Why is it so hard to become a PPC pilot ?

[facthunter]

The commencing new instructor is on steep learning curve as the requirements for that position are fairly minimal. It is reasonable that the CFI will mentor the new instructor and will have a major impact on how well he/she turns out, eventually, and how safe the period of consolidation and learning will be for both the instructor and the affected students.

 

Even IF the new instructor is possessed of a lot of air experience across a broad range of types, it is still likely that situations pupils will place the aircraft in will come as something of a surprise on occasions and a high level of skill will be needed to know and assess how far the situation can be allowed to deteriorate before taking over and recovering the situation.

 

It's also possible for instructors to develop some "quirky" techniques, that some oversight might be required to control.

 

One frequently hears difficulties of moving from one instructor to another where a different approach is demanded, putting the student to unnecessary stress. While different styles are fine the basics should not be at much divergence. Nev

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Gosh where do i start. Firstly we have to recognise the PPC and a 3 axis are totally different in level of complexity and safety. There is absolutely no reason they should be operated under the same levels of regulations or even the same Op's manual. To continue to do so is just laziness or an unwillingness to recognise the differences.

 

RAA mandates 20hrs minimum to pilot certificate. Have a look at the Training manual for 3 axis and compare to the PPC syllabus and try and convince me they would take a similar time frame to complete. Most PPC pilots will be solo in 3-4 hours and suitably proficient for a PC in 10-12 hrs. The remaining time is often just flown off doing some circuit work or XC flights to make the 20. This is at a cost to the student of an instructor where is is not really needed. (A PPC cert from one large company will cost you $4000 if you buy new one of their PPC's, if you already have one it will cost $7000. If you own a different brand, they will not train you)

 

The hours needed before being able to apply for an instructor rating was increased to 100 in the last Op's update. That may be suitable for a 3 axis but 75 was more than enough for a PPC. An additional 75 hours under a CFI before being able to apply for SI is again excessive for such a simple, safe aircraft and additionally unachievable with only 7 CFI's in the country. We don't need to train for stalls, spins, unusual attitudes, training for engine outs is pretty much the same as any other landing. I could go on but the training and supervision an instructor might need could easily be accomplished in 20 hrs. (if the CFI's were there)

 

An instructor, SI or CFI rating/approval is currently transferable to other groups with minimal instruction. (thats how we got all our CFI's) but it doesn't have to be. By making the system more appropriate for PPC it would be easy to make a PPC rating/approval non transferable, easing all your worries about a PPC instructor getting a group A pilot certificate and starting to instruct on that type.

 

My basic point is that changing the rules to suit PPC operations does not mean it has to apply to all aircraft. Making the changes to the manuals as we have always done, by including all aircraft groups is just lazy and ill-informed.

 

Anyone with a sound knowledge of PPC operations could have a new draft Ops manual ready for 'presentation to the Board and member comment in a week. All without making changes to the operations of any other class of aircraft. All it takes it the will to do so.

 

 

[kasper]

Gosh where do i start. Firstly we have to recognise the PPC and a 3 axis are totally different in level of complexity and safety. There is absolutely no reason they should be operated under the same levels of regulations or even the same Op's manual. To continue to do so is just laziness or an unwillingness to recognise the differences.RAA mandates 20hrs minimum to pilot certificate. Have a look at the Training manual for 3 axis and compare to the PPC syllabus and try and convince me they would take a similar time frame to complete. Most PPC pilots will be solo in 3-4 hours and suitably proficient for a PC in 10-12 hrs. The remaining time is often just flown off doing some circuit work or XC flights to make the 20. This is at a cost to the student of an instructor where is is not really needed. (A PPC cert from one large company will cost you $4000 if you buy new one of their PPC's, if you already have one it will cost $7000. If you own a different brand, they will not train you)

 

