Grouping ppc's

[tincup]

Hi. I am looking for information on how you can get your ppc grouped, and how it works?
I have been looking around but can't find any info on it.



Thanks

[capt.pilot]

Funny you should ask.. I was reviewing for an up comming ppc ride, not on a grouped aircraft but I was just reviewing our OP Specs and its Op Spec #32 that allows us to group for PPC purposes..

It's issued pursuant to paragraph 704.108 (2) (a) of the Cars and is valid if the operator complies with the requirements of 724.108 (2) of the CASS.. That's just for 704 in my understanding so it may be different for 702, 703 operations...

[Cat Driver]

How would you guys like to have worked in the industry forty five years ago?

Back then PPC's were no more than having the chief pilot check you out in a given airplane and when he /she were confident you could safely fly it you did.

Forty five years ago I was chief Pilot and chief flying instructor for a company that operated the following airplanes.

One Fleet Canuck.

One Cessna 150.

One Piper Colt.

One Beech Musketeer.

One Beech Debonair.

One Piper Apache.

One Beech 18.

One Hughes 269A.

One Hughes 300.

On any given day I would fly any of them as required either VFR or IFR as required.

The lack of a PPC didn't seem to have made any difference, except of course we weren't a one or two pony trick type of pilot just because of some bureaucratic requirement by TC.

[lost in the north]

I believe all ppc's should be done away with and left to the chief pilot to do thier ride,Its getting harder to get rides done when you are in the north.I liked the 2 year ppc as well till t.c got rid of them.

[tincup]

Ok so I read 724.108.

I am not sure what the purpose of grouping a ppc. It sounds like you have to do still do annual recurrent training. I thought you would do a ride one year on one type of aircraft and then another ride on a different aircraft.

[KK7]

How would you guys like to have worked in the industry forty five years ago?

Back then PPC's were no more than having the chief pilot check you out in a given airplane and when he /she were confident you could safely fly it you did.

Forty five years ago I was chief Pilot and chief flying instructor for a company that operated the following airplanes.

One Fleet Canuck.

One Cessna 150.

One Piper Colt.

One Beech Musketeer.

One Beech Debonair.

One Piper Apache.

One Beech 18.

One Hughes 269A.

One Hughes 300.

On any given day I would fly any of them as required either VFR or IFR as required.

The lack of a PPC didn't seem to have made any difference, except of course we weren't a one or two pony trick type of pilot just because of some bureaucratic requirement by TC.

I don't know about the helicopters since I am not in that world whatsoever, but I believe out of that list the only thing nowadays that might need a PPC is the Beech 18, so with that fleet today, things would work much the same as it did then. But I do hear what you're saying.

I think we should do something similar, however if TC really wants to be involved, then it should be non-transferable PPCs. This way folks can't get a PPC and burn the company, and the only way to get valuable experience that could be useful to another company is to fly the airplane for the company that originally trained you - thus not being able to burn them. IMO, nowadays PPCs involve more than just knowing the airplane, but the company's own SOPs which are not always the same from company to company. So changing companies should mean having to start the training over again, albeit it may be shorter given you actually have experience flying the airplane for a couple of years.

Regarding the original post though, doesn't grouping depend on the company's OC spec? In which case you just follow the company's Ops Manual. I've never been in a position to group PPCs, but my current company has provisions for their King Airs (100/200) which I haven't flown.

[Cat Driver]

You are correct that those airplanes were just different small piston engine airplanes and not exotic space ships. Having said that they definitely were different quite different and required a bit of thinking going from one to another, for instance jumping from the Apache and into the B18 and back took a bit of paying attention to the differences.

And for sure flying the helicopter usually twice a day and switching to the stiff wing stuff during the remainder of the day took a little bit of paying attention to what you had your hands and feet on............I'm betting the paper work to run a company that way today would weigh more than the aircraft.

You are also correct that transferable PPC's are a problem.

As to company SOP's you have me totally confused with that comment.

Do you think we just flew airplanes based on reading tea leaves before all these neat sounding acronyms became the norm?

So am I wrong thinking this reliance on so many rules is more window dressing than it is actual progress?

By the way how is SMS working out for all those small operators?

You can see I am really bored waiting for spring to arrive so I can do something.

[KK7]

You are correct that those airplanes were just different small piston engine airplanes and not exotic space ships. Having said that they definitely were different quite different and required a bit of thinking going from one to another, for instance jumping from the Apache and into the B18 and back took a bit of paying attention to the differences.

And for sure flying the helicopter usually twice a day and switching to the stiff wing stuff during the remainder of the day took a little bit of paying attention to what you had your hands and feet on............I'm betting the paper work to run a company that way today would weigh more than the aircraft.

Admittedly not having run such a company operating this range of aircraft, I don't think it would be as difficult to get the paperwork to do this as you might think from the standpoint of the flight department, from what I know of the CARs regarding this (with the B18 being the exception, and leaving the AMO out of this). For example these aircraft are all or have been commonly used in flight training, so you can run an FTU and operate these with instructors flying them. Sure the paperwork for any FTU is gruesome, but I am up for being proven wrong, but I don't think it would take much to have all these aircraft on the FTU OC. Maybe operating them as 702 or 703 might be a bit more cumbersome.

This being said, I have no doubt that it demands a certain amount of discipline to stay current with all these aircraft and be able to switch from one to the other at the drop of a hat, particularly between fixed and fling wing.

As to company SOP's you have me totally confused with that comment.

Do you think we just flew airplanes based on reading tea leaves before all these neat sounding acronyms became the norm?

So am I wrong thinking this reliance on so many rules is more window dressing than it is actual progress?

Hold the phone! Don't be so defensive!

What I'm saying, is that one aircraft, although indeed it always flies the same from one company to the other, may have slightly different procedures in how you go about operating said aircraft from company to company, no? I don't think this is new, and yes I agree these fancy procedures were also being used "way back when", which is why things worked so well when the CP simply trained his/her pilots to the way the company wanted them to fly the aircraft, then flew with them to make sure they were competent. Go to a different company, and the CP trains you on their procedures, and once again flies with the candidate to make sure they are competent to fly the plane.

SO, what I'm saying is that despite our new fancy acronyms for fancy words to make ourselves feel important, we can still do the same thing as before.

By the way how is SMS working out for all those small operators?

$$$

[fish4life]

I can see what he was saying about the different SOP's, I think the hardest part about going to a different company and new plane is definitely learning all the new SOP's and calls the flying the new airplane part is easy

[Cat Driver]

For example these aircraft are all or have been commonly used in flight training, so you can run an FTU and operate these with instructors flying them.

Only the light singles and the Apache were used in flight training, the Beech was for charter work and the helicopters were for charter and aerial application flying.

Anyhow having flown in both eras, before CAR's and after CAR's I preferred the before CAR's era, for the simple reason there was far, far less paper work.

But you lucky Canadians can be thankful you have not quite caught up to Europe for mind boggling bureaucracy.

By the time I retired there was not much fun left in flying because of all the B.S. rules and paper work.

[rigpiggy]

to quote a german friend
"but you have to remember. our bureaucrats have a 500 yr headstart on yours"

[ahramin]

Ok so I read 724.108.

I am not sure what the purpose of grouping a ppc. It sounds like you have to do still do annual recurrent training. I thought you would do a ride one year on one type of aircraft and then another ride on a different aircraft.

To get back to the actual topic, the purpose is that you only have to do 1 PPC per year. It's not an annual recurrent training grouping, it's a PPC grouping. You are correct that once the initials are done, you alternate aircraft types each year for the PPC. The training for both types is still required every year though.