NAVEX for BFR??

[Frank Arouet]

Amended CAAP 5.81-1(1) - Flight Crew Licensing Flight Review has been posted onto the CASA Website.

Civil Aviation Regulations require a pilot to successfully complete a flight review in the 2 years prior to conducting a flight. A flight review provides an opportunity for pilots to refresh their skills and knowledge to maintain a level of proficiency appropriate to the level of licence they hold. CAAP 5.81-1(1) has been amended to reflect CASA's recommendation to include of a navigation exercise as part of a flight review as a result of investigation of recent accidents and incidents by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

[gas-chamber]

Jandakot-Rottnest or Essendon-Avalon could be considered to be navex's so I don't imagine it will be much of a test unless they lay down a minimum length. Shock-horror!

[601]

From one circuit area to another = navex
Some of the circuits I see would qualify as a navex

[Wally Mk2]

Good to see, more is better in the case. It ought to be a check of ones complete abilities to aviate & that includes navigating, a huge part of flying. Any fool can fly the machine (I'm a good Eg of that!:E) it's whether they can do it safely in an environment that many others operate, VFR & IFR.
So the more in depth checking the better I reckon.


Wmk2

[Frank Arouet]

As I would assume, the NAVEX would be additional to, and not in lieu of the minimum 1 hour BFR. I can see some cashing in on this especially as few would even remember how to do a 1;60 since the advent of GPS.

Another "hoop" to jump through and some more cash to part with.:ouch:

[Aerohooligan]

Frank,

sorry but I have to disagree with your apparent discontent with the amended CAAP. I don't wish to hijack the thread or make any unjust assumptions, but there are a few reasons I feel this amendment is long overdue. I don't know your licence type or level of experience, so please accept my apologies if I say anything that offends, this is not my intention.

I have worked at a couple of different flying schools. First one was as a student working the desk, second one was a recreational (GA) school attached to the charter company I flew for. Something I noticed on a regular basis (but not 100% of the time, mind) was complaints from (generally) PPL pilots about the need for a navigation component to the BFR. Oft-uttered phrases were along the lines of 'but I only fly aerobatics', 'I only visit the training area', 'I haven't done a nav in 6 years' and so on.

I say PPLs because it is rare for an active commercial pilot to require a BFR; we're kept busy with IR renewals, proficiency checks and the like, which cover the requirement for a BFR. Because we practice our skills on a daily basis, we are certainly at an advantage in that respect.

I don't wish to make this a professional vs. recreational debate, but I feel that if commercial pilots are required to demonstrate proficiency in all aspects of our flying, including things rarely practiced (emergencies, full NDB/VOR approaches, unusual manoeuvring etc) on a six-monthly basis, as well as the nav techniques that are our bread and butter, then other pilots should be held maybe not to the same standards of accuracy but definitely to the same broad areas of proficiency.

As pilots of all ilks we can surely agree that the one certainty in aviation is that nothing is ever certain. Who could ever say with 100% certainty that their navigation skills will not be called into play at some point in the 2 years between BFRs. I will acknowledge that GPS has made things easier, but in the 18 months I spent recently in the NT, I had the 'reliable' GPS fail on me five times, twice in close proximity to the ground and in poor vis in the vicinity of an active cyclone (later it was found to be that a well meaning but not particularly bright spanner had painted over the GPS dome antenna that was clearly marked 'do not paint', but I didn't know that at the time).

My ultimate point here is that it is frankly ludicrous that we have gone so long in this country not testing parts of a pilot's overall skillset simply based on his/her assurances that such skills are not part of their normal operations, and I'm pleased to see this amendment made (unfortunately still only a recommendation, but any Instructor worth their salt would read it as mandatory).

Finally, I acknowledge that certain less scrupulous individuals will no doubt take advantage of the change in the rules to make some extra nosh - as has always been the case in our industry, has it not? :sad:

Apologies for the long-winded reply. I'd be interested to know your further thoughts, if any.

Cheers

Aero :)

[superdimona]

Why not offer 2 options in this country:

1) A traditional PPL, complete with WW2-style navigation. Those that enjoy using horribly obsolete methods and get a thrill out of decoding NOTAMS designed for teletype machines will love it.