The hours needed before being able to apply for an instructor rating was increased to 100 in the last Op's update. That may be suitable for a 3 axis but 75 was more than enough for a PPC. An additional 75 hours under a CFI before being able to apply for SI is again excessive for such a simple, safe aircraft and additionally unachievable with only 7 CFI's in the country. We don't need to train for stalls, spins, unusual attitudes, training for engine outs is pretty much the same as any other landing. I could go on but the training and supervision an instructor might need could easily be accomplished in 20 hrs. (if the CFI's were there)

 

An instructor, SI or CFI rating/approval is currently transferable to other groups with minimal instruction. (thats how we got all our CFI's) but it doesn't have to be. By making the system more appropriate for PPC it would be easy to make a PPC rating/approval non transferable, easing all your worries about a PPC instructor getting a group A pilot certificate and starting to instruct on that type.

 

My basic point is that changing the rules to suit PPC operations does not mean it has to apply to all aircraft. Making the changes to the manuals as we have always done, by including all aircraft groups is just lazy and ill-informed.

 

Anyone with a sound knowledge of PPC operations could have a new draft Ops manual ready for 'presentation to the Board and member comment in a week. All without making changes to the operations of any other class of aircraft. All it takes it the will to do so.

So having a single core structure with seperate training syllabus for groups - a structure that allows relatively low overhead admin by the RAA is 'just lazy and ill-informed' ?

Hmm, so from what I gather:

 

- the fact that there is a separate Group D syllabus is not enough

 

- the fact that a company making PPCs will only train on their own PPCs is annoying

 

- the fact that 20 hrs is required is annoying

 

- the fact that instructors within RAA need to be trained beyond the minimum for Group D (in your opinion) because our minimal oversight and control system allows transfer between groups on minimal fuss is annoying

 

So basically the RAA is annoying to you - right?

 

Well if the RAA is in fact not fit for purpose for PPC - fine... there is nothing stopping the PPC community from setting up their own separate organisation and becoming under CASA approval a training organisation that caters solely to the PPC community ... probably will not happen because despite the aircraft type existing for over 30 years it has never reached a size that supports the level of basic admin and oversight that a CASA approved organisation demands.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I think most would agree our current manuals, particularly the Op's are a dogs breakfast. This is what we get from allowing our organisation to change things as they see fit without sufficient oversight. They all keep telling us how widely they consult but very few know about it until it happens. Just how good could the manuals be if the constitution was amended to require a review at a minimum of every 12 months and ALL changes, were advertised, explained and approved/disallowed by the membership vote? (mandatory regulatory changes would not need a vote but still an explaination.) We might then even get some input from members with real knowledge and experience.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Kasper, I should state right now that most, if any of those changes will not affect me. I have been flying a PPC for 7 years quite happily. If RAA makes no changes i will not lose any sleep. But for PPC's to continue at the growth rate we have seen the last few years change must happen. You only have to read the first post to see the problems encountered by anyone wanting to enter into the simplest form of aviation RAA administer.

 

Yes there is a training sylabus for PPC's but all they did was carry over some requirements from the other syllabus without any real thought as to if it was suitable. They had no idea of how a PPC operates, so just made it the same as everything else. So yes, that is just lazy.

 

It is not that these issues are annoying. The real questions is, are the current rules suitable to be able to train new pilots and allow that class of aircraft to grow. My view (and the view of many other PPC pilots) is NO.

 

 

[kasper]

Well it comes down to scale in the end.

 

RAA has in Australia 185 3axis schools, 17 weightshift schools and 8 PPC schools.

 

Yes, the RAA has been less than consultative on changes to the Ops manual, Yes the Ops manual is a complete dogs breakfast of drafting inconsistencies, BUT the Ops manager has said the Ops manual is now on a 6mthly update cycle and is open to approaches - if the 8 PPC CFIs and the associated instructors want change to the syllabus then its up to them to drive it forward. But the elephant in the room is that the Ops manual has to be approved by CASA ... any change to the overall student requirements for PPC to make them fundamentally different in duration from the other two types will require strong supporting evidence to justify the change or CASA will just say no.

