CPL in an RA-Aus aircraft
 

Guys/Girls, I'm going to write to CASA to try to convince them that one should be able to get their CPL in an RA-Aus aircraft.

Where would I start and who should I write to specifically?

Check you PM's Ian.

You need an aircraft that is capable of 115 knots for the X country, best of luck in the convince stakes.

Why not?

You'll get CASA approval for controlled airspace then too. How about the night hours requirement?

..yeah hell yeah why not?

Ultralights are as good as GA aircraft, no problem.

And the instructors - minimum requirement is a PPL exam pass (not even a PPL)... Yep having PPLs training Commercial Pilots, no problem.

:ugh:
:ugh:
:ugh:

Enthusiastic amatuers turning the Australian aviation industry into the biggest aero club in the world :yuk:

Haven't we been over this issue many times already. The whole idea of AUF/RA-Aus, or whatever it will be called next, was to provide relatively inexpensive and simple recreational flying. It was for those who didn't need or want the complications of controlled airspace or airfields, did not want or need to keep up to date with complex regulations, and wanted to fly relatively simple aircraft types that they could maintain themselves.

Now it seems that there are those who want to simply use RA-Aus as a cheap and less-regulated way to gain qualifications that are well outside the whole reason for RA-Aus in the first place.

Surely there needs to be some line between Recreational and Commercial. You can't have it both ways. Yes, use some hours on RA-Aus aircraft towoards the 200hr option for CPL, but the 150hr pathway is intended for those who undertake a structured training program to CPL - ie to fly commercially. How is an entire administrative system, designed around recreational objectives, for recreational flyers and aircraft, compatible with training commercial pilots? Surely the regulatory, governance and management structures that RA-Aus would need to have in place to conduct CPL training would increase the overheads to members to the stage that the whole reason for having RA-Aus would be negated.

Cheers,

ausdoc

I think you might be missing the point, i think he is trying to say, that a CPL student still complete all the CPL syllabus as required by CASA, exams etc, but flight training carried out in a Raaus Registered aircraft capable of speeds over 115(120) Kts such a Jabiru 230. using a qualified grade 3 or required CPL instructor, so instead of jumping into a 182 for your CPL, you get into a J23 instead, everything else remains the same.

Such was the 95:10 aircraft, but things have evolved a lot since then where not only have we very sophisticated, but still (relatively), inexpensive aircraft, very capable of doing the same job.

Irrespective of what objections there may be from the "usual suspects" bent up in their "elitist cocoons" of self indulgence, it was them that started the whole evolutionary process by insisting hang gliders, ultralights, sport rotorcraft, parachutists, balloons, base jumpers, gliders, and ornithopters be equipped with expensive surveillance ADSB simply because these "menaces to society" may be in the same airspace as them on any given time of the day or year, and even worse, at an altitude that they may want to descend or climb through over the 7.5 million square kilometers of Australian landscape x cubed.

They obviously "expect" recreational aircraft to be there.

With NO organisation capable of looking after the interests of the private recreational above 544kg privately owned GA fleet there is a possibility that these "recreational" aircraft may one day be at one with the only representative body that can look after their interests.

There are heaps of "PILOT" organisations, some even publish magazines, but only one with the capacity and legal capability to look after private recreational aviation "OWNERS" whether they fly a VFR C210 or a Drifter.

Yes Ian, it will happen, but whether in our lifetime I'm unsure. There are too many "traditional" agenda driven obstacles to overcome.

I assume the same Jabiru is capable of being VH registered?.
If so, register it as a VH Jabiru and go your hardest.
Does it have a CSU?.

Isn't the aircraft requirement for CPL test: >120 KTAS + CSU ? This lower than in the near past where it was >120 + CSU + R/G... and probably should have remained.

A J-230 fails to qualify even on the current, (and lowered), level of complexity.

