68volksy

Just an update on this. Currently appears that you still have to pass a flight review in order to have a valid RPL. Basically the above means you've passed the theory component and are ok to fly that category and class of aircraft (ie airplane single engine) however you will not be taken to have passed a flight review. Sounds like it will leave it to the individual flying instructor to determine whether you pass the flight review. There looks to be some guidance coming out for instructors regarding this also.

There are a few young guys at the school in Goulburn. They don't fly quite so regularly as they're paying for it themselves but they still turn up pretty regularly. Regarding costs if you put it all down on paper the only cost saving for RA-Aus training should be the lesser fuel use. Where the RA-Aus plane might save a little in maintenance costs they more than make up for in depreciation. Don't forget to factor in paying an L2 to do all the maintenance. The good old Gazelle is the only RA-aus plane that makes a good business case however even that is a struggle to make enough out of to pay an instructor a decent wage. Businesses i've seen are lucky to clear $5/hour profit on the RA-Aus trainers. You'd only do that for love...

I think the instructors you're talking about at the airport are working for the wrong crowd! The going rate for Grade 3 instructors is about $50 per flying hour. Grade 2 and Grade 1 get significantly more. It's largely dependent on the weather but you should easily be able to average 20 flying hours per week over a 12 month period if you're happy working when the weather is good and having time off when it's bad. That's $50-60k per year working in one of the most rewarding careers around - wouldn't consider it that bad. Can't say what you're getting as a bar manager so I suppose i can't really compare but when I was working bars it was quite a bit less than that $50k... The kissing ass bit is entirely unnecessary if you've got an instructors rating from a reputable school and a good career history. It always amazes me just how small the world of aviation is... RA-Aus instructors are paid a little less but should expect around $40 per flying hour if they've got some decent experience or a good history with their boss/future boss. As for flying in unsafe conditions if you're an experienced pilot and anyone ever tells you "she'll be right" or "fly or leave - up to you" then you're just a damn fool if you strap yourself into the aircraft. There are so many aviation businesses around that bust their gut doing the right thing, maintaining things properly and looking after their people. Any business that does otherwise should be left to rot. It's that simple in my view.

For me getting them right all came down to simply choosing a field quickly. After initial checks it was just a matter of taking one look around and making a quick choice. That freed me up to follow a very standard forced landing process. As i approached the field and had time I would then look at other options and whether they might be better or not. Before that i'd spend so long debating the merits of each particular field that by the time i chose what I considered to be the best one it was no longer within reach. My instructors and testing officer all seemed to appreciate the methodology. I think you're better off trying to get the plane into a bad field (realistically it should be in at least the top five of "best" fields I think with just a rough guess) and trying to fly a good approach to set yourself up for the nicest landing possible and completing all the FMOST checks properly to hopefully get the fan spinning again.

Goulburn airport lessee currently charges $20 per full-stop in landing fees to "commercial organisations". Funny enough that is just our flying school and the new one recently started by the airport lessee... There is no exemption for annual fees as there was when managed directly by Council. We used to pay $770 per year. Now we're up for close to $16,000 per year so all students and aircraft hirers now are charged the fee on top of what they'd normally pay. Not to mention we've pushed as much flying as we can to Canberra as the fees there are only $2500 per year for both landing and parking. Just recently we've received bills from Avdata for "Parking fees" of $8 per day or part thereof for each aircraft that touches the grass between the runway and the hanger. Only paid parking in a 100km radius of Goulburn. Lovely if we got some maintenance but there was at least a tiny little bit of poetic justice when the airport lessee's aircraft recently managed to hit one of the potholes in the taxiway and busted its prop...

Love it! That's why they get paid the big bucks in the bigger organisations!

Most CEO/General Manager duty statements i've seen are very broadly worded. Phrases such as "Ensures Organisations compliance with all applicable rules and regulations" and "manage organisation" are the norm. The board simply provides oversight and leaves it to the manager to run the place properly. Not sure how anyone can talk themselves out of responsibility for anything when their job title is "CEO" however!

