Why is it so hard to become a PPC pilot ?

[turboplanner]

inherent stability, can't stall or spin.

This is what you were telling people David, and it's simply not true.

 

It's all very well to dismiss each accident as you did - we all know exactly what went wrong when we see the videos and get the reports, but I'd suggest that none of these people thought they were going to come unstuck.

 

It seems to me that the RAA approach may be in the better interest of the wider recreational aviation industry after all.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's a fair question and you have made a case for less hours. A willy willy will ruin the day for many 3 axis situations too. No doubt there may be some undesirable designs as there have been with Gyro's. They are certainly versatile and cheap and easily transported.. You can never know too much about your flying machine and any pilot at minimum hours in the ab initio stage has a lot to learn when he/she first gets their qualification. Nev

 

 

[David Taylor]

Turbo, I must write too slow, while I was responding to your first note, your other links came through, which identified some tragic fatalities. I can't tell what caused the first however that couple were very experienced, the second seemed to be influenced by modifications made to the chute. Whatever, they are accidents and we should all hope not to be involved in them.

 

I occurs to me though that you have posted all the accidents over many years from all around the world, just have a look at the RAA site accidents for this year alone and I think the point is made 3 axis vs PPC safety record

 

I still don't know why things can't change, the only reason seems to be because it is the way it is and it suits 3 axis so leave it as it is

 

Cheers

 

David

 

 

[facthunter]

There is the issue of whether extra hours of training would be a positive factor with these accidents. While you can generally state more is better, it might be harder to actually prove it is essential.

 

The 20 hours is certainly not excessive in the 3 axis.( In my view) Some of the accidents they have are certainly due to poor judgement and lack of handling skills. I have constantly pushed the recovery from unusual attitudes aspect (but this is not a factor for pendulous craft). Our treatment of stalls and recovery of 3 axis is lacking in depth also. Nev

 

 

[David Taylor]

Nev, there are different points of view that have been expressed on this and the PPCa forum and many from people with a lot more experience in this sport than me, personally I don't have a problem with doing 20 hrs to get my certificate if that what it takes to learn all of the things I need to know to fly safe. When I was a diving instructor, it would take around 20 hrs of instruction to teach someone the theory and practice to dive safely.

 

The issue critical to me because that is the issue preventing me from being able to start training, is the issue of a CFI having to be present to supervise my instructor. This requirement which may be fine if you are learning to fly a 3 axis from an airport, is not practicle for this sport. When and if I finally get airborne the ongoing requirement of having to coordinate the weather and 3 people to meet somewhere just to get a lesson is a barrier to entry to this sport that no one seems to be able to justify apart from, it's because that's the way it is for 3 axis

 

Cheers

 

David

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Turbo, with 13 of your examples being PPGs which you know are different I can only assume you are deliberately trying to mislead. If the media had printed that you would have been all over them.

 

 

[facthunter]

The basic philosophy is performance based assessment. Make an approach to have your case fully considered re the excess time required. Nev.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo, with 13 of your examples being PPGs which you know are different I can only assume you are deliberately trying to mislead. If the media had printed that you would have been all over them.

You can rationalise it however you like. PPG dymanics are similar enough to show that

 

This file which I put up a few posts ago has around 50 incidents listed including at least one fatal: www.part103.org/PPC/parakeys/ppc_adb.doc

 

If you want to promote a reduction in training standards, it would be better to do the research first, rather than get caught out by these embarrassing facts.

 

As a matter of interest, currently in Victoria it is mandatory for a learner drive to accumulate 120 hours before becoming eligible for a probationary licence.

 

PPC has its place in aviation, but don't over-sell it and screw things for the rest of us.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have constantly pushed the recovery from unusual attitudes aspect (but this is not a factor for pendulous craft).

In the material I put up there were at least two stalls shown on pendulous aircraft, where the pilot had got himself into a position where the result was an inevitable drop to the ground. The is another post somewhere of a pendulous aircraft developing a rocking pitch which progresses to a continuous head over heels tumble to a fatal conclusion. These things have a lot more moments than, say, a Gazelle, fortunately mostly near the ground, (where there's no chance of a recovery).