2) A 'GPS Navigation' PPL. GPS navigation is encouraged with the condition that 2 GPSs are carried at all times (one can be a cheap car unit with a different power supply). Students are taught how to land the plane safely if both GPSs fail at once. A single GPS failing is grounds for aborting the flight.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

CAAP 5.81-1(1) has been amended to reflect CASA's recommendation to include of a navigation exercise as part of a flight review as a result of investigation of recent accidents and incidents by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

Is this an example of yet another well-intended, but largely ineffectual requirement?

I don't know the details but I suspect that the incidents that have prompted this amemdment occurred well away from the pilots home base - in an area with which they were not familiar. How many people actually get lost in their home patch?

So how do you fix this? Have pilots fly 1 hr away from home to another aerodrome, give them a diversion to somewhere else, and then return to home base? In a C172/PA28 they would never be more than 100 nm from home. Chances are they can look out the window and think, "Oh, there is Aunt Nancy's place over there"!

I recall when validating my NZ CPL on a test with a DCA examiner, out near Dalby, on top of scattered cloud, I was asked, "Show me on the map where we are".
Me: "There"!
Examiner: "How do you know that"?
Me: "Cause that's where we are"!
Examiner: "If we were 5 nm left of track (which we weren't), what correction would you make to have us arrive over the top of your destination"?
Me: "Ohhh, you want me to do that 1:60 thing. Why didn't you just say so"?
Examiner: "Yes, you Kiwi pilots can't navigate for nuts"!

Never did tell the prick that I had 500+ hrs of flying around that area, and he never looked far enough back in my log book to see that I learnt to fly at Archerfield.

I am not knocking the need for some to do a navex, but I don't see the need to mandate. Should be worked out with the instructor doing the BFR, as to what is required.

What's next? Mandated flight into a control zone? That's gonna make for an expensive BFR for pilots living in somewhere like Longreach!

Dr :8

[Frank Arouet]

I can see this becoming a milch cow without some curbs put on the concept. I can't see any flying schools objecting to the idea.

If one has done 80 hours cross country's in the preceeding 2 years, of which 2 hours only were circuit time, but the last trip being within 90 days, I would be more concerned with the piloit's ability to land his aeroplane properly than to get from point A to point B.

This may seem a frivolous statement, but most all my time is cross country away from the G curve in a taildragger at non towered airports. Usually at paddock with nobody around if I go tits up.

Probably 25 total landings in that time, and about 3 of them in worrying crosswinds.

Does that make me a competent tail dragger pilot?

I thought it was a biannial "FLIGHT" review. People like me would be better pilots if we were made to do circuits.

Also what of a new endorsement which once qualified as A BFR. Should someone doing a CSU retractable aerobatic floatplane endorsement have to go on a navex?

Just more hoops and your cash to pay out if the boss isn't up to paying.

[Van Gough]

but most all my time is cross country

Then you shouldn't have any trouble doing a small Navex :ok:

People like me would be better pilots if we were made to do circuits.

No doubt whoever has to sign you off on your BFR will want to see some circuits.

Also what of a new endorsement which once qualified as A BFR. Should someone doing a CSU retractable aerobatic floatplane endorsement have to go on a navex?

Yes. If you hold a PPL part of the privileges are being allowed to fly cross country if you desire so you should have to demonstrate competancy in navigation.

For a change I think CASA have done the right thing here...

[PA39]

Every AFR i conducted included a short navex. Gee its NOT a test but a review. Upper airwork was done enroute. FWIW the candidate ALWAYS had the sticky strip put into his log book at the end of the session.

If they goof up......show 'em where they have gone wrong. You didn't have to "hang him up there" in an aircraft, debriefing always helped to fix deficiencies. :)

[OZvandriver]

Geez i though a navex was standard!

[superdimona]

Surely your kidding? How about instead grounding the pilot if he/she has forgotten how to read a map. It's not brain surgery...I am serious. Sure, PPL-level navigation isn't super-hard, or else very few people would pass. However there no question GPS navigation is much, much easier. How much time and money could be saved during training if GPS navigation was used to radically cut down the navigation syllabus?