The allowance of 100hrs RAAus towards the 200hr CPL seems rather generous - where do we stop?

happy days,

There's a thing called the Dova Skylark (or somesuch) which is capable of RA registry, is retractable, does 120 knots and could be fitted with a constant speed prop.
BUT, if it is registered RA it can't fly at night or IMC, so how could all the elements of the CPL flying syllabus be ticked off? Attempting to do the entire CPL in such light, low inertia aircraft does not prepare one adequately for that first commercial job where you could be hauling tourists around in a C210. Go for something with a bit of weight, a bit of grunt and a modicum of complexity and just suck up the extra costs.
I would NEVER employ a pilot who had not at least flown a reasonable number of hours in an aeroplane approaching the power, complexity and weight of whatever I had in the fleet. In the same way I would NEVER employ a pilot who took the 'softcock' option of getting a CPL or ATPL in some more lenient country to circumvent the CASA standards. Which are already about as low as they need to go. RA is great for those who want to play with their toys and enjoy a minimum of regulatory interference, but the culture is not right for budding CPLs.
Bring back taildraggers, and 3 hour written nav papers with Mercator sailings, and Morse code, and the VAR. GPS navigation indeed....pussies, all pussies. There was a time when the CPL/ATPL was made deliberately difficult to discourage the weak, meek and inept. Charles Darwin, where are you? Harumph. Rant over.

You forgot celestial navigation...:}

Hey everyone,

I was referred to this link by a friend. I am a 100% RA-Aus qualified pilot, but I must disagree with the original poster. RA-Aus aircraft just aren't the same as GA aircraft, fullstop. The Jabiru is a close specification comparison to something like a C152 or a PA38 - but not the same aeroplane. It's important that RA-Aus pilots AND GA pilots realise that there's no general comparison between the two categories of flying. One is a hobby (RA-Aus) and one (GA) is for a hobby and career if you choose to progress to the next licence (CPL).

I'm 15 years old, I went solo when I was 15 and two days old and 3 months later I got my full 'certificate'. At the moment I have no intention to fly at night, fly in IMC or fly in controlled airspace. When I want to do this, I will get a PPL. It's important that people know that the RA-Aus syllabus has evolved greatly since the pre-AUF and AUF days. The syllabus is pretty much the same as the GA PPL Day VFR syllabus & there are advantages to GA training and there are advantages to RA-Aus training. I don't understand why the two categories have this feud with each other, it's aviation, it's all flying, it's something we should ALL be very greatful to have. I know I am.

I'm not biased.

Thanks,
Andrew

The CPL training is there to give you qualifications and experience necessary to safely operate a commercial aircraft. cannot imagine an operator letting a new CPL loose in a C206 or a C210 with no experience on anything heavier than half a tonne.

Why don't you ask for a dispo on 50% of your instrument rating training because you have Flight Sim 2004 on your laptop??

Oh Ian - I truly have heard it all now but then again a question like this from someone like you shouldnt surprise me!

Yawn..
This is mostly true.In a lot of ways RA planes(tecnams and Jabs anyway)are harder to fly because of the lack of inertia.When you do finally step into a 172 or an Archer you will find them a piece of cake(and a pleasure)

There is a great deal of fear in the GA community over the RA movement i.e membership booming, and more airspace being taken up with RA aircraft(their all out to kill us etc), and I think that many GA pilots have an image of 10 years ago when RA's poor safety record and terrible training standards were the norm.Its just not the case these days,although there is still a long way to go in some "schools", but just go research the number of members over the last ten years vs the number of fatalities and serious accidents over the same period to see the truth.

The vitriol that the uneducated portion of GA pilots show towards their RA counterparts is laughable..It will only get more humorous the more that RA takes the market share of Ab-initio training away from the overpriced sausage factories.If you want pleasant, financially pleasing recreational flying in modern aircraft with minimal red tape then RA will be your thing, but just like GA I would research my pick of schools well..

As for the topic at hand..I am an RA member(with a GA CPL) who doesn't want all the ratings and endo's to be available to RA because I think in the end more than anything else it will take away the Recreational element to that kind of flying and will end up with the huge problems that face anyone wanting to fly for fun in the GA world.GA is just not set up at all well for non professional flying unless you are loaded and have a high threshold for bullsh1t of the CASA variety...

It is really good to be able to do a portion of your CPL time in RA aircraft..There is nothing wrong with it at all as long as you are working to the GA Syllabus.But a portion is more than enough as an RA only CPL syllabus wouldn't give the full experience needed with planes of a higher weight and inertia among other things.

Homesick,

I don't think there is a lot of anti-RAAus vitriol here... but as you say yourself, it's fundamentally different.

The enthusiasm of people like Ian comes, almost without exception, from people with zero understanding of Commercial Pilot Licence standards.

