skippydiesel Posted June 27 Posted June 27 I am intersted to find out if any of you know of duel registered RAA / GA instructors. If known; Flight School name, contact number/ email would be useful.
Kiwi Posted June 27 Posted June 27 This won't help you Skippydiesel, but for anyone reading this in SEQ......
tillmanr Posted June 27 Posted June 27 You might like to contact Kyneton Aero Club. Their instructor Adam has instructed in both camps. 1 1
BrendAn Posted June 27 Posted June 27 (edited) latrobe valley aero club too. our cfi does ga, raaus , aeros but i assume you are after someone in your area. Edited June 27 by BrendAn
skippydiesel Posted June 27 Author Posted June 27 (edited) "......but i assume you are after someone in your area." NSW Would be best - happy to consider looking further afield - VIC, QLD & possibly SA😈 Edited June 27 by skippydiesel 1
skippydiesel Posted June 27 Author Posted June 27 14 hours ago, Kiwi said: Also so you can reminisce about the good old days.. The number of aircraft I have flown is limited to about 6. The Zephyr would be the sweetest to fly, great handling, terrific economy and such a quiet cockpit. Stalled at under 30 knots and could high speed Cruise at 120 knots . I have never understood why they weren't popular😈 1 1
BurnieM Posted June 27 Posted June 27 (edited) Learn2Fly at Canberra have both RAAus and CASA instructors. They have a couple of RAAus Bristells and one CASA registered Bristell as well as half a dozen other CASA aircraft. Not the cheapest. Edited June 28 by BurnieM 1
BrendAn Posted June 28 Posted June 28 9 hours ago, skippydiesel said: The number of aircraft I have flown is limited to about 6. The Zephyr would be the sweetest to fly, great handling, terrific economy and such a quiet cockpit. Stalled at under 30 knots and could high speed Cruise at 120 knots . I have never understood why they weren't popular😈 Wood construction scares a lot people off.
Headwind Posted June 28 Posted June 28 Rob Sharman, Devonport Tasmania. All round good guy and instructor for both. 3
skippydiesel Posted June 28 Author Posted June 28 2 hours ago, BrendAn said: Wood construction scares a lot people off. Well the Zephyr's production run has come to an end and been replaced by the all composite Faeta. If you have a hanger for the Zephyr, its still a good aircraft, that will outperform most others on its 100 hp Rotax There are two Faeta's - the only difference is the empennage - one a T tail , the other conventional. Performance envelope has expanded markedly - 27 knot stall to 135 knot cruise. I believe there is a 2 x 60L wing tank option - great for Australia. They used to do a advanced/quick build kit & a factory build. There was a huge range of fit out options as well. I"m not the agent any more, so details would have to be verified by contacting the factory https://www.atecaircraft.eu/en 😈 1
Headwind Posted June 28 Posted June 28 Rob’s contact details are on his website. https://www.arielaviation.com.au/ 1
skippydiesel Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 (edited) FYI: I have discovered the following (CASA Part 61) insanity (you possibly knew) that Instructors, with RAA/GA privileges, wishing to retain currency, have to do a BFR in each category and in VH & RAA registered aircraft ie two reviews & two diffrent aircraft . Ordinary pilots, with GA/RAA qualifications, are slightly better off, in that they can just do a GA/VH BFR and it will be accepted by RAA. NOTE: This does not mean that the GA/RAA pilot can do a GA review in an RAA registered aircraft (not recognised by CASA as an aircraft under Part 61) To add insult to the above insanity, Instructors can, under certain circumstances (no access to suitably qualified instructor / suitably registered aircraft), request that they just do the the one review/flight test and this will be accepted for both categories (as they should for all). I am unsure if this goes both ways ie RAA to GA or just GA to RAA (probably the latter) Its clear that the Part 61 regulations, are being varied to accomodate some situations, egro Part 61, as it pertains to the artificial separation of GA & RAA aircraft & flight reviews, is not fit for purpose (a crock of bovine excrement). 😈 Edited July 1 by skippydiesel 1
