The real RA Aus to PPL conversion deal

[rrogerramjet]

I thought I could fly a plane, I had nearly 70hrs logged on RA and am a dab hand at floating in a Jab into a G Class airfield. Now I have a reason to move to PPL.

 

I read / heard somewhere that a PPL CFI can just check your Nav and Radio endorsements, confirm you can do some circuits in that C172/Piper Archer or whichever and after "5 or 7 hours" (noted somewhere here on this forum) you are good to go for PPL.

 

If only it were that simple.

 

After numerous hours in a big and ungainly C172, completely different to that little Jab, I was still working on circuits and crosswind landings. The added minor complexity of a CS prop probably didn't help. This C172XP is a Ferrari/Sherman tank compared to the Vespa/Mazda2 I'd been flying. 10 hours down.

 

After some Nav demonstrations the CFI worked out I can 'mostly' find my way around to their satisfaction but not, with any regular competence, successfully navigate and communicate through Class D or Class C airspace. 15 hours down.

 

The PPL theory test requires solid knowledge of height and pressure density, weather, C of G and all sorts of details that as an RAAus ab-initio you kind of learn (enough to pass the test) and consider but tend to gloss over - the limited envelope of flying RA means that simple loads, always a full tank, light winds and other mild factors* allow you to fly, relatively safely, without giving much thought to the operational envelope extremities necessary for PPL. Another 10hrs of study and practice before the theory exam.

 

*Mild factors...like revisiting the wing loading and stall/spin considerations under, what I thought, were relatively benign conditions, little did I know how close I am to stalling, spinning and dying on that base to final turn.....read up on that folks !

 

Let's not forget the joy of the Class 2 medical, which in many respects is some anachronistic over zealous medical fraternity strangeness, that often achieves nothing useful, especially if your young and healthy it's a complete waste of time. If your a little older and are honest about medical history it can be a logic bending nightmare of strange medical investigations and decisions. My personal experience was frustrating and I can understand why people say 'just lie'.

 

So is RA Aus still a great entry point to flying? Sure. Is it advantageous to start with RA and then move to GA? Mostly.

 

But don't be fooled. If you have learnt to fly a simple RA aircraft and completed your Nav and Radio endorsements in some backwater airspace across mostly clear skies in mostly fine weather...then your PPL wont necessarily take you "5 to 7 hours" of some simple conversion.

 

Me? Topping out over 22hrs, PPL theory exam soon and then the full test, another 4 hours of all the same stuff you thought was easy in RA - except now you have to navigate into Bankstown / Moorabbin / Canberra / Gold Coast etc etc. Suddenly flying aint so simple! And to get the most out of your aircraft, to maximum extent, you need to know the numbers, work the calculations and understand those limits.

 

Enjoy and fly safe !

 

Ramjet

 

 

[Downunder]

I read / heard somewhere that a PPL CFI can just check your Nav and Radio endorsements, confirm you can do some circuits in that C172/Piper Archer or whichever and after "5 or 7 hours" (noted somewhere here on this forum) you are good to go for PPL.

I think you may have mistaken RPL for PPL. 5 to 7 for an "R"PL...... And I think no medical for 2 people. (Others can confirm that or not)

 

 

[turboplanner]

I thought I could fly a plane, I had nearly 70hrs logged on RA and am a dab hand at floating in a Jab into a G Class airfield. Now I have a reason to move to PPL.I read / heard somewhere that a PPL CFI can just check your Nav and Radio endorsements, confirm you can do some circuits in that C172/Piper Archer or whichever and after "5 or 7 hours" (noted somewhere here on this forum) you are good to go for PPL.

If only it were that simple.

 

After numerous hours in a big and ungainly C172, completely different to that little Jab, I was still working on circuits and crosswind landings. The added minor complexity of a CS prop probably didn't help. This C172XP is a Ferrari/Sherman tank compared to the Vespa/Mazda2 I'd been flying. 10 hours down.

 

After some Nav demonstrations the CFI worked out I can 'mostly' find my way around to their satisfaction but not, with any regular competence, successfully navigate and communicate through Class D or Class C airspace. 15 hours down.