 

I'm afraid the most viable way forward is likely to be slice by slice - work on adjusting the group d syllabus to reflect the current best practice for instruction, then gather evidence that to complete these required syllabus is substantially less than 20 hours then look at the issue of instructors ... but I can tell you that getting the instructor overall structure changed is a fundamentally different challenge from looking at changes to the group d syllabus and pilot requirements.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Finally can agree on something!! That's exactly what we are doing at the moment. Unfortunately with only a handful of CFIs who are probably busy doing what they do best, little for recommending change has come from them but is being driven by the Pilots themselves. If we had not seen the growth that we have in the last few years this problem would not be the issue it is now.

 

How great would it be if RAA approached those other 200 flight school CFI's with an offer to subsidise their few hours required to become certified for PPC's. Very quickly another possible 200 PPC CFI's available and most of the immediate issues disappear. With more aircraft coming on the register and more pilot members, could be money well spent!

 

 

[kasper]

Finally can agree on something!! That's exactly what we are doing at the moment. Unfortunately with only a handful of CFIs who are probably busy doing what they do best, little for recommending change has come from them but is being driven by the Pilots themselves. If we had not seen the growth that we have in the last few years this problem would not be the issue it is now.How great would it be if RAA approached those other 200 flight school CFI's with an offer to subsidise their few hours required to become certified for PPC's. Very quickly another possible 200 PPC CFI's available and most of the immediate issues disappear. With more aircraft coming on the register and more pilot members, could be money well spent!

Creative but not viable ...

If the RAA were to use my member money to support a commercial operation by funding the expansion of their their skill set to grow their business into a new market I would be demanding RAA heads on plates - its either viable as a business in which case the CFI could see the value in doing it themselves or its not viable.

 

Even if the RAA were to help between 1 and 200 CFIs to get qualified on group d that does not mean that up to 200 new schools instantly open up ... who is going to fund and maintain up to 200 PPCs in these schools, the RAA?

 

If the 8 CFIs don't take time to input into the changes deemed necessary for the group d syllabus then they really by implication are saying that either the syllabus is OK or they are so run off their feet with business they can't do it ... in which case some of the SIs who are PPC should be seeing a market opportunity and becoming CFIs and opening new PPC schools.

 

Creative as it may seem to get the RAA to fund the expansion of an area of RAA training the 'market' for training is both commercial and quite mature - if it were truly viable then people will move into the market ... clearly it is not.

 

Equally I would love to see more weighshift schools - means my next BFR which must be in WS could be less than 4 hours drive from home but the number of schools and their locations is basically function of overall demand and where the demand is coming from ... I am away from the coast and not near a capital city - can't expect everything to be on my doorstep and that's the facts I face.

 

 

[Diddy Pilot]

I have found this thread very interesting and informative.

 

I would love to add a PPC endorsement to my Pilot’s Certificate. I have never flown in a PPC but have stood earthbound staring up with envy as I have watched others.

 

Being a pilot I have learned a lot about flight and had to demonstrate my competency in the required range of topics for three axis aircraft (BAK, Air Law, Radio, Human Factors, Meteorology, Air Navigation etc). Having completed a parachuting course (many years ago now though) and regularly flying from an airfield shared with parachute ops I understand the principles of managing and steering a canopy. It would therefore be logical for me to assume that it would not be difficult for me to do some sort of abridged or cross-over training.

 

Like many recreational pilots I drool over the classified ads on this website and in Sport Pilot (my wife even refers to it as Aviation Porn). Like most of us I dream of owning my own aircraft or at least finding a way to spend less to fly. When I see powered parachutes coming up for sale with a trailer to transport and store (no hanger fees) and prices lower than most fixed wing, my interest grows even more. I look at the prospect of owning my own aircraft which I can fly from a paddock, not have to drive over a hundred kilometres to my nearest airfields, book an aircraft to hire and pay as much for one hour as I might get a whole morning’s flying my own PPC.

