I heard a rumour today... [Archive]

aroa

26th Jan 2013, 08:13

I take it that it still happens, but when there/UK in the '60s a PPL with over 300 hrs could do an Instuctors Course of 20 hrs and be qualifed to pass on the basics....and get a job. More experienced Instructors and or DoT checked out the student after ? solo, to see that yr doing it right.

When back in the 'Land of the Living Dead', early 70s, I did broach this subject with a CAA? person, as I was unable to get a CPL due medical.
I had the hours, I'd like flying job. Is that a crime.? (Sorry PPL, Yes)

Apart from the guy nearly fainting at his desk at such an outrageous suggestion, shock, horror and dismay.! I left the building before the people in white coats came to take me away. Mmm.. NOT a positive reaction.

So if this is now on the "agenda" or just a "floating idea"..or, CASA, as a "small world leader" suddenly realising that there is a shortage of instuctors, when the outside real world has known it for years.
If so, it proves that all good things come to those who wait, and wait and wait...or die first. About 50 years... mmmm ..seems about right.

Is this a rock chucked into the pond from Ye Taske Force???
A "thought" bubble popped up from the sewerage pond?
Whatever.
And of course if CASA are claiming you can't do it for money..once again they are out of their tree..regulating commerce.:mad:

Jesus, once again..in the Classification of Operations policy 1997? was it.
" A profit can be made in ALL classes of operations"
Que ?
So its less safe if the poor PPL makes a dollar, even tho he/she is qualified to do the job.?
Using that logic heres a great idea!. DONT pay those SOBs in Fort Fumble and their "work" will be safer.:mad:

Flying Binghi

26th Jan 2013, 08:21

Via aroa: ...More experienced Instructors and or DoT checked out the student after ? solo, to see that yr doing it right...

After solo..:ooh: ...Heh, ah suppose if they survived the 'instructor' weren't all that bad..;)

.

Checkboard

26th Jan 2013, 09:12

Meanwhile back at the ranch, ATPL pilots with several thousands of hours will be required to complete the full Grade 3 instructor rating course if they wish to pass on any of their knowledge to up and coming GA pilots.:rolleyes:
Teaching each element of the PPL syllabus is a pretty specific job - and NOTHING like tooling about in an airliner. Would yo seriously want to see "retired" airline pilots with no training attempting a PPL stall lesson?? :confused:

Jack Ranga

26th Jan 2013, 09:20

Not those Air France doods, that's for sure.......

pull-up-terrain

26th Jan 2013, 09:25

This is a wind up right???

Username here

26th Jan 2013, 09:31

^^^^
:ok::ok::ok::ok:

Gold Jack!

VH-FTS

26th Jan 2013, 09:31

Would yo seriously want to see "retired" airline pilots with no training
attempting a PPL stall lesson?? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Would you seriously rather see a bloke like Plankbender doing it instead?

So much for CASA raising the instructor standards. If this goes ahead it will be a complete cluster f-

VH-XXX

26th Jan 2013, 09:46

If someone said to me, "work out how we can get PPL's instructing," I would do the following:

- Set a minimum number of hours for a PPL holder to be eligible
- Sit an instructors course, the same as the one that exists now, but you wouldn't have a CPL
- Sit an AFR as required
- Only teach to PPL level
- ATO still sits the test
- You can charge for your services
- No "career" progression, you are always just an Grade X instructor and can't teach CPL
- If you have an endorsement, you can teach it

Let's see what happens if it's not a wind-up, but that being said I've been hearing about this for a number of years. If you can't get paid for it, there will be little incentive to get the rating especially if it's financially onerous.

What I am thinking will actually happen is quite different. I am thinking that this has something to do with the RPL where a PPL can teach for example an RA-Aus pilot or fresh student to the required standard. Then we will hear that it's 2 POB only and 1,500 kg MTOW. We shall see...:confused:

By George

26th Jan 2013, 09:52

Well I'm a recently retired Airline Pilot, who has just completed a Grade 3, and it is interesting to see the different way of doing things. With the stall, GA is still teaching the minimum loss of height thing, with full power and nose back up to the horizon. (works well in a light aeroplane).
At high altitude in a jet, that will not not quite work the same. Just go back into a secondary stall. Shame the two sides of the industry seem unable and incapable of learning from each other.

