CPL Pilot

[DGL Fox]

A question, is there anything in Part 61 that says a RAAus registered aircraft can't be used by a CPL pilot to build up his command hours?

 

David

 

 

[Fishla]

I believe 100 hours of the 200 non-integrated course are allowed to come from RAAus.

 

See here.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/would-a-recreational-certificate-make-it-easy-to-get-a-ppl.56212/page-

 

 

[kaz3g]

Getting your commercial pilot licence | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

[DGL Fox]

I believe 100 hours of the 200 non-integrated course are allowed to come from RAAus.See here.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/would-a-recreational-certificate-make-it-easy-to-get-a-ppl.56212/page-

So is that in the new Part 61 rules?

David

 

 

[Jay_1984]

Hi,

 

Thus has been discussed before on another thread on this site, but under part 61, there is no distinction made between RA and VH registered aircraft, you can use either, as long as the aircraft is 3 axis. Also the hours are only under the non integrated CPL.

 

However from a practical point of view you have to think about what aircraft you are using for CPL hour building. If you wanted to be an instructor, then a good mix of RA and VH is good as you can be both a GA and RA instructor, but if it's charter looking to RPT then more time in VH might be what a potential employer wants.

 

Finishing off my CPL at them moment so have spent a bit of time researching this.

 

 

[horsefeathers]

Casa requirements (Part 61) are here

 

If doing the non-integrated (ie 200 hour) CPL course, minimum of 100 hours as PIC in "an aeroplane" (ie RAA aircraft) , minimum 20 hours cross country as PIC plus dual training etc.

 

HOWEVER, For the 150 hour integrated course, 70 hours minimum as PIC but "flight time must be in registered or recognised aeroplanes" - ie NOT RAA

 

Just been through this with my daughter, and the information on the CASA website has conflicting information - some is pre Part 61, some post Part 61

 

 

[ben87r]

Jay is correct regarding what will be acceptable to employers.

 

RA time isn't regarded well by most CP's for charter anyway, can't comment in Instruction. Flying a Jab has very little to do with flying a 6 seat retract at 165kn

 

 

[facthunter]

What the employers want is worth considering, but there is some evidence that some U/L planes do produce good if not better pilots than flying a Cherokee or Cessna 172 would. SOME employers might be enlightened more than others in this regard.. I'm sure it would show up in the standard of actual stick and rudder aircraft management as there's no doubt many U/L's require more skill than many GA planes to fly. If someone flys a Jab 230 really well they won't have much trouble with any other "comparable" GA plane once you get over the size of it. This confronts some people initially, but you soon adapt. An Aeroplane is an aeroplane is an aeroplane. Certified aircraft would not be permitted to be sold with some of the quirks some U/L's have . Even two of the same model (with different builders/engines/ brakes etc) has widely different characteristics. Nev

 

 

[Fishla]

Just starting a PPL after getting the RAAus certificate I'm not sure if Jabiru's are harder to fly or not.

 

Inertia I have discovered does make some things easier but I also miss the light controls of the Jabiru...

 

I think flying both is the way to go!

 

 

[Jay_1984]

Both types have their pros and cons. Good to learn both and ultralight vs 'GA' is really an apples and oranges kind of thing (or should it be feather and brick)

 

Being back and forth between a Jab and an Arrow proved that. The Jab is fun trying to get back down on the ground sometimes, with the Arrow, it's trying to keep it up :)