RA Instructor rating before CPL?
 

G'day,

I'm a prospective flight student currently sussing out training options. A flight school at a small uncontrolled airstrip near me put me onto a training pathway that I haven't encountered elsewhere and I want to see if anyone here has any thoughts about it.

They said I can do this progression: RPC -> RPL -> PPL -> RA Instructor. So I could start doing RA Instructing as soon as I hit the required PIC hours, which I believe is 100. The idea being to get working earlier and be able to claim all further training (CPL, MEIR, ATPL etc) as tax deductions. The RA Instructor rating could be converted to GA after finishing my CPL. They say they've only recently started doing things this way but have an instructor who did it to prove it works.

Anyone heard of this? Does it sound feasible? My main concern is that I wouldn't actually be able to find instructing work with such low hours, or that I would not be ready to be able to perform the job well when so inexperienced.

Cheers.

Have a read of this - https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/T...8/?=redirected
Then talk to a taxation specialist rather than believe what a flying school tells you.

I'd check with the tax office first if I were you. I don't think it can be done. And I know the rules have changed recently with flight instructing, but I don't think you can get paid employment as a pilot with only a PPL. You need to have a CPL.

Thanks for the link.

The guy I spoke to who trained this way said he went to the ATO and after a lengthy explanation of the difference between RA and GA got the approval to claim back his further training as tax deductions, and did so. Grain of salt, of course, but he seemed to have too much information on this topic to be making it up.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm only interested in this pathway because of the potential tax breaks, though. Genuinely curious if people think this would make me a safer and more knowledgeable pilot that doing a more conventional order of licenses and ratings.

NB, not a reflection on you the original poster but questions on the robustness of the current system.

You can get an RA instructor rating with 100hrs TT and work as an instructor?

And as a RAinstructor you can then train pilots for an RPC (basically equivalent to the GA RPL other than it is only for RA registered aircraft)?

I assume as an RPC holder with an instructor rating you can get nav privileges and control airspace privileges and then can endorse RA pilots for these?

If so basically you can train RA pilots to have similar rights as a PPL (obviously restricted to RA aircraft though) as an instructor with a little over 100hrs total time?

And those RPC students can turn up with their RPC at a GA school and get that converted to a RPL with a check out on a VH aircraft?

Meaning if they have nav and controlled airspace privileges on their RPL, they have a defacto PPL?

Meanwhile, a GA school must employ instructors who would have at least a minimum 200 hrs TT (if they do an integrated 150 hr CPL + FIR rating, otherwise 250hrs min). These instructors can train someone for a PPL (but cannot sent students solo and must be directly supervised by grade 1 instructors) and the school must be audited by CASA and have an AOC that specifies in detail the training standards, recording of students, operating procedures, safety systems, maintenance systems etc.

I dunno but this seems weird to me. How can GA schools can compete - should we pressuring CASA to allow 100hr instructors in GA? Aren't they effectively allowing this by letting RA do this?

NB Meaning no reflection on RAAus instructors - there are really good RAAus instructors who train students to a high standard but if they have instructors with 100hrs TT churning out new pilots that can then do a quick conversion to a PPL from this training - is that right or have I got the wrong end of the sav?

Can GA schools compete against this? What standard of pilots would we be producing? I just think 100hrs is a pretty green pilot, may have great potential and become be a fantastic one down the track but 100hrs is very green to start training other pilots.

A junior G3 GA instructor that requires at least double that TT is usually still a work in progress (again no reflection on G3s - you have to start somewhere and may potentially be fantastic instructors but there is a reason they must be supervised - they still need to build experience and require oversight).

I am sure someone can explain where the checks and balances are in this (eg with how many hours in a RAAus instructor course? What restrictions are there on RAAus junior instructors?)

Am I being overly worried? What do thers think?

Jonkster, a RPC holder cannot get a controlled airspace endorsement. The RPC holder must hold at least a current RPL with airspace endorsement to be able to fly into controlled airspace. Being a RAAus instructor with cross country endorsement also does not entitle you to go into controlled airspace. There are some limited exceptions to this for schools operating out of a class D aerodrome.

I don't have the knowledge to answer most of your questions accurately, but according to the RAA Ops Manual it's 100 PIC, not TT, so I suspect the total time wouldn't be that far off GA requirements anyway. Also several limitations, like no being able to approve a student for solo flight.

As for endorsements the only ones explicitly mentioned in the manual are Radio Operator, Cross Country, Passenger Carrying and Human Factors.

Slightly off topic: do RAAus abinitio hours count towards G2 abinitio hour requirements?

I'd never thought of it that way... intriguing!

The most junior-burger of RAAus Instructors will likely have no less than 150hrs TT (minimum 20hrs dual to get RPC + 100hrs PIC + 20hr dual instructor training +/- additional hours for PAX, Cross-country, BFRs, and other endorsements along the way). Not much, agreed - but on par with CASA G3 instructors given that the RAAus Syllabus is limited to Class G ops only.

You might be able to send in the paperwork to casa and get an RPL on paper, but it wont be endorsed so you cant use it until you get a flight school to sign you off to say you have met the RPL standards. This will take several hours of training with a GA school.

No endorsement needed. What you do need is a flight review in a GA aircraft to be able to use the RPL. Some schools have RAAus and GA registered versions of the same aircraft, eg SportStar or Foxbat which means the flight review should just be the one flight in the GA version.

