Why is it so hard to become a PPC pilot ?

[David Taylor]

You have the passion for it mate, don't let the politics get in the way.If you need any info from me you can give me a call ( Rob has my number )

Thanks Nashy, I appreciate your offer. I hope one day I can do better and buy you a beer

Cheers

 

David

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Aren't RAA flying school heavily regulated due to there propensity for cutting corners and history of running illegally? I have heard of RAA schools that do "scenic flights" under the guise of introductory lessons.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Aren't RAA flying school heavily regulated due to there propensity for cutting corners and history of running illegally? I have heard of RAA schools that do "scenic flights" under the guise of introductory lessons.

Every flight is a scenic flight!

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

FT, I dont think anyone is saying they should not be regulated. But as far as Class D goes quite a bit of the rules just don't make sense. As an examle, under the new Op's manual a pilot requires training and to be signed off by a CFI for foot operated controls (among other things). Those controls don't do anything different than the hand controls, just done a differnt way. That would be like letting a Class A fly with a yoke and only letting them fly with a stick after further training and sign off by CFI. How many Class A pilots would be up in arms if RAA tried something like that. Yet they did that and more to Class D and nobody gives a rats a*** because it didn't affect them.

 

I hope that when the changes that are being proposed come out for member comment you all talk to anyone you know with a Class D to find out if the changes are what they need, then support them.

 

 

[Birdseye]

Aren't RAA flying school heavily regulated due to there propensity for cutting corners and history of running illegally? I have heard of RAA schools that do "scenic flights" under the guise of introductory lessons.

Strewth, where have you been for the past thirty years or so? GFA clubs have been doing that for years.

 

 

[David Taylor]

Kev, I hope that one day when I am finally flying I will get the opportunity to buy you a beer and say thanks for the passion that you have for the sport and the effort you are putting in to bring about change.

 

I truely hope that your educated and considered recommendations will get the fair hearing they deserve and the leadership dispell the concern that they are not working in the best interests of a growing number of their members.

 

Cheers

 

David

 

 

[kasper]

I think I might have misread the initial posting - I don't read that post as saying the CFI needed to be present but simply that the instructor has to be overseen/supervised by a CFI.

 

Within the RAA structure you have three basic levels of flying instructor - FI, SI and CFI. And ALL schools (or satellite schools) have to operate under the auspices of an approved CFI who is responsible for maintaining the level of instruction and providing the required facilities (teaching room, documentation etc)

 

So if you have found an instructor who is not a CFI and running a school then yep, he/she will have to operate under the auspices and supervision of a school and the CFI of that school.

 

As others have pointed out the RAA structure does allow a CFI and the instructor to be physically separate ... but if I were a CFI taking up an instructor I may not know anything about in terms of his/her background and teaching on the PPC I think I would like to have a fairly close look see at their instructing.

 

Me - I was in the past both an FI and SI in 3axis, and even though I am not currently working as an instructor the RAA biennials are ever so much fun because they are in effect treated like a reval on the instructor rating - so much so in fact that when I added weightshift to my RAA I had to have the full instructor reval as technically I could then go out and approach any CFI in an RAA school and get my instructor rating brought back on line with minimal examination ... and this would include instructing on weightshift as the instructor rating applies to all control types on my certificate ... I suppose I am one of the few 'instructors' out there with a technical ability to teach on the Balerit - I have combined controls on the cert ...

 

So I'm afraid I am on the side of the CFI here - if I was putting my butt and schools reputation on the line when approached by a student/instructor remote from my school with whom I have little knowledge I would be rather conservative and require actual physical oversight for at least a period until I was comfortable that the instructor was capable and trusted to operate in a way that fits with the school.

 

 

[Downunder]

Shouldn't the instructor go to the CFI/CFI's school to be passed out so to speak?

 

 

[kasper]

Shouldn't the instructor go to the CFI/Cfi's school to be passed out so to speak?

Not sure what you mean by passed out.

In the RAA structure any instruction has to be under a school - every school must have a CFI, if you hold an RAA instructor or senior instructor rating thats only step 1 - you cannot exercise the right to provide instruction other than through a school and under a CFI.

