CASA Licence??

[F10]

 Recently I purchased a Skyfox Gazelle in a 50/50 partnership with a good mate. We've operated on a tight budget..., but have had huge fun, getting her going, 5 year rubber kit, annual servicing, were bursting to go flying! I am also well aware, this is all thanks to the existance of RAAus,awesome! However.... Despite 6500 Hrs total flight time, CPL(A), Grade III instructor raring (over 2000 hrs ab initio flight instruction) types such as C150/2, Diamond 40, CT4, to name a few, yet I need to pay for 5 hours training to fly my "low innertia" aircraft. I've done 1.3hours dual, 1hr solo and with my experience, I'm flying the Gazelle as safely and accurately as is humanly possible. Surely....an RAAus instructor could assess when I'm safe....5 hours?? My syndicate partner is not current, has a basic licence, so must stay within 20nm. He will hopefully do his BFR this weekend. After this, hes able to act as PIC. I can fly with him, but only as pax, as I'm still not "qualified". (Great he's PIC, Ive got NO issue with that at all), but is it me, or does that seem a bit ludicrous? Is my frustration understandable? Would be interesting to hear from other CPL's?

Edited May 5, 2021 by F10

[kgwilson]

I am pretty sure it is up to the instructor to determine when he thinks you can go solo. Of the 5 hours at least 1 must be solo but it could be 3 or 4. I originally converted in a Gazelle & found it easy to fly and manage the low inertia after my PA28-181 after one flight. I went solo after the second flight, all normal training airwork with EFATOs & FLWOP, Sideslips as no flaps etc. Then nothing for 5 years while I built my aircraft & had to do it all again in a Jabiru.

Edited May 5, 2021 by kgwilson

[pmccarthy]

I guess they had to make a general rule. The Gazelle is probably the easiest plane to fly on the register, and there are some particularly challenging ones. As I recall the 5 hours was mostly solo for me, I don't remember paying dual rates for that.

[F10]

Not sure what point you were trying to make with Gazelle being "easiest to fly on the register"? Any aircraft can kill you. Any aircraft can autorotate if mishandled. I know from my military flying, what a "challenging" aircraft is. In a nutshell, it would be nice if this general rule was a bit more specific, like depending evaluation by your instructor, you may need UP to 5 hours conversion training, not you MUST do 5 hours. I would rather do 2.5 hours dual, then be assessed good to go, have my CPL validated, rather than 1 hr dual and then have to go boring holes in the sky solo, for another 4.

Edited May 5, 2021 by F10
Typo.

[pmccarthy]

My point was that there have been GA pilots caught out by the low inertia, high drag aircraft like Drifters where an instant response to loss of power is required. Some RA aircraft are easy to convert on, others less so. I am not an instructor, but I imagine the five hour rule takes the pressure and liability concerns off them in the many cases where more than an hour or two of conversion is required.

[F10]

I get your point about the Drifter low inertia, I do believe that is very valid. I guess we will have to agree to dis-agree, on the point I don't think an experienced pilot needs 5 hours to learn that response. I also get the "pressure liability" thing....again, not that I agree that is the best and only possible option for CPL/ATPL pilots. I have done an hour solo so far in my Skyfox-G. I enjoyed it so much, it should be illegal. I look forward to the other solos, so be it.   

[MattP]

The 5 hour rule from what I recall is a minimum, not something based on competency. I had a similar thought when moving to RAAus from GA (PPL), especially if you're not planning on flying the low inertia types. There's not really a whole lot of difference in the three axis RAA machines and lighter GA types. Some are even the same dependent on how you register. Either way, you could argue the point but those are the rules and you just need to bide your time and look forward to your new toy being able to be enjoyed fully!

 

I wasn't anywhere near current at the time so the 5 hours was well spent getting back into the swing of things, but can understand your frustration in this situation (you're not going mad). 