 

The PPL theory test requires solid knowledge of height and pressure density, weather, C of G and all sorts of details that as an RAAus ab-initio you kind of learn (enough to pass the test) and consider but tend to gloss over - the limited envelope of flying RA means that simple loads, always a full tank, light winds and other mild factors* allow you to fly, relatively safely, without giving much thought to the operational envelope extremities necessary for PPL. Another 10hrs of study and practice before the theory exam.

 

*Mild factors...like revisiting the wing loading and stall/spin considerations under, what I thought, were relatively benign conditions, little did I know how close I am to stalling, spinning and dying on that base to final turn.....read up on that folks !

 

Let's not forget the joy of the Class 2 medical, which in many respects is some anachronistic over zealous medical fraternity strangeness, that often achieves nothing useful, especially if your young and healthy it's a complete waste of time. If your a little older and are honest about medical history it can be a logic bending nightmare of strange medical investigations and decisions. My personal experience was frustrating and I can understand why people say 'just lie'.

 

So is RA Aus still a great entry point to flying? Sure. Is it advantageous to start with RA and then move to GA? Mostly.

 

But don't be fooled. If you have learnt to fly a simple RA aircraft and completed your Nav and Radio endorsements in some backwater airspace across mostly clear skies in mostly fine weather...then your PPL wont necessarily take you "5 to 7 hours" of some simple conversion.

 

Me? Topping out over 22hrs, PPL theory exam soon and then the full test, another 4 hours of all the same stuff you thought was easy in RA - except now you have to navigate into Bankstown / Moorabbin / Canberra / Gold Coast etc etc. Suddenly flying aint so simple! And to get the most out of your aircraft, to maximum extent, you need to know the numbers, work the calculations and understand those limits.

 

Enjoy and fly safe !

 

Ramjet

What a breath of fresh air!

I'm sorry for you that you've now had to go through this extra expense (and at a much higher hourly rate).

 

A lot of things you mention are CASA requirements for RA as well as what you are now being trained for, and this post highlights (a) to me that you have a very good instructor and (b) the parlous state of RA instruction and administration which could do with a good kick in the bum.

 

The medical for both classes could do with an overhaul, but that's another story.

 

 

[SSCBD]

I am from Both Worlds - grass root pre AUF rag wing flyer and also GA pilot . We started with flying out of paddocks or ALA's

 

I have difficulty with actually knowing the difference these days between the two types of aircraft we fly, now looking side by side of a Cessna or Tecnam or Sling 2 or Sling 4 or Piper for example.

 

Oh yes its the numbers or letters on the side.

 

VH or RAA?

 

However I Agree with all above so far in the posts - however again,why are we not we using the CASA written exams for RAA for RPL AND PPL standards specifically for example for aircraft that fit into both standards we now fly. For example off the top of my head, the Tecnam with retract for example can be both RAA or VH rego depending on what you want to do with it. Or the Jab 2 seat or 4 seat really the same without the back two seats (forget the TSO and instrument requirement). Both aircraft with VH rego for example can be flown at night and control airspace.

 

TODAY

 

I think we need two very distinct license models in RAA one for our Roots beginning and members for example,

 

1. One for guys that want to fly low performance aircraft, example rag wing, Drifter, thruster, single seat low performance - that have no interest in control airspace for example, with a simple type exam system, cert system and want to stay OCTA.

 

WITH LOW COSTS AND FEES WITH RAA.

 

AND

 

2. High performance and say of MTOW 600kg and up. These should be now taken as a Real Aircraft and have the full CASA exams and flying standards as a PPL. As really are they RAA Sport pilots or PPL pilots. These days??

 

Having PPL exams in RAA will also provide more weight with CASA as well. Will it not.

 

We are already MINI GA as I call it so why no have the best knowledge ground theory available today.

 

I did not believe in this years ago - but now you see the aircraft coming into RAA and with higher performance, more horse power etc.

 

With all those sprouting rules and regs here on the forum, and Safety is the prime concern why not? Is more knowledge to a PPL theory standard going to kill you and your pax?

 

Something will have to give with RAA and GA sooner or later - Just will it be required by CASA or we just move to it.

 

 

[Yenn]

If you can fly the RAAus aircraft you have a good base as a pilot. Most of them are harder to fly than simple GA and their low wing loadings are more of a challenge. If you want to fly GA without going in to controlled airspace it is a lot easier, but a lot of RAAus flyers seem to want to go into controlled airspace and your post points out how poorly equipped some of them are.

