Proposed Utility Endorsement

[Guest Maj Millard]

So you buy an old airworthy 95:10 Thruster 83 for around 5 grand and to get legal it cost how much?

Should be no more than any other rego renewal Steve.,.......

 

 

[kasper]

Should be no more than any other rego renewal Steve.,.......

Maj, I think he was getting at the cost of gaining the pilot certificate to legally fly it ... the $11k+ to learn to fly vs $5k to get the aircraft sort of thing

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Should be no more than any other rego renewal Steve.,.......

My mistake should have said

"how much for the new owner to get legal ie certificate with required ratings T/D, cross country,two stroke etc"

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

My mistake should have said"how much for the new owner to get legal ie certificate with required ratings T/D, cross country,two stroke etc"

Endorsements generally don't cost anything unless you need to do the hours for a cross- country for instance. If you have been previously licensed it will still be on file...you would have to do a BFR or whatever else an instructor required I suppose to become current just like the rest of us.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

What i am really trying to express is the accessibility for a newbie to the game. Entry level aircraft like a single seat Thruster or maybe Quicksilver and a certificate. Affordable flying? I don't own an aircraft now. Just comparing the cost of now and back then when the AUF kicked off.

 

 

[terryc]

Endorsements generally don't cost anything unless you need to do the hours for a cross- country for instance. If you have been previously licensed it will still be on file...you would have to do a BFR or whatever else an instructor required I suppose to become current just like the rest of us.

''Endorsements don't cost anything'' If this is the thinking across the raa board that would explain some of their decision making lately.

 

 

[facthunter]

Selectively using an altered quote isn't really fair is it? I'd hate to be on the board trying to get a message across. It was well qualified, so quoting out of context isn't the go, when you are having a go.. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

From what is written in the latest Sport Pilot magazine, the utility endoresment will only be able to be used by the ower of a rural property in his own plane over his own property. Unsure if you will be able to get the endoresment without this until they come out with some more info.

Possibly confusing when you can use and endorsement and when you can gain an endorsement.

The CAOs under which RAA aircraft operate only allow flight below 500ft in 3 circumstances that apply to three separate geographic locations

 

1. take off and landing - applies wherever you are taking off or landing

 

2. low level area of a training area that has been designated by CASA as a low level training area - limited area and you can train and fly below 500ft in these areas all the time that they exist

 

3. over land owned or under the control of the pilot (or where the land owner has given permission) for the purpose of stock inspections etc - limited in location AND purpose

 

If a LL endo is intended to be required to cover the area 3. above (as it appears to) then it can be gained in a training aircraft with a an instructor under item 2. but then once held could only be used in relation to area 3.

 

Separate the gaining of the endo and the use of the endo and you will have no issue understanding what is intended.

 

BTW the above clarification still does not mean I think we NEED one or that the lack of one now or in the future would cause a legal problem for any certificate holder operating in accord with the CAO on stock ops.

 

 

[facthunter]

So which instructors are allowed to have this endorsement so they can endorse those who can be endorsed? As I've stated before I had it in Ga when instructing and have had further training since. How could an instructor be qualified to take over when below 500 feet if not trained or do a precautuionary landing sequence or train any one in the approved low flying area? Nev

 

 

[kasper]

So which instructors are allowed to have this endorsement so they can endorse those who can be endorsed? As I've stated before I had it in Ga when instructing and have had further training since. How could an instructor be qualified to take over when below 500 feet if not trained or do a precautuionary landing sequence or train any one in the approved low flying area? Nev

Factually - an instructor is entitled to train any person on groups of aircraft for which he/she holds group endorsement and for any feature that they hold endorsement for.

Factually - how does any instructor gain an endo that is newly created to allow them to then instruct in it? The Ops Manager has the power to issue the endo and on launch the instructors wanting to have the endo added do what is agreed with the Ops Manager ... so the implementation of this is under the direct review and control of the Ops Manager - pretty simple really and until there is a definition of the endo and the syllabus against which it is required to be taught there is no ability to ask the Ops Manager what the exact implimentation requirements will be but they will be as agreed and announced to the instructor community by the Ops Manager

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks for your effort Kasper. I'm not worried about the cow counting and rounding training but it's called a Low Level endorsement. I used to teach low level flying (as I said) in GA and also in RAAus planes. if I come to grief at low level and don't have an LL on my certificate where do I stand?