Most of the arguments against relying on the GPS are "What if the GPS fails"? Answer: Mandate that if you are relying on a GPS, you must carry 2 of them. It's very unlikely that both fail at once, and if they do, it isn't going to kill you.

[Frank Arouet]

Also what of a new endorsement which once qualified as A BFR. Should someone doing a CSU retractable aerobatic floatplane endorsement have to go on a navex? Yes. If you hold a PPL part of the privileges are being allowed to fly cross country if you desire so you should have to demonstrate competancy in navigation.

Obviously if someone has spent the preceeding 90 days doing 20 hours of cross country's and is completing his BFR via the provision of a new float plane endorsement, he should be made to demonstrate he can fly a floatplane across country. Great value for your dollar and CASA always do the right thing.

Lost your credibility there old fruit.:ugh:

[Monopole]

It's very unlikely that both fail at once, and if they do, it isn't going to kill you It might do if you run out off fuel while flying circles because you do not know where you are. It might just be easier to learn how to read a map and navigate.

[Propjet88]

I thought that the old standard was that the review had to be conducted by a Gde 1 instructor (or approved Gde 2) under the AOC of a flight school.

Reading the new CAAP, it seems that any Gde 1 Instructor can now conduct the review. Is this right?

[Mach E Avelli]

Superdimon you could carry 10 GPS receivers and then have a signal input loss. It does happen.
This new CASA requirement is a typical knee-jerk that won't stop those who can't plan properly or navigate from straying into controlled airspace etc for the very reasons given in other posts above. Most of us will do the BFR navex close to home where we don't need a chart anyway, and have probably memorised all the local frequencies and CTA steps etc. We will go through the motions to humour the examiner. It won't prove much but will give CASA a warm fuzzy feeling.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Superdimon you could carry 10 GPS receivers and then have a signal input loss. It does happen.

I have carried at least 3 x GPS for 600 flights / 940+ hrs / 140,000 nm / equivalent of 20 times around the world !!!!

.... and I have yet to have all three drop out at the same time.

Dr :8

[Aeromuz]

I have conducted many AFRs as a Grade 1 instructor and while some may object to the idea of a mandatory navex I tend to have the opinion that it wont be a negative experience for the pilot on his/her AFR.

The AFR is not a flight test but a chance for pilots who may be rusty to get up to speed with the current set of rules and regs. The changing of GAAP aerodromes to Class D is a prime example where some pilots may come unstuck if they haven't flown for a while.

Depending on the flying the pilot has done or is planning to do I would talor the flight to suit their needs and we would do it in the aircraft that they had done the last 10 hours in.

There is nothing wrong with doing some circuits at an aerodrome during the navex.

As for GPS well, the idea of 2 standards of PPL (DR nav vs GPS) to me seems daft. DR nav is not out dated, less used by pilots (myself included) but if the proverbial hits the fan and the GPS dies or you have an electrical failure then at least you can still make your way to your destination, if not make a suitable diversion.

For those pilots whining about cost, aviation is expensive get used to that idea!! Its not going to change either. If you know that you have 1 dual flight to do every 2 years then buget for it. Its not as if the AFR will be news to you, your last stamp is in your logbook so you know when its due. Save 5 bucks a week over that period and that should pretty much cover the cost of it.

There are 2 things in aviation there should be no compromises on. Number 1 is safety and Number 2 is the standards at which we operate (Yes even at PPL level).

Safe landings

Muz :ok:

[Mach E Avelli]

Forkie, I had two independent GPS receivers with separate antennas drop out on my boat for 20 minutes about three months ago on a night passage. 20 minutes at 5 knots means stuff-all, but at 200 knots, if you can't map-read, you could be up poo creek very quickly.
And I have had GPS drop out on ferry flights across the Pacific, where it doesn't matter much 'cos there is no map to read. But it still gets your attention if you have not been keeping the air plot going. Air plot, you say? What's that? Secret oldbugger business.
In another 20 years the GPS system (or whatever follows) will be perfect and pilot navigation will be redundant, like celestial and console and decca and loran and doppler and VLF-omega and satnav - all consigned to history. Yes, I used them all.
But GPS ain't fail-safe yet, so it is premature to think that it is the only navigation skill a pilot needs.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

But GPS ain't fail-safe yet, so it is premature to think that it is the only navigation skill a pilot needs.