In this case, to fly the same aircraft in the same airspace with a different registration, you need to jump through a lot of hoops, get a medical and an ASIC or AVID and another flight review. Not a lot of common sense there.

I think it varies a lot school to school. If you are going to be flying the same plane type in the same class G airspace, then sure a simple flight review will suffice. Not sure what the point of doing this would be apart from wanting to log hours in a VH reg plane. If you want to move up to say a 172 from a foxbat and fly in controlled airspace/controlled aerodromes then any reputable flight school would require a fair amount of training to sign you off on this.

Hour-wise the bare minimum G3 will have at least 200hrs minimum TT, (30% more than 150 for the bare minimum RA instructor).

The big difference I would see though is the junior G3 must have obtained a commercial pilot's licence rather than a RPC or RPL, prior to even commencing the FI course.

The FI course involves around 50hrs on top of the CPL (and significantly more than 50 hrs ground school training).

I would expect (hope!) the G3 would be trained and have been tested to a higher level than the RA instructor.

Doesn't mean an RA instructor cannot be good, just the hurdles/standards required to be met are higher for a G3.

I have my RPL with controlled airspace, controlled aerodrome, nav and several hours post RPL flying my own plane and recently inquired about moving up to PPL. It was going to be a lot more than 3.5 hours.

Is this the same school that gave you the RPL, because that sounds a bit much with the endorsements you have. Will they do it in your aircraft? Get the exam out of the way first and then ask around.

Having an RPC with nav endorsements does not mean you should just be issued a PPL - you have to meet the CASA standards for a PPL, (the typical PPL training syllabus is around 30 hours on top of RPL standard).

I think for PPL you will need for flying side (would also need PPL(A) exam etc):

- to be at RPL skill standard in the VH aircraft (ie would need assessment flight)
- 2hrs BIF
- at least one solo navigation flight of 150nm with 2 landings away from departure field (I assume this can be completed in RA)
- to have a minimum of 5hrs solo nav time (I assume can have in RA)
- pass a PPL flight test (which would involve flight into controlled airspace or simulation of controlled airspace). It would be unlikely for a school to do a PPL flight test without making sure you are at the required standard so you would need a nav assessment flight before the test.

standards for RPL and PPL would be in part 61 MOS. The GA school will have to sign off that you are at those standards.

My opinion - I would think the hours needed would be highly individual.

It depends on the pilot's ability to meet the CASA competency standards in the VH aircraft being used and on the standard of RA training.

I could imagine at a minimum, one pilot could hop into the VH aircraft and do an assessment flight, acing it and demonstrating appropriate ability at RPL level in a 1 hour flight, then do a navigation assessment flight (CTA, lost procedures, diversions, low level, operate at CTAF and controlled aerodrome) of say 2.5 hours and ace that (would be busy flight). Then on the basis of that do a PPL flight test of 2.5 hours (which they pass) so total around 6 hours or so?

If the student is flying an RA aircraft similar to the VH aircraft and has been taught well, this should be achievable (there are some RA aircraft that have equal or higher performance than some common GA training aircraft).

However, another student with same paper qualifications might need remedial work to get to RPL standard in the VH aircraft, maybe another 5 hours because they are just not up to the new aircraft yet, have not been taught stall recovery well (1 hr remedial), have trouble landing the new aircraft (3 hours in circuit), have poor crosswind technique (another 2 hours again) etc.

After this, they then get caught out on the nav flight because they are way behind the aircraft and have been relying previously just on an EFB for navigation and have no basic fall back nav training (and maybe stuff up their controlled airspace entry, cannot maintain altitude and heading tolerances and cannot do a diversion without an EFB to help). So need another 2x2.5hr remedial navs before their flight test meaning now a total of over 12 hours This more likely if the student has been flying an aircraft with significantly lower performance than the VH aircraft or have been poorly taught. It may even be more.

Sure, not all students will need a lot of extra time but if they do, it is not always down to their lack of ability, just their previous training and aircraft experience. It can be hard to break bad habits.

for RPC to PPL, we would need to confirm that the RPC holder is at RPL standards as per CASA MOS.

Alright, putting the Instructor Rating questions aside, I've got a few more questions.

I'm currently tossing up between two flight schools - Barry Foster's Woorayl Air in Leongatha (they mainly specialise in Ag flying) and Yarra Valley Aviation in Lilydale. I've had one lesson at Leongatha which went pretty well, although I was a bit put off how little time they let me control the aircraft (not sure if this is the norm or just them being conservative as it was a pretty windy day with low cloud cover). Their plan is to get me to start with an RPL flying the C-150 around then skip straight to CPL. I work three nights a week in Melbourne and would be driving up to Leongatha every week (I have family nearby I can stay with there) to fly three days a week.

Alternatively Lilydale promote the RAus route starting with the RPC then converting to GA later, they are mostly a bit pricier except for their Jabirus which are the cheapest I've seen anywhere at $110/220 solo/dual. The big advantage being it's only a twenty minute drive from my house.

Any opinions on either option? Is it worth all the extra petrol and time going up to Leongatha to take advantage of their experience (they're all multi-thousand hour pilots, do on-site maintenace and Barry is a flight examiner so no waiting around for checkrides, plus a really nice and quiet training area)? Or take the convenient option?

Cheers.