AFRs, Formally BFRs and reciprocity between GA and RAA

[David Isaac]

Guys and Gals,

 

I thought I might take this topic out of the 'CASA not Biased' thread to keep the other thread on topic.

 

The Wolf posted: "I was told by the school i intended to convert my license with, that a BFR in an RA registered plane will count as your BFR for your PPL. But a BFR in a VH registered plane wont count for your RA license."

 

To me that defies logic, at the least a PPL AFR should be valid for RAA High Performance, although I would contend AFRs should be reciprocal for RA and GA. Recently I was also told that if you have a RAA Low Performance rating you also need a Low Performance AFR. That would mean you may need two RA AFRs, one for HP and one for LP??? Can anyone clarify that please.

 

Apparently for some obscure reason CASA decided that BFRs (Biannual Flight Reviews) are now to be called AFRs (Aeroplane Flight Reviews), along with HFRs (Helicopter Flight Reviews) etc etc...... For what common sense reasons did they change that ....I cannot imagine. What was wrong with saying BFR for the type. Sometimes I think we change for changes sake....

 

Basscheffers contributed by saying: "A BFR in an RA-Aus aircraft only counts for PPL if said aircraft could be registered VH also. It would be logical the other way around too; do your BFR in a C172 and it won't count for RA-Aus, for the same reason you need at least 5 hours training to get your RA if you have your PPL. But I would assume a BFR in a VH-SportStar would count the same as in a Sporty with numbers on the side."

 

Actually you don't need at least 5 hours training to convert from GA to RA, you need at least 5 hours flying by assessment. That could be as little as say 1 hour dual conversion to a Jab (depending on competency) and then go solo in the Jab for 4 hours obviously under a Instructors assessment. The arbitrary 5 hours is largely BS in my view, I can typically do a conversion from one GA type to another of significant difference in 2 hours or less, so why should conversion from GA to RA be any different to any other GA conversion.

 

The AFR is all about assessing competency at the time of the review, and whether you did the review in a Citabria and then flew Jabs, or did the review in a RA Lightning and then flew say an Auster, the ironies of both should be obvious. When we do the AFR we only do it in the aircraft of our choice, we don't do an AFR in every aircraft we are endorsed to fly, and the differences in performance between the type endorsements can be significant.

 

What is the legal position on this one, can anyone contribute with the 'good oil' please?

 

David

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

The Wolf was misinformed - a PPL AFR does count as RA-Aus BFR for High Performance types. See Ops manual 2.07 5i

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[djpacro]

It seems fairly straightforward on the CASA side to me, David. Reg 5.81, extracts below.

 

An aeroplane flight review must be conducted only by an appropriate person and, unless the person otherwise approves having regard to the circumstances of the case, must be conducted in:(a) an aeroplane:

(i) of the type in which the pilot flew the greatest amount of flight time during the 10 flights the pilot undertook as pilot in command immediately before the flight review; and

 

(ii) unless ......

 

.........

 

(4)If a private (aeroplane) pilot satisfactorily completes an aeroplane flight review, the person conducting the review must make an entry in the pilot’s personal log book to the effect that the pilot has satisfactorily completed the aeroplane flight review.

 

.........(5)A private (aeroplane) pilot who, within the period of 2 years immediately before the day of the proposed flight, has:

 

(a) passed a flight test conducted for the purpose of:

 

(i) the issue of an aeroplane pilot licence; or

 

(ii) the issue, or renewal, of an aeroplane pilot rating; or

 

........

 

appropriate person means:

 

(a) an authorised flight instructor who holds a grade of flight instructor (aeroplane) rating that authorises him or her to conduct flight reviews in aeroplanes; or

 

.............

"The CAR definition of an authorised flight instructor states that the flight instructor must either hold an AOC or be employed by, or instructs under, an arrangement with an AOC holder."More explanation in the CAAP - Flight Crew Licensing Flight Reviews.

