David Taylor

Wise words Kasper, and ones that should be respected considering your experience. Those issues are ones that a 3 axis pilot must contend with and master every time you fly, which perhaps explains why a simple bloke like me has chosen to fly a PPC. I take your point about the complexity involved in getting my head around the coordination/mechanical control of the aircraft, luckily for me my PPC allows me to go up by increasing the throttle, reduce it I come down, push a foot control to go left or right. I think with practice I can accomplish that. Understanding the rules of the air, I can drive a car, motor bike, scuba dive and dance, I'm up for more learning, and how is my supervising CFI going to help me when I'm up in the air with my instructor ? Planning what's happening in the next 1 - 5 minutes half an hour, you must fly a lot faster than a PPC, from my limited experience sitting up there at 500 ft with an uninterrupted view of the world it is amost as if you are not moving, I'm not fast but if I can't think that quick I'll be sacked tomorrow. Understanding the weather and wind is a given for all of us. My judgement, that's another story. I made the judgement that the sport of PPC really should be enjoyed by thousands of people, not just the 261 that are currently involved, and that I wanted to be part of it. Unfortunately I am finding that it is being completely inhibited by a set of rules that have been developed for the 3 axis aircraft industry. For the sport to ever get off the ground it needs someone in RAA to have some vision and the guts to overcome the bias or complete misunderstanding of PPCs When I first walked into Divers Service dive shop in 1971 when I was 14 and bought my first scuba tank, they were fairly new, there was no instruction, no air gauges, no buoyancy control devises, I bought a book, read it and went diving. When instruction became available I was formerly trained in 1980 and became an instructor in 1982, diving was still a new sport, today there are 34,600 actively participating scuba divers. If everyone was spending their time regulating to make it harder to get into the sport to save them from themselves, instead of developing the training programs and systems that made an inherently dangerous sport accessible to people, Scuba diving would not be the sport enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people all around the world. There are many people in the PPC community that really have a passion for flying PPCs as you have for your aircraft and as fellow flyers we should at least have empathy or our mutual desire to fly and enjoy our chosen adventure. It's just that our segment needs slightly different rules to survive and prosper. We can only hope that the senior management of RAA can see the opportunity that it has for the growth of aviation sport to the benefit of all members and change will come. Some support from our big brothers in 3 axis, understanding our different needs would help Best wishes David

Thanks Kasper, I appreciate your taking the time to answer and I can see your point that having time working under a CFI would be beneficial and probably necessary in the training of pilots flying complex pieces of machinery like aeroplanes. The statistics prove it is a dangerous pastime. I just can't get over my belief that powered parachutes are not so complex, much safer and that the current system is not allowing the industry to grow and perhaps even survive. Perhaps that is what the RAA want, I agree with Kev, I suppose we will find out in May Cheers, I hope you all enjoy your flying and keep safe David

Kasper the $7000 for training or as you have put it is for Aerochute training, the training that one day I hope to do has been quoted as between $4 & $5k. I think the reason the Aerochute training is so expensive is because they can, there is no competition. I guess if I was a CFI training in their organisation I wouldn't really want to make changes to the system that could provide more competition either. This is great for them but not in the long term interest of a sport that has I believe a lot of potential You are very protective of the current system and perhaps with your knowledge of it may have had something to do with the development of it. I certainly respect your position as someone who has been very much involved in the industry for many years and appreciate that you probably see me as a insolent 5 minute man who wants to change the system to suit me. You are right I suppose. The fact is as it stands to take your suggestion and go interstate to do my 20 hrs would cost many thousands over and above the normal cost of training, I would be better off doing 3 axis training an getting aPPC endorsement which demonstrates how the environment that PPC are expected to work under helps one company but not the sport. You have corrected me and pointed out that PPC is differentiated from 3 axis with differing syllabus etc. if that is the case can you please help me to understand why some additional changes can't be added to reflect where the training of PPC is carried out and have the requirement for properly trained PPC instructors to train with the supervision of a CFI as opposed to direct supervision, the change to only apply to pendulas aircraft acknowledging their difference in training requirement. It is unlikely that the current CFIs would support this change so is it possible within the RAA framework or would PPC need to become their own association similar to the HGFA ? I would appreciate your opinion Thanks David

