Enquiry about training aircraft( RPL and PPL)

[Roundsounds]

A few comments:

 

1. The scenario given earlier was based on a pilot with minimal experience. Should a pilot have extensive experience on similar types, read the POH and learn the SOPs for the type there wouldn't be a problem jumping in and flying. That's why it's left to the pilot to determine if they're competent.

 

2. The glossy .pdf documents CASA publish about the new regulations do have a legal standing in court. The regulations are interpreted based in the intent. CASA publish the glossy brochures stating the intent, the courts would/must interpret any vague Reg based on them.

 

3. At the end of the day if a pilot goes flying in a new type and nothing goes wrong, they must've been competent? However, if they bend said aeroplane or worse still injure a pax, they're going to have a very tough time in court proving they were competent.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

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.

some time ago I put a scenario to CASA regarding the application of 61.385 to single seat aeroplanes. I put it to CASA that if a pilot were to explain the systems and operating procedures and handling characteristics to another pilot not familiar with the aircraft prior to them going flying, would they need an instructor rating? Answer was yes.

 

I then finished the description of the scenario - the aircraft was a single seat Yak 50. The pilot explaining how to fly the Yak now wouldn't need an instructor rating, 'cause they wouldn't be flying with them! I summarised the conversation in an email and asked for confirmation of my understanding of their answer - that was last year, still no reply!

 

Figure that one out.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Roundsounds.

 

Probably, hasn't got through the dozens of lawyers, they must employ.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[djpacro]

Been a few people transition to the Yak 50 without getting an instructor involved - an important consideration is that there are very few instructors who know anything about such specialised aircraft so it would be nonsensical for 61.385 to require an instructor to certify competency every time someone decided to fly a different type. And there is no one size fits all rule. eg I know some test pilots - trained to fly anything - they have a sensible process before they jump into a new aeroplane (which may involve dual in a similar type) but they're not going to find an instructor to certify their competency on the new type (or old type in the recent case of the Boxkite). I'd be happy to get into a Yak 50 myself (i.e. I would decide that I met 61.385) but not that Cessna 210 for example.

 

 

 

[ian00798]

I can see your point there, for example someone with Cherokee series time and a csu and retrac endorsement shouldn't really have to be deemed competent to fly an Arrow, it's just a Cherokee with a few extra controls to sort out. However, C172 to C210 is an astronomical leap in complexity. However I suspect somebody that can fly a yak 50 can probably fly a c210. I don't think it works in reverse though.

 

 

[ben87r]

Doesn't have to be an instructor to deem you competent OR "train" you in the aircraft.

 

They need to be involved to issue endorsements/design features etc but if you are "training" someone to competency on a new aircraft no training has actually taken place as the pilot already holds all the requirements. This has been controversial since p61 as most ICUS/supervisor/training pilots I know do not hold a FIR and outside of a 217 organisation to train a FIR is required.

 

I have "trained" a few guys since p61 and don't hold a FIR myself.

 

Recently I have flown 2 new aircraft types as PIC, both reasonably complex but I had huge amount of time on similar AC from the other manufacturer so I deemed myself to be competent. Thought process was would I happily be able to explain myself in court if I had to? If yes go ahead if not don't.

 

With that tho, under the new ruling and it being the pilots responsibility, if you did have a whoopsie it would be very hard to define yourself as competent, as by definition it would envolve not having a whoopsie. Just culture?

 

 

[ian00798]

I can see a really great loophole. It is up to the pilot to decide if they are competent or not, and if training is required then it is supposed to be from an instructor. However, there is nothing saying I can't go up for a flight with someone who is already competent, manipulate the controls etc and then deem myself competent. No training was involved, merely a case of carrying another pilot on board, so no requirement for an instructor to do anything.

 

 

[ben87r]

Ian I don't see it as a loophole but actually the intent of the reg. They don't define competency as training so an instructor rating isn't required, the best training pilots aren't always instructors. If someone has significant time on type there is no benefit for flying with a 500hr G2 with little on type experience as an example, in fact ild much prefer the former. They have given the pilot the responsibility of deeming themselves competent and choosing the most appropriate way for becoming so IF needed.

 

No one anywhere would suggest going from a Cessna 1xx to a C210 without any other experience but a C210 driver should be able to go to a C182 with very little if any conversion dependent on experience.

 

On the multi engine side things aren't quite as clear (not that it is that clear for singles either!) as you need to be competent in emergency situations which should mean OEI operations and outside of commercial ops I believe you need a FIR to be shutting down engines, although don't quote me on the last bit.

 

 

[ian00798]

I think the problem with the reg is it is so vaguely written that while most people understand the intent, ie don't fly an aircraft unless you are competent on it, nobody is really quite sure of the actual application of the rule because there are far too many interpretations out there.

 

I am of the understanding that any pilot with a multi engine class rating can do assymetric work, after all you can simulate an engine out without actually shutting it down, however whether or not that is wise or not is another discussion entirely.

 

 

[Yenn]

Difficult for me to get competency training in a single seat plane and where can I find someone who is RV competent to train me.

 

I sometimes wonder how competent I am but after recently flying with another GA pilot, I don't feel too bad.

 

I am considering asking someone to fly with me to cast a critical eye over my flying, there is one local pilot who I consider could do that, but of course there would be no CASA approval, especially as I would fly a GA plane with an RAAus pilot.

 

I will look at the FARS and see what applies in the USA.

 

 

[snakenjac]

It would be an economic decision I would imagine. If you have the cash I would suggest you learn in something more than a toy. I learnt in the late 60's in a Victa Airtourer that had constant speed prop and was fairly slippery in the circuit for a trainer (super 150h.p.) and found it ideal. After getting the old restricted licence I had a break of 26 years before continuing flying where with a couple of mates we bought a Piper Arrow. Whilst it is recognised as a commercial trainer we found it a fantastic aircraft to go on to PPL. After that it was an excellent 130kt tourer. If you have the dough I would recommend an aircraft with a CSU and retractable. Some might disagree but that's my opinion and it worked for us.

 

 

[ian00798]

CSU is a very handy addition, not so sure about RETRAC anymore for GA speed aircraft. I think aircraft like the cirrus, RV etc are proving you can go fast with fixed undercarriage. Having the ability to tuck the gear away just gives you something else to forget that will be very expensive, especially if you aren't flying regularly. It does however make a lot of sense to have RETRAC on twins and anything that does over 200 knots.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF lowering the undercarriage is important enough for you, you will give it the required attention and check it's down, every time. Complexity is there with increasing efficiency. in aviation. Pitch levers, Cowl gills, mixture controls flowmeters anti icing carb heat, etc ALL have to be coped with. If you have a simple plane enjoy it for what it is, but there are still essential things like enough fuel and correct tank selected, and we don't accept it is OK to forget those items now and again.. Nev

 

 

[snakenjac]

Juggling workload is learnt and is all part of time spent with an instructor, that's what they are for and they won't let you go alone till competent in all aspects of handling an aircraft, whatever it may be. Initial workload won't include mixture adjustment including flowmeters (that's for navex's) and carby heat requirement is usually at altitudes where icing is likely, which as a general rule isn't at altitudes experienced in the training area but yes maybe when doing cross countrys, but once again, the arrow is fuel injected and that is not a problem. The Piper Arrow doesn't have cowls so eliminating those things from the list, things should be quite manageable.

 

 

[facthunter]

Welcome snakenjac. You are lucky to have fuel injection. You can have icing easily in the circuit, under the wrong conditions. (right for icing) with carburetters.. Nev