 

The Wolf posted: "I was told by the school i intended to convert my license with, that a BFR in an RA registered plane will count as your BFR for your PPL."

May be true for that school - but only if the above rules are satisfied.The thing that counts is the stamp in the logbook by an authorised instructor or evidence of a licence or rating test pass.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi David, dont quote me on this, but i read somewhere, that they changed the wording from Bi-annual review, to aeroplane review or helicopter review, because a couple of pilots with both chopper and fixed wing licences, got caught "out" by only doing one or the other. I mean- eg- they only have completed a BFR, in lets just say a fixed wing.Within the two years, they hadnt done a BFR in a helicopter in the last two years.When question why they where flying a helicopter and their last helicopter BFR was lets say, 3 years ago.They said thats OK, i did a BFR in a fixed wing.Their reasoning is, Biannual flight review, means just that, every two years, it doesnt say what a/c. I now it is a play on words and they are incorrect, they changed the wording to clear things up.Cheers

 

 

[Yenn]

I was under the impression that a GA instructor could do a GA review and if he was also an RAAus instructor an RAAus review, so you get two for the price of one and vice versa of course.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Reg 5.81, extracts below.[/url]

Yes thanks David that does clear it up from the CASA side.

 

I was under the impression that a GA instructor could do a GA review and if he was also an RAAus instructor an RAAus review, so you get two for the price of one and vice versa of course.

Yenn as John (Crezzi) pointed out it is very clear in our Ops Manual Section 2.07 .5 i, that a PPL or higher AFR is a suitable substitute for a high Peformance only RAA AFR, thanks John.

 

However according to CASA Regulation 5.81, as DJP has pointed out, that the reciprocal of an RAA AFR being a substitute for a GA AFR would only apply if the instructor was a GA instructor operating under an AOC, not sure about the aircraft type but it appears an RAA aircraft may be suitable, is that how you read it David (DJP)?

 

It is also now evident from reading further where John pointed me that if you hold RAA HP and LP ratings that you need separate AFRs for each rating. Is that how you read it John?

 

David

 

 

[bilby54]

Guys and Gals,

Actually you don't need at least 5 hours training to convert from GA to RA, you need at least 5 hours flying by assessment. That could be as little as say 1 hour dual conversion to a Jab (depending on competency) and then go solo in the Jab for 4 hours obviously under a Instructors assessment. The arbitrary 5 hours is largely BS in my view, I can typically do a conversion from one GA type to another of significant difference in 2 hours or less, so why should conversion from GA to RA be any different to any other GA conversion.

 

The AFR is all about assessing competency at the time of the review, and whether you did the review in a Citabria and then flew Jabs, or did the review in a RA Lightning and then flew say an Auster, the ironies of both should be obvious. David

It gets even more silly when you have a GA registered jab and decide to convert it and yourself to RAA!!

 

A few years ago I had the chance to fly a GA registered Drifter but my BFR was not current but was instructing on AUF registered Drifters. I think that the closer we seem to get the regulations together, the further apart we are drifting - no pun intended.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

It is also now evident from reading further where John pointed me that if you hold RAA HP and LP ratings that you need separate AFRs for each rating. Is that how you read it John? David

I assume you are refering to 2.07 5g ? If so, I believe this refers to different aircraft groups I.e. a pilot with both group A (3-axis) and group B (weightshift) has to do their BFR on each type alternately.

 

A 3-axis pilot with both LP and HP endorsements is covered by 2.07 5 e(1) - the BFR is done in the type in which most hours of the last 10 flights were flown.

 

At least thats how I interpret it !

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[David Isaac]

........A 3-axis pilot with both LP and HP endorsements is covered by 2.07 5 e(1) - the BFR is done in the type in which most hours of the last 10 flights were flown. At least thats how I interpret it ! John

Hi John, I have printed that section so that it is easier to cross reference and believe you are correct. That would make more sense because that is the same requirement in the CARs for PPL. That is good, I think we have clarified that only one AFR is required for RAA if you hold both LP and HP endorsements in the 3 axis control group.

