Aerochute Kev

Sorry Nev forgot to add about the FTF. The only reason i can see a CFI is needed for PPC's is to train instructors. A BFR could be conducted by any other instructor, there is no valid reason an instructor could not authorise a first solo, pax endorsement, radio, etc, or make the recommendation for the issue of a pilot certificate. Unless of course RAA would like to admit we don't train our instructors properly so they NEED supervision We get stuck in the thinking that PPC's should be the same as everything else because that is how it has always been. That doesn't mean it is right, or the best way for them to operate. I have a FTF on my property. The CFI has not flown here or conducted training here since about December last year. He has other areas that are closer to him to use, a lot more convenient for him and his students. So you see even the requirement that a CFI have a registered FTF is not always practical and merely an exercise in satisfying the requirements just because they are there.

Nev, If you have an old copy of the Op's manual then compare it to the new one you will see the change. They added the definition of "directly supervised" and changed the wording in the Instructors responsibilities section from supervised to directly supervised. This did not exist in previous editions. If the wording was left as it was it would of been possible for Davids instructor to contact his CFI and provide details of his intended flights, pax, weather, area being used, etc, and his CFI could have authorised the training if he felt everything was OK. RAA has basically removed the ability of any CFI to determine if an instructor is competent to conduct training and imposed an unreasonable restriction on ALL instructors.

That is how it used to be Downunder, and no one had a problem because if the CFI knew the instructor was OK, he could authorise training flights by the instructor over the phone or any other way. RAA took away the ability of the CFI to determine an instructors ability and mandated he must be physically supervised until he has a SI rating. With PPC's this is almost impossible to do do why would anyone spend the time, effort or $$$ for a rating they cant use? The CFI's we currently have will not be around forever so the situation will only get worse. Unless we see major changes with RAA, I can actually see a time when PPC' owners will just not bother with rego and membership and just fly illegally. The chances of being caught are about the same as becoming an instructor. EDIT: Those changes affected ALL aircraft groups so if you know of any instructor, of any class of RAA aircraft operating without "direct supervision" RAA has made it so they are operating illegally, and no one seemed to notice!!

Kasper, prior to the review of the Op's manual last year there was a need for the instructor to be "supervised" by a CFI. This did not necessarily mean he had to be present at the time of the instructing but the instructor could go ahead with training with his knowledge and permission. This is the time that the Instructor i was talking about earlier had commenced and nearly finished his instructor rating. When the new Op's manual was imposed on us all without any consultation the wording was changed to "directly supervised" and a definition included that "directly supervised" meant the CFI had to be physically present. Instantly his rating was reduced to worthless unless he could travel to the CFI to train students under supervision. With only 7 Group D CFI's in Australia, and most being affiliated with one brand of PPC (and refusing to train anyone who owns another type) what do you think the chances of any more instructors coming through the ranks are. I am guessing almost NIL. This type of aircraft doesn't need 100's of hours to be able to teach someone how to fly it, and if someone who is qualified as an Instructor is not good enough to instruct without direct supervision then we have a problem with how we train our instructors. Group A will usually fly from a recognised airfield with other aircraft, clubs, flight schools etc attached to that field. Any instructor has a good chance of being able to be supervised. PPC's usually fly from some remote field away from most other air traffic, no flight schools and no CFI's. (dont forget there is still only 7 CFI's in Australia) RAA has now made sure the PPC's will die out without changes to allow more instructors to be trained. They cannot operate under the same instructor training regime as other aircraft.

FT, I dont think anyone is saying they should not be regulated. But as far as Class D goes quite a bit of the rules just don't make sense. As an examle, under the new Op's manual a pilot requires training and to be signed off by a CFI for foot operated controls (among other things). Those controls don't do anything different than the hand controls, just done a differnt way. That would be like letting a Class A fly with a yoke and only letting them fly with a stick after further training and sign off by CFI. How many Class A pilots would be up in arms if RAA tried something like that. Yet they did that and more to Class D and nobody gives a rats a*** because it didn't affect them. I hope that when the changes that are being proposed come out for member comment you all talk to anyone you know with a Class D to find out if the changes are what they need, then support them.

That is probably the best description so far.

I don't think they are scared of CASA Birdseye, I think they just do not consider the effect on aircraft other than the type they are familiar with when they change or introduce new rules. This is why it is so important that all major changes are put to members for comment before implementation and not just mandated without consultation.

You're pretty hard to please Turbo, that link takes you to a post describing someone doing tight turns at low level, hitting the ground destroying the airframe and walking away uninjured. Try that in a Jab and see if you can get a similar result. Hardly showing how dangerous they are, in fact may just show how safe they are. All that post showed was the inexperience of the pilot, and that he still walked away afterwards.

Exactly SDQDI, that is why there are possibly as many PPC's being operated outside the Regs an within them. RAA has not kept up with the changes to recreational flying when PPC's were introduced and simply tried to absorb them into the current regulations that really do not suit type of aircraft they are. Mandating ridiculous requirements and then having no one that can actually do the certifications to make it right is a recipe for people to do what the hell they like as they can't comply anyway.