I used to drink at an aero club but I left because I was sick of all the RAAus pilots telling me what I was doing wrong when I was working. They have an RAAus licence (as do I, as well as my CPL and MECIR) and on that basis they seemed to believe they were qualified to criticise my work - criticising me for flying in cloud, for example :ugh:

It is tantamount to a Boy Scout holding a 1st Aid badge watching a paramedic or a doctor and criticising their work. It springs from ignorance and arrogance.

When we point out that there are higher standards and greater requirements in CPL training than can be achieved in an RAAus machine, we get the Frank Arouets of the world accusing us of "eliteism" :yuk:

Commercial Pilots are trained to the standards of a professional, able to handle a far wider range of variables and conditions than a PPL or a RAAus pilot. THAT is because they are charged with transporting the general public.

I'm not a doctor, but I hold a Workplace First Aid certificate... would you let me operate on a member of your family?

I'm not a licenced financial advisor but I have had a bank account since I was 7 - that's over 30 years experience! I MUST know what I'm doing with money! Would you like me to handle your Superannuation? :8

No of course not. But while you would defend your money with your life, you are willing to lower the standards for the training of professional pilots... even further... yet again... and put your family in an aircraft with them? :confused:

...just to feed your schoolboy fantasy that you really are just as good as a Commercial Pilot, even though you only have a Pilot Cert?

Man I just don't get it.

In my eyes the most appropriate way to get your CPL from an RA-Aus background is to convert to a PPL and work from there. The RA-Aus pilot certificate with passenger and cross country endorsement is very similar to a PPL. But you will have to get used to the aircraft, complete 2 hours instrument flying, demonstrate your ability to fly navs, handle controlled airspace etc... Then you can work towards your CPL once you've gained your PPL.

I haven't really heard of a percentage conversion, i.e 1 RA-Aus hour is worth 50% of a GA hour (example!!). By the time a person has achieved the certificate with all endorsements to convert they would have a very minimum of 40 hours, which in reality if taught properly is not possible. I have my certificate with no additional endorsements and I have 35 hours. (Basically in GA terms it's less than a GFPT)

-Andrew

What he said :D:D:D- Snatch you have put it so much better than I ever could have.

Good post snatch.

Sounds like you found a right wank3r to talk to at the Aero club...Im suprised you found a know it all drinking at an Aero club:}.

I guess the thing that really gets my goat about some of the comments made about RA is they paint All of it with the one brush and it often tends to be with either subtle put downs or flat out false statements.Its just not possible to do that with any accuracy just as we couldn't sit here and say that "every pilot under 25 studying for a CPL in Moorabbin thinks he is cooler than Maverick from Top Gun when in reality the aviators just look stupid"..

Or could we:}.

I think this is the last time that I bite to this RA/GA crap because in reality I dont care that much.Its more the principle of the thing . Continually seeing and hearing false, broad statements that have no merit gets up my nose and annoys me no matter what the topic is. That's why I pay no attention to elections.

What he said :D:D:D- Snatch you have put it so much better than I ever could have.

Why would you want to fart around in a slow little plane when you gonna fly a big fast one??

It's like learning to drive 18 Wheel Mack Truck in a Daewoo!

Snatch;

Personally I think the idea of doing CPL in a rec aircraft is absurd.

My point is that it may well come to being that PVT GA recreational VFR aircraft may one day be part of Recreational Aviation in any of its mutations.

Oh, and since when did any CPL test aircraft have to be IFR? Limited panel experience is even part of the PPL syllabus and that is done regularly in C150's.

You obviously didn't read any of the ADSB threads did you. Pity, you would have seen the concept in all it's glory.

The other thing to consider is even if you could do your CPL in an RA aircraft it might work against you (or atleast not help you) when applying for that airline job.

I was formerly a combined RAA/GA instructor and out of the 1000+ hours instructing I did in the RAA reg aircraft, how many of those did my current employer recognise? None.:sad:

So when you got to your interview they said.Ok Mav.You have 3500 hours, but Im afraid that we are only gonna count 2500 of em because you were RA..??

Thats really odd..What was their explanation for ignoring command hours?Specifically I mean?

Just remember if you make RAAus more complicated it's going to become more regulated.
But isn't that the benefit of the RAAus. The fact that it's not that regulated.
That's why we have RAAus and GA. It's always going to be that way.

