any doubt he could do it.

Leadie is no doubt correct. And I would admit that my stick and rudder skills are not as sharp as I would like so I take every opportunity to learn from my older wiser friends. It is far easier to learn all this at the beginning than later on.

All the best :ok:

[training wheels]

The reason are easy to see, just have a look at what must be demonstrated in the US PPL flight test, compared to Australia --- the skill level ( easily learned with a decent instructor) is as different as chalk and cheese.

I think leadsled is referring to the lazy eight and chandelle exercises? Yep, not easy to do without alot of practice. Why don't we have them in our VFR day syllabus?

[T28D]

Leadie is right on the money, Aust test is a sham a paper bonanza the U.S. test is stick and rudder, designed to test your ability to stay alive.

[no_one]

I got my FAA PPL back in February and until recently was a Australian living in the USA. I am now back in Australia and in the process of converting it to a CASA PPL.

I don’t have a lot of experience with the Australian system yet but here are a few points/hints from my perspective:

The FAA paperwork systems are a lot slicker than the Australians. For instance you don’t have to wait to get an ARN and the TSA security process takes a few days. It all seems to happen much more quickly. To speed up the conversion apply for an ARN/ASIC either before you go or while you are away so you are not waiting around when you get home.

The VFR syllabus has a few different things between the two countries. There is no NVFR rating in the USA and so the PPL training covers flying at night too. There is also more radio navigation (use of VOR/DME) in the USA compared to here from what I have seen. The FAA syllabus is missing the precautionary search and landing that is in the Australian syllabus. The expectation is that you would just land at the nearest airport of which there are heaps. The FAA syllabus does have what are called “ground reference manoeuvres” that have to be demonstrated in the flight test. These consist of low level (500-1000 feet agl) turns round a point or S turns along a road or railway line to demonstrate wind correction, turn accuracy and coordination. I don’t think these are in the Australian syllabus but they might be under a different name.

In the USA there are three formal tests to get the licence. There is the Knowledge test which is the multiple choice computer test, 70 questions. Then there is the oral exam and the practical test. These last two are administered by a FAA delegate(or FAA examiner but this is rare). In most instances I have observed these delegates are independent of the flight schools. For instance mine was a retired United check captain and was a bit of a grumpy old man. Being independent form the school the examiner has no vested interest in passing or not passing you and also has no preconceived notion about you. All you have to do is turn up and fly well and you will get the license, but if you don’t fly well… The oral exam is where he asks you about the things that you got wrong in the theory test. Failing people is not super common but does happen from time to time. An instructor who has a failure rate that is too low is asked to explain why by the FAA.

I do think that this results in better outcomes than having the examiner as one of the senior instructors in the flight school you have just paid a large chunk of money too….

If you learn to fly in the USA chances are you will learn to fly in an environment where there is a much greater traffic mix. Where I learnt had dash 8’s and embraers flying RPT along with the little GA aircraft. The local military guys were active and would come and do circuits some times and it was common to see C-130’s and AV-8’s flying through our training area. It all seems to work fairly well. It Australia is seems that there is much more segregation of aircraft types and operations. How many 172’s land at Sydney Airport, How many 737’s land at bankstown?

If you get the opportunity to learn in the USA I think that you will enjoy it.

[LeadSled]

no_one,
A pretty good (and current) summary.

Folks,
T-28D could tell you a thing or six about his annual flight reviews (mandatory for "key man" insurance) with Flight Safety.
Particularly about slow speed flight and aircraft control, even though the review covers (in his case) Citations and similar.
In summary, the FAA system produces results --- here a biennial flight review (whatever it is called this week) is more and more seen as a revenue opportunity.

Without revealing anything about my background experience, I was recently "told" by one school near Sydney that I would have to do a minimum 5 hours dual before a 2 hour "test" --- something over AUD$2000, with the strong implication that this was a "mandatory CASA requirement" --- you know, the sort of thing that comes out of the CASA CFI/ATO "development" days.

No wonder YSBK is an area untroubled by aircraft noise.

Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

Go to the States brutha! Do it, you won't regret it :ok: