I agree the nav and solo time would count, as long as the PPL training was non intergrated. However I am not sure there is no instrument training in the RA-Aus syllabus. I know that RAAus does not approve of people attempting to fly IF (training or otherwise) in an RA-Aus rego aircraft.

Same as people who have a PPL or CPL going and flying an RA-Aus rego aircraft without an RAAus Pilot Certificate.

Unless part 61 specifies that the instrument time must be completed in a GA registered aircraft, then yes, you can do the instrument time in RA-Aus. It's simulated anyway and not in cloud, so ok for RA-Aus, unless your school is one that goes under IFR for the practice 2 hours of instrument work.

In reality, there's no harm to be done by heading back from the training area in RA-Aus under the hood - it's good practice regardless of aircraft type and registration.

Of course, there is an assumption here that the aircraft if appropriately equipped, as many are these days.

Squawk, that is a big assumption. Just because the aircraft is fitted with a G500 doesn't mean it is TSO for instrument ops.

Seagull V, "The RPL is therefore a non ICAO licence, similar to the British National Pilots Licence and can only be used in Australia."

Well, that's an improvement on the CASA PPL (G) (glider) which you can get so you can fly gliders in countries that have actual licences (needed for contests and private operations in those countries).
The Australian CASA PPL (G) IS NOT VALID IN AUSTRALIA.
Interesting, as the overseas temporary licence is generally issued on the basis of your qualification to fly in Australia. I wonder if the FAA and EASA know? Insurance companies?
This is the result of CASA and GFA conspiring to keep flying gliders in Australia a GFA monopoly. Not that the GFA does a wonderful job of safety judging by the number of people killed and injured by their "qualified" instructors and their inadequate "training" system.
Someone said the other day that Australia has a 3rd world , banana republic, aviation regulatory system.
Yep.

Again... where does it say that you need a TSO'ed IFR capable/equipped/current aircraft to be able to conduct instrument conditions in CAVOK....? I don't believe it does. There's no need to over complicate things that really don't need to be.

You can do your instrument flying on a 7" dynon or steam gauge if you want to. In the end it's not going to matter what you did it in as it's all about competence and if you can prove to the senior instructor, CFI or ATO that you are willing and capable, you'll be ticked off with ease.

Speaking of RPC's and RPL's... this is in no way a criticism of the pilot or instructor here, however what is the purpose of this lesson at the 6 minute mark?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwBZvVpYwnI

Also, the "handing over, taking over" process, is that still the norm these days, or does the instructor over-ride the student? It's been so long since I was learning I don't know what the current trends are.

The whole instrument thing is interesting. If the holder of a RPC with a cross country endorsement applies to CASA for a RPL they will receive an RPL with a cross country endorsement and will have zero logged hours of IF (IF not being part of the RAA curriculum).

If on the other hand, the holder of a RPC without a cross country endorsement applies for a RPL and then wants a cross country endorsement on their new RPL they will have to do a minimum of 2 hours dual IF, one of which must be in an aeroplane. (Ref 61.500)

In answer to the OP's original post, it would appear to be more cost effective to first get an RPC with cross country endorsement, use it to get an RPL, then find someone to do a bit of conversion training with in say a C150, then pass a flight review. They may then however find themselves in a spot of bother, if the reviewing instructor elects to bring out "the hood" :-)

I cant see how that is possible 61.500 (5)(c)(ii) clearly states that for recognition of the cross country endorsement that the minimums are met. This is repeated on the application Form 61-9RTX is for Recreational Pilot Licence transition of Pilot Certificate.
61.500 Grant of endorsement in recognition of other qualifications
(5) An applicant for a recreational navigation endorsement is eligible to be granted the endorsement if:
(a) regulation 61.480 applies to the applicant; and
(b) the applicant holds a cross country navigation approval from the recreational aviation administration organisation; and
(c) the applicant has completed the following flight time that complies with subregulation 61.495(3):
(i) at least 5 hours of solo cross country flight time;
(ii) at least 2 hours of dual instrument time, 1 hour of which is conducted during dual instrument flight time.

