Why is it so hard to become a PPC pilot ?

[kasper]

Thanks Kasper, I wish I could cut and paste as well as you, that clarifies the changes. I looks pretty benign and as if whoever bought about the change didn't want it to appear as a significant change however I looked up in the Macquarie dictionary the word observeOBSERVE

Verb ( served, - serving )

 

1. To see or notice

 

2. To regard with attention

 

3. To comment.

 

4. To show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony etc

 

In Ops 6, going by that definition at least the way I read it could be taken as a CFI has to be involved but not physically there

 

Inputting the word personally changed that, the macquarie says that

 

PERSONAL

 

2a relating to a physical presence or involvement of a person

 

I think Kev is correct in his interperatation of the changes.

 

Wow now I find out that the requirement to become an instructor has been increased by 25% If this change was made to enable the confidence in an instructor so they could instruct without personal supervision I would think that is a step toward making this sport more accessible, however it seems it is a regressive step with two changes that lock it up tighter. I should have gotten into this industry many years ago and become a CFI with Aerochute I would be laughing now, my opposition has the barrier to entry being made harder by the regulators of the industry who should be working to create a growing industry open to competition.

 

Cheers

 

David

Again yes and no.

 

Under the actual operation of ops 6 it was practice (though probably not intended) that the Instructors were under the daily control and observation of an SI who the CFI delegate in effect on the day ... allowed the CFI to actually have a day off and use an SI to run the place.

 

ops 7 does appear to tighten up this area and arguably make the instructor oversight by CFI a bit more clearly direct.

 

Having said that Ops 7 allows the Ops Manager to allow even an SI to oversee Instructors ... the starting point is that the SI can't supervise Instructors but there is a power for the OPs Manager in writing to allow it .. from Ops 7, 1.07

 

 

There are ways and means around most of the perceived obstacles - so go out and become an instructor, work with a CFI and gain their confidence, become an SI and get more sites running for PPC

 

Don't wait for the RAA to do it - the RAA is not a flying club - you have to get the ball rolling.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Whether you believe there is a substantial difference or not RAA does. CFI's were instructing remotely and those few simple words stopped that. The change from 75 to 100 hrs was not needed at all but would not be insurmountable for many who wanted to instruct. Those hours they can do on their own.

 

The main difference in the training of instructors is the skill and knowledge of the SI/CFI required. If you don't watch your student carefully and be ready to react your plane will kill you, A PPC won't. Get the chute up right, work in a clear area, don't hit anything when landing and you are safe. The rest is just practice to smooth out the transitions from ground to air and back.

 

"if there really is a 'market' demand how about any of the PPC pilots out there with 100hrs+ go and become instructors yourself,"

 

Some have tried. Ask Robb DeGroot of Australian PPC's. He is the one who spent over two years and $12,000 getting an Instructor Rating he now cant use unless he walks away from his home and business to move interstate for months to be supervised for 75 hours.

 

Is that what you want for the future of aviation in Australia? Do we want to sent people broke to be able to expand the organisation. Lets remove 95% of the CFI/SI ratings/approvals from 3 axis and see if you are happy with that groups ability to train instructors!! It will put the cost and ability of becoming and instructor out of reach of most.

 

I am surprised you are so against trying to make it possible for the PPC sector to grow when you seem to know very little about it. If a system doesn't work and changes will not affect safety why not change? What has RAA got to lose?

 

If you are so dead set against the changes PPC pilots think are needed, perhaps you would like to look at the reality of the situation and provide your idea of a solution. I would love to hear it.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

David, Instructors have been trained for years after having 75 hrs experience. It was changed to 100 recently without consultation or explaination by a few people with the authority to do so. RAA has been operated for years as a dictatorship and hopefully that is now changing. The members had very little ability to hold those who were running RAA to account. Things have changed but that is no reason to let them slip back into old habits.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I have over 150 hours in 3 axis and I would not for a second yet rate myself as experienced enough to teach even if I could pass the instructors rating. Matbe with another 100 or 200 I be getting close, but then that will also depend on the quality of those hours, not just the quantity.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

That may be true Geoff, but if you felt ready at 75 there was nothing stopping you from commencing an instructor rating. You could even have had 1000's of hours GA experience before moving to RAA. We have to remember this is a MINIMUM hr figure to allow for those that do feel ready and have enough experience. I don't really think the change to 100 was a major issue as those are flight experience hours you will have accumulated mostly on your own, not having to pay someone to watch over you. I do question the change without any consultation or apparent reason though.

