BFRs

[facthunter]

IS the Gazelle considered low performance? When one considers the types of aircraft that exhibit low performance charactistics, I wouldn't consider the Gazelle to behave like that. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

IS the Gazelle considered low performance? When one considers the types of aircraft that exhibit low performance charactistics, I wouldn't consider the Gazelle to behave like that. Nev

Nev,

The only discriminating criteria that I have been able to identify in RA Aus documentation is simply cruise speed ... below 80 knots is 'Low performance' and above 80 knots is 'High performance'. That would put a DH82 in the 'low performance' category along with J3 Cubs etc; hardly what I would call ANO 95-10 category 'Low performance'.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yep, its a but covering exercise thats all. It only adds confusion and at the end of the day doesn't do a lot to improve/ monitor pilot safety.

 

Currency on low performance is something any semi intelligent pilot would consider anyway. A BFR should need only be a "review" and not used to make a pilot 'legal' in this type or that type.

 

The emphasis should be placed on the other end of the spectrum I reckon. Super slippery, fast, high flying rocket ships should be more closely monitored than your Guzzele or drifter stooging around, and from what ive seen is much more likely to cause problems with guys trained on slower types, rather than guys going the other way.

 

my 2 cents

 

 

[greybeard]

Bottom line to me is that if you are going from differing types of aircraft, high/low/CSU/retract/tail/conventional etc then it's a good idea to get a refresh /check on the skills with a qualified instructor. Only you can make that decision to do so. The BFR ( to me ) is a legal requirement along the lines of the old Democrats idea of 'keeping the bastards honest' ;)

 

 

[facthunter]

Inadequacies and inconsistencies make the current manner of administering the BFR an expense ( in all cases) and completely inadequate ( in some cases). You would be flat out finding (in one instructor) someone who is across the lot. Who is currently operating a "training" two stroke engined aircraft? You're flat out finding T/W aircraft. I suggest with this overcomplicated system in setting up a "check" system which has giant holes in it and will eventually lead us into another liability situation. we are probably there. I suggest you keep the BFR simple but thorough and utilise more stringent recency requirements for operation of "unusual " aircraft (for the pilot concerned). Nev

 

 

[408059]

Other information in the manual states that the GA BFR only covers high performance. Not long ago the GA BFR did not count at all. You had to do both. Nev

A word of caution if I may. I got caught last year using a GA BFR for RAA purposes. They have changed the rules and it is not reflected in the manuals. In the past a log book entry for your GA BFR was sufficient for RAA HP aircraft puposes. Now the GA instructor must note the review was conducted in compliance with CAR 5.81 either in the log book or in any associated paper work and be conducted in an aircraft with a MTOW of less than 1500 kgs. I wrote a long letter to Steve Tizzard early last year suggesting that changes in policy be reflected in the manuals but had no response. I suspect the manual is in process of being updated. I ended up getting my GA instructor adding the extra words and signing it before my GA BFR was accepted for RAA flying.

 

Cheers

 

Steve