Checkboard

26th Jan 2013, 10:15

With the stall, GA is still teaching the minimum loss of height thing, with full power and nose back up to the horizon. (works well in a light aeroplane).
That's not the way I was teaching it at Moorabbin in the early 90's

... perhaps you didn't mean "GA" - you meant "the guys I did my rating with" ... :hmm:

solowflyer

26th Jan 2013, 11:57

A PPL can hold an instructor rating in nz but must pass all CPL exams and hr requirements. Surly a 1000hr ppl holder will have a bit more experience to pass on than a newly minted Instructor fresh from CPL training. I believe there are plenty of ex commercial guys out there with PPL licenses as they can no longer get of be bothered getting a class one medical

The Green Goblin

26th Jan 2013, 12:21

Howard Hughes

26th Jan 2013, 22:43

Teaching each element of the PPL syllabus is a pretty specific job - and NOTHING like tooling about in an airliner. Would you seriously want to see "retired" airline pilots with no training attempting a PPL stall lesson?? I am not advocating zero training, I am advocating assessing each individual on their abilities, then planning tailored training to reach the required standards. Surely it makes sense to encourage experienced people to stay within the industry, rather than lose the knowledge?

poteroo

26th Jan 2013, 23:28

GGis correct. Base-to-final stalls,departure stalls, stalls following a low level strip inspection, stalls in marginal wx steep turns at low level are the more likely scenarios.

I seem to remember seeing in the Regs an allowance for a current (Class 1 med), instructor who now can only pass a Class 2 med - to continue instructing all after 1st solo? At least a step in the right direction.

I can't see any need for a PPL to do all the instructor theory and practice if they were to be giving a type endorsement, or aeros, formation, low level training. You could throw in PPL navs as well. What counts is their type or flying experience in that category. I'm convinced that such PPL's would do a more convincing job of passing on skills and risk avoidance than a newly minted G3.

happy days,

thorn bird

27th Jan 2013, 00:44

George,
Aint that the truth! then again why be surprised.
Our regulator learns nothing from other countries
positive safety outcomes, nor does it consult in any meaningful
way with the true experts from the industry, rather recruiting
industry rejects and letting them loose with no training, no operational
experience to "Enforce" regulations that nobody understands, no wonder
Australia's safety record leaves much to be desired.
The so called "Industry" is no better, we let them do this because we didn't learn from other countries how to tame an incompetent regulator.
Our apathy has been our downfall, and will continue, to be until there is
a so called "Smoking Hole". Its us that have allowed CASA to become corrupt so its a little late to winge about it.

Pontius

27th Jan 2013, 00:55

Without knowing any of the details, I think some people may be getting their knickers in a twist here with the PPL suggestion. I would be willing to wager a few stubbies that the instructor will still have to have an instructor rating, he just won't have to hold a CPL. In other words, they're not suggesting a plain PPL with X hours be allowed to instruct, just a CPL will no longer be required.

As others have mentioned, this used to happen in the UK and a PPL holder used to be able to earn money from being an Assistant Flying Instructor. When the whole JAA stuff came along they decided PPL + flying for hire or reward didn't really fit with earning money as an AFI, so along came the requirement for a CPL (they did have a dumbed-down CPL for use by instructors who only ever wanted to do that job but I can't remember what that particular licence was called and that disappeared after the 'bedding in' time).

How CASA will resolve the contradiction of PPL and earning money from it I don't know but I think it's a not unreasonable step. Requiring someone to have a CPL to earn a crust, when all they want to do is teach to a PPL level, seems a bit over-the-top to me. The AFIs only used to be able to teach PPL and couldn't do certain things, such as send a chap solo or conduct any sort of tests; these had to be done by 'proper' instructors and not assistants. Just to reiterate, an AFI had done the instructors course, he just didn't have a CPL.