No they're not the same thing although I can understand any confusion! The RPL is a CASA issued licence that will effectively replace the GFPT. The Recreational Pilots Certificate is a certificate issued by RA-Aus. The certificate allows you to fly RA-Aus registered aircraft under all the rules of the RA-Aus legislation. The RPL basically allows flight of all single engine GA registered aircraft up to 1500kg maximum weight without having to undergo a medical. Once you have a RPL you can then add endorsements like cross country, controlled airspace etc. CASA are still debating how the conversion process from RA-Aus to RPL will take place however it does appear there will be some very big concessions granted. The two will be very similar with the main benefit of RPL being access to the larger aircraft and controlled airspace.

My understanding is that it is the RA-Aus ops manual that requires the photographs to be provided. This document was developed by RA-Aus way back and given to CASA as "The way we are going to do things". CASA then approved the manual. After a few years they came to make sure that RA-Aus were doing what they agreed they would do (i.e self-governing). Seems management threw out the ops manual once it was approved by CASA and started doing everything their own way.

Lot of Canberra guys have been getting their NVFR lately as it's such a pretty place to take your passengers for a flight! The school gently persuades the students to use it more as an option to take off before daylight in some instances and do the Canberra scenic flight at night. There's always currency issues with this kind of thing. We generally try to steer people away from the PIFR unless they're going to use it regularly as it's the kind of thing that really does need constant use or it's just another way to end up in a lot of trouble. I know that's talking ourselves out of some business but we need to sleep at night!

Both a radio and endorsement on it are needed for flight above 5000 feet. Also need written approval from CASA for a flight to proceed above 10000 feet. "An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher if it is equipped with serviceable radiotelephone equipment and the pilot is qualified to use it."

Thanks for copying those details in. My comments were following discussions with various CASA staff involved with the regs update so i may have missed something. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what the end result of the consultation process was to be entirely sure but with CASA's determination to limit the operations of RA-Aus then the above would make perfect sense.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/body-found-in-plane-wreckage-20130204-2dt3z.html Looks like the old tiger might have attacked again... My thoughts are with the family.

Not sure that's quite right? My understanding is that the new regs will introduce the Recreational Pilot Licence which effectively replaces the GFPT under the GA system. You can hold the new RPL with either a full medical or the drivers licence medical. It would appear that to this licence a pilot can then add endorsements such as cross country, controlled airspace etc. It's very similar to the RA-Aus Pilot Certificate but allows for up to 1500kg aircraft and access to controlled airspace. I'm told the RA-Aus Pilot Certificate will remain with all current restrictions. To convert from RA-Aus Pilot Certificate to Recreational Pilot Licence I would imagine the same criteria would apply that applies to conversion from RA-Aus to GA at the moment. i.e. demonstrating competence in all aspects of the licence and the necessary instrument time.

That's funny - i've always had the exact opposite impression! The poor old RA-Aus pilot's missing out on a lot of aircraft too don't forget. Not to mention aerobatics, controlled airspace, taking the family away...

I know of 3 few guys who've gone the Rex path at Wagga. They're not necessarily glowing about the whole experience but they seem very happy with their job and the experience they're getting. Mid 20's and up front of some very nice turbo-props. The course isn't for wimps either - the entry tests sound quite hard. I still reckon if you want a job in the airlines it's about the only way to go nowadays. Not often you see the "Pilots wanted" sign stapled to the side of your 737 any more.

That still doesn't make sense - why would they be reporting registration transfers? Not sure I see how the transfer of a registered aircraft requires reporting by the CASA appointed overseer of registration renewals and new issues.

Now that's not quite true - the form for change of ownership is the same as the form for re-registration. The form for initial registration is an entirely different form - generally filled in by the manufacturer when it is first registered. The form for transfer from GA to RA-Aus is an entirely different form again. So if they're claiming that it was on the form for change of ownership then the only other thing it could have been was a re-registration. Which begs similar questions. I'm still confused - is your information from a reliable source?