 

Perhaps they think the instructors we have been training are not good enough? We don't know as they haven't said anything, just made arbitrary changes.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Nev, If you got the info i sent you would have noticed in one of the articles a US PPC instructor was here for a visit and a comparison between our training regime and theirs discovered they was similar but they were able to gain a PC in 12 hrs. Our augument all along has been that 20 was too many as the syllabus can be covered in much less. If we look at the possible reasoning for 20hrs for 3 axis that may seem to be about right. An average student may do more than 20, a good student about 20 and an exceptional student a bit less. Would it be fair to make those hours required 30 and impose additional costs and hours on a student that didn't need it?

 

 

[David Taylor]

Thanks Kasper and thanks again for your being involved in this debate and providing the information that you have to help my understanding. The question I have is that considering we are in agreement that becoming a pilot and instructor has been made more difficult with the new Ops manual, do you know

 

1 ) why the decision was made

 

2 ) who makes to decision

 

3 ) does the decision affect all potential pilots or just PPC

 

Cheers

 

 

[facthunter]

Kev, if it is a standards based sign off the lower hours can(and should) stay as long as it isn't SOLD as what you can expect IF that is only achieved by a very small number. You can't send a solo OFF if they aren't there, standards wise. It's probably more critical with some 3 axis aircraft, than others. There was an occasion where 3 Jabiru aircraft at Avalon broke off their nosewheels doing downwind landings. They weren't novice flyers but didn't cope with the (for them) unusual situation., they were accepting. Nev

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Nev, absolutely agree. It has always been competency based and a brave CFI that would certify a student before htey were ready. As i understand it not a lot of 3 axis actually make it through in 20. If a good student can make it in 20 the hours are probably set at a level that is reasonable.

 

A good PPC student could make it through in 10-12hrs, an average student maybe as much as 15. An exceptional one less than 10. If we used the same reasoning as 3 axis the correct MINIMUM for a PPC would be in the 10-12 ballpark. This would allow the CFI to decide when a student is ready for a Pilot Certificate rather than the RAA.

 

The main issue with the current 20 for PPC's is almost no students will do more than 20 and most would be ready 10-12, a few maybe 15, so almost every student is paying for between 5-10 hours they don't need but the CFI can't recommend for a PC until the 20hrs are done.

 

 

[kasper]

Thanks Kasper and thanks again for your being involved in this debate and providing the information that you have to help my understanding. The question I have is that considering we are in agreement that becoming a pilot and instructor has been made more difficult with the new Ops manual, do you know1 ) why the decision was made

2 ) who makes to decision

 

3 ) does the decision affect all potential pilots or just PPC

 

Cheers

The only area of becoming an instructor that is more difficult is that the minimum RAA flight hours have increased from 75 to 100.

The only area of becoming a senior instructor that is more difficult is that the minimum RAA flight hours and RAA instructing hours have increased to 150/75 from 100/50.

 

In both cases why that was made I don't know but it would have been something that the RAA through the Ops Manager put into the draft OPs 7 that was put to CASA and approved.

 

As for which instructors are affected - its ALL groups not just PPC.

 

So for a PPC pilot my summary of this thread is:

 

- initial training - syllabus reqs 20 hours min and there is issue that this is too high/unnecessary

 

- instructor rating - increase in RAA time minimum flight experience by 25hrs

 

- senior instructor rating - increase in total time of 50hrs and increase in supervised instructing time of 25hrs

 

The issue on instructors appears to be more the tyranny of distance/lack of PPC schools meaning that for a wanna be PPC instructor they are up for locating themselves at/near a CFI for a minimum of 75hrs of training work before they can even consider opening a satellite school under a CFI ...

 

To become a CFI the SI instructing time has changed from 200hrs instructing to 250 for Group A and B but is reduced to 150 for group D ... so a PPC SI is granted less time on one step than other instructors.

 

Overall IF you see the instructor route as a way of actually making a living in aviation the need to locate yourself near and work for a CFI for a minimum of 75hrs training work is not a big thing in the scheme of life considering what other pilots in the industry do to get the necessary experience to get the actual job they want ... if however it was only something you did as an entertainments/pass time for yourself (like a club instructor) then its more of a big deal.