If I was going to put those stubbies on the line I think I would bet on the course and requirements panning out just as VH-XXX has written, so don't expect to be seeing a PPL with 200 hours and no instructors rating sitting next to you soon....unless he's along for the ride to learn something ;)

LeadSled

27th Jan 2013, 02:16

PS: The British system has always had 'assistant flying instructors', it was sometimes the only way to achieve the 700 hours they required for CPL issue. HH,
Not quite cause and effect.
The "700 hours" was nothing to do with the Assistant Instructor program, now long gone.
In the mid-60s (from memory) the UK Authority of the time decided that you could only get a CPL by doing an "approved" course.
The loophole was that you could go straight to SCPL without an "approved" course, and it didn't take long for somebody to figure out they could accumulate 700h flying as an Assistant Instructor, much cheaper than flying a Druine Turbulent up and down the A23 all weekend.
By the time ICAO abolished the SCPL, the route was so well established that the (now) CAA had to allow the 700h as an alternate to the "approved school".
Tootle pip!!

Sunfish

27th Jan 2013, 02:26

I can just envision the sunfish flying school......

"Police academy" wouldn't do it justice.

LeadSled

27th Jan 2013, 02:46

The stall recovery height loss fascination in GA goes back to a specific reason. The majority of inadvertent stalls are entered low to the ground, specifically in approach configuration turning from base to final.

In airliners the majority of upsets are at altitude, hence the different focus for each.

GG,

I hope this is not a real indication of the present state of airline training. I suspect it is typical of current GA.

As an ex-GA instructor/CFI, all the stall training I received during type endorsements mirrored GA, plus the high level (above 20,000) specifics of potential loss of control, not only low speed upsets in cruise, but dutch roll recover, all in the actual aeroplane, until simulators got good enough.

Last large aeroplane I stalled in the air, clean, in the approach configuration and in the landing configuration was a B747-200.

Just as in GA, the recovery method to be used was the one appropriate to the circumstances, including minimum loss of height without a secondary stall when terrain clearance was an issue. There is no shortage of low speed loss of control at low level airline accidents in the database--- remember the Turkish B737 at Amsterdam.

With the advent of wind-shear recovery training, flying an attitude that was on the edge of Stick shaker/low speed buffet was added to the mix.

Fundamentally, there should be little difference between GA and larger aircraft low speed flight training ---- they are all bleeding aeroplanes.

What I now observe in GA is completely inadequate training in the low speed flight/stalling sequences, with "approach to the stall" being the limit.

When I quizzed a GA Grade 1, who was looking for a job, you should have seen the look of horror on his face when I queried him about the characteristics of a particular type on which he has logged many hours, in a stall off a steep climbing turn on full power. Nor did he know much about the characteristics of said aircraft at aft CofG, as opposed to typical training sequence loading --- close to the forward limit.

He didn't get past that interview.

Tootle pip!!

The Green Goblin

27th Jan 2013, 03:06

It's all based on risk and return.

For instance there is a very small chance you will stall an Airbus with its protections.

There is a possibility of a complete cock up entering the high speed/ low speed protections envelopes.

C&T departments look at incidences on the line, along with world wide events and build them into the cyclic program.

If you want to explore advanced aircraft handling, you do an aerobatic check. It's great fun and I enjoyed every minute of it.

It sounds like you think you are a superior aviatior leadsled. I am glad you were never my CFI.

Most fatal accidents in GA aeroplanes are from guys like you demonstrating advanced handling characterises of aeroplanes that a competent driver would never get anywhere near to on the line. Training now is recognising the symptoms of loss of control and avoiding it, rather than waiting until you're in it before doing something about it.

Hey, watch this!

mostlytossas

27th Jan 2013, 03:49

Been hearing about this coming for years too and in my humble opinion it is long overdue. I have always been concerned that in aviation we tend to let the low experienced loose to teach the no experienced . Much better to go with someone who has years and many hours flying to do the teaching and who is generally keen to pass on their knowledge rather than someone just building hours to get to the airlines.
After all you wouldn't let 1st year tradesmen take over the training of apprentices would you.
What I believe is proposed is a PPL who wants to instruct will still have to do an instructor course,have a certain minimum hours ie. 500,and only instruct up to their experience level.ie private,single engine, and so forth.
This will suit aero clubs, flying groups etc in the main as they generally exist for the love of private aviation and try and pass on any cost benefit to their members.
The gliding fraternity has been doing it for decades.
I can't help think that any opposition to it is more to do with job opportunities for CPL's starting out ( unfounded in my view as flying schools teaching up to airline standard will need to stay as is) than anything else.

aroa

27th Jan 2013, 03:59

Isnt the whole deal about learning to handle and control an aircraft a process whereby you experience various attitudes and events?.