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 05/05/2021 at 10:25 PM, F10 said:

 Recently I purchased a Skyfox Gazelle in a 50/50 partnership with a good mate. We've operated on a tight budget..., but have had huge fun, getting her going, 5 year rubber kit, annual servicing, were bursting to go flying! I am also well aware, this is all thanks to the existance of RAAus,awesome! However.... Despite 6500 Hrs total flight time, CPL(A), Grade III instructor raring (over 2000 hrs ab initio flight instruction) types such as C150/2, Diamond 40, CT4, to name a few, yet I need to pay for 5 hours training to fly my "low innertia" aircraft. I've done 1.3hours dual, 1hr solo and with my experience, I'm flying the Gazelle as safely and accurately as is humanly possible. Surely....an RAAus instructor could assess when I'm safe....5 hours?? My syndicate partner is not current, has a basic licence, so must stay within 20nm. He will hopefully do his BFR this weekend. After this, hes able to act as PIC. I can fly with him, but only as pax, as I'm still not "qualified". (Great he's PIC, Ive got NO issue with that at all), but is it me, or does that seem a bit ludicrous? Is my frustration understandable? Would be interesting to hear from other CPL's?

The obvious point is that if you are extremely qualified then the rules are not made for people like you. The rules are made for the 99.95% of pilots who are less skilled than you. You should know that so, from this perspective your frustration is not understandable.  

 

Apparently there are two types of practice, normal practice and so-called deliberate practice. Deliberate practice is where you practice by doing something that is currently beyond your skill level. Doing that increases your skill level. (Normal practice is where you just practice, like someone who does something for years without ever improving.)

 

I don’t believe that you are flying your Gazelle as accurately as humanly possible. If that were true then you would literally be the best Gazelle pilot in the world. Time on type is a predictor of safety, and you hardly have any. Do you really think that if you had 6000 hrs with your Gazelle that you would be no better at flying it than you are now? 

 

If you are flying your Gazelle as accurately as humanly possible then that means that you have not attempted any exercises that require accuracy. How have your chandelles, lazy eights, pylon eights, spiral turns and turning stalls gone? What does your Gazelle do if you stall simulating a skidding turn onto final? Is it even legal to find out?

 

What is the maximum angle of attack that you can sustain to land as slowly as possible exactly where you intend to land? Will you get a tail strike? What is the performance of your Gazelle if you are at height, full power, full flaps and flying as slowly as possible? How do you go simulating a slow short field approach using brief rudder inputs to maintain directional control and longer rudder inputs to maintain wings level (or is it the other way around?) thereby avoiding use of ailerons close to a stall? 

 

You do not have enough time in a Gazelle to answer these questions. The commercial manoeuvres are designed to increase safety. You haven’t even attempted them in a Gazelle, so it is not possible for you to reasonably state that you are flying as safely and accurately as humanly possible.

 

Obviously you are a vastly better and more experienced pilot than I am. I am not intending to suggest that the questions I ask reflect on my skill or the skill that you should have before you get a certificate. My answer is a literal answer to the questions you took the time to ask.  

[Yenn]

a pen name. What you seem to be saying in a lot of words is that you get better at flying the more you do of it.

I think we would all agree, but you get better at flying a Gazelle a lot sooner than flying a Thruster, or a Cessna 310

[F10]

9 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

The obvious point is that if you are extremely qualified then the rules are not made for people like you. The rules are made for the 99.95% of pilots who are less skilled than you. You should know that so, from this perspective your frustration is not understandable.............etc etc  

 

 

I did not say I don't agree with the 5 hour rule. Personally, it has for me, a significant cost implication My point was, could it not be made a bit more flexible to take individual experience, into account. To say you have made some pretty adventurous assumptions about me, my attitude and legally allowed manoeuvres in the Gazelle, may be understating the fact.

