RAA BFR using tablet

[Geoff_H]

Is navigation training for RAA allowed with GPS?

[facthunter]

I think you would still have to do it the old way to prove you can. . Nev

[spacesailor]

Marine always said to use the old way .

But , after dropping a $ 1,500 sextant.  I would rather drop a $500 gps unit .

That sextant had a lanyard that parted , when I Had to grab a handhold .

spacesailor

PS. : sextant was ( out of alignment ) repairable for over $ 500 .

[Geoff_H]

Thanks.  Just what I wanted to know. I have had my GA since the early 1980's. Then I did all my flying  FullSAR. Since 2000 all my flying has been via the magenta line.  Since 2007 via 430 into autopilot.  It has come time to do my biannual flight review.  This time, for the first time, I have been asked to do 3 hours of desk office review plus a 2 hour navigation solely on visual.  First I find that NDB and VOR has nearly disappeared, I used these heavily before GPS.  Now this is going to cost me serious money.  So I am looking at a rec licence, I don't do long navigation flights any more and essentially only on my own or with a friend.  So the question is if I have to do it for GA why not abandon GA for Recreational flying?  I assume that I would still have to do a navigation exercise,  maybe not so long, and the desk exam pass, is this so?  If my GA licence has not got a BFR what restrictions would I have on a recreational licence?  What medical would I need in the future?  I now have a class 2, it is very expensive with a yearly stress test and heart ultrasound. Needed for age alone reasons.

[rodgerc]

I currently hold both GA and RA licenses/certificates….My current aircraft is registered with RA and once the CTA endorsement becomes a reality, I’ll cease doing a GA BFR.
About a decade ago when I “transitioned” to RA, it took around 5h dual and 1-2/2h of solo.
During COVID my B777 check captain next door neighbour, took 6h of training to acquire his RA pilot’s certificate. 

If you don’t already have your RA qualification, it might be more “economical” to do the GA BFR navex’s. 

[gareth lacey]

Get the class 5 ga self declared medical  easy to get if no medical problems

[facthunter]

To be sure you should check with the RAAus. GPS procedures  using TSO'd equipment are part of an IF Rating which can be on a private licence. PIFR which is better than Night VFR by far. There is often a reluctance for checking types to DO Night VMC and I don't blame them..   RAAus take a GA bfr to cover their requirements but it may not cover 2 stroke and draggy types.  Nev

[Thruster88]

I did my last Aeroplane Flight Review, AFR in the RV6 to cover both VH and RAAus. I told the instructor who doesn't let anything slide that I would be using my tablet because that is the way I fly now, he said no problem as long as you can demonstrate competence. 

[RossK]

When I did my RPL flight reveiw, it was all on the Tablet. Only requirement was I had a backup - another tablet or paper charts.

 

[Garfly]

On 05/11/2024 at 1:43 PM, Geoff_H said:

Thanks.  Just what I wanted to know. I have had my GA since the early 1980's. Then I did all my flying  FullSAR. Since 2000 all my flying has been via the magenta line.  Since 2007 via 430 into autopilot.  It has come time to do my biannual flight review.  This time, for the first time, I have been asked to do 3 hours of desk office review plus a 2 hour navigation solely on visual.  First I find that NDB and VOR has nearly disappeared, I used these heavily before GPS.  Now this is going to cost me serious money.  So I am looking at a rec licence, I don't do long navigation flights any more and essentially only on my own or with a friend.  So the question is if I have to do it for GA why not abandon GA for Recreational flying?  I assume that I would still have to do a navigation exercise,  maybe not so long, and the desk exam pass, is this so?  If my GA licence has not got a BFR what restrictions would I have on a recreational licence?  What medical would I need in the future?  I now have a class 2, it is very expensive with a yearly stress test and heart ultrasound. Needed for age alone reasons.

