Rules for learning in your own plane

[derekliston]

$15000 from memory

Ah well, as much as my engine cost anyway!

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

hahah if you afford a Cirrus you can afford the inspection :)......... Apen...Gympie is just over an hour drive here from Burpengary...you must live down the Gold Coast. its 110kph now from YCAB right to the nugget at Gympie..you turn off to the Gympie airfield now the highway bypasses it

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

hahah if you afford a Cirrus you can afford the inspection :)......... Apen...Gympie is just over an hour drive here from Burpengary...you must live down the Gold Coast. its 110kph now from YCAB right to the nugget at Gympie..you turn off to the Gympie airfield now the highway bypasses it

Western suburbs. Actually, google maps says 2hrs-in the middle of the night. Oz runways says 78 nm.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I was going to learn to fly in Gympie, and negotiate a sweet deal because they will be my first choice of people to buy the plane from, unless I get a second hand one. Gympie is about three hours drive from Brisbane. The irony is that it would not really be practicable for the instructor to fly the plane down from Gympie to Archerfield to teach me! It's too far! From memory it is about 130 nm from Gympie airfield to Archerfield!

So do all your training in Gympie until you get to the RPL controlled airfield/airspace part.

 

Alternately Caboolture Recreational Aviation have a Foxbat online and very experienced instructors in the Foxbat.

 

You could do the RPC there, then go on to Gympie just for the RPL.

 

I would personally recommend the people at CRA. That is where I learned in their Foxbat.

 

Having said that I have flown with one of the instructors at Gympie as well and felt very comfortable there as well.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

This morning I went to a VH school thinking I was going to be discussing learning to fly in my (still imaginary) VH registered Foxbat. When I arrive, they told me that I could not do that because they would have to add my plane to their paperwork and it was expensive, involved lawyers and the chief flying instructor did not have time to organise it.

AOPA Australia are pushing CASA to allow instructors to train pilots without the need to hold an AOC. Part 61 was supposed to be about ICAO harmonisation, ICAO only recommend schools completing integrated courses (which allows fewer minimum hours) and multi crew type ratings to hold a certificate. Instructors in the USA and NZ are not required to hold an AOC for training private pilots, they have adopted the ICAO system. Most NZ aeroclubs don’t hold an AOC, unless they’re doing CPL training.

I hope AOPA succeed, this will breath some life back into GA. By the way, the crap about adding your aircraft to their AOC is BS, of if they believe it to be so you’re better off finding a school who understand the regulations!

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

AOPA Australia are pushing CASA to allow instructors to train pilots without the need to hold an AOC. Part 61 was supposed to be about ICAO harmonisation, ICAO only recommend schools completing integrated courses (which allows fewer minimum hours) and multi crew type ratings to hold a certificate. Instructors in the USA and NZ are not required to hold an AOC for training private pilots, they have adopted the ICAO system. Most NZ aeroclubs don’t hold an AOC, unless they’re doing CPL training.I hope AOPA succeed, this will breath some life back into GA. By the way, the crap about adding your aircraft to their AOC is BS, of if they believe it to be so you’re better off finding a school who understand the regulations!

AOPA Australia are pushing CASA to allow instructors to train pilots without the need to hold an AOC. Part 61 was supposed to be about ICAO harmonisation, ICAO only recommend schools completing integrated courses (which allows fewer minimum hours) and multi crew type ratings to hold a certificate. Instructors in the USA and NZ are not required to hold an AOC for training private pilots, they have adopted the ICAO system. Most NZ aeroclubs don’t hold an AOC, unless they’re doing CPL training.I hope AOPA succeed, this will breath some life back into GA. By the way, the crap about adding your aircraft to their AOC is BS, of if they believe it to be so you’re better off finding a school who understand the regulations!

Hi RoundSounds, This is a *very* important question. Are you saying that the pilot has to be checked out in a certain aircraft but that the school does not need to add the type/plane to its register/list/whatever if the plane is temporary? Another VH instructor said that he was able to train me in a Foxbat without it being added to the school.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Hi RoundSounds, This is a *very* important question. Are you saying that the pilot has to be checked out in a certain aircraft but that the school does not need to add the type/plane to its register/list/whatever if the plane is temporary? Another VH instructor said that he was able to train me in a Foxbat without it being added to the school.

Yes. Many years ago aircraft types needed to be added to an AOC, but that requirement has long gone for single engine and most light twins.

[APenNameAndThatA]

Yes. Many years ago aircraft types needed to be added to an AOC, but that requirement has long gone for single engine and most light twins.

