Powered parachute proposals for member consultation

[Guest Crezzi]

Proposed PPC amendments to RAAus Operations Manual

 

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Member-consultation-PPC-changes-June-2015.pdf

 

 

[winsor68]

How do you do a Cross Country endorsement in a PPC?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

How do you do a Cross Country endorsement in a PPC?

Low and slow.

 

 

[Guest asmol]

How do you do a Cross Country endorsement in a PPC?

It's called annual leave !

 

 

[Russ]

one end of the strip to tother end, should qualify for Xcountry..........sorry, that was mean.

 

know a chap with one, says if it's not australian made, you've got problems. Seems Oz maker has the ear of certain folks, and protecting his patch is the aim. Folks importing long proven craft models, get nothing but anguish trying to get legal, getting trained ....wow, that's another story. RAA duck and weave over this issue.

 

Would love to see this topic opened up, should see some ducking for cover by some.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's been covered fairly extensively. Trouble is you can't force people to get the qualifications and do the job of instructing.

 

 

[Ultralights]

i would love to fly a PPC, my local GA CFI flies competitively, but its very difficult to get into with the previous (current) rules.

 

 

[winsor68]

It does appear to be a complete mash up by...someone.

 

Ra-Aus seemed to write their regulations based around a single and specific model of PPC... It really does need to be addressed IMO. It is very strange it hasn't been addressed.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

one end of the strip to tother end, should qualify for Xcountry..........sorry, that was mean.know a chap with one, says if it's not australian made, you've got problems. Seems Oz maker has the ear of certain folks, and protecting his patch is the aim. Folks importing long proven craft models, get nothing but anguish trying to get legal, getting trained ....wow, that's another story. RAA duck and weave over this issue.

 

Would love to see this topic opened up, should see some ducking for cover by some.

This topic was widly discussed at the last board meeting...no ducking and weaving.

 

 

[Russ]

maate.......that's rubbish, sorry. Exactly as windsor says, and myself..........local chap ( oz builder ) has guided RAA into a document that all but prohibits non Oz machines.

 

Deny that as hard as you like........it's "ducking and weaving "

 

Chap with imported machine ( yank ) i know of, has been battleing RAA to get some fairness, and commonsence into this, that battle is ongoing.

 

 

[winsor68]

It sounds like the Board may have put some work into this lately and good on you guys.

 

The problem as I read it...and I ain't no PPC expert by any means...is that the statement released from Ra-Aus indicates that it is still a case of being forced by the regulator to only apply band aid measures... like I say...not the boards fault. PPC requires less regulation...and that is a hard thing to achieve...?

 

 

[Russ]

turbs.........why the funny.......the run around by ol mate is a fact........Grrrrrr

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've been watching the Aerochute bashing for five years. I wouldn't trust some of the people doing the bagging to operate a wheelbarrow.

 

For other people, if you have PPCs operating around your area, you might like to have a closer look at the Post #1 link.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

maate.......that's rubbish, sorry. Exactly as windsor says, and myself..........local chap ( oz builder ) has guided RAA into a document that all but prohibits non Oz machines.Deny that as hard as you like........it's "ducking and weaving "

Chap with imported machine ( yank ) i know of, has been battleing RAA to get some fairness, and commonsence into this, that battle is ongoing.

Sorry Russ I'm not interested in buying into your negativity on this...as I have stated the board is well aware of the current situation in play with the PPC scene in Oz...which is why the proposed PPC training manual proposal was held over for more research and discussion at the last board meeting, as it appeared to possibly favour one area. If you had taken the time to have read the board minutes you would be well aware of that. In fact one current board member trained the entity in question so we are very well aware of any particular 'modus operandi'.........the board at times may appear to not be in touch...but I can assure you we are on most counts.

 

 

[Russ]

Good to hear.......thanks....

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

In fact at that meeting I was made aware that a PPC pilot can arrange with Ops support a BFR by any RAAus instructor. It's in a format similar to how single sweaters do a BFR, with the instructor on the ground. In fact he absolutely must be in the ground, for OH&S reasons as he cannot be PIC.

 

So if any PPC drivers are reading this they will know that the amount of PPC rated instructors are thin on the ground. If the instructor at your local club rings Jill she will discuss the how's and provide the necessary authority and if I recall correctly the format for the BFR. As I understood it this is an issue in PPC land that has been solved yet not many people presumably know about it.

 

At the time I concluded that while PPC's may be hard to kill yourself in its clear that it is still possible and as such they needed the same care and responsibility shown other aircraft types. Furthermore the issues raised all have as their genesis the lack of instructors around the place. If there were no impediments by virtue of instructor amounts then the need for the same pathways to certificate would not really be seen as an issue.

 

It's up to the PPC fraternity to solve that issue, it's within their power and no one else's.