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

A paraglider wing is designed to be manipulated in the air to reduce surface area, change shape and angle of attack. This is completely different to a PPC wing which is not. With the exception of the Excitor which you can change angle of attack by a couple of degrees.

 

I guess your change to the phrase pendulum aircraft was to cover your mistake. If you build any aircraft with a wing AofA different to what it was designed for just to gain some speed do you think it makes all of them unsafe. Even the ones that were not modified.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

And nobody has proposed a reduction in training standards. The syllabus will remain the same.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No, if you read Facthunter's post you'll see it relates to that.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

If you want to promote a reduction in training standards, it would be better to do the research first, rather than get caught out by these embarrassing facts.

I believe that was your statement Turbo. If RAA accept our proposed changes it will have no effect on training standards at all. Not one change to shorten or modify the actual syllabus has been proposed. It will merely allow the CFI to decide when a prospective PPC pilot is ready for a pilot certificate. This is exactly as it is in 3 axis when the hours required are similar to what can be acheived by a good student. Most 3 axis will get their Certificate when the CFI thinks they should, not after a set time frame as PPC are currently doing.

 

I find it interesting the clips you posted are being used as a reason to not change the training hours when there is no reason to believe any of them are training related. People are killing themselves with extreme regularity in 3 axis but there is no call to INCREASE the training hours they do. Maybe because in most of those cases people are doing exactly what they were trained NOT to do. This is not a failure in the training, but a personal failure on their part to make good decisions.

 

I think we have provided ample explanations of why we think the hours required should be changed but none of the people against it have provided a reasonable explanation of why it should stay as it is now.

 

 

[Ferris]

Dave, firstly congratulations on the purchase of your aircraft. I hope it is everything you wished for and provides many hours of enjoyment. I can see your frustration at finding an instructor and your comparison to the diving industry. Both are absolutely fantastic sports. The biggest difference between the regulation of the diving industry and aviation is that diving is governed by an industry code of conduct. That code is stongly enforced by all operators and there is no real penalty if I go for a dive without the relevant qualification. RAA on the other hand are governed by a government overseer in an industry that is tightly regulated. A coroner once described aviation rules as being "an almost incomprehensible legal framework." The only area of Australian life with more rules is taxation, and we all know how much that is hated. My point is that, while these rules are often unworkable the RAA has to comply no matter how difficult this makes it for you. At the end of the day, CASA has no interest in growing the sport and therefore no incentive to simplify the rules. David you have obviously done your research and would seem to be meticulous and very responsible. On the other hand, I have seen somebody turn up at the airport with an old trike he bought on line, and it was these rules that kept this fool from killing himself or somebody else. Sadly most of the rules in aviation have been written in blood, and there may well be a good reason for them. Incidentally I have had to work similar rules, and they all seem to cost lots of money. I share your frustration, and just look back and say well that $5000 could have been better spent elsewhere, but at least I am flying, and I know I'm a safe pilot.

 

 

[turboplanner]

A paraglider wing is designed to be manipulated in the air to reduce surface area, change shape and angle of attack. This is completely different to a PPC wing which is not. With the exception of the Excitor which you can change angle of attack by a couple of degrees.I guess your change to the phrase pendulum aircraft was to cover your mistake. If you build any aircraft with a wing AofA different to what it was designed for just to gain some speed do you think it makes all of them unsafe. Even the ones that were not modified.

See post #112

 

 

[turboplanner]

And nobody has proposed a reduction in training standards. The syllabus will remain the same.

You could have fooled me:

 

“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.“ AK #52

 

"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." AK #81

 

"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." AK #84

 

That coupled with statements that PPCs can't stall etc. are what prompted me to post the facts out there in the flying world.

 

Drop those statements and I don't have a problem.

