ian00798

I find with navs you can really do a lot of ground preparation that will save a lot of air time. Pick a random place, even if you just point somewhere on a map with your eyes closed, then plan the flight to there. Do the whole lot, including heading calculations, get the weather, notams etc. then fly it in your head. What will my radio calls be? When will I make them? Who to? Then do Nav work cycles, error correction cycles, even plan a diversion to really get the process down. Do airways clearances, circuit procedures and everything you would do on an actual flight. The flying up to RPL is basic flying techniques, the how to fly an aircraft. Everything after that, ie IF, Nav, Night etc is just a new set of procedures to learn, the aircraft will always fly the way it did up to RPL, and procedures can be ingrained through ground training. Pearo, what is it for Angel flights? 250 PIC?

RPL makes good sense if your training is done over a long time period, but if your doing a lot of training at once with good consistency, I would just skip it.

Are you going for CPL? 56 hours is a good chunk of PIC for a PPL to have, makes it easier to get exciting aircraft like the C210 etc.

PIC is the most critical part of flying, you are the one making the decisions, it will always help and the more you can get the better. How much PIC did you have pearo when you did the test?

Unusual for me to disagree with Pearo, we are generally on the same page, but the standards for the RPL and the PPL are exactly the same, except for a PPL you do navigation and controlled airspace. If the school is worried about you passing a PPL, then they should have the same problem with the RPL component. They won't put you up for a test unless you are ready and meeting the standards. For information, I have put the reference from the manual of standards in a photo below. While these are the published tolerances, brief excursions outside them that are promptly corrected generally won't get you failed, but a requirement of the test is to set attitudes, so if you spend all day going from +149 feet from your nominated height to -149 feet from your nominated height you will still fail even though your within tolerances.

Save yourself the test fee, do the PPL test straight away, and spend the $1000 you save on a retrac and csu endorsement. You will get way more benefit.

Aplund, if it's test pressure your a bit worried about, I don't think that will be any less for an RPL flight test. If your a bit worried about the PPL been too much on one day, I believe there is actually an option to split the Nav component and air work component over two seperate days, as per 5.5.3 on page 51 of the flight examiners handbook, although I honestly wouldn't recommend doing that. I honestly don't believe the test will be any more or less difficult if you haven't done an RPL flight test. Keep in mind, you can actually do a CPL without doing an RPL or PPL. Is there anything you are particularly worried about for the flight test? When your doing the test, remember that the testing officer has to tell you when you have failed, so if you are still going on the test then you are passing. You can (and will) make mistakes on the test and still pass. The instant fail items tend to be violating controlled airspace (testing officer shouldn't let it actually happen though) or placing the aircraft in a dangerous state with appropriate corrective action. I suggest reading this blog for information on the flight test: http://makingtimeforflying.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/ppl-test-part-1-from-redcliffe-to.html And ultimately follow your instincts. Going from your posts, I think your quite an intelligent, capable person who can make a good decision based on the information and opinions given here.

It's all one flight, check with Pearo but I think a PPL test goes for about 3.5 hours flying. I have a very good flight instructor that would be very willing to help you and make the decision in your best interest, not theirs, if you want.

You will do everything you do in the RPL flight test in the PPL flight test. If you look at the test form for the PPL test, everything on that has to be done except the multi engine stuff, the refuelling stuff and the crosswind landings. If your instructor recommends you for the PPL flight test, that's how you know your ready. You don't get to do the test if your instructors don't think your up to it. I have attached the test forms for you to look at. The big difference between RPL and PPL is the controlled airspace stuff and the NAVEX.

I've been pretty lucky so far, I hold an RPL with all endorsements, PPL with low level, CSU, retrac, gas turbine, tail wheel, aeros and spins and haven't yet had to do a test with a CASA examiner. However, the $700 test fee, aircraft hire and pre test to do the RPL flight test will top the $2k mark for very little benefit, that's a lot of flying towards your PPL. Like Pearo said, the RPL way worked for him, and it works for a lot of other people, but you sound like you were already close to the PPL flight test, so it may not provide the same benefit to you.

Go with your instructors on that one, they have flown with you and know your capabilities. I know a school that would be more than happy to help you out and do it your way.

Save yourself a $700 casa test fee and just go straight onto your PPL. Since you already have 10 hours Nav, you most of the way there really and I can't see any benefit for you doing an extra flight test for no good reason. Ultimately, you doing both tests just get the school more money, as they get 2 licence pre tests out of you. The time requirements for RPL Nav and PPL Nav are exactly the same, Nav is Nav and there are only so many ways to do it. Your out of YBAF, so I don't think CTA will scare you too much. Yes, you need another 0.9 solo to go for the RPL test, and you will also need to do that 0.9 training area/CCT for your PPL anyway. My recommendation would be get the theory exam knocked over so you know where your knowledge weaknesses are, then get the PPL done. If the school doesn't want to cooperate, I can recommend one that will.

In all fairness, that also applies to the C172, and to an extent even the C182, although the C182 may not be great for really new learners. Actually, a lot of the RAA aircraft are probably better for initial training, very basic low inertia stick and rudder aircraft, with very few gadgets to distract from the task of flying the aircraft. It's generally easy to teach competent pilots how to use a CSU, retractable undercarriage, flaps, cowl flaps and advanced avionics, but it can be very difficult to teach a 100 hour pilot to use the rudder when they have been able to get away with it because the c172 is very forgiving in that aspect.

