Pilot Licence or Certificate - Sports Pilot Dec14

[Happyflyer]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we didn't have to individually interpret the ops manual. What is wrong with plain English and a couple of examples?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Desk pilot....already has been......

When?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

When?

The latest Ops manual requires a 'type endorsement' be conducted when changing types .

 

 

[pmccarthy]

So the same as GA? If so, a duplicate and unnecessary burden on a GA pilot.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

a change to part 61 would remove most of what the ops manual has become.

 

 

[coljones]

The latest Ops manual requires a 'type endorsement' be conducted when changing types .

Just supposing that one could register a C152 as RAA, what would constitute a difference in "type" between a Jabiru and a C152 and, say, a Foxbat?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Just supposing that one could register a C152 as RAA, what would constitute a difference in "type" between a Jabiru and a C152 and, say, a Foxbat?

Try reading it as TYPE of aircraft and not BRAND or MAKE. It makes more sence then, even though some opinions expressed here are much more restrictive - doesn't automatically make them correct.

 

 

[coljones]

Try reading it as TYPE of aircraft and not BRAND or MAKE. It makes more sence then, even though some opinions expressed here are much more restrictive - doesn't automatically make them correct.

Are the C152, Jabiru and Foxbat all the same "TYPE"?

 

 

[kasper]

First a little rant about the poor drafting and structure of the OPs Manual 7 as it applies to this area:

 

From definitions:

 

Aeroplane Type - Aeroplane undercarriage configuration, design features, flight envelope (e.g. high drag/low drag and considerations of inertia), stall speeds and normal/emergency handling characteristics as designated by the manufacturer.

 

Strange that for a term that DRIVES members legality of flight we have said that it’s the manufacturer not the RAA that determines what Type it is ... but IF it’s in the Ops manual with Initial Capital Aeroplane Type then they are looking not at specific manufacturers aircraft but at generic features and attributes ... as designated by the manufacturer ... so for out of production aircraft it begs a question who sets the Type??. really these are design features not types but that is just down to poor draftng and planning.

 

But at least we add in a second definition:

 

Similar Type Aeroplanes - of similar undercarriage configuration, (Aeroplane) design features, flight envelope (e.g. high drag/ low drag with consideration of inertia), stall speeds and normal/emergency handling characteristics as designated by the manufacturer or RA-Aus.

 

So at least the RAA can say aircraft x is a Similar Type so there we have a roundabout way of the RAA determining Aeroplane Type for out of production or ones where the manufacturer has failed to state the Aeroplane Type.

 

But it does not end there of course ... the definition of Aeroplane Type is specifically inclusive of flight envelope (whatever that really means) and provides examples that align closely with the now removed endorsements of High Performance and Low Performance.

 

But all of this is actually complete garbage because how the term Aeroplane Type is used in a practical sence within the Ops manul has nothing to do with what someone designates as the reality is it is all about what is actually on the aircraft in front of you. All of this angst comes from bloody appalling drafting and structure in the Ops Manual ... anyone know who want to own up this within RAA??? Ops Manager maybe???

 

end of rant

 

Now the useful application bit - when we get down to the endorsements training section in teh Ops Manual that relate to Type and aeroplane characteristics (ops 2.01 (13) and following) we have just 6 Aeroplane Type characteristics to worry about.

 

And here is how you work Aeroplane Type in a real life practical way:

 

Q. Do I need Aeroplane Type training before flight?

 

A. look at your pilot certificate and check your endorsements. So long as you cannot find on the aircraft in front of you something not listed on the certificate you CAN fly without training:

 

The Ops Manual 7 has 6 aeroplane characteristic endorsements:

 

TW tail wheel

 

2S two stroke engine

 

AP inflight adjustable prop

 

RU retracting undercarriage

 

WF aeroplane on floats

 

WH aeroplane with floating hull

 

Example - For me I hold 3 aeroplane endorsements on my certificate that no longer exist (HP, LP and NW) and 2 that do still exist (TW and 2S)

 

So for me I need to see on the aircraft some wheels (all options allowed) and engine (type not important) and NOT see adjusting prop or retracts – other than that I am free to fly without training.

 

Mini rant to end ... do not look at Ops 2.04 and the summary table there because they FORGOT to remove the NW endorsement even though it no longer exists in the actual Ops Manual ...

 

 

[frank marriott]

Are the C152, Jabiru and Foxbat all the same "TYPE"?

Col.,

That's the way I read it anyway - three axis/Tricacle. Others may not agree, but that doesn't bother me.

 

 

[dodo]

I wrote a letter to my three RA local reps when this was first mentioned as a change (Jan 2013 , I think,) got no reply, not even an acknowledgement, and they put the type rubbish in anyway. My reading of it is that you need type endorsement for anything you fly, so you probably are not legal now, until you either get CFI endorsement in your log book or get Ops to recognise whatever your have flown in your logbook. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

The letter I wrote to three board reps is attached, I am still really angry that the Ops manual was never put to the membership for comment and improvement - it is after, the rules under which we fly, so critical to a membership based organisation. And things like this could have easily been fixed.