 

It does seem odd that an instructor needs to be physically supervised by a CFI, however no one has posted about the history, and why this has occurred. It may well have been that instruction was out of control and someone made a permanent decision to modify their behaviour, but screwed up by making it a permanent change. This is where Certificate IV which includes both training a student, and being qualified to assess that the student has absorbed the training provides the full protocol to allow an Instructor to operate without hour by hour supervision. Maybe there's just an error there that needs to be corrected.

 

 

[David Taylor]

Turbo are you suggesting that adding a cert4 in training and assessment to the syllabus required to become an instructor would then allow them to instruct without direct supervision ?

 

 

[David Taylor]

Thanks for your explanation Ferris, I wonder if it has to be that complicated, I don't believe that an over complicated system delivers better results, however they must know what they are doing.

 

I think the issue is that they have PPCs which I still believe in my assesment of the information that I have seen, and read including that put up by Turbo, PPC is different to fixed wing 3 axis aircraft and they are not paragliders either.

 

They should have a different classification to those aircraft, a training syllabus to suit and we then have a win for all, the 3 axis guys can have their current standards, The PPC sport can grow, RAA becomes a more financial organisation.

 

All we need to understand is what stops this from happening ? Anyone know

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Turbo, I think you may be reading into it things that are just not there. Where does it say that we are looking for changes to ANY element of the syllabus. Those statements are accurate. The syllabus as it is in the RAA training manual will not change. If the time that almost all students can complete the syllabus and the CFI deems are ready for a pilot certificate is significantly less than the mandated hours required, then the hours are obviously WRONG!!

 

Unfortunately I have seen very few facts in your posts that relate to PPC's.

 

David, there is an element to the instructor training which is titled Principles and Methods of Instruction. Supposedly a shortened and non certified version of the Cert 4. All instructor candidates must complete the PMI component or have recognition of prior learning for a similar or higher experience/qualification.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo are you suggesting that adding a cert4 in training and assessment to the syllabus required to become an instructor would then allow them to instruct without direct supervision ?

You couldn't be as lucky as that. What is important is to know how this came about and why. RAA may already know.

 

 

[David Taylor]

It seems to me that the reason that a sport that should be to the RAA, an opportunity to grow your numbers and therefore a benefit to all members is being restricted by a thinking that the sport of flying a PPC is far more dangerous than it is.

 

Maybe there is an element of "if we keep more people out of his sport the more special we are " going on in a few of you

 

No sport with an element of excitement doesn't have an element of risk, horse riding, snow skiing, scuba diving, motor bike sports and many more.

 

I wasn't attracted to the sport of PPC for thrills. If I want trills I can night dive, cave dive, penetrate a wreck or dive with sharks

 

I wanted to fly a PPC with my partner as a , relatively safe, enjoyable activity that we could enjoy together. The idea of the flyins, getting together with other people in the sport and exploring different areas of the country is was also attractive.

 

Sadly I am learning that -

 

I can't start training unless I travel interstate, or pay a company in my state $7000 to learn to fly a type of machine that I have chosen not to buy.

 

The reason I can't be trained by my instructor who has many years of PPC experience is because the RAA who has the responsibility to look after this sport has taken the easy way out and lumped PPC with the training requirement of 3 axis aircraft which have no resemblance.

 

I could have decided to learn to scuba dive, gained my open water scuba diving certificate gone on to gain open water experience and gained my advanced open water diver certificate since I decided I would like to take up this sport and I am still sitting here wondering when I can start or whether when my trailer is finished whether I just put the whole lot up for sale and leave it to the geniuses

 

 

[kasper]

David,

 

Well I find it strange that it will cost $7,000 to train in Vic ... for what every one who flies them says you'll definitely get then licence in the minimum 20 hours ... That's an average of $350/hr ... if PPC can get away with charing that much I'm amazed there are not CFIs lining up around the block to add it to their school.

 

Now the fact that Aerochute only train in their own aircraft ... strange that, a manufacturer who sets up a training school to support their sales finds it better to train in their products than someone elses ...

 

And I still cannot get my head around the statement that your instructor has years of PPC but can't instruct - I can only assume that they are GA instructor and not RAA ... well sorry, but ALL RAA registered aircraft are NOT the same as GA aircraft and the RAA pilots certificate is parallel but not the same as the GA licenses.