With sailplanes one is taught..and shown.. stalls/spins off steep turns...not just "nose-nodding" straight and level...because having gone through those experiences...if it does happen, like when tight thermaling in rough conditions, our PILOT has been there before. Been there, experienced that.
And becomes very aware not to haul up and around steeply on finals turn where there is very lttle altitude left, to deal with a nasty surprise.:{

In MY PPL syllabus, I would make a forced/precautionary landing on a narrow road a 'must do' experience, because there is a great deal of diffence after doing all your learning on a huge, wide airstrip.
You never know, caught out by dud weather*..you might just have to do one. And if you've done it before, you have prior knowledge.
*been there, done that ...and its mightily educational ! :eek:

As Leadie said... and I am sure he could teach me many things.. the prime example he gave was a death note to a very low twin time pilot, who I bettcha had never done it before. Vale a fine young man. He just didnt have the prior experience of that situation.

Best thing I find is to learn from everybody....could help keep yr ar$e intact..which is the object of the exercise.:ok:

5-in-50

27th Jan 2013, 07:19

This rumour sounds counter-productive towards CASA's plan of 'raising the standard' of Australian Instructors. CASA have been taking the option of conducting a large majority of initial GR3 tests for this very reason...

LeadSled

27th Jan 2013, 08:02

If you want to explore advanced aircraft handling, you do an aerobatic check. It's great fun and I enjoyed every minute of it.

It sounds like you think you are a superior aviatior leadsled. I am glad you were never my CFI.

No, just competent and capable of meeting the standards required of the then regulator, whether at a GA or HCRPT level.

Most fatal accidents in GA aeroplanes are from guys like you demonstrating advanced handling characterises of aeroplanes that a competent driver would never get anywhere near to on the line.

With all due respect, absolute rubbish, go have a look at the statistics. Then have a look at other threads about what I have had to say about observing AFM limits --- and my objections very unsafe twin training in Australia, where we kill a small but steady stream of pilots.

Training now is recognising the symptoms of loss of control and avoiding it, rather than waiting until you're in it before doing something about it.

Gee, I must have worked for a really dumb airline, including as a Check and Training Captain, we always trained (just like GA used to) to thoroughly demonstrate the aircraft behavior --- as a major aspect of recognizing the areas to stay away from, and to demonstrate you competence in recovery, if the very unlikely but not impossible circumstances presented themselves -- as they did from time to time.

You are probably ones of those types that believes , quite incorrectly, that more people die in spin training, than in spins or incipient spins/spiral in the field, it sound like it.

You wouldn't do well as an instructor in the FAA system, funny thing, they have the worlds best air safety outcomes.

Tootle pip!!

Jack Ranga

27th Jan 2013, 08:39

I have flown recently with a Grade 1 instructor who was petrified of stalls & refused to do those lessons with her students :ugh:

I worked for one school recently, the CFI would run through the school when he saw rain approaching the field yelling: 'Get em out there flying (students), wet runway ops experience' he was a good bloke, great boss & produced bloody good pilots & instructors. Interestingly, every plane in the circuit when the rain approached would be sh!tting themselves in the rush to get on the ground :ugh:

I'm working for a bloke now who's an aerobatic gun, we teach wing overs, steep turns @ 60 degrees AoB (not pussy 45 degrees) we encourage GFPT's into tailwheel acft ASAP.

GA training now is politically correct, red taped crap. Unless...........you can find a boss like some of the recents I've had/got. :D

tecman

27th Jan 2013, 09:20

As a humble PPL with 25 years experience, I'd make two observations. First, I felt that a good, varied training course which exposed me to full stalls and spins was the minimum I would have contemplated at the time (even though the spins were optional even then). Not every aircraft I've flown since then then can be spun, but I would not consider myself to have had a sufficient type check in an aircraft unless the check comprised stall demonstrations in a variety of configurations.