Now I didn't actually suggest that, did I ?

Dr :8

[andrewr]

I say PPLs because it is rare for an active commercial pilot to require a BFR; we're kept busy with IR renewals, proficiency checks and the like, which cover the requirement for a BFR. Because we practice our skills on a daily basis, we are certainly at an advantage in that respect.


I suspect a commercial pilot who does all their commercial flying IFR might also get rusty on their VFR navigation skills, and find a nav with map and compass equally challenging...

I have certainly heard IFR pilots say that navigation is easier IFR than VFR.

[Van Gough]

I am serious. Sure, PPL-level navigation isn't super-hard, or else very few people would pass. However there no question GPS navigation is much, much easier. How much time and money could be saved during training if GPS navigation was used to radically cut down the navigation syllabus?

Hey why not just have mandatory autopilots which autoland and do everything except take off. You could cut down flying training to just taking off...

[Jack Ranga]

You could cut down flying training to just taking off...


I think that was happening in the States a few years ago wasn't it?

[superdimona]

Hey why not just have mandatory autopilots which autoland and do everything except take off. You could cut down flying training to just taking off...If we ever get to the point where someone can spend <$1000 and end up with 3 autopilots that they can carry with them to a rental C152, that can handle flying circuits in a busy CTAF, then I will fully support that idea. If/when magical drop-in, reliable autopilots appear then basic handling skills may well become obsolete.

[gas-chamber]

Pleeze can forktail and doma and others do something a bit more original than just selectively quote others (and usually out of context to the original point) and add meaninfull input?

[Captain Sand Dune]

C'mon gassy, this is PPRuNE mate!!:}

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Jandakot-Rottnest or Essendon-Avalon could be considered to be navex's so I don't imagine it will be much of a test unless they lay down a minimum length. Shock-horror!


Ah yes! Quality post, that! I can see where I have been going wrong. :E

Dr :8

[Frank Arouet]

Yes;

Pilot: I guess we'll do a 15 minute NAVEX to Rotto and back.

Flying school owner: My interpretation of a NAVEX is 5 hours in the Boneanza. As its a V35A-TCVHZOT. This will of course include a full aerobatic review. You will appreciate the cost is justified to make you a "safe pilot".

Oh, and CASA always get it right.

[Look Mum - no hands]

You can tell from the profile that I don't post things often, but I've had a gutful of this particular topic.

Okay Frank - here's a get rich quick scheme for you....

You could go out and spend $50K+ on a CPL, then another $12K or so on an instructor rating to gain the required professional qualifications (plus a bit more if you want IFR, ME etc.), then work for a few years as a Grade 3 and 2 on barely enough pay to make ends meet. Then buy a couple of aircraft, and some facilities, pay CASA enough in fees to underwrite a small nation, and go into business as a flying school owner.

Every time some barely current (or completely uncurrent) PPL holder wanders in to jump through the BFR/AFR hoop, you get to fly with them for an hour or two, spend 3 or 4 hours briefing and debriefing, try to work out how to tell him/her that they are not really quite as thoroughly competent as they think, attempt to give them some direction and improve skill/attitude/knowledge somehow, then put your signature to a logbook statement that, in a court of law, will essentially be read as an assessment that said pilot meets the appropriate licensing standards. Dare suggest that they should fly other than the cheapest aircraft available, or that they should do something more than a trip to the training area and some circuits, and you're being unreasonable. Then you can visit Pprune and read how you should be doing all this for somewhere in the region of $100, otherwise you're just out to rip people off!

On the other hand, occasionally you might encounter a pilot who understands that holding a pilot's licence comes with the obligation to maintain a level of competency appropriate to one's activities. These people often build an ongoing relationship with a flying school or instructor, and through flying / chatting / interaction keep current on a regular basis. They sometimes even fly with an instructor more frequently than the law requires, maybe just for a couple of circuits, maybe more. When the dreaded 2 years comes around they accept that the AFR is a regular cost associated with holding a licence, and they approach it as an opportunity for a check up and to learn something.

