"Young Instructor ordered to milk you"

[glenb]

I havent read an Australian Flying Magazine for years. i bought a copy of the November-December issue and finally got around to reading it over an early Sunday coffee.

In the "letters" section Jim Davis makes a number of derogatory comments that require a public response as they are obviously so detached from reality and inappropiate.

Basically he is addressing a query about an overly exhaustive Aeroplane Flight Review. It was 2.2 hours by the way. Jim, although i doubt it would ever happen, please make sure you NEVER set foot in any Flying school i am attached to.

He "reminds" the readers that an AFR isnt a test and cant be failed. Wrong! An AFR is an opportunity for an appropiately qualified instructor to assess that you are operating safely, have the required knowledge, and that you have a darn good chance of bringing your passengers and yourself back safely. If your not safe, trust me. You wont pass an AFR. Remember the pilot is putting his name to it.

He then suggests that the customer "tell" the flying school what will be involved. Hey Jim, how about a discussion between the two parties and coming up with a mutually agreed on, plan of attack. If a customer contacted me and started "telling" me how an AFR was going to be conducted, he wouldnt get very far.

This particular pilots last AFR had been completed in about one hour as had his previous ones. The new flying school then gets taken to task. They covered off on weight and balance, performance charts, a written questionaire, flightplanning and a 2.2 hour flight with 6 stalls demonstrated, forced landings, diversions etc. Very thorough by the sound of it. Probably quite wise of the flying school to pick up on the previous "tick in the box AFRs" and to actually meet their legal obligations and actually display some concern for the customers welfare.

Then the comment that gets the blood boiling "sounds like the young instructor was under orders to milk you". Jim, do you seriously think that the "young" instructor conducting an AFR. Who, by the way must be at least a Grade Two instructor with 400 hours instruction really received an order to that effect. I have been in the training industry for 20 years, worked beside about 150 different instructors, in organisations in Australia and overseas. That is without doubt one of the most ridiculous comments that i have ever heard. Do you seriously think that a CFI would seriously talk to a Grade Two like that, and that a Grade Two would launch an aircraft with that mindset. If you made that comment about my school in a public form, there would be lawyers involved.

Further comments by Jim, "a good instructor can tell before you takeoff whether you are OK". Most instructors will be able to have an idea but thats another ridiculous statement.

To anybody doing an AFR, please read through the CASA CAAP on AFRs and look at the massive responsibility and accountability that CASA puts on instructional staff to complete an AFR. Its impossible for an AFR to be ticked off in one hour unless the student and instructor have flown together extensively in the previous two years.

Jim, those comments dont enhance safety in any way. When you walk into a flying school make sure you have a good understanding of the responsibility that the flying school has. Treat the process with the respect it deserves.

Instuctors are universally hopelessly underpaid and have far more responsibility and accountability than the average punter can even comprehend. For those of you that want a proper AFR track down that instructor that completed the "disgruntled" pilots AFR. For those of you looking for a 1 hour AFR maybe contact Jim and see if he can point you in the direction of the 1 hour AFR.

Jim, you have enormous experience. You put out some trully brilliant material. I could be wrong but i will bet London to a brick you have negligible, if any civilian instructing experience in Australia. Your comments are dangerous and detrimental to flight safety.

How about you send one of your journos out to a flying school (not mine) and spend a week with an instructor to really find out what they have to do, and the responsibility that they carry.

In the school i work at now, we are dealing with a pilot who has had these previous "tick in the box AFRs". He has a great attitude but is paying the price of substandard AFRs that have made him "unsafe"

Fortunately, the vast majority of candidates presenting for an AFR display an exceptional attitude and it could just be that the letter writer and Jim are really just that little bit better than the rest of us. But i sincerely doubt it.

Next Sunday i will buy the Herald Sun for some more high brow reading.

[Mail-man]

Removed, words words.....

[Wally Mk2]

interesting post, some anger there for sure.
Now I'm not in the C&T business but would it be not prudent to make the length of a ANR or BFR or whatever they call them these days commensurate with the pilot under tests previous & current flying experience? I mean someone whom crawls from out of the bush who hasn't flown much at all in the past 6-12 months or so be checked accordingly IE somewhat extensively & a pilot whom flies reg say in his/her own A/C be also checked accordingly.

I imagine seeing as the business of flying at any level here in Oz isn't quite flourishing then there's always gunna be the opportunity for some to 'milk' as they say certain situations, that's being going on in any industry since man invented any machines that required some sort of reg testing procedures, aviation isn't unique in that area I'd say.

