RA -AUS exams

[Admin]

Wow, that is really interesting - serves me right for not reading the entire ops manual yet

 

is there a statement that refers to the type of aircraft for example a person flying a 172 - can they just get the RAAus Certificate in say 2hrs if they show that they can fly the jab ok by the CFI standards.

 

If this is the case then they can get their RAAus Certificate in say a Gazelle which is really easy then go straight out and fly a CT, which is much harder, without any further training i_dunno

 

 

[motzartmerv]

No flak fire from me, i agree. As you say its laid out in the ops manual. its a matter of getting used to the acft. We checked out a 747 captain last week who wants to buy a j230 and have it RAA reg so he doesn't have to tell qantas about his hours. He took just as long as any other GA pilot to get used to it. hehe, he kept wanting to flare at 200 ft..

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ian, no, he'll need to get checked on the new type, the ops man says, "on a similar type".. common sence would surly have to come into it. (i hope)

 

 

[Guest airsick]

is there a statement that refers to the type of aircraft for example a person flying a 172 - can they just get the RAAus Certificate in say 2hrs if they show that they can fly the jab ok by the CFI standards.

There is no statement as to what you have to fly or have to have experience in but more to the point there is no statement to the contrary either. If you are ex RAAF and have only ever had experience in a PC9 or faster the rule still applies. If you choose to fly in a high performance aircraft (cruise >80kts) then you just have to prove to the CFI that you can fly. This might take 1 hour or 20. The point is there is no minimum, it is up to the discretion of the CFI.

 

If this is the case then they can get their RAAus Certificate in say a Gazelle which is really easy then go straight out and fly a CT, which is much harder, without any further training i_dunno

The Gazelle is one of those cases where it could be considered as high performance or low performance but this is another argument. I think your question is best settled by asking a similar question - what is to stop someone doing their certificate from scratch through to passenger, cross country, cta (when it comes) etc. then jumping into a CT? Nothing! They do not require any further training at all. This does not alleviate the requirements to have 5 hours experience as PIC on an aircraft of the same group however. That said, I am not sure what defines 'group'.

 

 

[Admin]

Can I ask it a different way...

 

Anyone who gets their RAAus Certificate in a Gazelle can the next day go out and fly any RAAus registered aircraft that has a tricycle undercarriage - is that still the case?

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Can I ask it a different way...Anyone who gets their RAAus Certificate in a Gazelle can the next day go out and fly any RAAus registered aircraft that has a tricycle undercarriage - is that still the case?

Pretty much. Asides from the obvious - if the tricycle undercarriage is retractable then no, if the aircraft is low performance but you only have high performance then no, if the aircraft is CSU then no. You need to get these endorsements too but otherwise there is nothing (legally) stopping you from stepping out of the Gazelle with your HP ticket and jumping into a CT, a Jabiru, etc. This hasn't changed and remains the same as the GA world (I can go from a 172 into a Warrior into a Jabiru into a ...).

 

That said, I wouldn't recommend it for low hour, inexperienced pilots.

 

But think about this. If someone has only ever flown a two seater and then buys a single seater how do they fly it legally? Assuming they have the right qualifications they just jump in, that's how.

 

 

[Admin]

oh no, this is dangerous

 

Even more reason why these forums need to be used by more people especially coming in from the GA world.

 

In my opinion the differentiation between smaller lightweight aircraft is so much greater then larger heavier ones - Gazelle to CT or Gazelle to Jabiru are examples and I know.

 

Even though I was signed off in a Jabiru I didn't just fly off in my CT when I got it - I still had it handed over to a Snr Instructor who took me for lessons before I would fly it on my own.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

common sence would surly have to come into it. (i hope)

I missed this post but I agree. As I said there is nothing stopping someone from doing it but I too would hope that common sense would prevail and someone with insufficient experience would be checked on that aircraft before flying off into the wild blue yonder perhaps never to return. Unfortunately, common sense is getting rarer and rarer these days and it wouldn't surprise me if it did happen.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Even though I was signed off in a Jabiru I didn't just fly off in my CT when I got it - I still had it handed over to a Snr Instructor who took me for lessons before I would fly it on my own.

That's the common sense I was on about. Out of curiosity though had the instructor flown this type before? What about the people that design and test fly their own aircraft (or professional test pilots for that matter)?

 

Experience is the key. Complicating the legislation by requiring 250 hours or some other amount of experience before you can just jump in and go isn't called for and goes some way towards over regulation. Common sense and good airmanship is called for and should be drilled into students when they are learning, that would be a good solution in my opinion.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yep, common sence is not so common these days..i think most (ga) schools require you get checked on type for insurance purposes. I got my PPL in a j160, so now i can legally jump in any fixed gear acft up to 5700 kilos and away i go..

 

I couldn't imagine going from a gazelle to a j160 without some training, would be suicide for a low timer. With all the mandating going on i can't believe this one has slipped throught he craks..