 

So far all dreams look good. So what do I do? The original post whilst sounding extreme, does reasonably explain some of the frustrations. With so few training facilities and the restrictions in place requiring a CFI present seriously hamper dreams. If we only have eight PPC CFIs nationally, does this mean that we might literally only have a handful of students training on any given weekend (assuming all CFIs are working, training in PPC and not following other pursuits, family or aircraft type). At this level a single Flight Training Facility (FTF — Flying School) would struggle to be viable. This would not be sustainable across the entire sport.

 

As each new pilot is finally certified, he/she also represents less training time available in the future for another student. Okay only couple of hours every two years for a BFR but, 100 pilots each booking a BFR in a year with the one CFI, takes that CFI out of action for maybe a quarter of the flying time on a weekend (recognising that many can only commit to training on a weekend). If weather and availability of hired aircraft are factored in then the availability is even less.

 

Aerochute Kev makes a very good suggestion above, that existing CFIs (perhaps even SIs?? After all many SIs are excellent experienced instructors it is only the fact that a FTF only has one CFI that they are not recognised at the higher level) be offered the opportunity to complete some cross training in order to enable them to conduct some PPC training. Even if this is just to enable an owner pilot to take their PPC to the local CFI (maybe only an hour or two away rather than drive interstate or for half a day) in order to hope that the planets align and one of the eight PPC CFIs has good weather at his FTF and he has time available to conduct the BFR. If a CFI is trying to encourage business at his/her FTF, the introduction of PPC training (with the on-sell of a three axis endo afterwards) might be a good business move. The costs would not be as high as having to purchase another 24 registered 3-axis aircraft for training.

 

The Operations Manual needs some review specifically around PPC qualifications and the training requirements. The Manual belongs to the Association, and the Association is us (largely, I do recognise not all members on this site are RA Aus members), so some constructive lobbying and offers of assistance in review/ redrafting might be the best move forward. When you look at the names of the CFI’s for PPCs there are some who have held office with RA Aus, they have previously managed to earn the respect of members in their State to lobby for and represent them. Whether still on the board or not as CFIs they should still hold sway with the Association executive as advocates of the PPC membership; hopefully they can put the best interests of the sport ahead of any perceived personal benefit through the monopoly held by this select group.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I will openly admit it is creative, maybe someone has to be. If you look at the current situation of the difficulties in many PPC pilots even getting a BFR, something similar to that would at least allow many to stay current and legal. The school would not need to buy a PPC unless they wanted to. Could even train students on their own aircraft.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Sorry, got called out and couldn't finish the previous post.

 

We have thousands of members and still have problems getting people to stand up and be counted. When you have only a handful of CFI's it is not surprising. Add into the mix that they have very little to gain if they are already training as much as they want/need to it is not surprising they have not led the way. The CFI's are not the font of all knowledge and i am sure there are many people capable of driving change.

 

I could equally be upset on the amount of time/resources RAA spends on chasing things like CTA access only good for the high end of the market but it is not about that. It is about investing in the growth of the organisation. If one class of aircraft is showing large potential growth but the organisation cant handle it I can't see why investing in that area with potential good returns is a bad thing. It doesn't need to be a subsidy for ratings, but it needs to be SOMETHING.

 

P Diddy, glad you are enjoying the thread. Next time you find yourself admiring those PPC's go have a chat to them and check out the machines. They are really just there to have some fun and often won't mind sharing a flight. Never know, it might just get you hooked!! (Hope you can find an instructor if you do.)

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Why it is so hard to become a PPC pilot? It has a lot to do with the PPC itself I would have thought. It is very much more weather dependent than 3 axis. Therefore, many more cancelled lessons. The PPC instructor must really be doing it for the love of it and must be doing something else to earn a living. On top of that PPCs are not welcome at many airfields. They are very slow, quite noisy and the noise stays around longer. Many don't have radio. It would be hard for PPCs to fit into a busy 3 axis or GA airport.

