Why is it so hard to become a PPC pilot ?

[kasper]

much clipped...The intention was to be remotely supervised by the CFI, a practice within the rules prior to the change in the new Ops manual. ...

As I pointed out above in posting both the OPs 6 and OPs 7 text on supervision of instructors there was no legal change between the two Ops manuals ... if the practice was to remotely supervise an instructor - not legal under Ops 6 and never was when I became an instructor in the mid 90's - the CFI or the SI with written approval from Middo directly supervised me until I became an SI, then it was an improper practice and if the current Ops Manager is enforcing the actual rules that have been in place I say 'Very well done Jill'.

 

I for one am glad that on the Ops side in this area the RAA are not going to be under scrutiny from CASA or liable to audit on Ops for not enforcing the actual agreed processes and procedures ... it was bad enough when the RAA came under review and audit from CASA on the aircraft side - I do not want to have the same issue on the Ops side.

 

So if the real issue is that an instructor needs to move interstate to work to get the experience to step up to SI level then thats a fact of life ... and IF the reality is that Victorian PPC licence training in non-Aerochute PPC is $350/hr then I would guess that from a business perspective that is a definite opening in the market.

 

 

[David Taylor]

Kasper the $7000 for training or as you have put it is for Aerochute training, the training that one day I hope to do has been quoted as between $4 & $5k. I think the reason the Aerochute training is so expensive is because they can, there is no competition. I guess if I was a CFI training in their organisation I wouldn't really want to make changes to the system that could provide more competition either. This is great for them but not in the long term interest of a sport that has I believe a lot of potential

 

You are very protective of the current system and perhaps with your knowledge of it may have had something to do with the development of it. I certainly respect your position as someone who has been very much involved in the industry for many years and appreciate that you probably see me as a insolent 5 minute man who wants to change the system to suit me. You are right I suppose.

 

The fact is as it stands to take your suggestion and go interstate to do my 20 hrs would cost many thousands over and above the normal cost of training, I would be better off doing 3 axis training an getting aPPC endorsement which demonstrates how the environment that PPC are expected to work under helps one company but not the sport.

 

You have corrected me and pointed out that PPC is differentiated from 3 axis with differing syllabus etc. if that is the case can you please help me to understand why some additional changes can't be added to reflect where the training of PPC is carried out and have the requirement for properly trained PPC instructors to train with the supervision of a CFI as opposed to direct supervision, the change to only apply to pendulas aircraft acknowledging their difference in training requirement. It is unlikely that the current CFIs would support this change so is it possible within the RAA framework or would PPC need to become their own association similar to the HGFA ?

 

I would appreciate your opinion

 

Thanks

 

David

 

 

[kasper]

clippedYou are very protective of the current system and perhaps with your knowledge of it may have had something to do with the development of it. I certainly respect your position as someone who has been very much involved in the industry for many years and appreciate that you probably see me as a insolent 5 minute man who wants to change the system to suit me. You are right I suppose.

No not involved in development of it but ...

 

I have been through it

 

I am a solicitor with a background in statutory drafting

 

I have made a living in process integration and improvement in regulated environments

 

So that is where I start from.

 

clipped You have corrected me and pointed out that PPC is differentiated from 3 axis with differing syllabus etc. if that is the case can you please help me to understand why some additional changes can't be added to reflect where the training of PPC is carried out and have the requirement for properly trained PPC instructors to train with the supervision of a CFI as opposed to direct supervision, the change to only apply to pendulas aircraft acknowledging their difference in training requirement. It is unlikely that the current CFIs would support this change so is it possible within the RAA framework or would PPC need to become their own association similar to the HGFA ?

I would appreciate your opinion

 

Thanks

 

David

Well I think many miss the fact that once you are an instructor working under the direct supervision of your CFI you are in fact developing and demonstrating the practical application of the theory you learned on real life students. You are working in the real world with real live very variable students working out how to teach adults in real life both the physical skills to fly the aircraft but the elements of the theory ... and showing your CFI that not only do you THINK you can teach to the required standard and assess your students correctly ... working out if a student is at solo standard is not something you come out the end of instructor training knowing and the 'apprenticeship' period with the CFI before you step up to the SI level where you can send students solo is actually very important. It both consolidates the knowledge you have from the formal instructor training and dealing first hand with real live 'weirdo' students ... trust me I really loved the nuclear scientist student we had ... he over-analysed EVERYTHING in the cockpit and was about 30seconds behind the Jabiru ... and the theory lessons were intellectually fun but exhausting.