 

If by passing out you mean the instructor working with the CFI present to get passed by the CFI to then operate remotely that is exactly what the situation is for many remote/satellite schools and that is what I was getting at

 

If by passing out you mean the instructor gets permission from someone (RAA?) to operate on their own then that requires them to establish their own school and become a CFI in their own right ... hardly worth it for 1 student.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Kasper, prior to the review of the Op's manual last year there was a need for the instructor to be "supervised" by a CFI. This did not necessarily mean he had to be present at the time of the instructing but the instructor could go ahead with training with his knowledge and permission. This is the time that the Instructor i was talking about earlier had commenced and nearly finished his instructor rating.

 

When the new Op's manual was imposed on us all without any consultation the wording was changed to "directly supervised" and a definition included that "directly supervised" meant the CFI had to be physically present. Instantly his rating was reduced to worthless unless he could travel to the CFI to train students under supervision.

 

With only 7 Group D CFI's in Australia, and most being affiliated with one brand of PPC (and refusing to train anyone who owns another type) what do you think the chances of any more instructors coming through the ranks are. I am guessing almost NIL.

 

This type of aircraft doesn't need 100's of hours to be able to teach someone how to fly it, and if someone who is qualified as an Instructor is not good enough to instruct without direct supervision then we have a problem with how we train our instructors.

 

Group A will usually fly from a recognised airfield with other aircraft, clubs, flight schools etc attached to that field. Any instructor has a good chance of being able to be supervised. PPC's usually fly from some remote field away from most other air traffic, no flight schools and no CFI's. (dont forget there is still only 7 CFI's in Australia) RAA has now made sure the PPC's will die out without changes to allow more instructors to be trained. They cannot operate under the same instructor training regime as other aircraft.

 

 

[Downunder]

Thanks Kev, that explains it.

 

I thought that the instructor could instruct without the CFI being present but under the CFI's authority.

 

What a shambles.......

 

I got the impression that David's instructor was offering to instruct but couldn't make the effort to get a CFI's authorisation......obviously different to that now...

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

That is how it used to be Downunder, and no one had a problem because if the CFI knew the instructor was OK, he could authorise training flights by the instructor over the phone or any other way. RAA took away the ability of the CFI to determine an instructors ability and mandated he must be physically supervised until he has a SI rating. With PPC's this is almost impossible to do do why would anyone spend the time, effort or $$$ for a rating they cant use? The CFI's we currently have will not be around forever so the situation will only get worse. Unless we see major changes with RAA, I can actually see a time when PPC' owners will just not bother with rego and membership and just fly illegally. The chances of being caught are about the same as becoming an instructor.

 

EDIT: Those changes affected ALL aircraft groups so if you know of any instructor, of any class of RAA aircraft operating without "direct supervision" RAA has made it so they are operating illegally, and no one seemed to notice!!

 

 

[facthunter]

Kev , I'm not sure it's that recent, but a CFI can't exist unless there is an FTF for him/her to operate. Nev

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Nev, If you have an old copy of the Op's manual then compare it to the new one you will see the change. They added the definition of "directly supervised" and changed the wording in the Instructors responsibilities section from supervised to directly supervised. This did not exist in previous editions. If the wording was left as it was it would of been possible for Davids instructor to contact his CFI and provide details of his intended flights, pax, weather, area being used, etc, and his CFI could have authorised the training if he felt everything was OK. RAA has basically removed the ability of any CFI to determine if an instructor is competent to conduct training and imposed an unreasonable restriction on ALL instructors.

 

 

[facthunter]

I have no reason to doubt what you say. Seems more and more complexity and rules . It will kill it if they don't watch what they are doing. . Nev

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Sorry Nev forgot to add about the FTF. The only reason i can see a CFI is needed for PPC's is to train instructors. A BFR could be conducted by any other instructor, there is no valid reason an instructor could not authorise a first solo, pax endorsement, radio, etc, or make the recommendation for the issue of a pilot certificate. Unless of course RAA would like to admit we don't train our instructors properly so they NEED supervision

 

We get stuck in the thinking that PPC's should be the same as everything else because that is how it has always been. That doesn't mean it is right, or the best way for them to operate.

 

I have a FTF on my property. The CFI has not flown here or conducted training here since about December last year. He has other areas that are closer to him to use, a lot more convenient for him and his students. So you see even the requirement that a CFI have a registered FTF is not always practical and merely an exercise in satisfying the requirements just because they are there.