 

I have long been of the opinion that some RAAus pilots are not getting the training they should and this is obvious from some of the posts on Recreational flying.

 

My biggest problem jumping from an RAAus plane to a C172 is that it is like going from a sports car to a Leyland truck ie ponderous and heavy. Try a Chipmunk or Airtourer for example to see what can be fun, or better still an RV.

 

 

[red750]

OK. So I've been out of the game for over 30 years, so I can't speak much for today. But I learnt, right from TIF, at Moorabbin, when it was considered the busiest airport in the southern hemisphere, based on traffic movements. I had to have a radio ticket, I flew amongst multi engine aircraft, at an airport with, at one time, triple parallel runways (17R, 17C, 17L). I learnt to fly retractable CS aircraft (Bonanza, Arrow), and would have moved on to aircraft like the Seneca if I'd had the money. I travelled all around Victoria, Wilson's Prom to Kerang, etc., into Essendon when it was Melbourne's primary airport, mixing it with 727's and DC9's, and later, when I lived in Sydney, flew from Bankstown, down to Wollongong, up to Newcastle, and around the Harbour Bridge. And I was what you would call a recreational pilot - did it for the fun of it, not considering making a profession out of it.

 

I know many want to fly around the paddock, and that's fine, not knocking them at all - would love to do that, if only. But I don't understand how people complain how difficult it all is.

 

(Standing by for the brickbats!)

 

 

[spacesailor]

Brickbat. LoL

 

I want to fly the Paddock, but couldn't even pass a RAA "basic" test.

 

Just have Fly my HummelBird, in the garage, making the appropriate noises, and with the "clear-prop".

 

Just out of curiosity what's the answer to the question: "what causes icing" in the PPL test?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[ClintonB]

Going through the same trials again late today, good 15 knot cross wind gusting 20 on second lesson of circuits in my 182. Horrendous landings ( compared to the sport star on a calm day) I am hoping for no wind on my next early morning lesson. There is a lot more going on especially when learning to operate in CTA at the same time.

 

I would like to show the instructor I can do a lot better. With 80 plus hours up on RAAus aircraft, I was thinking it would not be so tricky to get on the ground, the flying bit is fine I find that part quite easy.

 

Good luck with it for both of us

 

 

[turboplanner]

Going through the same trials again late today, good 15 knot cross wind gusting 20 on second lesson of circuits in my 182. Horrendous landings ( compared to the sport star on a calm day)

Maybe you're beating yourself up unnecessarily 15<20 kt crosswinds are where you'd usually opt for a different runway.

Did you ever have 15<20 kt crosswinds in the Sportstar?

 

 

[ClintonB]

Never, when it is for fun , why would you do that to yourself. Also find it a bit easier to keep the nose wheel up in sport star.

 

30R was the duty RWY today, with all the other bigger/faster/more experienced traffic around I doubt they would have given permission for the grass X strip. The next one should be better, early morning has consistently had less wind here. Then it will prove if it is me or conditions.

 

Either way I have to learn to handle things better if I want to play in the big playground.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The 172 full flap is huge, and that could be holding the nose down; has the instructor had you doing flapless landings; that would have the nose a lot further up

 

 

[rdarby]

Thanks for your honest write up. It mirrors my own journey from RAAus to PPL almost exactly to the hour!

 

 

[ClintonB]

We tried 20 degree with some power on which improved things, might try 10 or less to see how that does, after all we have 2200m to play with.

 

 

[ian00798]

We tried 20 degree with some power on which improved things, might try 10 or less to see how that does, after all we have 2200m to play with.

20 is about the optimum. 10 will lead to excessive float, although may be appropriate in strong crosswinds. Full flap is really only something I use when I need it on the 172, and you have to watch your speed because the drag is phenomenal, which is also an advantage.

 

Your journey sounds about normal to me, CTA is always going to take a while to master despite what others say on here, as for the aircraft it is heavier, faster and more complex. As for the wind, 15-20 knots is getting towards the 172 crosswind limits so most pilots would be working hard in that one. Don't shy away from practising them though, they are one of the biggest weaknesses we deal with as instructors and the only way to get good is to practise.