It seems to me that the reason that a sport that should be to the RAA, an opportunity to grow your numbers and therefore a benefit to all members is being restricted by a thinking that the sport of flying a PPC is far more dangerous than it is. Maybe there is an element of "if we keep more people out of his sport the more special we are " going on in a few of you No sport with an element of excitement doesn't have an element of risk, horse riding, snow skiing, scuba diving, motor bike sports and many more. I wasn't attracted to the sport of PPC for thrills. If I want trills I can night dive, cave dive, penetrate a wreck or dive with sharks I wanted to fly a PPC with my partner as a , relatively safe, enjoyable activity that we could enjoy together. The idea of the flyins, getting together with other people in the sport and exploring different areas of the country is was also attractive. Sadly I am learning that - I can't start training unless I travel interstate, or pay a company in my state $7000 to learn to fly a type of machine that I have chosen not to buy. The reason I can't be trained by my instructor who has many years of PPC experience is because the RAA who has the responsibility to look after this sport has taken the easy way out and lumped PPC with the training requirement of 3 axis aircraft which have no resemblance. I could have decided to learn to scuba dive, gained my open water scuba diving certificate gone on to gain open water experience and gained my advanced open water diver certificate since I decided I would like to take up this sport and I am still sitting here wondering when I can start or whether when my trailer is finished whether I just put the whole lot up for sale and leave it to the geniuses

Thanks for your explanation Ferris, I wonder if it has to be that complicated, I don't believe that an over complicated system delivers better results, however they must know what they are doing. I think the issue is that they have PPCs which I still believe in my assesment of the information that I have seen, and read including that put up by Turbo, PPC is different to fixed wing 3 axis aircraft and they are not paragliders either. They should have a different classification to those aircraft, a training syllabus to suit and we then have a win for all, the 3 axis guys can have their current standards, The PPC sport can grow, RAA becomes a more financial organisation. All we need to understand is what stops this from happening ? Anyone know

Turbo are you suggesting that adding a cert4 in training and assessment to the syllabus required to become an instructor would then allow them to instruct without direct supervision ?

Nev, there are different points of view that have been expressed on this and the PPCa forum and many from people with a lot more experience in this sport than me, personally I don't have a problem with doing 20 hrs to get my certificate if that what it takes to learn all of the things I need to know to fly safe. When I was a diving instructor, it would take around 20 hrs of instruction to teach someone the theory and practice to dive safely. The issue critical to me because that is the issue preventing me from being able to start training, is the issue of a CFI having to be present to supervise my instructor. This requirement which may be fine if you are learning to fly a 3 axis from an airport, is not practicle for this sport. When and if I finally get airborne the ongoing requirement of having to coordinate the weather and 3 people to meet somewhere just to get a lesson is a barrier to entry to this sport that no one seems to be able to justify apart from, it's because that's the way it is for 3 axis Cheers David

Turbo, I must write too slow, while I was responding to your first note, your other links came through, which identified some tragic fatalities. I can't tell what caused the first however that couple were very experienced, the second seemed to be influenced by modifications made to the chute. Whatever, they are accidents and we should all hope not to be involved in them. I occurs to me though that you have posted all the accidents over many years from all around the world, just have a look at the RAA site accidents for this year alone and I think the point is made 3 axis vs PPC safety record I still don't know why things can't change, the only reason seems to be because it is the way it is and it suits 3 axis so leave it as it is Cheers David

Thanks Turbo for taking the time to send those links. I have seen most of them while searching for information on the sport. I have to admit that the people who are into paragliding are real thrill seekers, way too hard and dangerous for me. Of the powered parachute crashes, one was an experimental design pushing it to the limit, my machine is a well built and proven model and wing. One had the front wheel break on takeoff, one fell into the ocean, not sure why, nearly drowned but didn't die, one tried taking off with a cross wind and the other I am not sure what happened he just didn't seem to have enough power to complete the takeoff. I agree even flying a PPC requires adequate instruction and knowledge of the potential hazards along with a acute awareness of the weather conditions. I have been reading the RAA information on weather and turbulace, great information. Having said all of that I still believe that people should be able to be adequately instructed in this sport without third party supervision by a CFI. If I am missing something can someone explain why, apart from because it is a requirement for 3 axis fixed wing aircraft. Why is it not possible to have PPC correctly identified as a unique type of flying machine, acknowledging their ease of flight and that they are flown from paddocks etc and allow a training curriculum that suits it. Apart from giving some people employed within RAA a bit of work to do, why is it not possible ? Cheers David

G'day Kasper, It was interesting to hear about the Drifter and Balerit aircraft and ease of flying them, they do look like real seat of the pants type of flying fun, just like a PPC, only they are nothing like a PPC. Luckily there doesn't seem to be a lot of people reading this forum otherwise I might bore them to death repeating my main issue, which is the powered parachute is a completely unique flying machine, very different from fixed wing aircraft in their design, risk of flight, ease of flight, inherent stability, can't stall or spin. Because of those differences they and their training requirements should be different from your style of aircraft. I learned today that there are 261 PPC pilots, what a pathetic result in the 23 years of this sport, that is an average of 11.3 pa. I can almost hear some of you guys very happy in 3 axis land as saying that is because PPC is no fun and you Kasper may say that proves there is no market for it. I would suggest the sport is being strangled by the ridiculous training requirements that require third party supervision in a sport that is not carried out, in fact is not allowed by your peers in most airports. Thanks again Kasper, if the RAA and their resistance to change and accept that one size doesn't always fit all approach doesn't keep me out of the sport forever and I finally get to fly, I would be happy to take you for a flight. Cheers David