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper, prior to the review of the Op's manual last year there was a need for the instructor to be "supervised" by a CFI. This did not necessarily mean he had to be present at the time of the instructing but the instructor could go ahead with training with his knowledge and permission. This is the time that the Instructor i was talking about earlier had commenced and nearly finished his instructor rating.When the new Op's manual was imposed on us all without any consultation the wording was changed to "directly supervised" and a definition included that "directly supervised" meant the CFI had to be physically present. Instantly his rating was reduced to worthless unless he could travel to the CFI to train students under supervision.

 

With only 7 Group D CFI's in Australia, and most being affiliated with one brand of PPC (and refusing to train anyone who owns another type) what do you think the chances of any more instructors coming through the ranks are. I am guessing almost NIL.

 

This type of aircraft doesn't need 100's of hours to be able to teach someone how to fly it, and if someone who is qualified as an Instructor is not good enough to instruct without direct supervision then we have a problem with how we train our instructors.

 

Group A will usually fly from a recognised airfield with other aircraft, clubs, flight schools etc attached to that field. Any instructor has a good chance of being able to be supervised. PPC's usually fly from some remote field away from most other air traffic, no flight schools and no CFI's. (dont forget there is still only 7 CFI's in Australia) RAA has now made sure the PPC's will die out without changes to allow more instructors to be trained. They cannot operate under the same instructor training regime as other aircraft.

Yes and no I'm afraid.

Yes ops 7 has a definition of Direct Supervision (note the capital letters on both words)

 

No - Direct Supervision is not required by CFI of either instructors or senior instructors ... only supervision (no capitals)

 

Even though there is a capital S Supervision defined as

 

"Supervision The surveillance, assessment and correction of persons engaged in ground or flight training and associated operations. Supervision may be ‘direct’ in the presence of the supervisor or ‘indirect’ by the supervisor monitoring the operations through other persons, or means acceptable to RA-Aus."

 

this is not even applied in the operative sections of the Ops Man 7 pertaining to CFI oversight of instructors or senior instructors where they have forgotten (at best) to captialise to indicate its a defined term BUT even if it is supposed to be capitalised the definition of the tern Supervision directly allow for direct and indirect.

 

So No, even under OPs 7 there is no requirement for the instructor or senior instructor to be physically in the same area as the CFI for adequate and allowed supervision.

 

Hate the Ops Manual with a vengence for all the crap that is in it - on point Direct Supervision is defined ... then NEVER used in the entire damn ops manual

 

 

[kasper]

Oh and looking back through the Ops manual the instructor (not senior instructor) must be directly supervised (no capitals) so even on the greatest lenience towards the horrendous drafting only the instructor is ever limited to direct supervision - the senior instructor only has to be supervised - strangely the Ops manual is italics here ... even though the defined term is using a capital ... just another of the joys of the appalling drafting within the Ops manual.

 

So basic rule giving the drafting the best tailwind - instructors (those just starting out without the right to authorise first or solo flight) have to be actually surpervised by the CFI or suitably qualified and authorsied SIs ... once you are an SI you can authorised solos, operate remotely and do not need to be in the sight of the CFI.

 

No different from how it was when I went through in 1994 ... just with 21 years of additional crap drafting making it all the muddier to actually understand

 

 

[Garfly]

Meanwhile ... this was Picture of the Week on AvWeb this week:

 

http://www.avweb.com/gallery/Picture-of-the-Week-223802-1.html

 

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

My understanding is that the definition was included to stop the practice of a CFI being able to authorise an instructors flights over the phone/email without having to physically be there. I have no idea why they thought that was required or if that practice had caused any problems. I certainly have not heard of any. I don't know whose bright idea it was but they certainly didn't ask any Instructors or people who wanted to go down that path.

 

The real problem then kicks in of requiring a CFI supervision, but having only a handful of part time CFI's that can actually do it. The Instructor i mentioned previously took over two years and $12,000 to get a Class D instructor rating (and he tried damn hard) because the system is failing. He want to do a SI but is almost impossible for him to do.

 

I cant see the point in an instructor rating if they are not able to instruct without supervision.I can't think of one other qualification that says you are qualified to do a particular job, but only if someone else is looking over your shoulder. Certainly with a PPC, if you can fly it, can carry a pax and have an instructor rating I cant see the need for all the restrictions.

