RAAus BFR

[SGM]

My Biennial Flight Review (RAAus Pilot) is approaching.  When I checked two years ago with RAAus, the cross-country endorsement is not actually a separate BFR retest requirement... however, the flight instructor I chose last time decided to make it so.   So I ended up navigating without GPS for a few hours just to demonstrate I could still do it. 

Whilst it's probably a good relearning exercise, I have 2 separate GPS on the panel and two further (Ipad, Iphone) in the aircraft, so perhaps the E6B/map/watch approach was not the best use of either my time or my money.

Two questions to the forum
a.  Have you been required to do cross-country navs on a BFR?
b.  Can you recommend a good RAAus CFI in the Melbourne area who is "pragmatic"?

[pmccarthy]

Contact Kyneton Aero Club, very serious AFR review but not silly.

[facthunter]

They use a C-172 don't they?  Nev

[Flightrite]

Tecnam

[tillmanr]

Kyneton Aero Club have both the 172 and Tecnam for instruction. GA and RAA covered nicely.

[Geoff_H]

I have the same issue with a PPL BFR.  I have not flown without a gps since 2000.  My flight calculator that I used in the 1980/1990s is lost.  I bought a circular calculator, I am 77 and it is a chore to learn.  I even said that I only want to fly locally with friends and family.   No they are demanding a flight navigation without GPS.  I ha e now walked away from them, anyone know a Flight School near Sydney that have a reasonable attitude, as per the CASA recommendations?  Was i just being overstrained?  Maybe.

[facthunter]

You should still plot a route on a WAC chart and be able to derive track angles, distances and LSALT's and know magnetic deviation and drift angles and 1: 60 applications. It's NEVER good policy to trust one only basis for going somewhere. That's what happened with the Mt Erebus disaster. Your "prayer wheel" is mainly a circular slide rule but very good at deriving cross winds from drift and G/S figures fuel consumption etc. . . Nev

[spacesailor]

Mt Erebus, was a government oversight.  

they forgot to inform the pilot's , of the new navigation correction. 

Then ,  tried to put that disaster onto the pilot . " pilot Error " .

spacesailor

 

 

[Geoff_H]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

You should still plot a route on a WAC chart and be able to derive track angles, distances and LSALT's and know magnetic deviation and drift angles and 1: 60 applications. It's NEVER good policy to trust one only basis for going somewhere. That's what happened with the Mt Erebus disaster. Your "prayer wheel" is mainly a circular slide rule but very good at deriving cross winds from drift and G/S figures fuel consumption etc. . . Nev

 

[facthunter]

Had they backed the flight path up with some other basis it would not have happened.  Even a track plotted with the known winds.The first thing they knew was the GPWS going off at about FL 160. Yes the  CHANGED track should have been better informed.. They had no horizon and no viz It was a white out and the  Mountain was where it always was. . Yes the MANAGEMENT did try to blame the Crew. Their testimony was referred to as a "Littany of Lies" Nev

[kiwiaviator]

I have never been asked to do a cross country for a BFR in NZ or Australia. Seems to me they were trying to extract the maximum amount of flying/beer vouchers out of you. If they want you to show competency in x country then there are many ways to do this on the ground.

[Geoff_H]

Why???  I just want to fly around the patch, BFR is not intended to be an exam, more a review of what flying you do.  When I was flying long distances across Australis and outback flying I use EFIS and GPSS 3 off in the aircraft etc), now I just want to fly around the patch.  I know that the wheel is just a slide rule, I have 3 yr level university level in mathematics, I know nav and would revise it if I ever wanted to fly away from the patch.  I am so knowledgeable about mathematics to know that the 1:60 rule should be a 1:57.3.  

[facthunter]

 You can go 25 miles without a nav endorsement. . 1:60 is only a rule of thumb so there's no need to be precise.  What I think doesn't matter anyhow. Check with those who make the rules.. Nev

[djpacro]

4 hours ago, Geoff_H said:

I have the same issue with a PPL BFR.  I have not flown without a gps since 2000.  My flight calculator that I used in the 1980/1990s is lost.  I bought a circular calculator, I am 77 and it is a chore to learn.  I even said that I only want to fly locally with friends and family.   No they are demanding a flight navigation without GPS.  I ha e now walked away from them, anyone know a Flight School near Sydney that have a reasonable attitude, as per the CASA recommendations?  Was i just being overstrained?  Maybe.

I do flight reviews for some people, however not in the Sydney area. The new regulation is very onerous if you bother to read it, 61.400.

 

Fortunately, sensible people within CASA have stuck to the original CAAP 5.81-01 which references the obsolete regulations. Many flight schools use the forms provided there as a record of flight reviews given which are subject to CASA audit. Refer B1 on page 31 and you will see that Navigation is recommended. There is some text as guidance BUT ...

 

CASA also has their Plain English Guide for Part 61 which reflects the regs so contrary to the CAAP.

"You must demonstrate competency according to each unit of competency mentioned in the MOS (Schedule 2)." Read those words and navigation is not recommended, it is mandatory unless one just holds an RPL without a nav endorsement.

"The purpose of a flight review and a proficiency check is to assess your flying skills and operational knowledge."

(Sounds like a test to me.)

 

Gone is that sensible bit in the CAAP: "To properly inform the task of designing the flight review, the pilot under review should
accurately detail what flying they have completed over the last two years, and what flying they anticipate they will undertake in the future."

 

Do I follow the old, but still current, CAAP or the CASA guide explaining the existing regulations?