 

Andy

 

 

[forexjohnny]

So the standard for a BFR on a PPC is, to be observed from the ground by an instructor who is not a PPC pilot to determine if the PPC pilot is competent.

 

This may solve some problems, still there are may PPC pilots that are hundreds of km's from ANY instructors. How about creating a list of manoeuvres and questions then allow the PPC pilot to demonstrate this list and answer the questions in front of a video camera from the ground and/or in the cockpit. This video could then be emailed to an appropriately qualified instructor for evaluation.

 

John

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Glad you think its funny turbo, but that might not be s silly as you think. Have a BFR done from the ground by someone who has no idea what you are doing or if you are doing it right, OR send a video to a properly certified CFI showing perhaps your pre-flight, circuit, low pass, engine out, setting up for dual, or whatever is required.

 

Interesting concept. I don't see why it can't at least be worthy of discussion.

 

Andy, whilst PPC's certainly deserve the same care and responsibility, that does not necessarily mean the same rules should apply. They should be appropriate to the aircraft. It is extremely misleading to say "the issues raised all have as their genesis the lack of instructors around the place. If there were no impediments by virtue of instructor amounts then the need for the same pathways to certificate would not really be seen as an issue." When you know very well the current rules will ensure even if you could find a CFI to teach you as an instructor, it would highly unlikely to be able to get through to be able to actually teach anyone to fly. The lengths of time for training as instructor and SI will ensure that. An instructor does not need 75 hours of supervision before being able to become a SI in a PPC. I worked out that even if my CFI was to fly every weekend (which he doesn't) and didn't take holidays it would take nearly 2 years to to get to where i could apply for a SI rating and I would have traveled around 10,000 km for that training.

 

The Australian made PPC company has produced well over 400 PPC's, others have been imported or home built. RAA has 222 PPC's on the register. Ever wondered where all the rest are? I would bet not many are written off or sitting in sheds rusting away. The owners have simply "opted out" as it is a damn site easier than trying to stay legal. RAA must make it attractive for people to change their ways and become legal.

 

It is not up to the PPC community to address this issue, THAT is the issue RAA needs to address. It needs to have a system that pilots CAN become instructors and SI's.

 

You have eluded to the recent death in a PPC so why not tell everyone the the status of that Pilot and aircraft. He was not the holder of a valid pilot certificate and his aircraft was unregistered. Its time RAA worked out why this is so prevalent.

 

RAA needs to get serious or more will opt out. How many Instructors and SI's have been trained in the last 5 years? How many PPC's do you think you will have on the register when all 6 of our aging CFI's stop training in 5/10 years. It will decrease rapidly, but i bet they won't stop flying. If the system does not allow for a pilot to be legal at a reasonable cost and in a reasonable manner there is not much point paying RAA membership and Rego fees.

 

Its time some of the Board actually learnt to fly a PPC so they know how the decisions they make are relevant.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Glad you think its funny turbo, but that might not be s silly as you think. Have a BFR done from the ground by someone who has no idea what you are doing or if you are doing it right, OR send a video to a properly certified CFI showing perhaps your pre-flight, circuit, low pass, engine out, setting up for dual, or whatever is required.Interesting concept. I don't see why it can't at least be worthy of discussion.

 

Andy, whilst PPC's certainly deserve the same care and responsibility, that does not necessarily mean the same rules should apply. They should be appropriate to the aircraft. It is extremely misleading to say "the issues raised all have as their genesis the lack of instructors around the place. If there were no impediments by virtue of instructor amounts then the need for the same pathways to certificate would not really be seen as an issue." When you know very well the current rules will ensure even if you could find a CFI to teach you as an instructor, it would highly unlikely to be able to get through to be able to actually teach anyone to fly. The lengths of time for training as instructor and SI will ensure that. An instructor does not need 75 hours of supervision before being able to become a SI in a PPC. I worked out that even if my CFI was to fly every weekend (which he doesn't) and didn't take holidays it would take nearly 2 years to to get to where i could apply for a SI rating and I would have traveled around 10,000 km for that training.

 

The Australian made PPC company has produced well over 400 PPC's, others have been imported or home built. RAA has 222 PPC's on the register. Ever wondered where all the rest are? I would bet not many are written off or sitting in sheds rusting away. The owners have simply "opted out" as it is a damn site easier than trying to stay legal. RAA must make it attractive for people to change their ways and become legal.

 

It is not up to the PPC community to address this issue, THAT is the issue RAA needs to address. It needs to have a system that pilots CAN become instructors and SI's.

 

You have eluded to the recent death in a PPC so why not tell everyone the the status of that Pilot and aircraft. He was not the holder of a valid pilot certificate and his aircraft was unregistered. Its time RAA worked out why this is so prevalent.