facthunter Posted July 1 Posted July 1 ALL GA instructors hold a Vald CPL or above. Some special conversions to type can be done by a PPL holder, when specifically authorised by the CASA. It never goes RAAus to GA. Some concern about Low inertia recency has been voiced from time to time, and it would be sensible if you haven flown one for a while (particularly a T/W type) some time with an instructor would be a safe approach. Nev 1
Kiwi Posted July 2 Posted July 2 I do a GA flight review, and they always put me under the hood for instrument flying, I believe it is compulsory. Unless your RAAus aircraft has a GA style 6 pack (DG, AH, and a Turn & Bank), or a glass cockpit, I can't see them letting you do a GA BFR in a RAAus aircraft. 1
BurnieM Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) You cannot do a CASA AFR in a RAAus registered aircraft. However, RAAus will accept your CASA AFR and reset your BFR expiry date. Edited July 2 by BurnieM 1 1
djpacro Posted July 2 Posted July 2 On 01/07/2026 at 1:05 PM, facthunter said: ALL GA instructors hold a Vald CPL or above. Some special conversions to type can be done by a PPL holder, when specifically authorised by the CASA. ... Not quite, since Part 61 12 years ago, a PPL can get a FIR with training endorsements to teach any design feature and any fliight actiivity endorsement. 2 hours ago, Kiwi said: I do a GA flight review, and they always put me under the hood for instrument flying, I believe it is compulsory. Unless your RAAus aircraft has a GA style 6 pack (DG, AH, and a Turn & Bank), or a glass cockpit, I can't see them letting you do a GA BFR in a RAAus aircraft. CASA's old CAAP is still in effect https://www.casa.gov.au/flight-crew-licensing-flight-reviews fairly sensible. My opinion is that they don't want to rewrite it consistent with the Part 61 reg. "... successful completion of a flight review for a rating on a pilot licence requires demonstration, to a person mentioned in subregulation (2), that the holder of the rating is competent in each unit of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the rating." That is far beyond a review per the CAAP. Of course, some rating renewals and design feature endorsements are taken in lieu of a flight review. 2
facthunter Posted July 2 Posted July 2 I kept a C/ME/IFRating up for years but it cost a monty.. A normal CPL renewal doesn't require that. A new endorsement CAN substitute for a Flight review.. Nev 2
facthunter Posted July 2 Posted July 2 DJP I think I mentioned the Point you are Making. SAAA needed that with some rare and complex types that Few pilots had experience on. Nev
skippydiesel Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 (edited) 2 hours ago, Kiwi said: I do a GA flight review, and they always put me under the hood for instrument flying, I believe it is compulsory. Unless your RAAus aircraft has a GA style 6 pack (DG, AH, and a Turn & Bank), or a glass cockpit, I can't see them letting you do a GA BFR in a RAAus aircraft. Must be something new - In all the years I few GA (Day VFR ) I never went "under the hood" for a BFR, except in initial basic training. My RAA aircraft "glass" panel is soooo much more capable than in any GA aircraft I flew, in the past. Read what I said - it primarily about Instructors 😈 Edited July 2 by skippydiesel 1
skippydiesel Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 (edited) 38 minutes ago, BurnieM said: You cannot do a CASA AFR in a RAAus registered aircraft. However, RAAus will accept your CASA AFR and reset your BFR expiry date. The word is not cannot, which suggests some physical limitation, it's not allowed - ie its a bureaucratic imposition , not a real world barrier. CASA Part 61 does nor recognise RAA aircraft as such.😈 Edited July 2 by skippydiesel 1
BurnieM Posted July 2 Posted July 2 "Cannot is a modal verb that means to be unable to do something or to lack permission to do it. It indicates that an action is impossible, forbidden, or incapable of happening." I believe I have used CANNOT correctly. 1
skippydiesel Posted July 7 Author Posted July 7 Well I believe the the word CAN means its is possible to do it (whatever it is) When NOT is added, it means that its not possible to do. In this context (CASA/RAA rules). This is clearly incorrect - You can do your GA BFR in an RAA registered aircraft. It may not be recognised (as a legitimate BFR) as there is a legal requirement to do it in a GA (VH) registered aircraft it ie may not be legal but it can certainly be done. The miss use, understanding, of the English language is ubiquitous - doesn't make it correct.😈
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now