 

dodo

 

Ra type training proposalname removed.doc

 

Ra type training proposalname removed.doc

 

Ra type training proposalname removed.doc

[Happyflyer]

You are fine to fly what you have been flying, the ops manual says:

 

Note: Logbook entries showing a minimum of 2 hours pilot in command of an aeroplane type recorded prior to Issue 7 of this manual will be accepted as evidence of appropriate type training for that aeroplane.

 

I think where you have to be careful from now on is when you fly a different aircraft. From the definition it could mean different handling characteristics between say a Jabiru 170 and a Foxbat may mean a type endorsement is required. What is really required is for the ops team to explain themselves and if it is that ridiculously restrictive they should be asked to change it. After all they are not CASA, they work for, and are paid by, the members.

 

 

[poteroo]

A goodly dose of common sense should prevent the sky falling in. Give your CFI some credit for their experience. I agree that it perhaps could have been framed better, but we have to work with it for the time being.

 

If a pilot rolls up to our FTF and wants to fly my 3-axis, 4-stroke,high wing,100kt LSA - naturally I'll check their card, then go through their logbook. No card or logbook = no start. I'll be looking for their experience on similar types. Is it substantial, how recent, and under what circumstances? In any case, my insurer expects that I will evaluate their competency to fly the aircraft. For my own peace-of-mind, I'll also be quietly assessing their attitude and airmanship - because without being convinced that I have a responsible pilot - they can be better than Matt Hall......but they won't be PIC of our aircraft.

 

happy days,

 

 

[dodo]

Yep -a check flight sounds normal. Turning that into a formal type endorsement is overkill.

 

 

[GAFA]

A goodly dose of common sense should prevent the sky falling in. Give your CFI some credit for their experience. I agree that it perhaps could have been framed better, but we have to work with it for the time being.If a pilot rolls up to our FTF and wants to fly my 3-axis, 4-stroke,high wing,100kt LSA - naturally I'll check their card, then go through their logbook. No card or logbook = no start. I'll be looking for their experience on similar types. Is it substantial, how recent, and under what circumstances? In any case, my insurer expects that I will evaluate their competency to fly the aircraft. For my own peace-of-mind, I'll also be quietly assessing their attitude and airmanship - because without being convinced that I have a responsible pilot - they can be better than Matt Hall......but they won't be PIC of our aircraft.

 

happy days,

And that's how it worked when I was a GA instructor. Min was 3 circuits before we would allow anyone to hire one of our aircraft (even if they had time on type). Not many got away with just doing 3 circuits with most flights lasting 0.8 to 1.2.

 

 

[coljones]

A goodly dose of common sense should prevent the sky falling in. Give your CFI some credit for their experience. I agree that it perhaps could have been framed better, but we have to work with it for the time being.If a pilot rolls up to our FTF and wants to fly my 3-axis, 4-stroke,high wing,100kt LSA - naturally I'll check their card, then go through their logbook. No card or logbook = no start. I'll be looking for their experience on similar types. Is it substantial, how recent, and under what circumstances? In any case, my insurer expects that I will evaluate their competency to fly the aircraft. For my own peace-of-mind, I'll also be quietly assessing their attitude and airmanship - because without being convinced that I have a responsible pilot - they can be better than Matt Hall......but they won't be PIC of our aircraft.

 

happy days,

Your approach is what I would have expected as a minimum. I would have also expected a check flight. The difficulty is not with the CFI rather it is what the Ops Manual expects (or what was in the mind of the Ops Manual compliler. Lack of clarity will always bugger up an otherwise sunny day.

 

 

[aro]

What is required when you hire an aircraft may be different to what is allowed if e.g. you own an aircraft.

 

If you learn in a Tecnam and buy a Jabiru, are you allowed to jump in and fly away?

 

If you learn in a Jabiru and buy a (single seat) Rans S14?

 

In GA, if you learn in a C172 and buy a C152?

 

If you learn in a C172 and buy a PA28?

 

In all these cases some training would be a very good idea, but at some point you have to stop trying to write rules for everything that would be a good idea, and trust people to evaluate the situation for themselves.

 

 

[Geoff13]

What is required when you hire an aircraft may be different to what is allowed if e.g. you own an aircraft.If you learn in a Tecnam and buy a Jabiru, are you allowed to jump in and fly away?

 

If you learn in a Jabiru and buy a (single seat) Rans S14?

 

In GA, if you learn in a C172 and buy a C152?

 

If you learn in a C172 and buy a PA28?

 

In all these cases some training would be a very good idea, but at some point you have to stop trying to write rules for everything that would be a good idea, and trust people to evaluate the situation for themselves.