It's a company requirement that only fixed wing aircraft time (exluding ultralights and gliders) can be counted towards company aeronautical experience requirements. They knew about my experience at interview time but nothing was mentioned about it not counting, I merely stumbled across that whilst reading through the manuals after joining the company.

At the end of the day though, I'm not fussed about this, as I enjoyed my time RAA instructing. It's how I got a break into a GA job and I had a ball doing it. I just worry about some flying schools who will convince their students to get an RAA licence and then convert them to a PPL/CPL later on in the belief it will be more economical (that's a big maybe). In actual fact you are better off having time in a GA rego'd machine for down the track. Yes, you can count up to 750 hrs of 3-axis ultralight time towards your ATPL, but there's no point in having one if you still have to do that same time again to meet company requirements for command upgrades etc.

..sucked-in homesick....
\

Atlas, if you already owned a fast RAA machine (well, fast compared to the typical aging C152 - not all RAA aircraft are Drifters), I can see why someone would want to train in it to save some money. But I'm with Frank on this one; if you seriously want to fly for a career it just seems a silly idea.

Maybe if RAA pilots want to play with the bigger boys, CASA should start enforcing similar rules in regards to maintenance as well?
How about the RAA instructors having to meet CASA standards?

"Huh? A selective radial scan? What's that?"

Maybe CASA should start enforcing the rules for all things RAA anyway.
There are a lot of these weekend warriors that would benefit from some "guidance" from a "friendly" FOI. :E:E:E

Really think you will get more benefit and experience from taking some mates along on something that can carry more than just a cut lunch.

"selective radial scan"
 

I have some small experience in GA, RAAus and GFA aircraft; I'm an instructor in the latter two categories. I don't put a lot of emphasis in "selective radial scan" instrument flying when teaching our instructors as maybe lookout, attitude flying and adult learning principles have a bit more priority, something that some GA instructors that I have known could do with a bit of refresher on.
The RAAus flight school I fly has only 3 regular instructors and we try (under a very inspiring CFI) to maintain the most professional standards we can in flight instruction and briefing/debriefing, mainly because we are so enthusiastic about flying ourselves.
Some of the pilots I trained in gliders now grace the command seats of B747, A320, B737 and FA18s, it is my constant job satisfaction that they got a good a start from me as I could give.
On the other hand, I am disappointed with some of the airmanship demonstrated by visiting GA pilots.:ugh:
Anyway, my humble opinion is that there are very transferable basic skills from GFA/RAAus/HGFA through to GA and commercial flying (eg the Gimli B767, the Hudson River outlanding) so lets have a bit of respect for that and the fact that there are true aviators in all flight disciplines. :}

Hornet - I dont think any of us have a lack of repsect for any pilot even if they do only hold a pilot certificate. I think what is being debated here is the ability for a RAA certificated to pilot move on to a commercial license

To be honest to defend the "visiting GA pilots" I think we all could sit here and tell stories about Commercial and Private Pilots and RAA flyers all day long because lets face it we all make mistakes - but really in my opinion some of the RAA guys take the cake I mean have those guys even heard of radios? Serpentine guys need to really discover 135.25 its amazing what you get to hear when you change from 92.9 to 135.25 you get to hear traffic alerts, hear other aircraft broadcasting their position, hear them advise you when they are over your field, even when they are just in the area they'll jump in and say "Hey Serpentine traffic just wanted to let you know Im within 30 miles of you clowns so next time you are buzzing around without a care in the world how bout you let me know your in the area and Ill do the same and then we wont bang into each other and make a big burnt hole in the earth together hey????"

Well I suppose I can hope and dream - Safer Skys for all....thats all Im after.....my wife wants to see me home tonight

Mike

For god's sake...

It's not about one group being better than any other group of pilots. RAAus is Primary school. GA CPL is High School, and it is what qualifies you to go on to University.

Nobody is saying that Primary school kids can't go on to University.. it's just that you have to do more, learn more, learn some different stuff.

Life is full of barriers to entry. Hard work is rewarded. If you want to achieve the prize, put in the work.

...or do you think we should all automatically qualify for the olympics because we could run pretty fast when we were kids? :ugh:

Leaffie......... can you copy that post into the POTY thread. Thats Goldmate! :ok:

Agreed, Leafblower has put it in a much more concise context.
My point was RA doesn't teach IF, which is a required item of the PPL and CPL syllabussessesss.