Following my basic training, I did do some aerobatic endorsements which, I think, added greatly to my ability as a pilot and my confidence in e.g. the low-speed regime. It concerns me greatly when I fly with more recently qualified pilots who habitually use approach speeds which are far too high and who really lack confidence in short or soft field operations.

These days, I also have an RA Aus licence and I observe that the variability in the ability of pilots trained in the RA Aus system can be quite high. Some are very good, and some are very poor indeed. Whatever dispensations are made to allow PPL holders to act as instructors, it's important to verify the quality of the instructor and his/her products. However this is done, it needs to be more effective than the RA Aus model.

Setting aside any commercial implications, one of the the most valuable things I can see is for experienced PPLs to be able to act as 'tutors' for students at reasonably advanced stages of ab initio instruction. I often take the opportunity to take a newbie flying and a model which allowed them credit for some quality hours in the air may be a good thing.

Seagull V

27th Jan 2013, 09:35

Folks,
Sorry to spoil a great rumour but the truth about PPL flight instructors can be found in the Draft CASR Part 61 Sub Part 61T Pilot Instructor Rating from about page 199 at this link http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/061/download/casr61-draftregs.pdf.

Put simply PPL holders will not be able to train candidates for licences or ratings, but they will be able to train Licenced pilots for some of the more esoteric endorsements, such as spinning and aerobatics, formation flying, banner and glider towing and parachute dropping. The underlying concept is that the real expertise in some of these areas does not lie with the holders of CPL or ATPL or even with Grade 1 instructors. This provision provides a way for those skills and all that experience to be handed on to others.
If Pruners want something to get upset about you all should look at the way Part 61 is written. Everything is a crime it seems.

PS: Seagull does not and has not ever worked for the Dark Side, but has been a long time student of Part 61.

LookinDown

27th Jan 2013, 10:07

Hi All,
I dont think what I'm going to recommend is thread drift but rather follow on to a couple of recent posts from Aroa and Tosser that mentioned aspects of glider training can be very useful in GA. With some personal experience in instructing in both areas I can only agree.

Gliding training offers considerable exposure to stall/spin conditions (demonstrated recovery from a full spin is a pre-requisite for first solo) which these days cant be commonly accessed in GA trainers. Thankfully there has been much greater emphasis on recognition of and recovery at stall/spin onset in the last decade or so in addition to full exposure to the fully developed versions of these. The combination of low airspeed and shallow bank while over ruddering is a much closer simulation of what often happens in reality. Too often there is insufficient height for recovery off that badly executed turn onto final.

However there is just as much value to be had for PPL holders from exposure to landings in gliders. That old adage that 'every landing in a glider is a forced landing' holds true. To be guided through the standard steps in the performing of an 'outlanding' onto a surface other than bitumen AND to actually complete that landing to the end of roll is extremely satisfying but more importantly hugely confidence building. One day the fan will stop unexpectedly. Then isn't the time to wish that you had developed some skill in emergency landings.

Most gliding clubs and organisations would be more than willing to provide PPL holders with such training and at far fewer $ than you would be used to paying.
LD

Jack Ranga

27th Jan 2013, 10:30

Sign me up!

The Green Goblin

27th Jan 2013, 11:16

Give me a cute hosty, a cup of tea and a faraway destination with a long layover any day :cool:

Leady, I'm not going to argue with you. Okay, maybe a little :E

Your generation had an appalling safety record culminating in the 70s and 80s where it became a bonus if you even got there! Handling and CRM incidents being the most prevalent.

Try going out for stall practice in the 380! It's why we have simulators and why we have aircraft that don't let you get close, or the other guy who will save you from yourself (hopefully!). We have learnt and have moved on from the days of wrestling your machine in all flight regimes, weather conditions along with proving that you can.

If you want to go be a hero, be a hero in an aircraft that is designed to do it and do it properly under professional guidance.

RadioSaigon

27th Jan 2013, 15:37

Hmmmm...