I am not a flying school owner, but I've been a CFI and a Grade 1 for many years. I will go out of my way to assist the second group - the first group are welcome to take their business elsewhere!

[gas-chamber]

The CAAP suggests 1.5 hours so in the true spirit of the exercise I will turn up in my Tiger Moth, throttle it back to TAS 45 knots, and still go to Rotto.

[Aeromuz]

Jandakot - Rottnest is not a navex. You can see the destination at 500 ft after takeoff!! And what navigational skill is an instructor supposed to assess?

Simply put a 1 hour flight can be a navex, depending on the aircraft type depends on where you can get to.

In the C152 or similar you could go to Pinjarra then Murrayfield for circuits. In a C172 you could go up to Northam for some circuits and back through CTA (that is if they let you in!)

It really comes down to common sense people. Im sure there are those of you that have had a bad experience with a flying school and some are out to get your money but I feel that its a minority of schools out there.

Flying is a privilage not a right and in my experience, the pilots who need the extra work to make the skies safe for us all, are the ones that have the most excuses.

I make no assuptions about any of the people who have posted on this thread but I personally have no problem paying for an IFR renewal each year and an instructor rating renewal every 2 years to keep up to date and current and it costs a lot more than a simple AFR.

[Frank Arouet]

occasionally you might encounter a pilot who understands that holding a pilot's licence comes with the obligation to maintain a level of competency appropriate to one's activities.

So on "most" occasions you encounter a neuron deficient imbecile with no idea of what level of competency he is required to have, and is incapable of making any operational decisions without the regulator again attempting to make laws against stupidity. (obviously this applies to most pilots)

If a pilot in his normal day to day activity flies a 300nm round trip in a 210, why should he be classed as anything but having an appropriate level of competency?

If he, as one is required to do with a NVFR, hasn't flown at night in the preceeding 90 days, he is required to do so supervised before he is eligible to carry passengers, and if he has not done so in the preceeding two years he would obviously be required to demonstrate that competency before he flew again.

It is easy to gauge the level of competency of a pilot by looking at his log book. So why does big brother need to mandate every bloody thing unless he believes everyone is a brain dead moron.

Unless that mandate is clear enough to make allowances for, and decide on, a criteria that sorts the incompetent from the competent. Good luck on that.

Every instructor or flying school operator I have known since 1965 would see this as a milch cow. A lot of operators insist on 90 day checks before you can fly their on line aircraft anyway.

The concept addresses what problem exactly? Where are the stats that back up the assertion there is a danger to safety that would justify this on any cost benefit basis.

Flying is a privilage not a right

Bull$hit!

Once you have the level of competency to fly an aeroplane and make operational decisions, you are granted a privelege to do so. It's called a licence.

When you have that privelege you have a right to exercise it.

[gas-chamber]

Thanks Frank. You have said it all very eloquently. I maintain navigation competence simply by doing it regularly without getting lost. So I don't need this x-country add-on BS and if forced to do it, will be doing 1.5 hours at 45 knots to make the point. But if someone wants to assess whether I can recover from a spin or do a forced landing every coupla years I have no problem with that concept. These are not things I go out and do every day so my money would be spent on useful survival skills.
But map reading skills... yes can do already thank you.
10 years from now they won't even publish paper charts. If you don't have it in your GPS data-base you will be fresh outta luck. In 20 years Big Brother will figure a way to microchip the ignition to the nav data-base and your licence and medical records so anything not kosher the engine won't start.

[Checkboard]

Every instructor or flying school operator I have known since 1965 would see this as a milch cow.

I don't think so. I hated doing BFRs when I was an instructor - too little pay for too much work, and the added stress of:

Trying to convince the applicant what they needed, and
Living with the stress of signing off someone barely competent in a specific exercise.
Give me an ab-initio student any day.

[Frank Arouet]

Then I'll rephrase that to include "most" instructors looking for hours to get that job with the airlines and "all" flying school operators.