And as for pendulum stability the weightshift aircraft have the same pendulum stability ... start with a nice stable old XL and you can get up to solo and through the syllabus in under the 20 hours ... why should we not be saying that low performance weightshift should have a reduced hours requirement? Well the reason MIGHT be that to maintain a single system within the RAA that is accepted by CASA and that is in my opinion sufficient - the greater the variability within the process system the greater the admin overhead.

 

The difference in requirements would have to very substantial AND be generally supported by the industry (read CFIs) AND be supported by strong local evidence from existing students before CASA are likely to listen (or the RAA Ops Manager) so from what I hear the suggested reduction in training of 5 hours while 25% of the total does not appear from what you say to have the support of the 6 CFIs (for whatever reason) and anacdotal evidence that most people get through the syllabus in less than 20 and spend a few hours just filling in time is not really going to make the grade.

 

And besides ... the group D already have difference recognized in some areas of training - you do not have to do cross country endorsement as you have an alternate much less rigorous requirement that does not require actual cross country flights ... recognizing the fact that you are flying around at low speed.

 

And if HGFA or any other organization want to become an RAAO for PPC then that's a possibility - already we have two alternates for weightshift so its possible.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Nev, if you look at the system in itself you could not say it was anti-competitive. But when to get through that system you had to deal with one company who has a very big interest in not training instructors/SI who are not contracted to them, i think that is a big failing of the system. Add to that, the RAA seeking input for any proposed changes from the company that has the most to lose if changes are made, certainly sounds a bit dodgy to me.

 

The company has to look after its own interests, and does that very well. RAA has an obligation to act in the best interest of its members.

 

There was one person years ago that designed and built a new PPC and wanted to market it and get his CFI rating to teach. His aircraft was rejected in part because it was not up to aviation standards by using aviation grade parts. Yet the Aerochute is made from various marine grade parts with plastic wheel barrow wheels available in Bunnings and rated for about 40kgs and not to exceed 10 km/h. The top headplate is mild steel and the 4 eyebolts that hang the cart from the chute are commercial grade and not even rated. I find it interesting the standards are not applied there. In reality it doesn't matter what the cart is made from as it does nothing but give you somewhere to sit to work the controls and attach an engine. As long as it is strong enough for that it would be safe. The real part that is important is the chute.

 

In order to gain a SI rating he was told by RAA he had to go to that company to train. He did, but much later after being messed around and getting no training realised they had no intention of training him as he would become a competitor. Dreams ended.

 

There are a couple of CFI's not connected with the company now so in theory it is possible but you would need a very big bank balance and a couple of years free time to do it. Considering most potential CFI's will be part time and doing it to bring others into the world of aviation and share their love of flying, who would put in such levels of time and dollars?

 

I just hope RAA can see that things need to change. I guess we will find out after the May meeting.

 

 

[David Taylor]

Thanks Kasper, I appreciate your taking the time to answer and I can see your point that having time working under a CFI would be beneficial and probably necessary in the training of pilots flying complex pieces of machinery like aeroplanes. The statistics prove it is a dangerous pastime.

 

I just can't get over my belief that powered parachutes are not so complex, much safer and that the current system is not allowing the industry to grow and perhaps even survive. Perhaps that is what the RAA want, I agree with Kev, I suppose we will find out in May

 

Cheers, I hope you all enjoy your flying and keep safe

 

David

 

 

[kasper]

Well its not that working under a CFI is beneficial for the training of pilots - its beneficial for the training of the Instructor mainly.

 

And in my experience learning to fly any form of aircraft the physical manipulation of the aircraft to control it is really not the whole story and in fact is less than half of it. What takes time as pilot learning to fly is getting your head around the purely coordination/mechanical control of the aircraft, understanding and integrating what the rules of the air are, working out what other aircraft are doing and planning what is coming next in terms of 1 minute - 5 minutes - half an hour.

 

Now if you were never to fly near another aircraft, only operate from a place where no other aircraft, only ever operate single seat are operating and never fly in other than the most perfect of conditions then sure, a PPC pilot may be able to get through the aircraft handling and be safe flying all parts of the syllabus in under 20 hrs and I would on the terms of very limited never-interact-with-other-aircraft basis feel comfy that yep, you are only one at risk and you can fly your socks off.