 

RAA needs to get serious or more will opt out. How many Instructors and SI's have been trained in the last 5 years? How many PPC's do you think you will have on the register when all 6 of our aging CFI's stop training in 5/10 years. It will decrease rapidly, but i bet they won't stop flying. If the system does not allow for a pilot to be legal at a reasonable cost and in a reasonable manner there is not much point paying RAA membership and Rego fees.

 

Its time some of the Board actually learnt to fly a PPC so they know how the decisions they make are relevant.

Kev, Possibly unrelated to the subject at hand however an interesting story nevertheless. I was skydiving in 1977 at a place called Raeford North Carolina during my first visit to the states. A gentleman by the name of Bill Hayes was jumping there as part of the US Parachute team. He came from that area and worked for Steve Snyder of Steve Snyder Enterprises who was the largest manufacturer of square ram-Air parachutes namely the Paraplane. One weekend Bill appeared on the field with a strange contraption that he attached to his back, it had a couple of wheels and a pusher prop guarded by a circular cage. I believe I witnessed if not the first, certainly one of the first PPC flights of that time. Chatting with Bill after his flight he mentioned it was just something he and Steve were playing with. From memory it wasn't a lot different to what a single seat PPC looks today.

 

 

[Guest GraemeM]

"Sorry Russ I'm not interested in buying into your negativity on this...as I have stated the board is well aware of the current situation in play with the PPC scene in Oz...which is why the proposed PPC training manual proposal was held over for more research and discussion at the last board meeting, as it appeared to possibly favour one area. If you had taken the time to have read the board minutes you would be well aware of that. In fact one current board member trained the entity in question so we are very well aware of any particular 'modus operandi'.........the board at times may appear to not be in touch...but I can assure you we are on most counts."

 

"In fact at that meeting I was made aware that a PPC pilot can arrange with Ops support a BFR by any RAAus instructor. It's in a format similar to how single sweaters do a BFR, with the instructor on the ground. In fact he absolutely must be in the ground, for OH&S reasons as he cannot be PIC.

 

So if any PPC drivers are reading this they will know that the amount of PPC rated instructors are thin on the ground. If the instructor at your local club rings Jill she will discuss the how's and provide the necessary authority and if I recall correctly the format for the BFR. As I understood it this is an issue in PPC land that has been solved yet not many people presumably know about it.

 

At the time I concluded that while PPC's may be hard to kill yourself in its clear that it is still possible and as such they needed the same care and responsibility shown other aircraft types. Furthermore the issues raised all have as their genesis the lack of instructors around the place. If there were no impediments by virtue of instructor amounts then the need for the same pathways to certificate would not really be seen as an issue.

 

It's up to the PPC fraternity to solve that issue, it's within their power and no one else's.

 

Andy"

 

Ross and Andy.. What a load of bovine excrement.

 

Pull your head out of your rear end and listen and read what is being said.

 

Why would some one who wanted to fly a PPC other than an Aerochute be bothered with RAA?

 

It is so much easier to fly over seas and get your PPC Sports Pilot Licence, come back here do the human factors test and go fly your chosen machine that way?

 

You are not helping the organisation in any way.

 

We are not mushrooms any more.

 

Graeme.

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Maj, It sounds very similar to what PPG's are doing now with small lightweight carts which they attach their PPG engine to and strap in. Would have been exciting to see something that different back then.

 

 

[Russ]

Let's see what emerges now....

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

I forgot to add some points in my previous posts that I think are important. We have a Board with limited knowledge of PPC operations making the rules we fly by. Naturally they will defer to the professional staff in this instance. Unfortunately the professional staff also have limited knowledge in this area so they consult the only 6 CFI’s in the country for information on rule changes. These 6 already have their qualifications and have no real interest in seeing changes that will possibly pose a threat or competition to their operations. There is simply nothing there for them that will tempt them to expend time and energy in these issues. The result will predictably be, no you can’t change that, it’s a safety issue. RAA quite simply does not consult wide enough to get a true picture of what is required or do enough independent research to make informed decisions.

 

This is not a failing of the Board, they have taken the most responsible action. However the staff have not and when the final recommendations go to the Board for approval (if they haven’t already given the CEO the authority to make whatever changes he deems appropriate, like the Board did at the May Board meeting, Yes, I read the minutes!!) they will be making decisions on flawed information.

 

It is easy to have rules or regulations, or introduce new ones, in the name of “safety” and of course everyone will be happy, won’t they? What is not being considered is just HOW it will make flying safer.

 

Introducing new rules that require more training, endorsements, log book notations and travel and cost with no obvious benefit to the pilot, and no CFI network available to actually do these things, places the pilot in a difficult position. He knows he can’t comply with the rules so now has to decide whether to stop flying or continue on as he was and actually be flying illegally. If he flys illegally is there any benefit to being a member of RAA and having a registered aircraft? The answer is probably no, so he leaves RAA.