 

By "humanly possible", I meant well within the standards required of the MOS61 requirement in terms of speed, altitude and heading accuracy. Within the standards any reasonable instructor would consider sufficient during a BFR. Perhaps this was not clear. I feel I have the experience to explore the Gazelle's performance envelope, bearing in mind for one of your items it does not have an AoA indicator, so I would have to fly it on the light buffet. This would be hazardous in the Gazelle, because it's well enough defined. Let me say, in terms of aircraft performance, 90% of my flying hours are military, flying aircraft capable of 420 KIAS straight and level to aircraft that can hover. 800 hours on Harvards, spinning, G stalling, wing drop recovery and aerobatics, amongst other disciplines, in what is not considered by many, the easiest aircraft to fly, has taught me a fair bit about aircraft performance and handling characteristics. I feel I have the skills to explore these on my own in the Gazelle, which would take longer than 5 hours....

However, I do feel I have the experience to avoid getting myself into situations, that would require the use of advanced flying techniques. The definition of a good pilot?   

[MattP]

F10, I see the issue now only 800 hours on the Harvard, you could not possibly be ready for the mighty Gazelle and its extensive envelope without 5 hours of circuits and stalls. Any X15 time? Space shuttle might also be suitable? Seriously I think an honest question about whether competency based standards should be applied is a fair one. Even if its not going to happen, at least you've had an outlet for the question.  Not like you're demanding the ticket outright, just a fair assessment of your capability to safely execute the privileges of the certificate. 

 

The more interesting perspective is what if you had the Gazelle in VH reg, with many hours on type, moved it to RAAus and wanted to convert? From my understanding you'd still need to do the 5 hours as its a requirement of the issue of the certificate not the actual time on type. Happy to be corrected here.

 

Conversely, I'm sure there's people who would need more than 5 hours no matter what they were piloting or driving.

 

[F10]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

F10, I see the issue now only 800 hours on the Harvard, you could not possibly be ready for the mighty Gazelle and its extensive envelope without 5 hours of circuits and stalls. Any X15 time? Space shuttle might also be suitable? Seriously I think an honest question about whether competency based standards should be applied is a fair one. Even if its not going to happen, at least you've had an outlet for the question.  Not like you're demanding the ticket outright, just a fair assessment of your capability to safely execute the privileges of the certificate. 

 

The more interesting perspective is what if you had the Gazelle in VH reg, with many hours on type, moved it to RAAus and wanted to convert? From my understanding you'd still need to do the 5 hours as its a requirement of the issue of the certificate not the actual time on type. Happy to be corrected here.

 

Conversely, I'm sure there's people who would need more than 5 hours no matter what they were piloting or driving.

 

MattP, you reframed my argument well. Your example is a good one. If my Gazelle was still VH registered, I could have jumped in and launched (if I was inclined to do so, without flying 2hours with a mate in his Jabiru...which I did do), as long as my CPL with current BFR, was in my back pocket, all perfectly legal. I just can’t help feeling RAA could give a bit more recognition of a CASA licence, interesting because CASA seems to recognise the RPL, as the first stepping stone to a PPL or even a CPL, if you are doing the exams at any rate.

Be that as it may, despite my experience, when I walk towards the Gazelle hangar, I’m enthusiastic and excited...but along with that is a slight flutter of a butterfly wing in the stomach....yes, a flicker of fear...the voice says to me, “Be careful....this little aircraft can kill you, make sure that preflight is good....don’t do anything you’re not comfortable with yet....” If I ever walkout and that voice is not threre, I’ll divert to the clubhouse for a long coffee, a natter with Jim and Brian, then a drive home.

Edited May 13, 2021 by F10

[APenNameAndThatA]

7 hours ago, F10 said:

By "humanly possible", I meant well within the standards required of the MOS61 requirement in terms of speed, altitude and heading accuracy. Within the standards any reasonable instructor would consider sufficient during a BFR. Perhaps this was not clear.

“Humanly possible” and “Within the standards  any reasonable instructor would consider sufficient” are two phrases that almost mean the opposite of each other. 