 

 

[poteroo]

Going through the same trials again late today, good 15 knot cross wind gusting 20 on second lesson of circuits in my 182. Horrendous landings ( compared to the sport star on a calm day) I am hoping for no wind on my next early morning lesson. There is a lot more going on especially when learning to operate in CTA at the same time.I would like to show the instructor I can do a lot better. With 80 plus hours up on RAAus aircraft, I was thinking it would not be so tricky to get on the ground, the flying bit is fine I find that part quite easy.

Good luck with it for both of us

Clinton,

 

Are you flying a C182 or is it a C172XP with CSU? You've given both so far.

 

These heavier Cessnas tend to be very forward CG when flown only 2 up and no pax or baggage. I've done several thou hrs in them and many, many endorsements. My best bet is loading it up by adding at least 20-40kg in the baggage compartment: which brings the CG aft and gives you more trim range. With that loading, you will be able to land it on the mainwheels and avoid the near 'wheelbarrow' landings that are common with these types flown for endorsing. Get out your load chart and load it up legally. I've managed 26 kts xwc in the 182 but that was really trying! Have found that 20-30 deg flap is more than enough. 10 deg for t/o on hard surface is necessary, especially loaded to gross.

 

If you find that the x/w is such that you run out of rudder, then perhaps use more flap plus carry more power to improve rudder command. I found that the C182 was more likely to be 'limiting' in aileron command than rudder, and all you can do about that is fly the approach and roundout slightly faster. There comes a time when you just have to admit defeat and land the aircraft more into wind - whether you do this by orienting yourself 10-20-30 deg 'accross' the strip, or use the grass flight strip on the diagonal, or, (when really desperate), the taxiways look good. Whatever it takes!

 

happy days,

 

 

[ClintonB]

Hi Guys, I'm in the 182, the other chap is in the 172. Ralph, I showed you pm list to the instructor after my first go, so I didn't come across as a know better type. He liked the ideas presented. We have loaded half of the weights in the rear,with a marked improvement in how much elevator is left to use on the flare. I am going to add another 20 kg for next time.

 

I am just going to hope that the wind stays down for Wednesday morning, so that I can really get a feel for the aircraft without the challenges of cross wind on top of it. The grass strip would have only had 10 degrees off centre line the other day.

 

Cheers

 

Clint

 

 

[rrogerramjet]

20 is about the optimum. 10 will lead to excessive float, although may be appropriate in strong crosswinds. Full flap is really only something I use when I need it on the 172, and you have to watch your speed because the drag is phenomenal, which is also an advantage.Your journey sounds about normal to me, CTA is always going to take a while to master despite what others say on here, as for the aircraft it is heavier, faster and more complex. As for the wind, 15-20 knots is getting towards the 172 crosswind limits so most pilots would be working hard in that one. Don't shy away from practising them though, they are one of the biggest weaknesses we deal with as instructors and the only way to get good is to practise.

Thanks for trying to bring the thread back on topic, thats a first!

 

My CFI has adhered to 'dropping the barn doors' on all landings, which I find a little shall we say, inhibiting, compared to what I'm used to in Jabs. My overriding thoughts are to drop the full 40' only as necessary, perhaps on short final as I feel necessary, though that then modifies the stabilised approach setup...

 

Cant wait to get my own plane and do it 'my way'.

 

Training update: It seems my CFI(s) are satisfied in all facets except some CTA practice, again tomorrow.

 

I suspect after that CTA run we'll be up for a practice test scenario. Almost there.

 

Just over 22hrs to extend from RA to PPL. About 7hrs more than the estimated number I had in my head.

 

Moreso, I am being taught well with great detail and high expectations. I am happy to expend whatever effort required to ensure I am a safe aviator for myself, my pax and other aviators.

 

If only the same level of skill and attention to detail were expected of our vehicle drivers licences, I've had to avoid 2 head on accidents in just the last 24hrs. Morons who I hope dont ever plan to fly a plane.

 

So it looks like I'll be up for just under 30hrs, assuming I pass my test 1st time.

 

Those 70hrs in RA have ultimately proved very useful, and damn enjoyable, I fully intend to continue with RA flying as well.

 

Fly safe!

 

Ramjet

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is actually a good example of what we've talked about in the past.

 

On paper, it seems that early training in RA, then switching to GA is the cheaper path to PPL > CPL.

 

However it is easily outweighed by the NUMBER of hours that has to be expended adapting to a different world.

