RAA-Aus vs GA for training
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..
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..
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
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...
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...
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.
....from my experience, FS saved me heaps in getting confident again.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: in the country
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 $.
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 $.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 $$$ I would install a Redbird but that's for the aero club to fund I think.
Cheers A172
Program with FTX scenery and a range of Carenado planes .... With the limited real time I can now enjoy in the real thing I find the Sim experience very helpful and my biennials thank me for it ... If I had the $$$ I would install a Redbird but that's for the aero club to fund I think.
Cheers A172
Last edited by Avgas172; 31st May 2013 at 00:46.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookwork scares people
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 !!!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by tecman; 31st May 2013 at 11:59.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P2002JF, which is a GA-registered certified aircraft with 650 hrs TT, typically runs to $2k.
P2002JF, which is a GA-registered certified aircraft