For instance there is a very small chance you will stall an Airbus with its protections.

I'm certain Air France will be grateful for your insight :hmm:

...It sounds like you think you are a superior aviator...

Playing the man instead of the ball again? Is that Really necessary??? I have to wonder who it is that thinks himself "superior"...

Training now is recognising the symptoms of loss of control and avoiding it, rather than waiting until you're in it before doing something about it.

Which leads to...

I have flown recently with a Grade 1 instructor who was petrified of stalls & refused to do those lessons with her students

Hardly helpful IMO. I too have flown (in the US) with an instructor with in excess of 10k hrs who had never stalled any airframe, always recovering at the incipient stall. He quite literally packed himself when the is thing I did with the airframe he was demonstrating me was stall it! Those that know how their aircraft will behave throughout the whole stall and recovery process will always be better prepared than those that know only what to do in the incipient stages and for whom everything after the buffet is a deep, dark mystery.

I am glad you were never my CFI.

Righto.

Personally I am eternally grateful to those instructors who, like leadsled, cared enough to thoroughly teach the airframe, demonstrating exactly what could be expected in every flight regime and preparing their candidates appropriately for their future.

I don't reckon I would want to fly with a pilot that thought otherwise.

Sunfish

27th Jan 2013, 17:24

Note to self: Must start doing aeros again...

peterc005

27th Jan 2013, 20:35

In the past I seem to recall CASA delegated authority for experienced aerobatic pilots holding PPL to issue low level waivers. The rules changed so these delegates upgraded their licences to CPLs.

Guess this is a case of back to the future.

I can't imagine there would be that many cases where this would apply, because if the pilot had the experience and expertise to be a CASA delegate you'd think they'd would have a CPL anyway.

VH-XXX

27th Jan 2013, 21:27

DJ can probably answer definitively however I suspect there were only a vey small number of PPL's that could issue waivers and I can think of a couple in particular. They (CASA) have done a good job cleaning up low level waivers in recent times and it would seem on the face of it that the statistics have proven this.

Tankengine

27th Jan 2013, 21:49

Regarding stalls, all my students see a stall NOT recovered for some time.:E
The aircraft flutters down with full back stick and you try to keep it straight.
Whenever you wish to recover you apply down elevator and lower the angle of attack.:ok:
Try it sometime (with suitable altitude):)

djpil

27th Jan 2013, 21:51

I am also a long time follower of the drafts of parts 61 and 91. I was at the CASA FLOT 2003 conference with many others when this subject was debated. I don't think that parts 61 and 91 will be implemented in my lifetime so I have lost interest.

The current rules provide for a person to teach aerobatics (but not spinning) without an instructor rating - I am aware of one person who does this, with a CPL.

I am not aware of any PPLs who could issue low level aerobatic approvals. Some could conduct the test and recommend that CASA issue an approval.

I did my CPL and instructor rating late in life, after nearly 30 years of private flying. The effort I put into getting the CPL contributed not one iota to my ability to get through the instructor course or teach the PPL syllabus, aerobatics, spinning, tailwheel etc.

Anthill

27th Jan 2013, 21:54

Put simply PPL holders will not be able to train candidates for licences or
ratings, but they will be able to train Licenced pilots for some of the more
esoteric endorsements, such as spinning and aerobatics, formation flying, banner
and glider towing and parachute dropping

I'm not sure what the current regs are for glider towing, but I had "Glider Towing Checking and Training" approval on my licence in 1984--on a PPL.

It would be onerous to expect prospective tug pilots to find someone who has a CPL + IR to issue a towing rating. The expertise for such a rating already exists at you local neighbourhood gliding club and the instruction would be sufficiently comprehensible and practical to train a competant tug pilot in-house.

The Gliding Federation of Australia has been running its own show without too much interference from the government regulator for decades. The GFA sets standards and develops training programs for glider flight training and maintenance/repair to a very high standard. You don't hear of many gliding accidents, so they are obviously doing something right.

My personal experience with gliding instruction was that the instructors (who did a 50 hr GFA course= same as a Grade 3), were mostly excellent trainers. I can't say the same for some of the disinterested G3 and G2s I had who simply wanted to log hours for a Qantas interview.