 

David

 

 

[David Isaac]

Actually you don't need at least 5 hours training to convert from GA to RA, you need at least 5 hours flying by assessment. That could be as little as say 1 hour dual conversion to a Jab (depending on competency) and then go solo in the Jab for 4 hours obviously under a Instructors assessment. The arbitrary 5 hours is largely BS in my view, I can typically do a conversion from one GA type to another of significant difference in 2 hours or less, so why should conversion from GA to RA be any different to any other GA conversion.

Above is my first post, however, after reading the references in the RAA Ops Manual that John (Crezzi) put up, I do not believe that what I have been told by many regarding converting from GA PPL to RAA pilot certificate is correct.

 

Section 2.13 states that a GA PPL holder who wishes to convert to an RAA Pilot certificate shall: a. be a financial member of RA-Aus, b. hold a valid RA-Aus Student Pilot certificate, and c. meet experience requirements of Sections 2.06 and 2.07 of this manual.

 

Section 2.06 is what you must meet to obtain a Student Pilot certificate.

 

Section 2.07. Aeronautical experience Paragraph 2 © states: if holding a PPL or higher licence, have completed such dual training in a low performance recreational aircraft as is deemed necessary by a CFI and, in any case shall not have less than 5 hours flying experience in a low performance recreational aircraft which shall include a minimum of one hours solo....

 

Then there is a Note which states: For the purpose of paragraph c. above, experience in GA aircraft may be counted towards the 5 hours (up to the full amount), provided the experience was gained in a recreational aircraft type which may be registered on either the RA-Aus or VH register, e.g. Jabiru, Gazelle, Skyfox, Lightwing as recognised by the RA-Aus Operations Manager or their delegate.

 

You will note that Paragraph 2 c. specifically refers to 'Low Performance' which means that doing 5 hours in a Jab does not meet the requirements of paragraph 2 c. yet that is what many RA-Aus instructors are doing to convert GA PPL holders. Then to add confusion to the matter, the note states that if you have been flying a VH registered Jab or other types, that can fully meet the 5 hour requirements (up to the full amount). ..... What the??? So does that mean the hours that I have flown in Drifters back in the 80s that were not VH registered at the time could partially or fully meet the 5 hour requirements because Drifters are capable of being VH registered.

 

So you CFIs out there, what is your take on that one please?

 

David

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

For a current PPL holder converting to RAAus with HP endorsement, the amount of training is at the discretion of the CFI with no minimum hours. Somebody converting from a GA Jabiru / Sportstar / Tecnam etc onto the same type on RAAus rego would presumably require less training than somebody converting from C172.

 

For a current PPL holder converting to RAAus with LP endorsement, the amount of training is still at the CFI's discretion but they must have logged at least 5 hours total & 1 solo in a low performance recreational aircraft. It doesn't matter whether the LP aircraft was actually RAAus or GA registered provided it could have been on RAAus rego.

 

Ie for a PPL holder with 5 hours in a GA registered Piper Cub (for example), the conversion to RAAus with LP endorsement (Cub, Thruster, Drifter) would simply be at CFI discretion (no minimum).

 

Cheers

 

John

 

PS I think the examples of aircraft mentioned in the Ops manual are a bit confusing since, although the Jabiru could be GA or RAAus rego, I don't think it qualifies as a LP aircraft.

 

 

[David Isaac]

For a current PPL holder converting to RAAus with HP endorsement, the amount of training is at the discretion of the CFI.

Yes, but the only place in the Ops manual that may take that provision for PPL to RAA without an LP endorsement is potentially Section 2.07 Paragraph 1 e., where a PPL holder need only demonstrate to a CFI his competencey. High Performance is assumed for PPL so a PPL automatically has a HP endorsement. You cannot use the provisions of Paragraph 2 for conversion to RAA pilot certificate for just a HP endorsement.