True - the bigger jump school pilots get something. Most guys get a little bit for doing it but there is a big "no" next to PPL holders being allowed to fly for reward. Most of the guys i've met who've done a bit for smaller places are just building hours. Not bad hours generally either as it's not uncommon to be flying turbo or constant speed aircraft which go a long way towards those CPL hours.

Can i just point out people flying jump planes generally are not earning any money? I only included it above as an example of the options out there. :)

I think it's a valid question personally and the kind of thing that should be scrutinized very closely. Remember this is a business taking people into the air for reward. Error404 - you're saying that RA-Aus has stuffed up yet again and that the aircraft was not an initial registration at all? Any evidence to support such a claim? I'm dealing with published and known facts here - the aircraft is listed clearly as an initial registration and has been used for training for close to 12 months. Only plausible scenario I can think of was that the RA-Aus files and the aircraft owners files were in such a bad state that they had no basis for providing it with a renewed registration and could only provide it with a new registration. This still poses the same concerns about whether there are or have been any standards at all applied to aircraft used on a commercial basis in RA-Aus. In the same vein how many prop strikes do we honestly think are reported to RA-Aus? I hear you motz - there's plenty of guys out there trying their hardest to do the right thing and report as much as possible. I get very frustrated by matters such as this! I'm unfortunately not in a position where I can ask RA-Aus for more information about this matter directly so if anyone would like to do so please feel free.

I've seen this question a lot and in my view it all depends on where you're heading with your flying. If it's all just for recreational purposes and you see yourself flying any and all aircraft available then it doesn't matter at all in the long run which path you take. Just see your training as an integral part of your flying and find a school where you enjoy doing it. Don't get fixated on how much it might cost to get your licence as if you're doing it all for fun who really cares! The journey should be just as enjoyable as the destination. If you're hoping to get into an airline seat then don't waste your time with RA or even small PPL schools. Go straight to the cadetship programs run by the airlines. If you're looking at instructing in RA-Aus as a career then get your RA-Aus certificate and instructor rating and you're set. If you're looking at GA instructing or general charter work, parachuting etc. then don't waste your time with RA hours as they will as a general rule be ignored entirely by future employers in this area. Basic rule is to spend your time and money flying aircraft that are relevant to your future prospects.

Well the rego matches the aircraft type and it's listed as one of only four initial issues. I'm all ears.

Just browsing through the list of "Initial Registrations" approved by RA-Aus during January 2013 out of interest and noted the registration of an aircraft that has been used for flight training for close to 12 months listed. Talk about lax standards and record keeping! Wonder if anyone in RA-Aus has made the connection? More to the point I wonder whether anyone in RA-Aus has or will be doing anything about it...

Hi Andy, You're quite right the growth in RA-Aus is not in the 95.10 sector. CASA has introduced the RPL to help pilots who have flown GA aircraft for many years stay in the GA regime. I too think it's safer letting people fly what they're used to rather than forcing them to retrain and fly totally different aircraft. From what I see at the local flying school there has been a huge number of GA pilots come through the door who can't get their medical and want to get their RA-Aus certificate. I'm not saying RA-Aus will feel the change straight away but that stream of new members has now been stopped. There are many changes coming to the GA training area and splitting of training schools into those that train commercial pilots and those that train recreational pilots I believe with reduced requirements for the recreational schools. Along with this are changes coming to the licences themselves starting in the full introduction of the RPL. The initial change made by way of exemption that coljones mentions was a little treat prior to the rest of the changes coming through. This is all in an effort to make GA flying more accessible and should reduce costs substantially. I wouldn't be surprised to find the DL medical becoming a requirement to holding an RA-Aus Certificate in the not too distant future if RA-Aus ever gets on top of the paperwork backlog. Although that's a feeling more than from any discussions i've had.