 

 

[Yenn]

Did the forward C of G mean that you ran out of trim control? It is many years since I flew a C182 but I don't remember running short of elevator and definitely haven't had that problem in a C172.

 

I do remember that a go around means having to push hard until you can get the trim reset.

 

 

[Dave English]

I have an RAA licence and am in the process of getting an RPL conversion. It involves an AVID ( ASIC light), renewable every 4 years, a class 2 medical, which was fairly straightforward, and an English Language test, even though I was born here over 50 years ago. I did the medical because I want to be able to take 3 passengers in a Piper Warrier or a Cessna 172, and I am starting to build an RV7, and want to do aerobatics.

 

The school says that once the RPL certificate comes through, I just need a flight review in the heavier aircraft, though I am yet to do it, so I dont know how many hours that will take.

 

My RAA school is at a fairly difficult airstrip to get into with almost constant crosswinds, so It took longer to get proficient at landings than it would have at a larger airport with wide straight runways and no trees, airstrip humps, powerlines or valleys to contend with. At the time, I was a bit miffed at having to spend the extra training, but now, I am glad I did. I have a little Xodiac which did not come with a POH, so I wrote one myself, using other POH's from others, including the Piper Warrier, and educating myself more thoroughly about weight and balance and density altitude for takeoff / landings has been a boon. I don't regard the RAA pilots certificate as the end of training, rather than the first milestone in an aviation education, and I realised when reading the Piper Warrier POH that I would have to learn this stuff anyway. I now have a good understanding of the weight distribution issues on the Zodiac which I didn't have before. And I don't think it is unreasonable to have to do a Class 2 medical if you are taking 3 passengers or doing acrobatics. I think the bigger and wider GA world does require you to do and learn more and continue to develop your skills and experience.

 

 

[ian00798]

Did the forward C of G mean that you ran out of trim control? It is many years since I flew a C182 but I don't remember running short of elevator and definitely haven't had that problem in a C172.I do remember that a go around means having to push hard until you can get the trim reset.

I haven't experienced that either in the 172 or 182, I suspect it may partly involve getting used to the significantly higher control forces required in these aircraft compared to most RA aircraft

 

 

[frank marriott]

Try proper use of trim.

 

 

[ben87r]

I started in RA before moving on to turn my hobby into a profession and although my RA time was enjoyable and educational, in the end there wasn't any cost saving over GA as basically everything was to be redone. I was very surprised at the difference in training standard between the two and there was a large amount of unknowns in the GA scene. Now this may not be the case with dual RA/GA schools but definitely in my case. There was also a case of me thinking I already knew how to do a lot (because I had the certificate to say so) which probably added to it.

 

The RA standard I was thought to would be absolutely minimum at best but, for a pleasure pilot probably sufficient and that's the idea right?

 

 

[frank marriott]

I had the opposite experience to Ben, after 30 years in GA (as a CPL) I was "amazed" with what I found in mixing with "some" RAA qualified pilots and their "expert" opinions on everything aviation after gaining my RAA certificate.

 

One thing that stands out is the large difference between the output from one RAA school to another. The syllabus is not IMO at fault but more the compliance.

 

In my short period on the board I raised this matter with Jill Baily who agreed but replied that although it is known they are adopting a top down approach to the recognised problem.

 

I would have thought that efforts (audits etc.) would produce a better result with a bottom up approach to address the shortcomings. I intended to follow up on this matter but the vote to change the constitution put paid to that.

 

To me a top down approach achieves nothing other then stats to indicate that our schools are compliant - not addressing any shortcomings.

 

I now sit back and smile - my immediate friends (whether GA or RAA qualified) operate to the same standard and give "some" more space if we happen to be in the same area.

 

 

[ian00798]

I have to agree with frank on this one, the standard varies drastically between RA schools and that is because of the inbred nature of the system. When the guy running the school happens to be the instructor, CFI and the testing officer there is way too much room for abuse in the system. Given that I have had an RA pilot tell me they don't have to hold an alternate IAW AIP because that doesn't apply to RA pilots I start getting very concerned with what some people are being taught.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some less than stellar pilots in the GA world, but as the licence test has to be passed with an ATO the standard is much more consistent. I'm a firm believer that no one person should be able to award someone a licence, there have to be multiple people along the way saying the person is ready