 

I agree that they should be looked at very differently to 3 axis. There is a very good case to simplify the training and instruction requirements. As others have said, this has to be driven by the PPC community. No one else is going to do it, many may support it however. I have been up a couple of times in a PPC and while it is fun it is far too restrictive for me, but I hope you guys can lobby RAAus to change things.

 

Our country is probably too large to ever have enough PPC instructors within a couple of hours drive for everyone. Perhaps the answer could be for the PPC community to set up a central PPC flying school in the best area for the conditions required for PPC flying. One company has for their product. However you need the numbers to make it work.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

The weather is just one more thing that can have a large bearing on the ability to train. Most instructors would probably not train a new student with wind above 8kts. Unfortunately that is probably the only thing we cant change.

 

I can assure you it is being driven by the PPC community and the good news is that the current Board and Management have been very approachable on this issue and started the ball rolling on a review. That would have been a lot more difficult not so long ago. Only time will tell if the changes we recommended will be acceptable.

 

I haven't been banging on here just to have a whine (the process has already started) but because sooner or later any proposed changes will come out for member comment and if no one knows of the issues they are not likely to support them. I don't know if it will go out to only PPC pilots for comment or everyone, but if we wait until then and it goes to everyone it will be too late to inform the general membership of the issues standing in the way of the future growth of PPC's in Australia..

 

 

[Cosmick]

There is a difference in the skill required. I started group D and then converted to Group A at around 15hrs with Zane Tully. I can tell you its chalk and cheese. Converting from A to D would only require 5hrs max. There is a difference and hence being a different Group can have different requirements.

 

 

[David Taylor]

Crickey, I started this thread out of frustration, and quite frankly I'm still frustrated by your system, however at least I have a better understanding of it.

 

Timing is everything they say, by the sound of it, if I was trying to enter the sport before the new Ops manual came out it would have been easier, I could have begun my instruction if my instructor had the sign off of a CFI without him actually having to be there until my final solo flight. That would have to make it easier. Why was this changed ?

 

Thanks Kasper, for helping me understand the system even though it sounds like there is some confusion around the rules. I may still be confused on one issue, is it correct that the person I would like to teach me with many years of experience flying PPCs or a person like Kev who I believe also has many years of experience can't teach me, however theoretically if you were still teaching, in your capacity as a GA SI you could have done 5 hr crossover and taught me to fly a PPC ? I have no doubt you would have done a great job please excuse me for using you as an example ( I don't know of any other SI that I could use ) however if that is the case isnt that strange ?

 

Kev, you really are a champion for the PPC community and I suppose I am biased but I agree with your thoughts, I have very little knowledge of this sport having only recently been introduced to it and from reading all I can about it whenever I can since then, but I do know this. In January I took a trial flight in a powered parachute, it was a 25 minute flight that was given to me as a present by my daughter for a Christmas present. I knew nothing of the machine or flying before sitting in it for the flight, as part of that trial I was allowed to take control, I landed it, ( touch down ) took off flew around and then finally landed it. Yes I had the instructor right there to take over if things didn't go right, but he didn't have to, quite frankly it wasnt that hard. The weather was perfect, so I don't think for a minute that I could safely go out and fly without instruction and a good understanding of weather, wind. Shear, rotors, thermals etc which I will come as part of my instruction. The reason I was so taken by this sport was the simplicity and safety record of this type of flying. I was bewildered to learn this has been around for 20 + years and virtually no one I have spoken to about my experience knows about it, how about this, of the people I have told of my experience there are a number that would like to try it

 

Is it part of the charter of the RA Aus to promote safe flight ?

