Aerochute Kev

I believe that was your statement Turbo. If RAA accept our proposed changes it will have no effect on training standards at all. Not one change to shorten or modify the actual syllabus has been proposed. It will merely allow the CFI to decide when a prospective PPC pilot is ready for a pilot certificate. This is exactly as it is in 3 axis when the hours required are similar to what can be acheived by a good student. Most 3 axis will get their Certificate when the CFI thinks they should, not after a set time frame as PPC are currently doing. I find it interesting the clips you posted are being used as a reason to not change the training hours when there is no reason to believe any of them are training related. People are killing themselves with extreme regularity in 3 axis but there is no call to INCREASE the training hours they do. Maybe because in most of those cases people are doing exactly what they were trained NOT to do. This is not a failure in the training, but a personal failure on their part to make good decisions. I think we have provided ample explanations of why we think the hours required should be changed but none of the people against it have provided a reasonable explanation of why it should stay as it is now.

And nobody has proposed a reduction in training standards. The syllabus will remain the same.

A paraglider wing is designed to be manipulated in the air to reduce surface area, change shape and angle of attack. This is completely different to a PPC wing which is not. With the exception of the Excitor which you can change angle of attack by a couple of degrees. I guess your change to the phrase pendulum aircraft was to cover your mistake. If you build any aircraft with a wing AofA different to what it was designed for just to gain some speed do you think it makes all of them unsafe. Even the ones that were not modified.

Turbo, with 13 of your examples being PPGs which you know are different I can only assume you are deliberately trying to mislead. If the media had printed that you would have been all over them.

Kasper, you mistakenly seem to think we are asking for a change to the instructor syllabus that will affect all instructors in RAA. That is not the case. The changes are proposed for PPC operations only. Once the changes are made it will not have any more effect on the workload of the RAA staff than it does now, maybe with the exception of more rego's and more memberships to process. All the stuff Turbo mentioned is in the current PPC syllabus and that will not change. They have not been mentioned because no changes were proposed to the actual syllabus, only the minimum hours required so when the syllabus is completed in under 20 hrs the CFI can recommend for Pilot Certificate.

Nev, absolutely agree. It has always been competency based and a brave CFI that would certify a student before htey were ready. As i understand it not a lot of 3 axis actually make it through in 20. If a good student can make it in 20 the hours are probably set at a level that is reasonable. A good PPC student could make it through in 10-12hrs, an average student maybe as much as 15. An exceptional one less than 10. If we used the same reasoning as 3 axis the correct MINIMUM for a PPC would be in the 10-12 ballpark. This would allow the CFI to decide when a student is ready for a Pilot Certificate rather than the RAA. The main issue with the current 20 for PPC's is almost no students will do more than 20 and most would be ready 10-12, a few maybe 15, so almost every student is paying for between 5-10 hours they don't need but the CFI can't recommend for a PC until the 20hrs are done.

Nev, If you got the info i sent you would have noticed in one of the articles a US PPC instructor was here for a visit and a comparison between our training regime and theirs discovered they was similar but they were able to gain a PC in 12 hrs. Our augument all along has been that 20 was too many as the syllabus can be covered in much less. If we look at the possible reasoning for 20hrs for 3 axis that may seem to be about right. An average student may do more than 20, a good student about 20 and an exceptional student a bit less. Would it be fair to make those hours required 30 and impose additional costs and hours on a student that didn't need it?

That may be true Geoff, but if you felt ready at 75 there was nothing stopping you from commencing an instructor rating. You could even have had 1000's of hours GA experience before moving to RAA. We have to remember this is a MINIMUM hr figure to allow for those that do feel ready and have enough experience. I don't really think the change to 100 was a major issue as those are flight experience hours you will have accumulated mostly on your own, not having to pay someone to watch over you. I do question the change without any consultation or apparent reason though. Perhaps they think the instructors we have been training are not good enough? We don't know as they haven't said anything, just made arbitrary changes.

David, Instructors have been trained for years after having 75 hrs experience. It was changed to 100 recently without consultation or explaination by a few people with the authority to do so. RAA has been operated for years as a dictatorship and hopefully that is now changing. The members had very little ability to hold those who were running RAA to account. Things have changed but that is no reason to let them slip back into old habits.