Thanks once again Kasper for your reply, however I don't agree with it. I think lumping the PPC which has a completely different design and flying characteristics and safety record to a 3 axis aircraft into the same training regime is perhaps an easy way of handling it from the RAA point of view, but it is killing this sport that should be growing far more strongly than it is. I look at the people I know who in the last few years have bought Jetskis and Harley's as they reach an age where they want fit a bit of excitement and recreation into their lives, the PPC should be taking a share of that market if the barriers to entry weren't so restrictive. As I have said other far more inherently dangerous sports don't have these restrictions. I agree with Turboplanner in his comment about weather, this should certainly be a big part of the training program, the same as divers have to learn about decompression, narcossis and baratrauma injuries. Bottom line is PPC do need to be treated as a different type of flying machine because they are. Hey the good news is I discovered that I could download Ops 7 and the Syllabus from the web site, I'll read it when I'm not reading about the the impacts of weather and perhaps won't have to ask so many questions. Cheers David

Thanks Kasper and thanks again for your being involved in this debate and providing the information that you have to help my understanding. The question I have is that considering we are in agreement that becoming a pilot and instructor has been made more difficult with the new Ops manual, do you know 1 ) why the decision was made 2 ) who makes to decision 3 ) does the decision affect all potential pilots or just PPC Cheers

Thanks Kasper, I wish I could cut and paste as well as you, that clarifies the changes. I looks pretty benign and as if whoever bought about the change didn't want it to appear as a significant change however I looked up in the Macquarie dictionary the word observe OBSERVE Verb ( served, - serving ) 1. To see or notice 2. To regard with attention 3. To comment. 4. To show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony etc In Ops 6, going by that definition at least the way I read it could be taken as a CFI has to be involved but not physically there Inputting the word personally changed that, the macquarie says that PERSONAL 2a relating to a physical presence or involvement of a person I think Kev is correct in his interperatation of the changes. Wow now I find out that the requirement to become an instructor has been increased by 25% If this change was made to enable the confidence in an instructor so they could instruct without personal supervision I would think that is a step toward making this sport more accessible, however it seems it is a regressive step with two changes that lock it up tighter. I should have gotten into this industry many years ago and become a CFI with Aerochute I would be laughing now, my opposition has the barrier to entry being made harder by the regulators of the industry who should be working to create a growing industry open to competition. Cheers David

Thanks Kev, I thought I had read that, I wonder why I was changed ? Apart from my opinion that this sport should ba able to develop instructors with enough competency to instruct by them selves with no supervision, at least with only supervision of my solo flight I could have at least started my instruction. As it stands with this new change I presently only have one option to be taught currently and that is to go to Aerochute and get trained, they must be loving it. My only problem is I have looked around and want to fly a Steelbreeze, I just think it is a safer, better built craft and this system is forcing me to Aerochute. It's got to change

Kasper, I thought I had read that there had been a change to the wording of the Ops manual in the new version, perhaps I got this wrong, I don't have copies of the different ops manuals to compare. Thinking about it if it was easier in the past for people to be trained and instructors developed into SI and CFI then we wouldn't be having this debate now. It seems to me that if an instructor was allowed to provide the instruction without direct supervision of a CFI until the solo flight It would make it at least possible for someone to get off the ground. On the second issue I wasn't suggesting that a GA instructor could just teach me to fly PPC, perhaps I have misunderstood however I thought I had read that a GA SI or CFI could gain a PPC endorsement which would then allow them to train in PPC And yes I agree there are not enough PPC SI and CFI in the system to allow the sport to grow and I truely hope changes are made to allow the development of more FI, SI and CFI in this sport. Perhaps PPC being a different type of craft than others in the flying world ie suspended below the wing as opposed to attached to it and being a safer and easier type of flying to master, that they be treated differently in terms of their instruction regime to other aircraft As I have said before, scuba diving has as many if not more inherent dangers than flying a PPC albeit there are dangers involved still in this type of flying. However the diving industry 30 years ago realised that to grow their industry they needed more instructors and the sport has grown exponentially There needs to be for PPC a pathway for people to be introduced to the sport, learn to fly, gain experience and endorsements toward an examination to become an instructor that is deemed sufficient to allow confidence that that person can then instruct people to become PPC pilots. Without third party supervision which in this industry at least for this sport which is not carried out at an airport is a barrier to entry. In the diving industry the instructor can then become an instructor in different endorsements like advanced diving, night diving, cave diving, wreck diving etc until they become a master instructor There is a clear path to encourage people into the sport and to encourage them to go on and gain more experience and higher levels of competence cheers David