 

And I don’t fully get the idea of agreeing with a rule and being frustrated by it and wanting it changed. 

 

Of course you are more than competent to fly the Gazelle with less than five hours instruction. 

[poteroo]

On 13/05/2021 at 2:52 PM, F10 said:

I just can’t help feeling RAA could give a bit more recognition of a CASA licence, interesting because CASA seems to recognise the RPL, as the first stepping stone to a PPL or even a CPL, if you are doing the exams at any rate.

 

From an instructing viewpoint,  I'd tend toward agreeing with you.  If we in RAAus have an inflexible rule for GA to RAAus conversions, then it makes a mockery of CASAs Part 61.385 General Competency Rule.  IMHO, CFIs should have the authority to sign off on GA conversions, when the pilot has demonstrated competency, not just in flying that particular aircraft, but in their knowledge of RAAus rules. The hours required is a bureaucratic make 'work'  rule and defeats the purpose of having competency evaluations.

 

The 2nd part of your statement seems to be incorrect. CASA do  recognise all of the RAAus theory exams, and the training that is done up to cross-country endorsement and passenger carrying in our RPC,  only requiring 2 hrs IF, aircraft handling competency, and essentially a BFR in a GA aircraft to be granted the RPL.  From there the pilot needs more theory exams + flying for the PPL.   The inference that I read into your comment is that the 'recognition' is one way, and thus unfair.   I agree.  

 

happy days,

[turboplanner]

Based on what F10 and Poteroo said it does seem there is room for a slight change.

It concerns me that GA dropped the endorsement for single engine aircraft class, because there are people jumping out of basic trainers and quite happily taking out high speed, difficult aircraft to fly just because they can.

If the Endorsement system was applied to RA, then F10 would not have to do 5 hours, but just enough to satisfay and instrucor. Let's say he was cleared after an hour on the Gazelle; it might take 2.5 hours on the Drifter etc. so a sliding scale based on assessing skill.

[facthunter]

You have picked the" least difficult" plane to do a fixed amount of boring time in. Why not try  a Thruster and a Drifter as well, to challenge you more?. A Gazelle is so easy to fly it makes a lot of pilots think they have "lost it" when they try something else later.. You probably won't "MASTER" a Thruster in 5 hours I would guess., because it's that kind of plane. I put it in the context of being "Comfortable" at all times and won't make yourself look silly. (ever) Nev

[F10]

So what makes a Thruster “difficult”? Is because if the engine stops, you lose all the speed “instantly”? Or it is so light. You need 30 deg nose down to keep the speed? Is it because in a wind, the control authority is so bad, you can’t control it properly? Is it because it has such a bad power to weight ratio, that its performance is marginal? Is it because the controls are so sensitive, you can easily over control or get into PIO? Is it because it’s tail volume (tail surface area X tail moment arm) is so poor, so it is very unstable longitudinally and directionally?  If so, then what that means me, is it shouldn’t have been certified and it shows what a good design the Gazelle is and as other members have said, how nice to fly. Like I said, I think I have enough experience to totally disagree about the Gazelle being “so easy, you struggle to fly anything else”. I think that is rediculous. Challenge me more? As I’ve said, been there got the T shirt. At my age, I don’t need to fly something that will try to kill me.

Edited May 16, 2021 by F10

[turboplanner]

7 minutes ago, F10 said:

So what makes a Thruster “difficult”? Is because if the engine stops, you lose all the speed “instantly”? Or it is so light. You need 30 deg nose down to keep the speed? Is it because in a wind, the control authority is so bad, you can’t control it properly? Is it because it has such a bad power to weight ratio, that its performance is marginal? Is it because the controls are so sensitive, you can easily over control or get into PIO? Is it because it’s tail volume (tail surface area X tail moment arm) is so poor, so it is very unstable longitudinally and directionally?  If so, then what that means me, is it shouldn’t have been certified and it shows what a good design the Gazelle is and as other members have said, how nice to fly. Like I said, I think I have enough experience to totally disagree about the Gazelle being “so easy, you struggle to fly anything else”. I think that is rediculous. Challenge me more? As I’ve said, been there got the T shirt. At my age, I don’t need to fly something that will try to kill me.