I was lucky enough to have my degree paid for by the taxpayer, so I'm not up to speed on how fee help works, however my understanding is that it is a real debt, and therefore banks assess it when your after things like home loans, and has to be paid back with the government starting to really crack down on it. My big issue is it makes it harder for all the other flying schools, and there is no level playing field. One of the best things about where I do my CPL training is the training is done as though I was on a commercial operation. I normally have to get the aircraft out of the hangar, put the appropriate amount of fuel in the aircraft, and the scenarios I fly have been done just weeks before as an actual commercial flight. I'm also expected to fly to VFR minimums, and make the appropriate airmanship decisions. I can't remember the last time the instructor actually made a decision for me, I make the decisions and the instructor lets them play out. I'm in no doubt that the training at the fee help schools meets the standards, but at 30% higher cost I would really want it to exceed the standard of the other schools. I have no problem with cadet schemes etc, I just think the industry needs balance and diversity in the backgrounds of its pilots and this won't happen if the only way to get pilot training is through a fee help school. And the university's need to stop selling these schemes by convincing the students they will be the best pilots since bob Hoover and will all be flying A380s to London within a few years.

Aviation will always have jobs for people that are determined, passionate and willing to make sacrifices, however you may end up very disappointed and dejected if you think you can do one of these Uni courses and find yourself in a jet straight away. It's not impossible and does happen, but definitely not the norm. Plus, light aircraft are so much fun. In fact, I really want to get my hands on a king air, it has to be one of the most exciting aircraft going around.

I thought a bachelor degree was normally around the 25-30k mark. However, probably not a bad idea to have a non aviation degree as a plan b for your CPL

Melbourne tower was nearly wiped out many years ago by and aircraft doing an NDB approach to rwy 09

I'm 27 and have more grey hairs than I want. It's what happens when you have a radar screen and busy VFR airports.

When I flew the CT4 I did. It didn't make me feel that much safer. Even the ejection seat in the PC9 wasn't a magic bullet for that. For the parachute, just think what's involved in jumping out. You have to unstrap, open the door/canopy against the slipstream, get yourself out of the cockpit, jump from the cockpit area without hitting any part of the aircraft on the way down and without getting snagged and then hopefully your parachute decides to work today. That's assuming your in an aircraft that is somewhat under control. If it's spinning etc then you have other forces to fight against. I would work on the assumption that if you weren't above 3000ft parachuting may not end too well either. Even in the PC9 we had to have 60 knots forward speed with no rate of descent/bank angle to eject at zero feet, and that was with the knowledge that if there was any wind it was going to hurt on landing.

I'm assuming you are talking about a home built aircraft, in which case you were by definition the test pilot. If you built it, you are extremely familiar with its systems, hence you are qualified to write the POH. You then go and do a 25-40 hour test program where you are a test pilot effectively. I would assume you had a reasonable idea of the performance specs for the aircraft, possibly had even flown a similar aircraft before, and then you did a lot of the testing at heights that gave you some margin for error. That's a bit different to somebody grabbing a 172 and then saying stuff it, I don't like the way the test pilot says I should fly this, I'm going to do it my way. As soon as you enter that area, you are a test pilot. All the performance figures etc in the POH are no longer valid. Possibly something you may get away with, but if your going to try it, probably not a decision you should make on the spur of the moment, you really need to do a proper risk analysis on that kind of thing.

Think I need to drop into a tower myself one day to see how you guys do things.

In the enroute system it will flash cyan. Rhys, is your tower intas yet?

Enroute don't see the callsign unless you also have ADSB out capability. I believe the system still receives all the mode s information, it just doesn't show on the screen for us. However, I believe the systems supervisor does have the ability to access the 24 bit mode s return from the raw feed if necessary. That is starting to really get into the technical aspects of the eurocat system and beyond my knowledge and most controllers knowledge. I believe the mode s data becomes more important at certain towered aerodromes when they use a system known as A-SMGCS for ground movements, and I believe this system is largely reliant on mode s information, hence the requirement for mode s at places like Sydney and Brisbane. Having the correct mode s callsign would be critical here. Not being a tower controller, my knowledge on this system is very small, perhaps Rhys can elaborate a bit on that one.

Exactly what rhys said. We don't know for sure that your mode c level is actually accurate, you may be on the wrong qnh, the transponder may be sending out incorrect data, all kinds of things so we let the other guy know that we don't have total confidence in the level information they are being given. It's the same as why most controllers use the phrase "intentions Unknown" when giving tracking information on VFR aircraft, we need the other guy to know that this traffic they are getting may behave unpredictably. For information, we will pass an IFR aircraft traffic on observed VFR aircraft that will get within 5nm and have a mode c level within plus/minus 2000ft. As for whether or not to answer, it's a bit of a judgement call. If you hear the phrase "safety alert" or "avoiding action", it's probably a good idea to let us, and the other guy, know your intentions. I don't want to give avoiding action to an IFR aircraft only to then have you turn back into them. If it's just routine passing traffic, but centre sounds really busy, probably best to just stay quiet. If we really want to talk, we will chase you. If things seem quieter and you believe we are referring to you, by all means call up and let us know your intentions. The fact that you are listening on the area frequency even is a lot better than a lot of VFR pilots, and there is a lot of important info passed on the area frequency such as hazard alerts, traffic, military low jets, and weather updates.

I guess ultimately for one the job role is to keep aircraft separated, the other one their job is to put aircraft together.