 

I believe ALL RAAus pilots NEED the LL skills and knowledge, and IF I couldn't teach them I believe I'm setting students up for a situation they may well encounter and not cope with well later. I'm not comfortable with a a system that denies students these skills, because currently you have to be chasing stock on your own property before you can get it. It should be part of the NORMAL syllabus, and ALL instructors should have the skills or they shouldn't be allowed to instruct . Everyone knows you fly very low twice each flight. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

Factually - an instructor is entitled to train any person on groups of aircraft for which he/she holds group endorsement and for any feature that they hold endorsement for...

not under CASA's new Part 61 so my guess is that will flow down to RAA sometime.

 

Factually - how does any instructor gain an endo that is newly created to allow them to then instruct in ..

I won't even try to explain per CASA's new Part 61.

[Diddy Pilot]

I think Ozzie actually raises a good point.

 

How many flying schools still operate something akin to a Thruster, drifter, Quicksilver etc? How many schools still offer, tail-wheel, low performance or 2-stroke endorsements?

 

Someone new to recreational flying, attracted by the idea of affordable flying will most likely end up having to learn in a Jabiru (or similar) in order to obtain a Pilot Certificate. Then if the eager new pilot looks around for an aircraft to own, they will see some of the older 'traditional' ultralight aircraft (typically 95.10) advertised, typically much cheaper than the aircraft they learnt in.

 

Wow, New Pilot thinks. I have my Pilot Certificate, I can store an aircraft in dad's shed and use a paddock to fly off (or even affordable airfield nearby). I can buy an aircraft within budget (the $5000 Kasper eluded to) Then the harsh realities hit, in order to fly the "Thruster" (as a typical example) New Pilot must first find someone who can provide him with the further training in order to obtain further endorsements - Tail-wheel; 2-stroke; low-performance etc. These new endos may not be available from the one FTF, most likely not the one who New Pilot already knows. This could add significant costs to the concept of affordable flying.

 

When I look through classifieds for RA Aus registered aircraft, particularly 95.10 there are some great examples available out there at affordable prices. But part of the reasons behind the quantity available, slow turn over, and low prices would be exactly what Ozzie has referred to.

 

I don't have a 2-stroke or tail-wheel endorsement (yet) so effectively most of the "affordable" aircraft are not available to me.

 

 

[SDQDI]

If that was what someone was looking at it then maybe the cheapest way would be to buy the cheap aircraft (as long as it was airworthy ect) and do all your training in it. That way you are only paying for the instructor and fuel and you are starting with the endorsements you want so no extra cost later getting them. Also if it doesn't work out and you later change your mind as to your aircraft preference a 20-30 yr old ultralight won't lose much value over twelve months so you could resell it at the finish and get a fair chunk of your money back (assuming you didn't wreck it while training!)

 

I do think it is a pity that more schools don't run two strokes or tailwheels but if the demand isn't there then it is understandable and then I guess there is the upkeep of it all. A nice four stroke nose digger should be basically trouble free and a bit easier for learner pilots to get the hang of.

 

 

[Diddy Pilot]

Agree SQDI; however....

 

if cheap aircraft is 95.10, no second seat for instructor

 

If cheap aircraft is two seater, just like a Thruster, then there is still an issue with a school who can still teach tail-wheel, 2 stroke etc.

 

Perhaps if a school had 24 regoed Thruster available for hire/ training then when the demand exists more pilots could obtain these endorsements.

 

 

[poteroo]

Factually - an instructor is entitled to train any person on groups of aircraft for which he/she holds group endorsement and for any feature that they hold endorsement for.Factually - how does any instructor gain an endo that is newly created to allow them to then instruct in it? The Ops Manager has the power to issue the endo and on launch the instructors wanting to have the endo added do what is agreed with the Ops Manager ... so the implementation of this is under the direct review and control of the Ops Manager - pretty simple really and until there is a definition of the endo and the syllabus against which it is required to be taught there is no ability to ask the Ops Manager what the exact implimentation requirements will be but they will be as agreed and announced to the instructor community by the Ops Manager

Under the CAR 5 system in GA - for certain endorsements, an instructor needed a check flight and a signoff before going out to instruct - eg, in formation and aerobatics. In low level, under the old CAR 5 system, you needed a special approval from CASA. (usually an Ag rating was required plus an Instructor 1 or 2 rating). However, under the new and confusing Part 61 - a GA instructor now must pass a test for a 'training endorsement' in each endorsement or rating that they intend to instruct in. I can't see anywhere in the low level instructing requirements of Part 61 that an instructor needs to have any previous low level experience - they just need to pass a 'training' check with an ATO. I assume that the ATO is low level, (or ag),rated - but again, many are not, so the pool of available checkers seems very limited.