 

It's a personal choice for the people involved ... I don't think it is for the RAA to lower the hours and/or redesign the structure of the entire Instructor-Senior Instructor-CFI process to accommodate the growth of the sport in one area.

 

I'm sorry but I keep coming back to the fact that IF there is a real demand for new/more schools that can operate as a viable commercial school then there will be people who will make the sacrifices to get the required hours and pieces of paper to allow those schools to come into existence.

 

 

[503]

150 hrs to be able to teach someone to pull two strings and push a throttle ,looks like 3 axis needs to increased to 2000 hrs . Has there ever been a death in Aus in a ppc ? ,how many dead with 3 axis?

 

No lic/ certificate should be required at all for a one seat ppc ,like in the USA

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, at least two I think, one a couple of days ago where the pilot didn't just float gently to earth.

 

Some people seem to think the only thing you need to learn is how to handle controls - I haven't seen anything mentioned about Meteorology, Navigation, Performance and Operation or for that matter chute profiles, chute stall etc, and I notice no one seems to have dug very deeply into the PPC site where a lot of information is available.

 

 

[503]

No ,ppg is not a ppc

 

 

[David Taylor]

Thanks once again Kasper for your reply, however I don't agree with it. I think lumping the PPC which has a completely different design and flying characteristics and safety record to a 3 axis aircraft into the same training regime is perhaps an easy way of handling it from the RAA point of view, but it is killing this sport that should be growing far more strongly than it is. I look at the people I know who in the last few years have bought Jetskis and Harley's as they reach an age where they want fit a bit of excitement and recreation into their lives, the PPC should be taking a share of that market if the barriers to entry weren't so restrictive. As I have said other far more inherently dangerous sports don't have these restrictions. I agree with Turboplanner in his comment about weather, this should certainly be a big part of the training program, the same as divers have to learn about decompression, narcossis and baratrauma injuries.

 

Bottom line is PPC do need to be treated as a different type of flying machine because they are. Hey the good news is I discovered that I could download Ops 7 and the Syllabus from the web site, I'll read it when I'm not reading about the the impacts of weather and perhaps won't have to ask so many questions.

 

Cheers

 

David

 

 

[facthunter]

There's plenty killing the sport generally David. Rules rather than understanding. Nev

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Kasper, you mistakenly seem to think we are asking for a change to the instructor syllabus that will affect all instructors in RAA. That is not the case. The changes are proposed for PPC operations only. Once the changes are made it will not have any more effect on the workload of the RAA staff than it does now, maybe with the exception of more rego's and more memberships to process. All the stuff Turbo mentioned is in the current PPC syllabus and that will not change. They have not been mentioned because no changes were proposed to the actual syllabus, only the minimum hours required so when the syllabus is completed in under 20 hrs the CFI can recommend for Pilot Certificate.

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper, you mistakenly seem to think we are asking for a change to the instructor syllabus that will affect all instructors in RAA. That is not the case. The changes are proposed for PPC operations only. Once the changes are made it will not have any more effect on the workload of the RAA staff than it does now, maybe with the exception of more rego's and more memberships to process. All the stuff Turbo mentioned is in the current PPC syllabus and that will not change. They have not been mentioned because no changes were proposed to the actual syllabus, only the minimum hours required so when the syllabus is completed in under 20 hrs the CFI can recommend for Pilot Certificate.

Not quite - I did not think you were asking for the changes to apply to all instructor groups ... but from an Admin and control perspective all instructors have been treated the same in the past and I personally do not see it as necessary or a good idea to move from that were I to be in the shoes of the RAA ops manager.

In addition your point that PPC CFIs should be able to recommend for licence under 20hrs is also not unique to PPC - a person learning from scratch in a 503 wire braced drifter will have completed the syllabus and be quite capable of flying safely in under 20 hours - been there trained them myself ... give me an HM1000 Balerit and any teenager who can drive a car and they will be able to safely fly the aircraft solo and get through the entire 3axis syllabus (because we do not have a combined controls one) in under 10. So just because the PPC is lower performance and more rapidly able to be taught is not in itself unique and were you to more to a change that said minimum hours do not apply and its down to the CFI well thats a major change in control BUT if that's what is appropriate then it should be for ALL groups not just PPC.

 

The fact that some aircraft and some people can get it more quickly than others is a fact of life but a minimum hours requirement is there as a backstop and its a backstop that I think the CASA would dig heels in over were it to be shortened by much if at all.