 

But reality is that even if you are not flying from an airfield there is a real desire from most pilots to get together and fly together, and of course you have that second seat next to you and friends and family you just want to share the flinght experience and joy you have with, so no, the need to spend the time under instruction getting it all together

 

And the real elephant in the room for training - be it a raw pilot student or an instructor - is the horrid old impossible to define aspect of flying called judgement.

 

I would hazard or even bet that if you put up a poll on here and asked people to rate how comfy and competent they were and how safe they assess their own flying at stages of flight experience from pilot certificate - + 25 hrs + 50hrs + 100hrs +500hrs you will find that AFTER the event looking back you realize that even with a nice shiny pilots licence it was really only a licence to learn and that you self assess your safety and competence to be vastly better after many hours of experience because its that undefined thing called judgement that really only comes with time that is actually very important.

 

I am definitely still learning and refining my mechanical pilot skills and I am several thousand hours into flying ultralights/microlights now and frankly the fact that someone can get through the flying elements of a pilots certificate in under the minimum hours does not invalidate the minimum hours aspect of the licence because it is integrating the whole picture and working out and assessing whats going on and making decisions that are based on experience (ie judgement) that takes the time to develop.

 

I really do not want to appear negative to the desire to change the PPC system its just that the simplest aircraft out still has to operate in the same airspace, with the same meteorological conditions and with the same limitations that there is a human pilot who is also subject to personal issues (medical physical, medical mental, medical substance) and it just does not add up in my view that one simplification the end to end getting to become a pilot (the aircraft handling) is enough to remove the need to spend time on consolidating and embedding the other bits.

 

 

[facthunter]

Average time to solo might make the comparison valid. I would have no difficulty accepting that the chute time to the same level of competency would be less.

 

The "Other Bits"may be considered a constant but the faster the craft the less room for bad judgement. Nev

 

 

[David Taylor]

Wise words Kasper, and ones that should be respected considering your experience. Those issues are ones that a 3 axis pilot must contend with and master every time you fly, which perhaps explains why a simple bloke like me has chosen to fly a PPC.

 

I take your point about the complexity involved in getting my head around the coordination/mechanical control of the aircraft, luckily for me my PPC allows me to go up by increasing the throttle, reduce it I come down, push a foot control to go left or right. I think with practice I can accomplish that.

 

Understanding the rules of the air, I can drive a car, motor bike, scuba dive and dance, I'm up for more learning, and how is my supervising CFI going to help me when I'm up in the air with my instructor ?

 

Planning what's happening in the next 1 - 5 minutes half an hour, you must fly a lot faster than a PPC, from my limited experience sitting up there at 500 ft with an uninterrupted view of the world it is amost as if you are not moving, I'm not fast but if I can't think that quick I'll be sacked tomorrow.

 

Understanding the weather and wind is a given for all of us.

 

My judgement, that's another story. I made the judgement that the sport of PPC really should be enjoyed by thousands of people, not just the 261 that are currently involved, and that I wanted to be part of it. Unfortunately I am finding that it is being completely inhibited by a set of rules that have been developed for the 3 axis aircraft industry. For the sport to ever get off the ground it needs someone in RAA to have some vision and the guts to overcome the bias or complete misunderstanding of PPCs

 

When I first walked into Divers Service dive shop in 1971 when I was 14 and bought my first scuba tank, they were fairly new, there was no instruction, no air gauges, no buoyancy control devises, I bought a book, read it and went diving. When instruction became available I was formerly trained in 1980 and became an instructor in 1982, diving was still a new sport, today there are 34,600 actively participating scuba divers. If everyone was spending their time regulating to make it harder to get into the sport to save them from themselves, instead of developing the training programs and systems that made an inherently dangerous sport accessible to people, Scuba diving would not be the sport enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people all around the world.

 

There are many people in the PPC community that really have a passion for flying PPCs as you have for your aircraft and as fellow flyers we should at least have empathy or our mutual desire to fly and enjoy our chosen adventure. It's just that our segment needs slightly different rules to survive and prosper.

 

We can only hope that the senior management of RAA can see the opportunity that it has for the growth of aviation sport to the benefit of all members and change will come. Some support from our big brothers in 3 axis, understanding our different needs would help

 

Best wishes

 

David