 

 

[kasper]

My understanding is that the definition was included to stop the practice of a CFI being able to authorise an instructors flights over the phone/email without having to physically be there. I have no idea why they thought that was required or if that practice had caused any problems. I certainly have not heard of any. I don't know whose bright idea it was but they certainly didn't ask any Instructors or people who wanted to go down that path.The real problem then kicks in of requiring a CFI supervision, but having only a handful of part time CFI's that can actually do it. The Instructor i mentioned previously took over two years and $12,000 to get a Class D instructor rating (and he tried damn hard) because the system is failing. He want to do a SI but is almost impossible for him to do.

 

I cant see the point in an instructor rating if they are not able to instruct without supervision.I can't think of one other qualification that says you are qualified to do a particular job, but only if someone else is looking over your shoulder. Certainly with a PPC, if you can fly it, can carry a pax and have an instructor rating I cant see the need for all the restrictions.

Think of the instructor rating within the RAA regime more along the lines of the half way between L plate and P plate for drivers ... you have demonstrated the ability to instruct in theory and by getting the initial qualification - once you have demonstrated the ability to correctly assess real live students abilities and provide correct recommendations to your CFI of the proficiency of the student you can step up to the SI level.

 

Please ignore and break the thought link of GA instructors - Class A, B, C, or D class means nothing in terms of the RAA system, yes it pisses off GA instructors that they have to go back through hoops to get recognized as RAA and then go through the process of stepping up from I to SI - but that is the structure and it is a progressive structure that gives you more authority the more steps you follow through with. So maybe you can't see the point of an RAA instructor rating - others can and see where that rating sits within the structure of the RAA.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I think the idea of needing the CFI to physically be at the airfield and watching is a stupid idea. When I did my certificate my instructor could do it all being on his own and then I just needed a check flight with the CFI before my solo and for my final sign off, I think that is a much more sensible idea as it gets the CFI in the loop before I am sent on my own but let's the instructor teach without having to have the CFI present for the majority.

 

As Kev has said all this setup is doing is forcing illegal flying and is detrimental to safety not helping it.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

And here my friends is yet another fine example of how the RAAus has stuffed up what should or was a fun simple form of aviating.

 

Pseudo GA in all it's regulatory glory.

 

Trained instructors can't be trusted to work unsupervised and have to have their hand held by someone whose other hand is in the poor students pocket.

 

Just another piece of rot to be cut out that is a left over of the old mates team.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I understand the ratings and their various restrictions. In 3 axis this may be the best setup. My whole point has been that a PPC with 3 basic controls, a throttle and two steering lines is so basic and easy that being absorbed into the 3 axis training regime is killing the sport. Individually, each problem with the Op's Manual is not a major issue, BUT put them all together and we have a limited ability to train new students, almost no ability to train instructors, and an almost impossibility to obtain a SI or CFI rating.

 

You also might find it interesting that as far as I am aware none of the Group D CFI's actually operating now completed the whole training package as set by RAA. All have had previous experiences and done a conversion to PPC's with minimal hours/training on a PPC. If you can get a Group D CFI approval with only a few of hours in a PPC, it shows it's not that hard!

 

As a group we are pushing hard for needed change and hope RAA can see the need for it. They are currently investigating the issues for a review of the Op's Manual so I hope they can make what is considered significant change for the better.

 

 

[kasper]

So what really is the issue?

 

The syllabus for Group D being not what you like?

 

The structure of Instructor training within the RAA?

 

The fact that there are few are far between group D CFIs?

 

A bit of everything adding up to making it difficult to grow this area of RAA aircraft?

 

If its the syllabus then the CFIs and Instructors can and appear to be feeding into the ops manual for its amendment

 

If its the fact that we have Instructors who are effectively on training wheel until they have actually instructed real live students then its a more fundamental issue - regardless of what new instructors might think the structure we have was designed for clubs and low regulation as the actual instructor training is not the same as GA and the graduated stepped approach is lower cost and lower regulation - and to change the entire structure of instructor training and operations within the RAA for a small sector of the aircraft population when that would be a massive change from the CASA perspective is really just not likely to happen.

 

If its a lack of CFIs then its a question of what drives this - overly or difficult training or in reality the fact that the form of flying is limited in appeal and not the direction where flying schools can earn money

 

And if its a bit of everything then take your pick of where to start.