Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

ian00798

Members
  • Content Count

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

ian00798 last won the day on November 19 2017

ian00798 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

496 Excellent

About ian00798

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  • Birthday 29/08/1988

More Information

  • Location
    Redcliffe
  • Country
    Australia
  1. I generally leave 3 lines between each month, I go for the compromise between neatness and maximising capacity. Each to their own really and do what makes you happy, I’m just a slight bit OCD and value that neatness and everything being in order for the logbook. At the end of the day you could satisfy the casa requirement by writing your flight hours on a series of napkins and binding them together.
  2. I like logten pro for my IPad. Has a lot of useful functions and can be printed out in the same format as the ATC logbook
  3. It’s about triple the size of the normal logbook, and it cost about $60 when I got it 10 years ago
  4. Looks hard to find now. I used to use the professional logbook but just recently transferred the info across to the normal logbook. Trust me, the professional logbook is more irritating than its worth.
  5. An RA senior instructor doesn’t take that much time to get, they only need to hold an instructor rating and then do 75 hours of instruction. A GA instructor with similar privileges would be grade 2, and that requires at least 200 hours of instruction. Frankly for your first 100 hours instructing your learning at least as much as the student is, possibly more. Even after that there is a lot to learn.
  6. Frankly the standard is far less variable in GA than RA. Might have something to do with the person issuing the licence being a representative of CASA and having actually gone through training to assess their suitability to conduct flight tests as well as the fact that they generally have several thousand hours (generally more like 10 000 hours), not the minimum 250 needed for an RA CFI endorsement.
  7. I don’t entirely agree with you on this one Ben which is pretty rare, I generally see eye to eye with you. RA can and quite often does count towards GA flight time for issue of a CPL, although only certain parts of it count. As for how big a step up the transition from RA to GA is, I think that depends on where you did your training. My biggest criticism of RA is the standard is just so variable. Some people are trained to a point I argue doesn’t even meet the RA competency standards, some are trained every bit as well as their GA counterparts (particularly at dual GA/RA schools). At the end of the day, CPL is competency based. The hours stated are minimums, some people will get the qualification near the minimums, others will take a lot more.
  8. Pretty much exactly correct, although the ATPL hours are: 1500tt 1400 hours as pilot (ie you can count 100 hours flight engineer) 750 hours aeroplane, with at least either 500 hours ICUS or 250 hours command of which 70 hours must be PIC and the rest can be ICUS 200 hours XC 100 hours XC PIC/ICUS 100 hours night other than dual 75 IF of which 45 must be in the aircraft, the remainder can be approved sim. As stated, captain has to be an ATPL holder for RPT, FO can be a CPL holder however they would need multi crew cooperation course, instrument rating and an appropriate type rating.
  9. Correct, it’s only the IFR TSO gps that are approved. Basically to be used for navigation of this type it has to have some kind of RAIM system in the software. There are several TSO that meet the standard, but the common ones are TSO 129 or 145/146.
  10. Unlikely as your probably not current for azimuth, you would only be signed off on CDI approaches at the moment I suspect. Similar to how you have to demonstrate a circling approach within the last 12 months to be able to do one in anger. If you had an aircraft that lets you do VOR azimuth approaches then possibly you could.
  11. Krviator, I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on some aspects of this issue as I believe the requirements are different to how you interpret them, but surely you can agree that some type of training would have to be done prior to actually being competent to use these navaids for primary navigation in anger?
  12. Following the magenta line is more referring to people becoming over reliant on technology and automation to the point where they lose situational awareness. ADF and VOR both require a significant amount of situational awareness to use, in fact I find it takes nearly as long to teach students how to use them as it does to teach DR. Too many people have excessive faith in GPS despite the fact that it is subject to error as well, and the idea of removing DR Nav from the training syllabus as some want done would be a massive step backwards.
  13. Don’t you know old school techniques like that are irrelevant in the age of GPS?
  14. I’m sorry and I’m going to very very agitated on this one, but are you seriously implying you know the ATC system better than an experienced controller who has done several years of training in this system and knows very well what the system provides? Tell me, when did you become the world expert on what information ATC provides? Have you ever even actually seen how this information is presented at an ATC console? I know it’s not a book you ever read, but perhaps we should look at AIP GEN 2.13.2 which specifically states exactly what Nathan has told you (photo attached to this post). Pull your head in and stop making up your own stuff. I don’t really care what you do on your own when you fly, but there are some people on here who may think you know what your talking about who your going to kill when they listen to you.
×
×
  • Create New...