 

I believe powered parachutes have a future, from what I can see, safer and more sophisticated PPCs are becoming available, making the safest sector of flying even safer. Given a chance and not killed off by restrictive regulations, this sport can be the vehicle for myself and many others to make a safe achievable entry to the world of flight

 

Once again thanks for all of the people with enough passion for your sport to contribute, it demonstrates at least to me the power of these forums, I have learnt something and take some encouragement from Kevs passion of the sport and words that the new board of RA Aus may be more open to considering this sector as an opportunity and I along with many others can actually join you soon as flyers.

 

Cheers

 

David

 

 

[facthunter]

My comments have been more related to 3 axis. Are PPC's that easy? Basically they may be, but I have seen some pretty impressive antics performed with them that would require some extra training, and the initial take off run must have some aspects to it if the wind is variable, that need special attention, and you would want some special considerations landing in trees/ shrub if you were forced to.

 

I can well concede that this wouldn't take a large number of hours all up. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

David,

 

Responses to specific issues:

 

"Timing is everything they say, by the sound of it, if I was trying to enter the sport before the new Ops manual came out it would have been easier, I could have begun my instruction if my instructor had the sign off of a CFI without him actually having to be there until my final solo flight. That would have to make it easier. Why was this changed ?"

 

It has not really changed. The basic starting out instructor - called an Instructor - has always been required to be directly supervised by the CFI and has never had the authority to authorize first or subsequent solo flight. Ops 6 had this in 2.08(3):

 

 

"I may still be confused on one issue, is it correct that the person I would like to teach me with many years of experience flying PPCs or a person like Kev who I believe also has many years of experience can't teach me, however theoretically if you were still teaching, in your capacity as a GA SI you could have done 5 hr crossover and taught me to fly a PPC ? I have no doubt you would have done a great job please excuse me for using you as an example ( I don't know of any other SI that I could use ) however if that is the case isnt that strange ?"

 

On this one I am subject to correction as this is the situation only as I know it from being an instructor previously and running both my RAA and GA logbooks - No, A GA instructor cannot instruct in group D. In fact GA time allowances for RAA flight is pretty clear on this one, Group A counts towards GA time, Groups B, C, D and F time do not count. In fact a GA instructor cannot fly an RAA registered aircraft on the GA licence - they MUST become RAA pilot certificate holders and fly the RAA aircraft on that and not their GA ... result it that no GA instructor can, without being at the same time an RAA instructor, give instruction in RAA aircraft.

 

"Is it part of the charter of the RA Aus to promote safe flight ?"

 

Yes, that's why we have pilot certificates, trained instructors and BFRs etc. It appears that the issue is that there are too few CFIs sand SIs in PPC and there is unhappiness with the Group D syllabus

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

To be honest Facthunter, it really is that easy. More than a few have taken a TIF to see how it works and how to set up then gone and just done the rest themselves in some remote area. The hardest part is the paperwork and learning the rules/law etc. If you already had a RAA cert I would be surprised if you really needed much more than a couple of hours to be ready for PC.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Nev, if you would like to PM me your email address I would like to send you a copy of our newsletter with an artical on how one guy learnt to fly an Aerochute. You may find it interesting.

 

 

[David Taylor]

G'day Facthunter, it looks like Kevs going to send you some information on the ease of flight of the powered parachute, for my own part I have had to flight I described and another one in a different machine, have read all I can get my hands on and everything points to these craft being the safest and due to the feature that differentiates powered parachutes from other types of flight ( the pendulum effect ) of being suspended below the wing as opposed attached to it makes them very stable. You are right that taking off in variable winds is potentially a problem for these craft and it is recommended they be flown in the appropriate wind conditions. Hitting trees would be a problem, I suppose that manoeuvre would also be a problem for your type of craft, I would just hit them slower.

 

 

[David Taylor]

Kasper, I thought I had read that there had been a change to the wording of the Ops manual in the new version, perhaps I got this wrong, I don't have copies of the different ops manuals to compare. Thinking about it if it was easier in the past for people to be trained and instructors developed into SI and CFI then we wouldn't be having this debate now. It seems to me that if an instructor was allowed to provide the instruction without direct supervision of a CFI until the solo flight It would make it at least possible for someone to get off the ground.