Whether you believe there is a substantial difference or not RAA does. CFI's were instructing remotely and those few simple words stopped that. The change from 75 to 100 hrs was not needed at all but would not be insurmountable for many who wanted to instruct. Those hours they can do on their own. The main difference in the training of instructors is the skill and knowledge of the SI/CFI required. If you don't watch your student carefully and be ready to react your plane will kill you, A PPC won't. Get the chute up right, work in a clear area, don't hit anything when landing and you are safe. The rest is just practice to smooth out the transitions from ground to air and back. "if there really is a 'market' demand how about any of the PPC pilots out there with 100hrs+ go and become instructors yourself," Some have tried. Ask Robb DeGroot of Australian PPC's. He is the one who spent over two years and $12,000 getting an Instructor Rating he now cant use unless he walks away from his home and business to move interstate for months to be supervised for 75 hours. Is that what you want for the future of aviation in Australia? Do we want to sent people broke to be able to expand the organisation. Lets remove 95% of the CFI/SI ratings/approvals from 3 axis and see if you are happy with that groups ability to train instructors!! It will put the cost and ability of becoming and instructor out of reach of most. I am surprised you are so against trying to make it possible for the PPC sector to grow when you seem to know very little about it. If a system doesn't work and changes will not affect safety why not change? What has RAA got to lose? If you are so dead set against the changes PPC pilots think are needed, perhaps you would like to look at the reality of the situation and provide your idea of a solution. I would love to hear it.

David, CFIs did provide supervision remotely prior to the change of installing a definition of direct supervision. That now means the CFI must be present. That was not there before and some deemed supervision by phone direct contact with the instructor.

Nev, if you would like to PM me your email address I would like to send you a copy of our newsletter with an artical on how one guy learnt to fly an Aerochute. You may find it interesting.

To be honest Facthunter, it really is that easy. More than a few have taken a TIF to see how it works and how to set up then gone and just done the rest themselves in some remote area. The hardest part is the paperwork and learning the rules/law etc. If you already had a RAA cert I would be surprised if you really needed much more than a couple of hours to be ready for PC.

The weather is just one more thing that can have a large bearing on the ability to train. Most instructors would probably not train a new student with wind above 8kts. Unfortunately that is probably the only thing we cant change. I can assure you it is being driven by the PPC community and the good news is that the current Board and Management have been very approachable on this issue and started the ball rolling on a review. That would have been a lot more difficult not so long ago. Only time will tell if the changes we recommended will be acceptable. I haven't been banging on here just to have a whine (the process has already started) but because sooner or later any proposed changes will come out for member comment and if no one knows of the issues they are not likely to support them. I don't know if it will go out to only PPC pilots for comment or everyone, but if we wait until then and it goes to everyone it will be too late to inform the general membership of the issues standing in the way of the future growth of PPC's in Australia..

Sorry, got called out and couldn't finish the previous post. We have thousands of members and still have problems getting people to stand up and be counted. When you have only a handful of CFI's it is not surprising. Add into the mix that they have very little to gain if they are already training as much as they want/need to it is not surprising they have not led the way. The CFI's are not the font of all knowledge and i am sure there are many people capable of driving change. I could equally be upset on the amount of time/resources RAA spends on chasing things like CTA access only good for the high end of the market but it is not about that. It is about investing in the growth of the organisation. If one class of aircraft is showing large potential growth but the organisation cant handle it I can't see why investing in that area with potential good returns is a bad thing. It doesn't need to be a subsidy for ratings, but it needs to be SOMETHING. P Diddy, glad you are enjoying the thread. Next time you find yourself admiring those PPC's go have a chat to them and check out the machines. They are really just there to have some fun and often won't mind sharing a flight. Never know, it might just get you hooked!! (Hope you can find an instructor if you do.)

I will openly admit it is creative, maybe someone has to be. If you look at the current situation of the difficulties in many PPC pilots even getting a BFR, something similar to that would at least allow many to stay current and legal. The school would not need to buy a PPC unless they wanted to. Could even train students on their own aircraft.

Finally can agree on something!! That's exactly what we are doing at the moment. Unfortunately with only a handful of CFIs who are probably busy doing what they do best, little for recommending change has come from them but is being driven by the Pilots themselves. If we had not seen the growth that we have in the last few years this problem would not be the issue it is now. How great would it be if RAA approached those other 200 flight school CFI's with an offer to subsidise their few hours required to become certified for PPC's. Very quickly another possible 200 PPC CFI's available and most of the immediate issues disappear. With more aircraft coming on the register and more pilot members, could be money well spent!

Kasper, I should state right now that most, if any of those changes will not affect me. I have been flying a PPC for 7 years quite happily. If RAA makes no changes i will not lose any sleep. But for PPC's to continue at the growth rate we have seen the last few years change must happen. You only have to read the first post to see the problems encountered by anyone wanting to enter into the simplest form of aviation RAA administer. Yes there is a training sylabus for PPC's but all they did was carry over some requirements from the other syllabus without any real thought as to if it was suitable. They had no idea of how a PPC operates, so just made it the same as everything else. So yes, that is just lazy. It is not that these issues are annoying. The real questions is, are the current rules suitable to be able to train new pilots and allow that class of aircraft to grow. My view (and the view of many other PPC pilots) is NO.