It was a GFA requirement in the 1970s that glider pilots be able to enter and a recover from a fully developed spin - with 1 complete turn- prior to first solo. The nature of gliding is that thermaling and wave soaring is mostly done at slow speed, in a turn in gusty conditions. Whilst GA light aircraft are not often operated in this way, I think that the confidence that comes from being able to effect recovery from a stall/spin is of benefit. A G1 instructor who is afraid of a stall probably shouldn't be in their position!

As has been said before, the UK experience with Assistant Flight Instructors has been statisfactory. In a club enviornment to PPL would probably work ok. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Stikman

27th Jan 2013, 23:10

As part of my RA conversion from PPL, I went through two stalling lessons - Stalls and Advanced Stalls. In the Stalls lesson, I was taught the basic stalling characteristics of the aircraft in clean and approach configuration, how to induce a stall, and recovery without power. In the Advanced Stalls lesson, I was taught to recover from full power/full flap stalls, which induced a rather large wing-drop, and stalls from steep turns.
When I did my RA instructor rating, part of the test was for the testing officer to stall the aircraft in different configurations (while I had my eyes closed so I didn't know what he was doing), then recover from the stall (I was allowed to open my eyes for this part..).
As part of my S&P checks, I am required to induce stalls in all configurations and demonstrate the appropriate recovery.
I think it is essential that students develop the skills to enter and recover from more than just the basic stalls......also it's a heap of fun!

VH-XXX

27th Jan 2013, 23:22

I am not aware of any PPLs who could issue low level aerobatic approvals. Some could conduct the test and recommend that CASA issue an approval.

Good pickup on the terminology. That is also my understanding.

LeadSled

28th Jan 2013, 04:17

Lowdown,

You have it right, all the shibboleths about the dangers of stall and spin training that abound in modern GA training are just that, shibboleths ---- and completely unknown in the gliding fraternity.
Modern GA training in Australia could learn a lot from the GFA.
Remember the "Gimli Glider" the successful engine out landing of a B767 in Canada. The pilot was also a glider pilot.

Jack R,
For once I find we are on common ground.

djpil,
Spot on!!

GG,
You talk/write like you think I have experienced nothing/learned nothing in a shade over 50 years of flying, nothing you have said with your "modern objectives" is new, many training people disagree with that approach. If you bothered to actually read what I said in one post , I nominated when in-air stalls were dropped -- when we judged that simulators were good enough that we could achieve the training objectives on the ground.
Likewise, two engine out( 4 engine aircraft, of course, although we do practice two engine out approaches in twins -- in the simulator, before you ask) in the air was dropped when the simulators became good enough. Finally the simulators became good enough that I was one of first batch of blokes/blokesses to do zero flight time endorsements on a big aircraft, in this country.

Your comments about the 70s/80s are complete rubbish, in my opinion, and the statistics for my airline are most interesting.
A perfect safety record in terms of hull losses, but not incident/accident free - no airline is --- and there were several significant "saves" because of the raw handling ability of the pilot.
I recommend you read:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/504917-faa-concerned-about-increase-manual-handling-errors.html
But, hey, what would the FAA know?? The FAA record has improved steadily over the years, in all categories.
The Australian record shows no such improvement, could that possibly be that we do not train adequately for the circumstances that actually kill people.

Now, back to the thread: If a pilot can meet ALL the standards for a particular grade of instructor, there is no reason why they shouldn't be one. Again, the current UK CAA and the FAA approach are worth consideration. The FAA approach as to what you can do, as an instructor, depending on your medical status, is well worth a look.

In fact, in early days, I held a UK Assistant Instructor rating on a PPL, all testing was done by GAPAN, nobody complained about inadequate instruction standards.
Good teaching is all about good training, particularly training to teach, good supervision and proper testing by examiners who actually know what they are testing.

Finally, GG, despite your rather silly assumptions, not one of my ab nitio student, or one of the students I tested for a PPL or CPL has ever died or been seriously injured in an aircraft accident ---- How could that possible be. Why is that so,( with apologies to Professor Julius Sumner Miller) I wonder??