 

For me I was fortunate, I did get through 3 axis from scratch to full licence in under 20 in LSA55 jabs back in the early 90's. Not a lot do and I was fortunate that I 'got it' fairly quickly ... though I did spend 5 hours doing circuits before I got that bit but overall I think the minimum hours is a fair backstop ... and there is nothing saying that the last 5+ hours of instruction in PPC have to be at the full dual training rates ... that's down to the pricing structure of the schools/CFI, solo supervision in own aircraft or schools aircraft need not be as expensive as dual ... though of course there is still an instructor sitting on the ground supervising that has to be paid so its not a cost free exercise.

 

 

[David Taylor]

G'day Kasper, It was interesting to hear about the Drifter and Balerit aircraft and ease of flying them, they do look like real seat of the pants type of flying fun, just like a PPC, only they are nothing like a PPC.

 

Luckily there doesn't seem to be a lot of people reading this forum otherwise I might bore them to death repeating my main issue, which is the powered parachute is a completely unique flying machine, very different from fixed wing aircraft in their design, risk of flight, ease of flight, inherent stability, can't stall or spin. Because of those differences they and their training requirements should be different from your style of aircraft.

 

I learned today that there are 261 PPC pilots, what a pathetic result in the 23 years of this sport, that is an average of 11.3 pa. I can almost hear some of you guys very happy in 3 axis land as saying that is because PPC is no fun and you Kasper may say that proves there is no market for it. I would suggest the sport is being strangled by the ridiculous training requirements that require third party supervision in a sport that is not carried out, in fact is not allowed by your peers in most airports.

 

Thanks again Kasper, if the RAA and their resistance to change and accept that one size doesn't always fit all approach doesn't keep me out of the sport forever and I finally get to fly, I would be happy to take you for a flight.

 

Cheers

 

David

 

 

[turboplanner]

Luckily there doesn't seem to be a lot of people reading this forum otherwise I might bore them to death repeating my main issue, which is the powered parachute is a completely unique flying machine, very different from fixed wing aircraft in their design, risk of flight, ease of flight, inherent stability, can't stall or spin. Because of those differences they and their training requirements should be different from your style of aircraft.

Inherent stability? Can't stall?

 

I have no problem with any parachute related activity. If you have been thoroughly trained, and are able to maintain skills to the same level as other forms of aviation, it can be a safe activity.

 

If you don't think a chute can stall, have a look at some of these videos.

 

PPC crash – Gulf of Mexico: Pilot dies

 

 

 

 

[503]

Home built designed redneck ppc,rest are ppg,not ppc.any deaths in Australia .....I think not ..why are ppc's under Raa anyway?

 

 

[503]

ppg is not ppc

 

 

[503]

Why are ppg not with Raa as they drop out of the sky as much as 3 axis and kill just as many

 

 

[facthunter]

Why NOT is also valid. Unity is strength. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Here's some more

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2012/08/shelby_couple_killed_in_powere.html

 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/08/carol-and-henry-austin-killed-when.html

 

www.part103.org/PPC/parakeys/ppc_adb.doc

 

 

[David Taylor]

Thanks Turbo for taking the time to send those links. I have seen most of them while searching for information on the sport. I have to admit that the people who are into paragliding are real thrill seekers, way too hard and dangerous for me. Of the powered parachute crashes, one was an experimental design pushing it to the limit, my machine is a well built and proven model and wing. One had the front wheel break on takeoff, one fell into the ocean, not sure why, nearly drowned but didn't die, one tried taking off with a cross wind and the other I am not sure what happened he just didn't seem to have enough power to complete the takeoff.

 

I agree even flying a PPC requires adequate instruction and knowledge of the potential hazards along with a acute awareness of the weather conditions. I have been reading the RAA information on weather and turbulace, great information.

 

Having said all of that I still believe that people should be able to be adequately instructed in this sport without third party supervision by a CFI. If I am missing something can someone explain why, apart from because it is a requirement for 3 axis fixed wing aircraft.

 

Why is it not possible to have PPC correctly identified as a unique type of flying machine, acknowledging their ease of flight and that they are flown from paddocks etc and allow a training curriculum that suits it. Apart from giving some people employed within RAA a bit of work to do, why is it not possible ?

 

Cheers

 

David