Unfortunately these claims could be true, if you live within a stones throw of the only 7 PPC CFI's in Australia. Its not the Instructor or CFI making life hard, it is the RAA. I know of one recently rated instructor that managed to gain that rating at a cost of around $12,000 due to the distance he had to travel to train. Sometimes traveling 5 hours for half an hours training. Now finally rated, it is useless as he (and his student) has to do the same travel to do any training because he must be directly supervised by a CFI. I worked out at that rate his Senior Instructor rating will probably cost around $80,000. Bet he lets the rating lapse unless the rules are changed. The PPC community are currently lobbying the RAA for a change to the Op's manual to allow the sport to grow. See the attached link for the thread in the powered parachute forum. http://www.australianppa.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=5 (sorry if it didnt attach as a link, but copy and paste into your browser.)

The name may have misled some as i wasn't referring to a PPC but thinking of looking for a project fixed wing. Probably a rag and tube. Kev

Thanks for your views, It seems as if doing the build as i intended could be a very risky business. I could have photos of the old airframe in bits to show it no longer exists but when it is rebuilt the tech team could say "it looks very much like it was originally so it is still a 32. and please remove those modifications you have done and you can't fly until we check it." The whole purpose is to finish with an aircraft i can modify and maintain as i like without all the MARAP stuff coming into play. When trying to prove the 51% is so subjective, using mostly all the parts of the old aircraft just might not be enough. Until there is some documented baseline on just what 51% is and how the percentages are allocated, maybe this is just not a good time to think of such a project.

I was thinking of a project that involves an unregistered aircraft that was previously rego'd 32. The aircraft will be totally stripped and any repairs/maintenance or modifications needed would be done then rebuilt but wanting to be classified as the builder under a 19 rego. I'm sure someone has done this before so i would like to know if they had any problems in doing so as under the current rules I think I could complete the aircraft and be told it is still a 32 and must stay as the factory built it.

Thanks, the PDF i was looking at in the recflying tutorials did not have that section in it. Went straight from 21.339 to 21.5. I thought there would be a more definitive answer than just major portion. I guess it is subjective to whoever is making the determination?

I am trying to find some definitions of what constitutes 51% of a build. RAAus Tech manual refers its definition to CASR 21 but i have poured through all 120 odd pages and cant find it. (I may have missed it as my eyes were getting a bit blurry by the middle of it!!) Anyone have some knowledge of this that can narrow down the search a bit? Thanks, Kev

I think that is a fair question FT, why is 19 rego included? Not only that, it wasn't long ago we had a poorly written Op's Manual imposed on us and after the flogging the Board took over that, was a promise the members would be consulted before major changes. I think this could be considered a major change as it affects a lot of members/aircraft. Is the Board not still doing what it was several years ago, making major changes without consultation? I'm not sure i like where this is heading.

HI Fred, interested in the prop. trying to figure out how to send a PM so if you don't get one soon can you contact me at kwilliamson100@hotmail dot com (wrote it this way so it cant be used as a link for spam)

Thanks Maj, glad it is not being forgotten. To me "accessible" would mean that anyone could do it (if you have enough funds available. A future flight on the Virgin space craft could easily be touted as accessible, but hardly affordable) "affordable" to me would mean it was within the financial reach of the majority of your target audience. A big difference. -Kev

"Recreational Aviation Australia - Safe, accessible, enjoyable aviation" Mmmmm..... Any one else notice that it is no longer being referred to as affordable?? - Kev

Andy, I like the way you're thinking. The cycle of apathy can be easily broken, but it must be broken by the board members actively seeking feedback from members on important issues. It is impossible for members to be giving feedback on an individual basis especially when they are not told what the issues are. I have completed the survey, but am not sure what it is trying to achieve. Maybe the time spent writing the survey could have been better spent providing an honest report to the members on the current state of RAAus. I am sure every Board member knows that members are calling for information on the state of the organisation and what changes are being proposed (including the new Ops manual) but it is being deliberately ignored.

I don't understand your comment Maj, did you mean we should vote for our Board reps then keep out of their way and let them govern?

It seems to me that before you can build on your membership base, you have to stop current members from walking away. Its easier to keep members that recruit new ones. With absolutely no information provided as to the real state of the organisation (ever heard of progress reports??) there really has been no incentive for anyone to stay if they have another alternative. I can honestly say I thought long and hard when my membership came up for renewal as to whether i was getting ANY benefit from it. I'm sure others have too. I did renew (reluctantly), but if I cant see any real improvement in the attitudes of the Board by next renewal i will let both membership and rego lapse.

Probably more important than how often, is the content. I would like to see an overview of the current state of the organisation including major projects, rego issues and maybe some form of a poll as to which direction the Board should head on major changes. As the newsletter is only to members i would expect honest information rather than all the "Sunshine and Roses" propaganda in the magazine, which may be read by the public. I would think fortnightly would be sufficient. I did notice the first e-mail, whilst a reasonable first effort, actually provided very little information. A missed opportunity there. Kev

I often do not have comms with a passenger but do give a full briefing of what not to touch, and also advise them I have a taser in my pocket so if they do something stupid I will taser them into unconsciousness to ensure I survive the flight. Couldn't find anything in the Ops manual that says i can't.

That's disappointing all round Dodo. Doesn't really say much for all those misguided people that have been jabbering on about "if you want to know something, contact your Reps". On a brighter note, I have received the e-mail newsletter and it is refreshing to see RAA actually asking what the members want in the newsletter. I only hope they listen to the members and the newsletter becomes something we can all look forward to, with regular updates on what is happening within RAA and not just a shortened version of the hard copy magazine with "all is great" propaganda. Kev