Tootle pip!!

T28D

28th Jan 2013, 08:13

You mean those with their AIP in cockpit

aroa

28th Jan 2013, 11:19

Geeez GG..."your generation had an appalling safety record culminating in the 70s and 80s..." What a foundation-less statement !!!:eek:

Say that in front of a CASA nob or the Minister though and you'll be arrested and led away to the funny farm!! pronto.. :ok:
Dont YOU know that this country is a world leader in aviation "safety" and we have one of the worlds best records for NOT crashing planes. This is the endless beat of the bureaucrats drum...so listen up GG:ok:

Experience is the key,is it not?. And that includes having tried and tested yourself with spins and whatever. Steep climbing turns with full power in a twin might have saved a life or two, too.

So CASA is saying PPLs can do aerotow endorsements...how futuristic.!!
Even tho its all been run by GFA for yonks, CASA tried to stick their bib in about 15- 20? yrs ago. Iwas told it was an employment thing for drones that had nothing to do. Lets get them to Benalla to look at a glider and a Pawnee and send them around the country checking aerotow folk. Ah, the expertise !!:D

My conversation to the plonker who rang advising that my endorsement was cancelled pending an aerotow "checkout"..which he was going to do by watching from the ground..at a renewal fee of $100.!
So not only the sky is "blue", but strangely I never heard from him again !
Must have been something I said. AFAIK Permit # *** remains valid.
What does the Auster handling notes say again.."Aerotow- Fly as normal"
Tres difficile !

LeadSled

28th Jan 2013, 13:33

" Check and Training Captain"
Blacklabel,
That's how it was described in the company Administration Manual, it was a job title, not a description of an activity.
I certainly will not be ignoring the normal rules of written English (or should that be english) to satisfy your prejudices.
Tootle pip!!

Frank Arouet

29th Jan 2013, 08:19

Your generation had an appalling safety record culminating in the 70s and 80s where it became a bonus if you even got there

What a pretentious prat!

My flying began in the 60's and I am still alive.

Indeed, althought I am only an average pilot, (having as many take off's as landings), I take offence to some upstart misrepresenting imagined staticics to make a point that is discriminatory to those of us in a certain age bracket.

Why don't you make the accustation to include Catholics, Muslims, Blacks, Lesbians, Left handers, gun owners, fishermen, farmers, greenies, Prime Ministerial Consorts, people with bad teeth and dyslexics.

Thank dog I got that off my chest.:*

Jack Ranga

29th Jan 2013, 08:26

I could never get left handers, weird doods, especially golfers, they just look wrong :cool:

VH-XXX

29th Jan 2013, 09:12

There is method in your madness Jack.

Approximately 10-13% of the population are left handed.
Approximately 68% of Victorian prisoners are left handed.

You do the numbers!

I'm looking forward to it. Might give me something to do in my spare time that I don't have to have to keep a CPL current for. Even if it's something simple like taking a mate into CTA to boost his confidence, or banging around for a few circuits, it will be a good thing. We should all be fans of any kind of pilot training and further education. If it stops someone flying into cloud and not coming home it can only benefit.

RatsoreA

29th Jan 2013, 09:22

From the draft document - p213-214

Endorsement - Item 6 - Type rating training endorsement (type specific)

Activities authorised - Conduct flight training for the pilot type rating or cruise relief co-pilot type rating for aircraft of the specified type in an aircraft or approved flight simulation training device

Requirements -

Pilot type rating for the specified aircraft type

Flight test

Endorsement - Item 7 - Multi-engine aeroplane training endorsement

Activities authorised - Conduct flight training for a multi-engine aeroplane class rating

Requirements -

Commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence with aeroplane category rating

Flight test

Ok, so that raises a few questions!

Can a PPL Train someone for a specific type (wait a minute... >5700kgs S/E covers a lot of types!) including training for M/E providing they already have an initial M/E after doing a "flight test"? Each M/E is it's own "type" but an initial is a "class"... What about an AOC for this kind of training? Will they be required to conduct it under the watchful gaze of someone with a school/aoc set up?

Am I just reading that wrong?