You want to fly at a CPL level, go to CPL instructors at CPL schools.

BTW, I know plenty of GA instructors who have crossed to RA and do teach to the GA level, but I have also had MANY RA students who have had to be restarted from the beginning because their standard of knowledge was absolutely pathetic.

Best was a student who took four lessons to get anywhere near a stall because he kept trying to grab the controls off me to stop the demo.
His first RA instructor thought it would demonstrate what a fantasic pilot he was by putting the Jabiru into a spin as his initial demo for stalling.:mad::ugh::mad::ugh::*:=:eek:

I had a 350 hour CPL/MECIR holder on a company type check - not his first job - his first stall was piss weak but when I tried to demonstrate what I wanted to see he repestedly pushed the stick forward before I got anywhere near the stall.

:ugh:

Frank Arouet
That's true, but they are certified aircraft. Every synthetic trainer has to be individually put through a fidelity test by CASA before students can log anytime in it... can you see CASA viewing Gazelles and Foxbats in any other way?

I have over 800 hours instructing in (ex VH) Gazelles with a full GA panel. However, over the last 3-4 years I have seen a lot of factory-built RAAus aircraft with some pretty wierd setups for attitude instruments and some very strange panel layouts :=

I like post #34 by HL.

If instructors in RAAus properly teach the fundamentals of attitude flying - then this hoary chestnut about a couple hours IF making all the difference will disappear. More & more RAA aircraft now have full panels, and it's not hard to cover attitude interpretation when referring back to the panel for confirmation of performance in the course of ab initio training.

Lets' keep some perspective here. If we strike a poorly performing pilot, whether it be GA or RAA - it's not the syllabus, or the system - it's an instructor problem. That's where we need to look.

I guess you can then make the comparisons between GA and RAA in terms of the minimum standards for instructors. My wishlist includes the new CEO of RAAus looking at the whole instructor structure, and lifting it's skills accross the board.

happy days,

No.

But again;

My "gut feeling" tells me CASA is trying to exterminate PVT GA because it is of nuisance value to them. They may as well give it to some organisation that is capable of administering it better than they are. They can then "attempt" to do their primary job of looking after the poor suffering paying public.

If that ever happens in my life time, and there is anything left of PVT GA to administer, Ian Baker should put his question to CASA then.

How about if ALL RA instructors taught to the same standard as GA, or even were certified by CASA?

I acknowledge there are quite a few who do, but there are many who don't. I have even heard of an RA examiner who tells instructor candidates they are giving too much information when they present a standard GA turning brief! The explanation is they don't need to know why the plane flies, just how to do it. Same person who says they won't make radio calls because the AIP only recommends them. Apparently they aren't mandatory so shouldn't be made.

ABSOLUTE BULLS:mad:IT.

RA wants the priveledges of airspace and now CPL instruction? What next? Aerobatics, NVFR and IFR?

For f:mad:ck's sake! IF YOU WANT TO FLY AT THIS LEVEL, FLY THESE AIRCRAFT AND GET TAUGHT BY COMMERCIALLY EXPERIENCED INSTRUCTORS.

I still think that doing a CPL in an RAA aircraft is a dumb idea, but

How many millions of people drive cars, each day, and have no idea how they work?

It seems to me that a ton of stuff could be chopped out of the syllabus without compromising real-world safety. I hate to think how many brain cells are wasted on decoding weather and NOTAMs written in Aviation gobbledygook when it could be offered in a plain english option.

The original post was an obvious windup - intended only to polarise opinion, and it's certainly achieved that.

99.99% of RAAus members have no need of, or intention to, usurp GA's role in flying. Only a few dreamers and wannabe's are involved in the stirring of GA.

The mainstream of RAAus has no interest in CTA flying, in night flying, in aerobatics, in doing CPL's, in charter, or in anything other than A to B flying on a nice day in a little 'ol 2 seater.

As to the instructor quality within RAAus, as mentioned in a recent post - well, it ranges from high hours GrI's with RPT and GA CHTR experience right thru to the basic RAA rating. Yes, it does vary, and that's undeniable. CASA clearly doesn't want to become closely involved in micro-managing every splinter group in aviation - that's why each group, (eg, GFA,HGA,RAA), is self administering. So far, their intervention hasn't appeared necessary, and even were it so, they are too busy with closer surveillance of GA instruction quality as a priority.

happy days,