If a RAAus pilot wants his nav endorsement to carry across to an RPL he or she has to have the minimum 5hrs of solo nav and the 2 hrs of IF (one of which can be done in a sim) We generally give them an hour in the sim and then an hour in a GA aircraft as part of their training towards the Flight Review they have to do to activate the RPL. Form 61-1RTX is used for the conversion and clearly says the 2 hrs IF is required.

Look, the above is fine. Sadly the fact is, most RPC holders I see who have gained their licences by filling out form 61-1RTX have zero instrument experience.

I guess they "justify" what they put on the form by counting ipad time :)

As an edit to the above, I haven't looked at 61-1RTX for almost two years and cannot remember there even being an IF section on it. I see it there now. Has it changed since September 2014? Today I asked a RAA convert what he put for the IF bit and got a blank stare. He stated it was not on the form.

The Instructor hardly had his hands off the controls during the entire flight. Perhaps that is why there was no hand over / take over.

Demonstrate – Direct – Monitor; is how an instructor with a CASA rating would conduct the flight lesson.

So much more fun and better value for money when you actually get to fly the aircraft yourself.

Go either RAA or PPL
 

Yep RPL is a joke
not really worth the paper its on
Go either RAA or PPL

Condog72 I totally disagree. The RPL is a licence that recognises that RAA pilots can in fact fly GA registered aircraft. An RAA pilot can apply for a RPL, do a bit of conversion training, pass a flight review then viola, they can instantly fly VH registered aircraft up to 182 size.

They can also get a radio endorsement and then, if they own or fly a factory built RAA machine, venture into controlled airspace (with appropriate CTA endorsement gained on the RPL).

So, while training for a RPL in a GA registered aircraft from the start is probably pointless (Just get a PPL with pretty much the same training), learning to fly in a RAA registered aircraft then converting this to a RPL is a very viable option for lots of pilots who simply want to fly something slightly bigger than a 600 kg bugsmasher. In my area applications by RAA pilots for a RPL is a very common happening. Most of them fly very well too.

Hi Bob Im RAA trained and can tell you after a fair bit of GA training with two schools, RAA is really on its game...these little light weights really teach fantastic motor kills and the training is every bit as good as most GA schools up to GFPT level...possibly better.

My bugsmasher leaves most GA for dead...costs more , goes faster and costs about 1/3rd of the cost to run...my only gripe is a complete lack of carrying capacity when fully fueled.

Love it and wouldn't swap to a GA for quids..

But back on topic...I went down the RPL path and quit to go PPL as the RPL is a joke, has all the hassles of PPL, most the costs and half the privileges...

.

Where can I get one of those 'Wings Leveller' from?


Could be handy on long flights! ;)

You teach the student to fly straight and level, usually on the second lesson; then you allow him or her to practice this skill over the remainder of their flight training. If you keep touching the controls how will they know if they are maintaining straight and level or you are. The same applies to the rest of the lesson.
If the student is not given the opportunity to learn surely they will take many more hours/dollars to achieve competency

No arguments here.

I would have taken a metal ruler with me on the next lesson, and 'Smacked' his knuckles with it if he touched the controls without 'taking control'.:rolleyes:

It happens for real Acro and it potentially quite common.

A low time pilot told me recently that he avoided flying with one of his instructors after about 3pm as he used to hit his hand when on the controls. Turns out said instructor was getting the shakes as it was approaching beer o'clock and his frustrations started to quickly show. Time to find another instructor perhaps :-(

Form 61-RTX has no requirement for any IF for an RPL conversion from RPC.. Nor does the RPL application form 61-1RA.

However 2 hours dual IF, 1 hour in flight are required for the cross country endorsement for an RPC holder to fly GA.

Under 141.305 a pilot training under Part 141 has to have 2 hours dual IF of which 1 hour in fight before they can go area solo. Even though this isn't included in the CASA sample RPL planning matrix which only has IF training after area solo and then only 1.4 hours total for the RPL.

So you can hold a Part 61 licence without training under or complying with part 141.

Yes you can. But you cannot use it until you get an AFR from a GA instructor with (hopefully) a knowledge of Part 141. For once it looks like CASA have put a modicum of trust in the industry.