 

For a current PPL holder converting to RAAus with LP endorsement, the amount of training is at the CFI discretion but they must have at least 5 hours total & 1 solo in a low performance recreational aircraft. It doesn't matter whether the LP aircraft was actually RAAus or GA registered provided it could have been on RAAus rego.

I agree, however, there is quite a problem with the wording in the Ops manual. If you take the literal wording, of the Aeronautical Experience provisions of Paragraph 2, I would argue that there is no provision for a PPL using his PPL qualifications to convert to RAA Pilot Certificate unless he converts using the provisions of Paragraph 2 c. which is low Performance. And that is the only provision that requires the 5 hour figure. As there is no need to prove HP with PPL, HP is assumed.

 

Ie for a PPL holder with 5 hours in a GA registered Piper Cub (for example), the conversion to RAAus with LP endorsement would simply be at CFI discretion (no minimum).

Yes except I would argue that a Piper Cub is HP it cruises in excess of 80 Knots, we can't have it both ways, can we?

 

PS I think the examples of aircraft mentioned in the Ops manual are a bit confusing since, although the Jabiru could be GA or RAAus rego, I don't think it qualifies as a LP aircraft ?

I agree. The note to Paragraph 2 c. is contradictory. So to my point in the earlier post that RAA instructors are insisting on 5 hours for a PPL to RAA HP conversion is not supported by the RAA ops manual, have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

 

David

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

"RRAus instructors insisting on 5 hours for a PPL to RAA HP conversion" are wrong to the extent that the ops manual doesn't mandate a minimum hours. They are however entirely justified as they can choose to specify however much training they like (para 2d). Personally I think it would be better if it were skills based rather than hours based.

 

Unfortunately I've not yet had the pleasure of flying a Piper Cub but Piper J-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia quotes a 65kt cruise speed & my observations of them at YCAB would seem to support this. I can cruise one of my trikes at 80kts but I don't think that this would really qualify it as requiring a HP endorsement ! I'm not 100% sure but I believe J-3 Cubs are classed as LP by RAAus and are used as such by at least 1 FTF.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[David Isaac]

"RRAus instructors insisting on 5 hours for a PPL to RAA HP conversion" are wrong to the extent that the ops manual doesn't mandate a minimum hours. They are however entirely justified as they can choose to specify however much training they like (para 2d). Personally I think it would be better if it were skills based rather than hours based.

John thanks, this is very interesting.

 

Paragraph 2 d. applies to GA GFPT or higher, so that includes PPL, CPL etc and the conversion can be done by assessment as you say and that is specifically High performance. So a GA PPL can do a conversion by assessment to RAA Pilot certificate with no mandatory hour requirement, but this conversion is for high performance only.

 

Paragraph 2 c. allows a GA PPL or higher to alternatively do a conversion in Low Performance aircraft, but in this case it is not done by assessment, but by a mandatory 5 hour minimum and one hour minimum of that 5 being solo. Interestingly this provision excludes a GA GFPT license holder.

 

Yes I agree it should all be competency based and in some cases that could simply be a hour dual and in some cases the individual may be so out of currency that they need more than 5 hours. One assumes that the words "such dual training in a high performance recreational aircraft as is deemed necessary by the CFI" in Paragraph 2 d., would be based on competency not some arbitrary figure. To both our points it should be competency based like any other endorsement.

 

Piper J-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] quotes a 65kt cruise speed & my observations of them at YCAB would seem to support this. I can cruise one of my trikes at 80kts but I don't think that this would really qualify it as requiring a HP endorsement ! I'm not 100% sure but I believe they are classed as LP by RAAus

You are right about the J3 it certainly is LP; when I think of Piper Cubs I think of the PA-18 Super Cub (magic little aeroplane) lot faster than the J3.

 

David