I think most would agree our current manuals, particularly the Op's are a dogs breakfast. This is what we get from allowing our organisation to change things as they see fit without sufficient oversight. They all keep telling us how widely they consult but very few know about it until it happens. Just how good could the manuals be if the constitution was amended to require a review at a minimum of every 12 months and ALL changes, were advertised, explained and approved/disallowed by the membership vote? (mandatory regulatory changes would not need a vote but still an explaination.) We might then even get some input from members with real knowledge and experience.

Gosh where do i start. Firstly we have to recognise the PPC and a 3 axis are totally different in level of complexity and safety. There is absolutely no reason they should be operated under the same levels of regulations or even the same Op's manual. To continue to do so is just laziness or an unwillingness to recognise the differences. RAA mandates 20hrs minimum to pilot certificate. Have a look at the Training manual for 3 axis and compare to the PPC syllabus and try and convince me they would take a similar time frame to complete. Most PPC pilots will be solo in 3-4 hours and suitably proficient for a PC in 10-12 hrs. The remaining time is often just flown off doing some circuit work or XC flights to make the 20. This is at a cost to the student of an instructor where is is not really needed. (A PPC cert from one large company will cost you $4000 if you buy new one of their PPC's, if you already have one it will cost $7000. If you own a different brand, they will not train you) The hours needed before being able to apply for an instructor rating was increased to 100 in the last Op's update. That may be suitable for a 3 axis but 75 was more than enough for a PPC. An additional 75 hours under a CFI before being able to apply for SI is again excessive for such a simple, safe aircraft and additionally unachievable with only 7 CFI's in the country. We don't need to train for stalls, spins, unusual attitudes, training for engine outs is pretty much the same as any other landing. I could go on but the training and supervision an instructor might need could easily be accomplished in 20 hrs. (if the CFI's were there) An instructor, SI or CFI rating/approval is currently transferable to other groups with minimal instruction. (thats how we got all our CFI's) but it doesn't have to be. By making the system more appropriate for PPC it would be easy to make a PPC rating/approval non transferable, easing all your worries about a PPC instructor getting a group A pilot certificate and starting to instruct on that type. My basic point is that changing the rules to suit PPC operations does not mean it has to apply to all aircraft. Making the changes to the manuals as we have always done, by including all aircraft groups is just lazy and ill-informed. Anyone with a sound knowledge of PPC operations could have a new draft Ops manual ready for 'presentation to the Board and member comment in a week. All without making changes to the operations of any other class of aircraft. All it takes it the will to do so.

I understand the ratings and their various restrictions. In 3 axis this may be the best setup. My whole point has been that a PPC with 3 basic controls, a throttle and two steering lines is so basic and easy that being absorbed into the 3 axis training regime is killing the sport. Individually, each problem with the Op's Manual is not a major issue, BUT put them all together and we have a limited ability to train new students, almost no ability to train instructors, and an almost impossibility to obtain a SI or CFI rating. You also might find it interesting that as far as I am aware none of the Group D CFI's actually operating now completed the whole training package as set by RAA. All have had previous experiences and done a conversion to PPC's with minimal hours/training on a PPC. If you can get a Group D CFI approval with only a few of hours in a PPC, it shows it's not that hard! As a group we are pushing hard for needed change and hope RAA can see the need for it. They are currently investigating the issues for a review of the Op's Manual so I hope they can make what is considered significant change for the better.

My understanding is that the definition was included to stop the practice of a CFI being able to authorise an instructors flights over the phone/email without having to physically be there. I have no idea why they thought that was required or if that practice had caused any problems. I certainly have not heard of any. I don't know whose bright idea it was but they certainly didn't ask any Instructors or people who wanted to go down that path. The real problem then kicks in of requiring a CFI supervision, but having only a handful of part time CFI's that can actually do it. The Instructor i mentioned previously took over two years and $12,000 to get a Class D instructor rating (and he tried damn hard) because the system is failing. He want to do a SI but is almost impossible for him to do. I cant see the point in an instructor rating if they are not able to instruct without supervision.I can't think of one other qualification that says you are qualified to do a particular job, but only if someone else is looking over your shoulder. Certainly with a PPC, if you can fly it, can carry a pax and have an instructor rating I cant see the need for all the restrictions.