If you go through the RA crashes that attracted ATSB investigation, you'll find some very high hours pilots have met their maker on low-inetia aircraft despite knowing it all, which is probably why the 5 hours is there.

[Yenn]

The Thruster is not that difficult to fly, but you must be aware of what you are doing. I have heard that you must wheel a Thruster on and that it will stall if you don't get the stick forward if the engine fails. I hated wheeling my Thruster on and felt I had much more control three pointing it. I laso never had a problem with stalling. It was practically stall proof, just used to waffle along and you could keep a wing up with rudder.

The Gazelle I would agree is the easiest, but its sibling the Skyfox was nowhere so forgiving.

[facthunter]

What I've said to you F10, is from direct experience of students I've had and known. Not from some urban myth or aero club bar talk... Yes the Gazelle is capable of VH rego. I don't think the Thruster ever was. . It's a rugged basic strong plane but can be challenging . No one is suggesting you HAVE to fly it. You were just complaining about having to do five hours so I  suggested do something a bit harder and make the five hours worthwhile. . The so called Low inertia effect is essentially the "get the nose down quickly IF the thrust is decaying" and that's a lot  to do with drag rather than just light weight.

   The Thruster and the Drifter (a pusher) have been popular in earlier days and a lot trained on them.. It's not the sort of plane to shed a wing  or KILL you by stalling or wing dropping. . Up till 1986 they (Thrusters) were ALL single seaters so no dual possible.. Nev

[Yenn]

The only Gazelle I have flown was GA reg VH-ROK, owned by Rockhampton aero club.

[Kununurra]

F10,

from what I have read on this thread there seems to be a clear acknowledgment that the system is wrong.

what should be explored is, can it be fixed?

Poteroo summed it up pretty well in terms of conversion and what he correctly identifies as a bad case of injustice.

 

My advice is for you to gather the best of these posts and do something about it as although this forum is a good place to discuss/air our view points there is little that this forum can actually do about it.

 

The next option may be to start a Go Fund Me page to raise the money to pay for the 5 hours RAA is saying is required to reach your objective.

 

Solutions are far better than problems.

 

I wish you all the best in your transition to RAA.

 

Cheers 

 

[Cooko]

F10, as you mentioned you have c150 experience. As there are c150's on the raa register, I believe you should just need to do the paperwork and maybe a checkride. See the raa operations manual under equivalent experience.

[Blueadventures]

1 hour ago, Cooko said:

F10, as you mentioned you have c150 experience. As there are c150's on the raa register, I believe you should just need to do the paperwork and maybe a checkride. See the raa operations manual under equivalent experience.

C150's are single seat RAA. second seat requires to be removed, control yoke can stay.

[F10]

Well, first things first, CONVERSION IS DONE! 5 hours to the minute later! My CPL has had Tinkerbell fairy dust sprinkled over it and is now valid when it comes to aircraft with rego numbers instead of rego letters.

 

 

Thanks all for the interesting comments....I can afford it as such, so this whole thing was to generate discussion, which it did. Again I will say, I fully understand the “low inertia” thing. If a 20 000 747 pilot wanted to jump in and fly my Gazelle, I would say no. Would he need five hours flying in the Gazelle, to fly it safely, I would say probably not....but if need be....then yes....that is my point. I do also fully understand, RAA walks a fine line, between its members and poking a stick at the sleeping rabid dog, CASA. But yes, maybe I will detail my case and suggest a change to “up to 5 hours” instead of “will do” 5 hours. But, again, we should be very happy to have RAA, as members, get involved and we should never hesitate to talk about issues that affect members.