I'm a bit surprised that you would - or even could - be required to undergo such a demanding, costly and wrongheaded BFR. In my opinion, their insistence on your having to use way-out-of-date, and demonstrably less reliable, less safe nav methods seems weird.  Some kind of confirmation rite of yore. That's no way to test for competence and safe airmanship in today's complex aviation environment. (Even if there's still a case to be made for ab initio training in the old ways.) I'd be interested to know which arm of CASA did the deciding on this - and on what basis.  Is this normal? In any case, AFAIK, you'd not be required to do any nav test as part of your conversion to RAAus.

 

So I guess you'd be trading in your Mooney, then, for something more on the ultra end of things.  ;- )

 

[facthunter]

Credit from GA subjects goes to RAAus, but not the other way around I can't see anything wrong with that. GA licences are ICAO compliant. Go To doesn't get you onto the original track. The 1 in 60 rule is good to know and apply. and glide slope uses 3000 ft height loss / for each 10 NM of distance. There's a binding rule in aviation. NEVER depend on only ONE source of information. Back it up with some other different means.  Nev

[red750]

Title modified as equested.

[Bosi72]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

Go To doesn't get you onto the original track

unless you push "Direct To" button twice 🙂

[facthunter]

Don't think I had that on my Garmin.   Anyhow unless you are over large stretches of water where one wave looks very much like any other, it seems like" by reference to features"  gives more reality to the process and a sense of where you are. More awareness of what you are flying over. We are all by nature LAZY and tend to cut some corners as we find out how or presume it will  be Right." I'm so experienced I don't need to bother with THAT stuff, any more" .  Nev

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Don't think I had that on my Garmin.   Anyhow unless you are over large stretches of water where one wave looks very much like any other, it seems like" by reference to features"  gives more reality to the process and a sense of where you are. More awareness of what you are flying over. We are all by nature LAZY and tend to cut some corners as we find out how or presume it will  be Right." I'm so experienced I don't need to bother with THAT stuff, any more" .  Nev

Yeah, there's a fair bit in OzRwys that wasn't in my old Garmin12 from the early 90's.  It had one of those much maligned GoTo buttons, though.  The GA establishment was not impressed; certain that the sky would fall in if ordinary aviators ever got access to such thingies. Stories abounded of hapless GoTo navigators blundering into airspace and mountains, blindly following their diabolical handheld GPS thingies.  Few of those stories were true but the suspicion of GA GPS (despite the obvious benefits) hung around for a good long while. Now it's ADS-B. Go figure. 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

They (CASA) have been all over the Place with  ADSB . Its expensive. Gliders use Flarm. TCAS is interactive with other traffic, Vertical separation is certain to be effective if you Baro procedures are observed,. Good radio as well. and look outside the cockpit. and use the passenger as well. .  Nev

[Thruster88]

Nearly all mid air collisions occur in the circuit, there is no vertical separation if QNH is set correctly. 

[skippydiesel]

 

Transitioning from Commercial (ATPL), Military & GA to RAA may take, even the most experienced pilot, more than the 5 hrs allotted.

[Garfly]

And, in some cases, much less, I guess.

[Geoff_H]

I just looked up the CASA data on BFR.  It talks about your present and future intentions of flying, I told them this, it is just flying near the patch with friends occasionally.  All flying in last 24 years has been with a GPS.  I was told what if RAIM is not present, do a full navigation using only visual.  I bought a circular slide rule, reluctantly learning how to use it ( even in 1982 i had a small aeo calculator that did it all, alas it is lost).  The biggest thing the CASA document says is that a pilot should look forward to a BFR, with all this relearning for no future benefit at 77 years of age NOT, maybe i am just being over serviced.

[Garfly]

50 minutes ago, Geoff_H said:

I just looked up the CASA data on BFR.  It talks about your present and future intentions of flying, I told them this, it is just flying near the patch with friends occasionally.  All flying in last 24 years has been with a GPS.  I was told what if RAIM is not present, do a full navigation using only visual.  I bought a circular slide rule, reluctantly learning how to use it ( even in 1982 i had a small aeo calculator that did it all, alas it is lost).  The biggest thing the CASA document says is that a pilot should look forward to a BFR, with all this relearning for no future benefit at 77 years of age NOT, maybe i am just being over serviced.