Interesting questions. I hope to buy and airplane over the next couple of weeks. It does not matter what I buy, unless I go for a Foxbat, there is no way that I intend to either test fly it or fly it home without having at the very least a qualified instructor with me for the test flight and then if I buy I will want at the very least a senior instructor/CFI to tell me that they think I am competent to fly it home. If that takes 1 circuit great, if it takes 100 then so be it but that will be my minimum requirement. As for the rules I think my personal test would be at least as stringent, if not more stringent then them as I read them.

 

 

[dodo]

If you crash and kill yourself in in a Jab 160, when you learnt on a 170, is the coroner going to comment on RA supervision of type certification? Would the coroner appreciate the difference between two types? Litigation, public criticism in the papers, regulation and more audits?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

From the ops manual. 

 

TYPE TRAINING

 

13. No Pilot Certificate holder shall operate a recreational aeroplane as pilot in command without having demonstrated competency on Type. Aeroplane Type Training must be undertaken with an RA-Aus Examiner who holds the respective aeroplane group and type.

So the ops manual has a catch 22 for single seat aircraft. You can't fly as PIC unless you have demonstrated competency on type but you are not allowed to fly a single seat aircraft to demonstrate your competency as you cannot fly as PIC until after you have demonstrated competency!

 

And how does a CFI or SI get competency? Hunt around Australia to see if another instructor has flown the type? The wording in the ops manual is clear. There is no self endorsement no matter how experienced you are. All of this won't matter if nothing goes wrong. But if it does how is the coroner going to look at this type training requirement? It is madness.

 

 

[facthunter]

Set up something that is unworkable? How are the checkers checked? I'm starting to wonder if we will ever be able to think clearly. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

What is required when you hire an aircraft may be different to what is allowed if e.g. you own an aircraft.If you learn in a Tecnam and buy a Jabiru, are you allowed to jump in and fly away?

 

If you learn in a Jabiru and buy a (single seat) Rans S14?

 

In GA, if you learn in a C172 and buy a C152?

 

If you learn in a C172 and buy a PA28?

 

In all these cases some training would be a very good idea, but at some point you have to stop trying to write rules for everything that would be a good idea, and trust people to evaluate the situation for themselves.

If you read my post #86 above the answer is clear to your questions:

Tecnam then Jabiru - so long as both have same features (fixed undercarriage, tri gear and fixed prop then you are fine as they are within your endorsements and are of the the same group A

 

Only need for training remains on features from the 6 listed in the ops manual.

 

 

[dodo]

[quote="\Tecnam then Jabiru - so long as both have same features (fixed undercarriage, tri gear and fixed prop then you are fine as they are within your endorsements and are of the the same group A

 

\.

 

Maybe, but I would be happier with advice and a fly with a pilot experienced on type before I flew it away. Regardless of Ops manual, and no need for a pilot examiner.

 

 

[poteroo]

And how does a CFI or SI get competency? Hunt around Australia to see if another instructor has flown the type? The wording in the ops manual is clear. There is no self endorsement no matter how experienced you are. All of this won't matter if nothing goes wrong. But if it does how is the coroner going to look at this type training requirement? It is madness.

Back in the good old days of GA, you 'self-endorsed' by reading the AFM/POH, then with a few words of wisdom from your CP/CFI or SP - you fired it up and 'felt' your way into the air. Every ag aircraft presented a new challenge, but I can't remember anyone losing sleep over it. I'll be surprised if there are not many forms of 'self-endorsement' used within RAAus from hereon in. Any experienced instructor should be capable of doing it, and safely too. Any experienced instructor should be able to formulate a training plan for any new 'type' soon after they fly it themselves. Have faith. We mustn't become overly prescriptive just because of a fear of litigation. happy days,

 

 

[kasper]

[quote="\Tecnam then Jabiru - so long as both have same features (fixed undercarriage, tri gear and fixed prop then you are fine as they are within your endorsements and are of the the same group A\.

Maybe, but I would be happier with advice and a fly with a pilot experienced on type before I flew it away. Regardless of Ops manual, and no need for a pilot examiner.

Agreed - the the point is that this thread was all about legality of flight not advisability stemming from an article in the mag (still not got the mag so still waiting to see what it says)

 

The Aeroplane Type issue raised in the thread is being repeatedly misdirected back towards the very old GA individual model type endorsement and linking that to the Ops Manual 7 - that has no relationship to the Ops Manul 7 which is not about individual aircraft models but endorsement for 6 listed 'features' that you must have training for and endorsement for before flight as pilot in command of an RAA registered ultralight.

 

Apart from this legal issue there is the fact that no flying school is going to hire to an unknown pilot one of their aircraft even if they have the correct groups and endorsements unless they do a check flight - a local process that may be driven by many factors but is clearly logical.

 

Cheers