Enquiry about training aircraft( RPL and PPL)

[Simon Mo]

hello:smile:, I am simon. I am going to obtain both RPL and PPL license in Australia but I am a few questions about the training aircraft.

 

first. the flying school ,that I am going to study in ,is using Foxbat for RPL training and Aquila for PPL training but in the traditional flying school, they are using Cessna 152, 172 or pipper warrior for the flight training. So what are the differences between them? are Foxbat and Aquila suitable for flight training ? or should I choose the school using Cessna 152, 172 and pipper warrior as training aircraft?

 

thank you

 

look forward to your rely:smile:

 

 

[Robbo]

Just a cheaper option for ab intio, as you go further into your training you move up to higher performance aircraft.

 

If you move onto another school with Cessna's and Pipers your just burning money for the same licence, you can easily fly Cessna's after a quick lesson on one of the aircraft after your rpl/ppl.

 

As long as we are talking RPL/PPL and not RPC/PPL

 

 

[Simon Mo]

Just a cheaper option for ab intio, as you go further into your training you move up to higher performance aircraft.If you move onto another school with Cessna's and Pipers your just burning money for the same licence, you can easily fly Cessna's after a quick lesson on one of the aircraft after your rpl/ppl.

 

As long as we are talking RPL/PPL and not RPC/PPL

thank you for your reply

So it makes no difference to what aircraft that I choose but I can save more money by flying Foxbat and Aquila and when I obtain the RPL and PPL no matter what aircraft I fly in my flight training,I can also easily fly Cessna or pipper warrior after a quick lesson.

 

am I corrected?

 

 

[Robbo]

Yes.

 

In reality your licence allows you to fly Cessna's and Pipers, but best to do a check ride on one as they are faster and will handle differently.

 

 

[Simon Mo]

Yes.In reality your licence allows you to fly Cessna's and Pipers, but best to do a check ride on one as they are faster and will handle differently.

understood, thank you very much

I made a comparison to these aircraft. why do Foxbat's and Aquila's engines have less HP than Cessna's and Piper warrior's but Foxbat's and Aquila's max speed and cruise speed are faster than the others?

 

 

[Robbo]

Becuase there light and Cessna's and Pipers are heavier!

 

Being light they can zoom along.

 

 

[Simon Mo]

Becuase there light and Cessna's and Pipers are heavier!Being light they can zoom along.

understood, thank you so much:oh yeah:

 

 

[ian00798]

Yes.In reality your licence allows you to fly Cessna's and Pipers, but best to do a check ride on one as they are faster and will handle differently.

Still subject to the general competency rule. If you have never flown a particular aircraft before, and the first time you do you take it up solo and crash, you are going to struggle to justify that one. Also common sense should prevail, for example if you have only flown a c172, I would suggest jumping straight into a C210 would be borderline suicidal unless you got some training in it.

 

 

[Robbo]

Still subject to the general competency rule. If you have never flown a particular aircraft before, and the first time you do you take it up solo and crash, you are going to struggle to justify that one. Also common sense should prevail, for example if you have only flown a c172, I would suggest jumping straight into a C210 would be borderline suicidal unless you got some training in it.

Hence the reason I said do a check ride, legally you can but as you stated it would be suicidal, hence the reason for the famil lesson, most schools would not let you hire an aircraft without being checked out on the type first, may even be an exam.

Also Warriors are low wing and you have to fly them to the ground unlike a 172 that will float down. I heard of someone that jumped out of a 172 into a warrior, pulled the power to idle and it dropped out of the sky and crashed on the flare.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Flying light aircraft like a foxbat, will give you invaluable skills later...I learnt in one and its like a butterfly that gets buffeted by every breath of wind...

 

I have seen plenty of people that learned in foxbats land most things with ease, while also seeing lots of people who have landed many other aircraft struggling to land a foxbat...including career long commercial pilots

 

Save yourself a fortune and learn to fly all varieties, starting in a foxbat and progressing as the need arises. You wont regret learning to fly the small ones first. The lack of inertia, certainly develops some laser sharp reflexes...

 

 

[Simon Mo]

Still subject to the general competency rule. If you have never flown a particular aircraft before, and the first time you do you take it up solo and crash, you are going to struggle to justify that one. Also common sense should prevail, for example if you have only flown a c172, I would suggest jumping straight into a C210 would be borderline suicidal unless you got some training in it.

thank you for your suggestion:smile:

 

I will take some training before flying the different models of aircrafts

 

 

[Robbo]

So from your other posts are you still going to soar?