 

 

What?!  RAIM is a concept used in IFR ops.  Anyway, even if the whole GPS system did drop out (ever happened here?) you'd still have your (approved) iPad charts to read - easier to handle (and enlarge for detail) than finding and unfolding paper ones in a hurry. You'd use them with your compass and watch and paper flight plan you have as back-up. If your iPad dies then you fall back on your phone and/or spare GPS and the paper charts you do have in your flight bag. Well, at least you have a fix on where you were a minute ago - before the sky fell in - as it's so wont to do.

I don't suppose this CASA guy would be asking if you'd considered taking up the feds offer of a nice new half-subsidised SkyEcho2.  Of course not!  They don't believe in all that 'distracting' tech stuff.  Never have. What's wrong with the Old Eyeball v1.0!?  Worked for him (if not, sadly, for everyone).

 

 

Edited November 7 by Garfly

[skippydiesel]

16 hours ago, Garfly said:

And, in some cases, much less, I guess.

Rarely! It's just human nature -  the very experince that, say an ATPL holder has (lots of very specific training in type(s)/systems/crew resourcing/etc) the more likly they are to have difficulty undoing strongly established/ingrained  reactions/expectations.😈

Edited November 8 by skippydiesel

[facthunter]

I have seen ex Big stuff people who want to have lots of instruments and who certainly miss having good anti icing systems, but often their background experience is still there. Don't make the mistake of putting people in"Boxes". Many Heavy aluminium drivers would never fly say a drifter or thruster  and have NO DESIRE to do so but PLENTY have flown them well and even things more basic like MX's.  More experience is rarely a burden. The more types you fly the more adaptable you become. It's pretty easy for a good instructor to tell if a certain pilot is all BS ,hot air and overconfidence.. An aeroplane is an aeroplane etc.  Nev

[Garfly]

22 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Rarely! It's just human nature -  the very experince that, say an ATPL holder has (lots of very specific training in type(s)/systems/crew resourcing/etc) the more likly they are to have difficulty undoing strongly established/ingrained  reactions/expectations.😈

Sure, if an airline pilot hasn't done any GA flying in 30 years then they'd probably want and need some transition training before going over to RA. But that's a process they've been used to their whole career. 

 

These days, though, a pilot leaving GA for RA might be going, say, from a draggy old Maule to a slippery Pipistrel. (Or a thirty-thousand hour ag pilot going over to ... well, anything). Not exactly what the regs had in mind.  So, yeah, while transition training is always advisable, it no longer makes sense to mandate a fixed number of hours for candidates who don't need it. Competency based testing is now fairly well accepted in aviation.

 

 

P.S:  An interesting FAA take on transition training:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpxJIr4dsF8

 

"The lack of transition training has been cited as a causal factor in many GA accidents. Accidents frequently result from pilots being unprepared for challenges presented by the new, or different, aircraft they are flying. Even when pilots are legally certificated to operate aircraft within a specific category and class, significant differences can exist among different types of aircraft within that category and class — thus necessitating the need for effective transition training."

 

 

[facthunter]

I have seen a few pilots who on a new type have reverted to the Previous one. on some aspect like rotation rate and initial pitch angle That's obviously not a good trait. It is also likely to happen when the flight is back of the clock and you've not rested. Flare height on a different type may be vastly different as say a DC9 V/s an A-300 which is about 5 times as high and has a radio altimeter to help/confirm.  When you first go on  one, the Landing is more like Low Flypast.  My first Thruster in 86 was after a full day of B727 legs the day before.  It was at Mangalore at an Airshow and only 500' max in those days.  I did the circuit OK . Just another aeroplane. Nev

. 

Edited November 8 by facthunter