 

On the second issue I wasn't suggesting that a GA instructor could just teach me to fly PPC, perhaps I have misunderstood however I thought I had read that a GA SI or CFI could gain a PPC endorsement which would then allow them to train in PPC

 

And yes I agree there are not enough PPC SI and CFI in the system to allow the sport to grow and I truely hope changes are made to allow the development of more FI, SI and CFI in this sport.

 

Perhaps PPC being a different type of craft than others in the flying world ie suspended below the wing as opposed to attached to it and being a safer and easier type of flying to master, that they be treated differently in terms of their instruction regime to other aircraft

 

As I have said before, scuba diving has as many if not more inherent dangers than flying a PPC albeit there are dangers involved still in this type of flying. However the diving industry 30 years ago realised that to grow their industry they needed more instructors and the sport has grown exponentially

 

There needs to be for PPC a pathway for people to be introduced to the sport, learn to fly, gain experience and endorsements toward an examination to become an instructor that is deemed sufficient to allow confidence that that person can then instruct people to become PPC pilots. Without third party supervision which in this industry at least for this sport which is not carried out at an airport is a barrier to entry. In the diving industry the instructor can then become an instructor in different endorsements like advanced diving, night diving, cave diving, wreck diving etc until they become a master instructor

 

There is a clear path to encourage people into the sport and to encourage them to go on and gain more experience and higher levels of competence

 

cheers

 

David

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

David, CFIs did provide supervision remotely prior to the change of installing a definition of direct supervision. That now means the CFI must be present. That was not there before and some deemed supervision by phone direct contact with the instructor.

 

 

[David Taylor]

Thanks Kev, I thought I had read that, I wonder why I was changed ? Apart from my opinion that this sport should ba able to develop instructors with enough competency to instruct by them selves with no supervision, at least with only supervision of my solo flight I could have at least started my instruction. As it stands with this new change I presently only have one option to be taught currently and that is to go to Aerochute and get trained, they must be loving it. My only problem is I have looked around and want to fly a Steelbreeze, I just think it is a safer, better built craft and this system is forcing me to Aerochute. It's got to change

 

 

[kasper]

David, CFIs did provide supervision remotely prior to the change of installing a definition of direct supervision. That now means the CFI must be present. That was not there before and some deemed supervision by phone direct contact with the instructor.

So Ops 6 had this:

 

Ops 7 has this:

 

 

Show me where there is a material difference in terms of the requirement to observe the person under Direct Supervision?

 

A CFI has had the requirement of Direct Supervision over Instructors under Ops 6 and it continues under Ops 7 in fundamentally the same manner.

 

I really worry that people are getting all worked up over Ops 7 being a big bugbear here - the fundamental structure of instructor ratings and the privileges and oversight requirements within and between personnel in RAA flight schools has NOT changed.

 

The main change is that the aeronautical experience to become an instructor increased from 75 to 100 hours minimum ... not a big change really.

 

So back the PPC guys, other than not having enough schools around and not liking the group D syllabus WHY is it fundamentally different to instruct in PPC from other forms? Yes they are easy to fly (I do parachute so I do know how to 'fly' a ram air wing) but the fact that you need to understand ALL the regs and be able to instruct in that, you need to understand the structure and operation of the aircraft and instruct in all of that is still there for a PPC.

 

Other than saying you can get to a level of competence in PPC in less than 100hrs I can;t see that there is a compelling reason to redesign the overall instructor regime within RAA - I would say focus on getting the PPC CFIs engaged on syllabus redevelopment for Group D and if there really is a 'market' demand how about any of the PPC pilots out there with 100hrs+ go and become instructors yourself, work rapidly through to SI and then go and become CFIs of your own schools or open satellite schools under existing CFIs - if there is demand you as a group need to fill it

 

 

[David Taylor]

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 observe

 

OBSERVE

 

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