Once again, what is the factual problem that this concept is the solution to?

[Aeromuz]

Frank,

I'm not going to get into a slugging match with you as there seems little point. However having a pilot licence, just like any licence IS a privelege granted to you. Yes you are correct have the "right" to exercise the "privelege" of your licence but be fully aware that that may be taken away from you by CASA if they deem you unfit to hold the licence or your medical lapses.

On any flight test form you will see a box that asks if the candidate is aware of the "priveleges and limitations" that the testing officer will grant you.

You are welcome to your beliefs but dont critisise others who dont share them.

Safe landings mate

Muz

[Frank Arouet]

As is the privelege granted to a surgeon.

But the point I was attempting to make is, one doesn't need to have this reaffirmed every time that surgeon wishes to operate on a patient. He is free to exercise that right because he has already demonstrated his competency and decision making abilities. His ongoing sabbaticals "expand" his "ongoing" practicing skills, but they don't force him to go back to medical school and learn basic sterilising skills.

In an industry cursed by it's own apathy, I can't see any benefits that will come from this concept, except the prior mentioned pay rise for some.

be fully aware that that may be taken away from you by CASA if they deem you unfit to hold the licence

If some within CASA get a personal set on you, they can, and do, "deem" you unfit. I can quote dozens of pilots who have suffered under this opressive system. They are guilty until they can prove their innocence. Strict liability removes the burden of proof from CASA.

More prescriptive regulation means more costs, which leads to less pilots.

I've had just as many take off's as landings, so I'm only an average pilot. But I do my best to be safe.

[mostlytossas]

The problem with AFR's is one model fits all according to the regs.
Common sense has to come into play somewhere. If you are a PPL with plenty of hours and years of experiance behind you and remain current (you might even own an aircraft or two) why would you need or have to do a Navex or anything like an hour and a half flight when to any instructor their flying proficiency is obvious in the first 10 minutes.
Someone who fly's rarely however would need a good workout to make sure they are still up to speed.
You can't "regulate" experiance,knowledge or skill nor can they be obtained by merely passing exams/ratings/reviews etc. These can only be gained by being out there doing it, regularly over many years.
Problem is in aviation generally it is the least experianced teaching the no experianced especially at these sausage factories.
Look at any other industry. You don't have newly qualified tradies,doctors,train drivers teaching the learners like in aviation.
While I'm getting off topic here,I make the point there are many PPL's with more experiance and better pilots to boot than many instructors.

[Awol57]

This thread reminds me of a survey done on car drivers. Almost everyone thought they were above average. Whats the harm in doing an AFR really.

My instructor rating lapsed recently, I like to think I am very current in ATC procedures, yet I happily went up and did my AFR to get the stamp in the book which makes me legal. I answered all the questions I was asked and even did a bit of study.

Once every 2 years is hardly busting the bank budget. I sort of knew it was coming 2 years ago when I did my instructor rating renewel knowing it was 50/50 whether I would renew it again.

[Frank Arouet]

Once every 2 years is hardly busting the bank budget.

That isn't the subject matter, although it is a good demonstration of the entrenched apathy and blind belief in a rotton system that one sees on a day to day basis.

It's the inclusion of extra time and money in demonstrating something you have been doing as a job regime and the currency is written in your log book.

If you haven't flown a cross country or in CTR in the preceeding two years, you would certainly benefit from such an exercise and most pilots with even a simple brain can self assess without big brother again trying to mandate against stupidity.

Exactly what value is there in having a log book if nobody is going to believe what's written in it, and I ask again, what is the demonstrated problem this concept is the solution to? Where's the evidence there is a problem at all?

History has reams of "stuff" generated by CASA that serves no purpose except for overprescriptive regulation.

An example is their knee jerk reaction to a pilot at Hamilton Island who had a non therapeutic residual but was seen to have smoked a cone 3 weeks prior to a fatal. This was headlined into becoming the costly mandatory drug and alcohol testing industry we have today and you blokes sat there while you were generally and collectively branded dope freaks and drunks.

Until some of you blokes ask "why is it so", you will continue to reap the industry regulation burden you sow.