 

 

[facthunter]

Not so unusual.

 

This is what happened in GA . Originally, you had to get endorsed on aircraft separately. My first was a DHC-1 (Chipmunk), then a DH 82 (tiger moth) then an Auster (covered the entire range exc. J5-F ( which was aerobatic). Then the aircraft were grouped and strangely the Nosewheel/tailwheel didn't seem to be significant ( in the Cessna 182/180 185) but that included constant speed propellor. When a beechcraft Debonaire/ Bonanza is involved you get a R/G (undercarriage)for example..

 

To cut a long story short, eventually, this covered ALL A/C under 5700Kgs, with endorsements, prop, gear, turbine, pressurised, etc. so WE are just catching up to the normal practice.

 

What I have just outlined covers the paperwork, however the REALITY is that you must be familiar with the POH. (Pilot Operating Handbook) and you would be a FOOL to head off in an aircraft that you had not spent quite a deal of time in, getting used to the position of the controls, and being familiar with the emergency and abnormal procedures.

 

The Gazelle poses an interesting situation, as compared to MOST aircraft (big & small) it has to be about the easiest and most forgiving aircraft that most people will ever fly, and the transition from it to many others could come as a bit of a shock, to some, and it would not provide the necessary skills experience (flying-wise) to progress without further training to things like the CT, Pioneer, or quite a few others. I don't think I would be alarmed at the possibility of many doing just that, but I guess it is possible. I think that anyone who has done a bit of time in say, a Piper commanche, wouldn't have too much trouble with the slipprier types. Nev..

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Motzartmerv - no SPL or GFPT required if you have RA-Aus cert with CC endo. I did this - straight from RA-Aus with CC to PPL, small training, 1 Exam and 1 flight test.

 

That's what frustrates me - people getting ripped off!

 

Ha Ha Ian, your Gazelle is in the LOW performance category

 

 

[Bubbleboy]

Thank you to everyone on here. This has become an interesting subject. Im wanting to convert to Trikes so a little different in the handling department compared to a 3 axis. Im not looking for any shortcuts I can assure you, just wanted to know if my GA exams will be good and it seems they will which is great. I fully intend on brushing up on it all again in my own time anyway. Im under no illusion that I will do the conversion to trikes in 5 hours. Im thinking more 10 to 15.

 

Thank you all

 

Scotty :thumb_up:

 

 

[bushpilot]

So, can you guys with a lot of experience tell me what you consider the 'minimum' requirement for XC / Nav.? i.e. I got my XC on a trike, with basic work because of the limitations of the trike; yet that XC endorsment then applies to HP 3-axis without any more work.... I'd like to go do a bit more with the local CFI...

 

 

[ahlocks]

So, can you guys with a lot of experience tell me what you consider the 'minimum' requirement for XC / Nav.? i.e. I got my XC on a trike, with basic work because of the limitations of the trike; yet that XC endorsment then applies to HP 3-axis without any more work.... I'd like to go do a bit more with the local CFI...

First caveat; I don't profess to have a lot of XC experience, 'cuz I'm a woosy and haven't ventured further than 100nm from home.

 

The minimum ten, formally five, hours are just that. The minimum for the ticket.

 

If you want more training, even after being endorsed, go do it. There is no shame in seeking further training.

 

So, (just in case you need the extra motivation) go get the extra time with your CFI.... or else!

 

Cheers!

 

Steven B.

 

 

[facthunter]

X-C Nav.

 

Chris, when I moved to western Sydney years ago, (from Newcastle) the flying school that I got involved with at Bankstown wouldn't let me go X-country without doing a 3-4 hour dual with me, and I had the unrestricted PPL and 90 hours total. I felt at the time that this was just an excuse to get more revenue, but what do you do? They have the plane, and you have the need.

 

A lot of people have the view that the only real flying is in-command. There is a fair amount of truth in this but, on the other side of the coin, a good session of dual, properly prepared for and well briefed can be invaluable for your long term skillsbase. You should ensure that you are getting value for money, not just somebody going along for the ride as "ballast" or some sort of safety pilot, to give you the irrits if you make a small error. There is no stigma in requesting extra dual. More fool the person who denies that he needs it. Nev..

 

 

[poteroo]

It seems reasonable for flying schools based in or close to major cities to require hirers to be up to scratch with departure and arrival procedures. Given the high number of CTA incursions, many pilots, especially low timers, will benefit from a short out-and-back x/c to learn these. But, it seems unreasonable to be asking for 3-4 hr x/c's when the hiring pilot has already just demonstrated competency in either a BFR, or a PC issue.

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

More obvious.

 

I was familiar enough with Bankstown anyhow as I was operating into it out of Newcastle. And into Kingsford Smith too. The special VFR. (approximates Victor 1) made it an extremely simple process to access the primary airport. Incidentally Bankstown was an all over field (no runways) then. Things have changed. Nev..