 

Now under RAAus rules, it is pretty simple. If an instructor is endorsed -they can teach and signoff on any endorsement. No problems you say? Well, it hardly seems the safest approach with more onerous endorsements such as low level. It's likely to be the 'blind-leading-the-blind'.

 

There seems to be room here for Ops to make a ruling on low level, and have a checking system to ensure that instructors are up to a safe standard. Probably a 'grandfathering' would be applied so that those who have previous experience can be approved to check 'new' instructor applicants. Frankly - all instructors should be low level trained - for the many sound reasons already posted on this thread.

 

happy days,

 

 

[kasper]

not under CASA's new Part 61 so my guess is that will flow down to RAA sometime.I won't even try to explain per CASA's new Part 61.

You do not have to explain part 61 - I answered as to how NOW you add a edno to RAA and get it pushed through the RAA system - factually I am correct - its all down to HOW the OPs Manager applies the requirements and it may be an all or nothing or a check flight/test - I can't say as Iam not the OPs amanger and as there is no actual syllabus for the endo its far too early to answer.

Cheers

 

 

[kasper]

Under the CAR 5 system in GA - for certain endorsements, an instructor needed a check flight and a signoff before going out to instruct - eg, in formation and aerobatics. In low level, under the old CAR 5 system, you needed a special approval from CASA. (usually an Ag rating was required plus an Instructor 1 or 2 rating). However, under the new and confusing Part 61 - a GA instructor now must pass a test for a 'training endorsement' in each endorsement or rating that they intend to instruct in. I can't see anywhere in the low level instructing requirements of Part 61 that an instructor needs to have any previous low level experience - they just need to pass a 'training' check with an ATO. I assume that the ATO is low level, (or ag),rated - but again, many are not, so the pool of available checkers seems very limited.Now under RAAus rules, it is pretty simple. If an instructor is endorsed -they can teach and signoff on any endorsement. No problems you say? Well, it hardly seems the safest approach with more onerous endorsements such as low level. It's likely to be the 'blind-leading-the-blind'.

 

There seems to be room here for Ops to make a ruling on low level, and have a checking system to ensure that instructors are up to a safe standard. Probably a 'grandfathering' would be applied so that those who have previous experience can be approved to check 'new' instructor applicants. Frankly - all instructors should be low level trained - for the many sound reasons already posted on this thread.

 

happy days,

Well if you want to follow EXACTLY the GA requirements may I suggest you only fly GA?

Factually - throwing a Jabiru around at tree top level is a whole different kettle of fish from throwing a drifter or a thruster around at those levels so there has to be an appreciation of the difference as well as the overall risks of operating at low level.

 

And nobody said all instructors HAVE to be able to train for this proposed or the current LL endo ... exactly as some instrctors have no 2stroke endorsement or tailwheel endorsement and cannot train on these feature/endorsements.

 

If it goes ahead it will be available through those schools that wish to teach it as there will be a known and identified path to allow the instructors to gain the approval themselves.

 

Oh and just to be clear - I was being glib when saying you throw aircraft around at tree top levels ... I am no superman and intend to live to be a very old and grumpy man. And my instructor rating never had LL on it and I really do not think I will be going there in the future ;-)

 

 

[djpacro]

You do not have to explain part 61 -

i know

[Garfly]

Jim Dulin - a presence on backcountrypilot.org in the US - is a well known advocate of low level 'maneuvering' flight training for all. Attached (with permission) his "Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques" a cut-down version of "Contact Flying" available at Amazon - where there's some interesting customer debate about Jim's approach to low level instruction.