So what is involved in the instructor getting checked out?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

So what is involved in the instructor getting checked out?

That’s really up to the instructor, the CFI and what’s written in their operations manual.Here’s the minimum legal requirements:

 

General competency - pilots | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

 

[poteroo]

The 61.385 competency training on a different aircraft is, to all intents, a BFR for the pilot. Why CASA then state that a BFR cannot be done outside a Part 141/2 organisation simply defies logic. Likewise, the training for a RPL should be allowed outside of Part 141 schools. CASA's problem will then be with providing 'Flight Examiners' to conduct all the initial issue checks. It seems CASA have gone 'half-way' to meeting the ICAO rules - the usual 'fence-sitting' while they dream up a reason why Aussie pilots will have to be different from the rest of the world.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Roundsounds]

That’s really up to the instructor, the CFI and what’s written in their operations manual.Here’s the minimum legal requirements:General competency - pilots | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Having said that, it’s entirely up to the owner / operator as to whether they train you. I’ve been a school owner operator and had a few people I asked to not come

 

The 61.385 competency training on a different aircraft is, to all intents, a BFR for the pilot. Why CASA then state that a BFR cannot be done outside a Part 141/2 organisation simply defies logic. Likewise, the training for a RPL should be allowed outside of Part 141 schools. CASA's problem will then be with providing 'Flight Examiners' to conduct all the initial issue checks. It seems CASA have gone 'half-way' to meeting the ICAO rules - the usual 'fence-sitting' while they dream up a reason why Aussie pilots will have to be different from the rest of the world.happy days,

I totally agree, the original Part 61 proposal used the ability to conduct a Flight Review outside of a 141/142 holder as a selling point. Technically you can complete a flight review, provided there is no training conducted. Now as you state, any training for the 61.385 can be done outside of a 141/142 organisation, why not let remedial training for a flight review be too? I suspect this was an industry driven initiative to channel training through the existing schools. Also, if you followed the FAA/NZCAA model of Flight testing the schools wouldn’t necessarily be able to do their Flight testing within the school. Under the ICAO model the Authority randomly allocate an examiner to complete flight tests. Imagine how that would work with the standard of some schools!

[poteroo]

Having said that, it’s entirely up to the owner / operator as to whether they train you. I’ve been a school owner operator and had a few people I asked to not comeI totally agree, the original Part 61 proposal used the ability to conduct a Flight Review outside of a 141/142 holder as a selling point. Technically you can complete a flight review, provided there is no training conducted. Now as you state, any training for the 61.385 can be done outside of a 141/142 organisation, why not let remedial training for a flight review be too? I suspect this was an industry driven initiative to channel training through the existing schools. Also, if you followed the FAA/NZCAA model of Flight testing the schools wouldn’t necessarily be able to do their Flight testing within the school. Under the ICAO model the Authority randomly allocate an examiner to complete flight tests. Imagine how that would work with the standard of some schools!

Like minds! The part 141/42 Flight School is only required for 'training for the issue of a licence, a rating or an endorsement on a rating' Remedial training required from a BFR does not fit into any of these stated boxes - it best fits into 'competency training' under 61.385, and an independent instructor can conduct this. I have been on CASAs case over this anomaly, but so far....silence reigns. Part 61 has been a mess right from the start: why we couldn't simply accept the FAA version, (as has NZ), is the question? Another 'make work' exercise in Canberra!

happy days,

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Like minds! The part 141/42 Flight School is only required for 'training for the issue of a licence, a rating or an endorsement on a rating' Remedial training required from a BFR does not fit into any of these stated boxes - it best fits into 'competency training' under 61.385, and an independent instructor can conduct this. I have been on CASAs case over this anomaly, but so far....silence reigns. Part 61 has been a mess right from the start: why we couldn't simply accept the FAA version, (as has NZ), is the question? Another 'make work' exercise in Canberra!happy days,

Yes, the cunning characters added the Flight review training as a Part 141 activity as an afterthought. The workaround is to go for a 61.385 check before the flight review, once the candidate is “competent” per 61.385 you complete the Flight review without any training!

[Jabiru7252]

This morning I went to a VH school thinking I was going to be discussing learning to fly in my (still imaginary) VH registered Foxbat. When I arrive, they told me that I could not do that because they would have to add my plane to their paperwork and it was expensive, involved lawyers and the chief flying instructor did not have time to organise it.

Well, where I work, we have to do a ten page risk assessment, a five page SOP (Safe Operating Procedures) and a two day hands on course just to use a f**cking pencil sharpener. Then, we have to do the same sh*t again before we can use the pencil because it has a sharp point.