 

Equally your statement that RAA has taken the easy way out and lumped PPC in with 3axis is demonstrably WRONG - there is a separate syllabus for the two areas of 3axis and PPC and even the requirements to get as far as CFI for PPC requires less training experience than a 3axis CFI.

 

Now IF the PPC CFIs are too busy or disinterested in working within the RAA Ops on remodeling the PPC syllabus (or heaven for-fend ... the CFIs actually believe the syllabus is as required ... despite what PPC pilots might think) that is not down to the RAA as an organization - its down to that sector of the RAA schools and pilots to organize themselves to get the changes you seek.

 

I do not fly PPC so I can't say if the syllabus and minimum hours are correct, but from a point of considering what will be required by RAA Ops to get CASA to accept that one area of the aircraft fleet is materially different to the extent to warrant an entirely different strcuture in terms of minimum hours etc is very hard evidence that must logically come from student data held by the Australian CFIs ... and a strong representation from those CFIs that it needs change ... if thats not there the RAA OPs Manager is on a hiding to nothing going to the CASA with a change to the the minimum hours for the PPC.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Strange or not Kasper, that is the price being asked for training if you do not buy one of their aircraft.They can do that because at the moment there is very few alternatives. Aerochute have been a monopoly for years and that is slowly changing as newer and different machines enter the country. They seemed to have some influence in the past with RAA as to the rules and how they could protect their business. I think that is now changing. They also trained instructors /SI's and CFIs and contracted them to not fly, train in or train anyone with a different brand of machine. You can work out the ethics of that yourself. As a business they have done nothing wrong in trying to protect it but our governing body should not be involved in such anti competitive practices by making it easy for them to do so to the exclusion of others.

 

The Instructor David refers to is a RAA PPC instructor who has just recently gained his Instructor Rating. The intention was to be remotely supervised by the CFI, a practice within the rules prior to the change in the new Ops manual. Now he cannot instruct as it is impractical to take his students and himself to another state to be supervised.

 

RAA has confirmed there are only 6 current PPC CFI's, 3 of those I know of are affiliated with Aerochute and will not even consider training anyone not flying their aircraft. The chances of David finding someone to teach him at a reasonable cost, within a reachable distance and within a reasonable time frame are slim.

 

The reality for David at the moment is that it would probably be cheaper and quicker to do three axis training with a local instructor/CFI and when complete head interstate for a simple conversion of 5 hours that could be completed in a couple of days if the weather is right. Hardy a good way to introduce someone to the "simple, safe, affordable" flying RAA try to promote. Kind of silly to have to fly fixed wing as a way to get to PPC's but very few alternatives for anyone in a similar situation at the moment.

 

Unfortunately it is not only David but anyone who wants to learn to fly PPC's and not fly an Aerochute.

 

David, check your PM's

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Now IF the PPC CFIs are too busy or disinterested in working within the RAA Ops on remodeling the PPC syllabus (or heaven for-fend ... the CFIs actually believe the syllabus is as required ... despite what PPC pilots might think) that is not down to the RAA as an organization - its down to that sector of the RAA schools and pilots to organize themselves to get the changes you seek.

At least 3 out of six (50%) of CFI's are affiliated with one company that will in all likelihood vigorously defend any changes that will make it easier for any training or instructor training to be done without their control. Guess where RAA goes for advice on changes? Are you now really surprised the changes are not being driven by the CFI's?

 

 

[facthunter]

I can't see the path through 3 axis as making sense at all. Also IF there are anticompetitive practices being entrenched within the current structure without some supporting safety or otherwise aspect to it, that needs looking at.

 

I don't believe a 3 axis or any other instructor HAS to fly in "OTHER" aircraft to instruct unless he/she is perfectly OK with it (the aircraft) and how it might be presented (serviced or designed, modified).

 

The Aerochute people would no doubt be saying they want control over standards to ensure no preventable incidents happen to sully the reputation of the activity. Nev