 

If so send a pm to stevenpam as he flys the foxbat at Soar Moorabbin.

 

 

[Simon Mo]

So from your other posts are you still going to soar?If so send a pm to stevenpam as he flys the foxbat at Soar Moorabbin.

Yes, the only thing that I concerned about was the training aircraft models different from other school's but after seeing your comments, I have determined to study in soar.

 

thank you for your advice

 

I will contact him:smile:

 

 

[Robbo]

Don't worry about the aircraft, start small and then go bigger. Get the licence then learn the bigger aircraft.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

legally you can but as you stated it would be suicidal, hence the reason for the famil lesson, most schools would not let you hire an aircraft without being checked out on the type first, may even be an exam.

Maybe have a read of CASR 61.385 and the associated General Competency rule brochure.

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/131276/download?token=kzbe519K

 

It isn't legal to simply jump into a C210 with only C172 experience, aside from the design feature issues, 62.385 requires instruction in such cases.

 

 

[Robbo]

I am not talking about design feature endorsements, or any ratings.

 

I am simply sating you can learn on a 150 and your licence allows you to fly a 172, the licence allows you to fly aircraft up to a certain weight. But excludes anything that requires a rating/endorsement. E.g retract, csu etc etc.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I am simply sating you can learn on a 150 and your licence allows you to fly a 172, the licence allows you to fly aircraft up to a certain weight.

It's not that simple, if you read the references in my post you'll see CASA have all but mandated training on not only aircraft types, but avionics, flight instruments and anything else considered to be unique to a particular aircraft.

 

 

[ian00798]

Roundsounds is totally correct, you need to be deemed competent by an instructor to fly a different type. For example, I'm now multi engine rated, so the licence allows me to fly all multi engine aeroplanes not subject to a type rating or requiring multi crew. However I'm only deemed competent in the partenavia and the chieftain, so I can't go and fly a B200 king air even though I hold a CSU, RU and GTE endorsement without been deemed competent by an instructor first.

 

 

[djpacro]

Nope, you do not need to be deemed competent by an instructor to satisfy 61.385 - it is the responsibility of the individual pilot. Having a debate with a pilot who has been flying a single seat Pitts (he has flown a two seat Pitts) - after observing him I have recommended that he get some more training - his choice and he hasn't pranged it yet.

 

Of course, the owner or operator may require a check by an instructor - its always been the case.

 

 

[ian00798]

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/131276/download?token=kzbe519K

 

The information in this document would seem to contradict that, it specifies that only an instructor can deem someone competent

 

 

[djpacro]

It doesn't actually. Just says that if training is done then it can only be done by an instructor and logged accordingly. It suggests that the instructor might like to provide a certificate of completion. It finishes with the statement that the pilot is responsible.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Ian, sorry haven't read that, but it wouldn't be CASA if there wasn't another 8 documents that need to be read in conjunction with that of which all 8 will contradict each other in some way...

 

Sounds cynical, but the amount of times I have read something from CASA and thought it to be the case, only to find a bunch of other documents that contradict it , I have lost count.....

 

 

[ian00798]

It doesn't actually. Just says that if training is done then it can only be done by an instructor and logged accordingly. It suggests that the instructor might like to provide a certificate of completion. It finishes with the statement that the pilot is responsible.

Not quite the way I interpret the intent of the material, however I can see how you do come to that conclusion and I don't think it's unreasonable either.

 

Agreed DR, casa won't release legislation until they have at least 10 other documents of equal authority that directly contradict each other.

 

Despite the legislation and interpretations, you have to ask yourself, if something goes wrong on this flight how is it going to look in a court of law? An instructor can easily determine if your competent, not always the pilot. I would like to think I'm competent to fly the space shuttle, but that doesn't mean it's really the case.

 

 

[Robbo]

I think there is only one option no matter what he or she says or what the regs don't say and that is if you are flying a significant different aircraft do a run with an instructor.

 

Most schools will make you do a check ride if hiring there aircraft anyway.

 

 

[djpacro]

Of course, that document is only guidance. You can look at the NPRM for the intent but that is irrelevant now. The reg itself is fairly clear.