 

Those changes in the name of “safety” have now forced a pilot out of RAA but have not stopped him flying. Just how have those new rule changes made his, or anyone else’s flying safer? It has had the opposite effect of what the original rule change was meant to do. RAA now has absolutely no control over his flying activities.

 

RAA is becoming just another bureaucracy. The main difference is they can’t say “we don’t make the rules”, They do. RAA can still stand with its hand on heart and claim “No RAA PPC pilot has ever died in a PPC in Australia so our rules and regulations introduced in the name of safety are working”. But the reality is that it is safer for RAA, not the pilots. Not one of RAA’s rules or regulations would have stopped the recent death in a PPC from happening, nor will it stop any incident or accident in the future if people are leaving the organization because they are unable to comply with pointless and restrictive regulations. But unfortunately it seems it will not stop RAA from using this death as an excuse for not making changes.

 

I think if the entire RAA board were PPC pilots and knew little of fixed wing operations but started introducing new rules/regs for fixed wing pilots that simply made little sense to them, it would certainly change the attitudes of some of the detractors we have at the moment.

 

 

[Russ]

Gliders / hot air balloons / parachutists / gyros / ultralights..........all have their own governing bodies, works great.

 

why not PPC another stand alone group. I totally agree that Raa are void of unbiased inputs, hence this rediculous situation, Raa stick to fixed wing ( ultralites ) period.

 

Can recall some moons ago, Raa quietly expressed a desire to incorporate gyros into "their " group...........that was quickly declined by the fling wing guys.

 

Back to PPC's...........for the life of me, i am amazed Raa have entertained a blatant biased outcome to be put in place, clearly engineered by interested parties to protect their own patches.........amazing.

 

Getting genuine fairness / getting this rubbish to a fair hearing, has not just recently occured, this saga has been under the radar for a long long time. Now.........it's getting out there.........and now Raa are saying .....there appears to be flaws................but hang on RAA, up until now, you refused to entertain that notion. You were ADAMANT.

 

2015....................different song now. ( nothing like open question time to actually get the selective blind to open their eyes )

 

If........the PPC lads wish to stay under the umbrella of Raa.....Ok, then Raa must engage with more than a handful of trainers, since when have trainers had the silver bullit to set rules, call for feedback from PILOTS..........there's 50 pilots for just 1 trainer ( ratio )

 

It's good to see this matter finally seeing the light of day..........progress may now occur.

 

 

[Ed Herring]

Glad you think its funny turbo, but that might not be s silly as you think. Have a BFR done from the ground by someone who has no idea what you are doing or if you are doing it right, OR send a video to a properly certified CFI showing perhaps your pre-flight, circuit, low pass, engine out, setting up for dual, or whatever is required.Interesting concept. I don't see why it can't at least be worthy of discussion.

 

Andy, whilst PPC's certainly deserve the same care and responsibility, that does not necessarily mean the same rules should apply. They should be appropriate to the aircraft. It is extremely misleading to say "the issues raised all have as their genesis the lack of instructors around the place. If there were no impediments by virtue of instructor amounts then the need for the same pathways to certificate would not really be seen as an issue." When you know very well the current rules will ensure even if you could find a CFI to teach you as an instructor, it would highly unlikely to be able to get through to be able to actually teach anyone to fly. The lengths of time for training as instructor and SI will ensure that. An instructor does not need 75 hours of supervision before being able to become a SI in a PPC. I worked out that even if my CFI was to fly every weekend (which he doesn't) and didn't take holidays it would take nearly 2 years to to get to where i could apply for a SI rating and I would have traveled around 10,000 km for that training.

 

The Australian made PPC company has produced well over 400 PPC's, others have been imported or home built. RAA has 222 PPC's on the register. Ever wondered where all the rest are? I would bet not many are written off or sitting in sheds rusting away. The owners have simply "opted out" as it is a damn site easier than trying to stay legal. RAA must make it attractive for people to change their ways and become legal.

 

It is not up to the PPC community to address this issue, THAT is the issue RAA needs to address. It needs to have a system that pilots CAN become instructors and SI's.

 

You have eluded to the recent death in a PPC so why not tell everyone the the status of that Pilot and aircraft. He was not the holder of a valid pilot certificate and his aircraft was unregistered. Its time RAA worked out why this is so prevalent.

 

RAA needs to get serious or more will opt out. How many Instructors and SI's have been trained in the last 5 years? How many PPC's do you think you will have on the register when all 6 of our aging CFI's stop training in 5/10 years. It will decrease rapidly, but i bet they won't stop flying. If the system does not allow for a pilot to be legal at a reasonable cost and in a reasonable manner there is not much point paying RAA membership and Rego fees.

 

Its time some of the Board actually learnt to fly a PPC so they know how the decisions they make are relevant.

G'Day Kev

 

I hope all is good for you over there. How is your Instructor Training going mate, you must nearly be there by now....!

 

Regards

 

ED