Sorry SW3,

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

This assertion is every bit as wrong, for the same reasons, as my assertion in the post above.

Can't disagree with you there.

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

Horsesh!t.

I have plenty of clients from the last 10 years, converting in both directions, for all the proof I need thanks. :rolleyes:

You are really stirring the pot there 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.

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.

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.



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:

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

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.

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.

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...

$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.

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.

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!

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..

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.

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.

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

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!!

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.

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. :=