 

 

From the introduction to SMFT:

 

"I hope Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques will give all pilots insight into the world of the crop duster, pipeline patrol pilot, and bush pilot. The corporate, airline, and recreational pilot may avoid maneuvering flight, except on takeoff and landing. I truly believe, however, that an objective look at these techniques can improve the understanding and capabilities of any pilot."

 

SAFE MANEUVERING FLIGHT TECHNIQUES 13 NOV 15.pdf

 

SAFE MANEUVERING FLIGHT TECHNIQUES 13 NOV 15.pdf

 

SAFE MANEUVERING FLIGHT TECHNIQUES 13 NOV 15.pdf

[Geoff13]

I think Ozzie actually raises a good point.How many flying schools still operate something akin to a Thruster, drifter, Quicksilver etc? How many schools still offer, tail-wheel, low performance or 2-stroke endorsements?

 

Someone new to recreational flying, attracted by the idea of affordable flying will most likely end up having to learn in a Jabiru (or similar) in order to obtain a Pilot Certificate. Then if the eager new pilot looks around for an aircraft to own, they will see some of the older 'traditional' ultralight aircraft (typically 95.10) advertised, typically much cheaper than the aircraft they learnt in.

 

Wow, New Pilot thinks. I have my Pilot Certificate, I can store an aircraft in dad's shed and use a paddock to fly off (or even affordable airfield nearby). I can buy an aircraft within budget (the $5000 Kasper eluded to) Then the harsh realities hit, in order to fly the "Thruster" (as a typical example) New Pilot must first find someone who can provide him with the further training in order to obtain further endorsements - Tail-wheel; 2-stroke; low-performance etc. These new endos may not be available from the one FTF, most likely not the one who New Pilot already knows. This could add significant costs to the concept of affordable flying.

 

When I look through classifieds for RA Aus registered aircraft, particularly 95.10 there are some great examples available out there at affordable prices. But part of the reasons behind the quantity available, slow turn over, and low prices would be exactly what Ozzie has referred to.

 

I don't have a 2-stroke or tail-wheel endorsement (yet) so effectively most of the "affordable" aircraft are not available to me.

Yes this is a real problem. I was lucky in that the school where I got my Certificate in the Foxbat also had at the time a Drifter. Once I had completed my navs etc and checked out on the other aircraft, (Jabirus J160 and J230) I simply had to move onto the Drifter. This was a great aircraft as it gave me Tailwheel, Low Power, and 2 stroke. Sadly I was the last person to qualify on that aircraft before it was sold and not replaced. I suppose the fact that I probably put 20 of the last 25 hours on it meant that it was not worth the cost of maintaining. Especially when I purchased my own plane so was not flying it any more.

 

The simple reality is if people do not want to fly these types of aircraft anymore then it is not viable to the flying schools to keep them. If a drifter within an hours drive of Brisbane is not being used, then I fear that these types of aircraft a doomed to a small group of enthusiasts and the newer more modern aircraft will be the future of Rec Aviation.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

So in reality, really low cost fun affordable flying is just about unavailable now. The only people that can utilise the remaining true 95:10 aircraft are those that started out in them years ago . No matter what you call it now it really is just Over Regulated Pseudo GA. Congratulations.

 

 

[dazza 38]

So in reality, really low cost fun affordable flying is just about unavailable now. The only people that can utilise the remaining true 95:10 aircraft are those that started out in them years ago . No matter what you call it now it really is just Over Regulated Pseudo GA. Congratulations.

Or just fly them anyway.

 

 

[Geoff13]

So in reality, really low cost fun affordable flying is just about unavailable now. The only people that can utilise the remaining true 95:10 aircraft are those that started out in them years ago . No matter what you call it now it really is just Over Regulated Pseudo GA. Congratulations.

No that is not what I meant What I am saying is people dont want the old style of flying. If there was a market for it, then there would be the availability. Schools do not get rid of aircraft that are being utilised and making a profit.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Now under RAAus rules, it is pretty simple. If an instructor is endorsed -they can teach and signoff on any endorsement. No problems you say? Well, it hardly seems the safest approach with more onerous endorsements such as low level. It's likely to be the 'blind-leading-the-blind'.

Thats not the case for the "more onerous" endorsements - e.g. to teach LL, an instructor needs 50 hours LL PIC and submit a training manual to RAAus Ops

 

Cheers

 

John