Wmk2

[Avgas172]

While I empathise with your frustration, most flight schools now rate their underpaid instructor at $100 ph. Maybe a reduction in the rate when you are performing tasks of multiple hours (2+) is the answer, personally my last BFR was performed while flying from Cowra to Townsville, I do like a new challenge from time to time and like use my instructor accordingly. For country pilots take advantage of some poor instructor in (say) Bankstown and go terrorise the Sydney basin (and the instructor) while you do the basics .... Nothing says you have to stay in the training area. :E

[VH-XXX]

In the school i work at now, we are dealing with a pilot who has had these previous "tick in the box AFRs". He has a great attitude but is paying the price of substandard AFRs that have made him "unsafe"

With all due respect, how does a couple of "dodgey" AFR's make a pilot unsafe?

[27/09]

They covered off on weight and balance, performance charts, a written questionaire, flightplanning and a 2.2 hour flight with 6 stalls demonstrated, forced landings, diversions etc.

The weight and balance, performance charts, written questionaire and some flight planning sounds more than reasonable, BUT 2.2 hours flight time??? I'm presuming it was one flight.

Something isn't right if the flight took 2.2 hours. I say this for several reasons. The flight review is supposed to be a review of standards and a learning exercise.

If a competent instructor and competent candidate cannot knock the requirements for a flight review in an hour to 1 hour 30 tops then there's something seriously wrong.

If the candidate is having issues that require addressing they will be well over learning anything by the hour to hour 30 mark. The flight should have been terminated with an appointment made for follow up flights.

The flight review isn't failed as such, it's just not complete.

[Avgas172]

In the absence of a like button ... What 27/09 said .... :ok:

[spinex]

Couple of points; whilst Davis sets my teeth on edge for a multitude of reasons, he does actually have some Aussie experience. Bunbury Flight School or some such if memory serves. I think he was there for 4 years or so and retained some interest in the place for several years after, although that hardly qualifies him as an authority on the local situation, I would have thought.

He is unfortunately used to a fawning reception from fans in the old country and tends to exaggerate for effect all too frequently, I find. That said, there is a grain of truth in what he says here and there are definitely schools and instructors where more is better when it comes to hours for a given task. Yes I'm looking at you, Mr "10 hours minimum" for an RA conversion!

[Tankengine]

I was a country instructor when the BFR came in, 1982-3?
There were PPLs with licences for many years with no oversight, some great, some not.;)
I finished many in an hour or so, trying to cover items the pilot would get the most out of as a learning experience, depending on the way they used their licence. Although you may not be able to "fail" a BFR it is certainly possible to not complete one. :uhoh:
One guy, with his own aircraft, was very poor in all respects. He had his own aircraft on a private strip for maybe 20 years with no oversight at all.
After a quick flight I was able to tell him where I felt he was at and work out a plan to get him up to scratch. I understand he gave up flying eventually having never flown with me again, a good outcome in that case. :ok:As a motor mechanic He did all his aircraft work and found a tame Lame somewhere to sign it out, definitely the worst GA aircraft I ever flew!:ugh:
These days with pilots doing the review every two years it should be easier!;)

[Tee Emm]

They covered off on weight and balance, performance charts, a written questionaire, flightplanning and a 2.2 hour flight with 6 stalls demonstrated, forced landings, diversions etc
Six stalls and in something like a Cessna 152/172:ugh: Talk about an overkill and would lend weight to the claim that the AFR is a good money spinner.
The 2.2 hour flight is also a bit suss, too. Especially when you consider that to qualify for a job in Jetstar, a candidate is assessed over 45 minutes in a Boeing 737 simulator - a type he would never have operated previously.

[Sunfish]

Unfortunately for our insurers, there are varying levels of skill, experience and recency among my colleagues and I, with me being definitely at the shallow end of the gene pool and as a result there were "incidents" allegedly caused by experienced, but not very current pilots.

A 2.2 hr BFR suggests to me that there was some serious "practice" required before a manoeuvre could be successfully ticked off as passable. Say three forced landings and stalls with recovery within 100 ft, etc.

I personally feel short changed if my BFR is shorter than 1.5 hours and doesn't leave me tired from having had a few curly ones thrown at me.

[Check_Thrust]

Sunfish beat me to pointing it out, but we weren't there, perhaps this particular person was not up to standard on some sequences, may be 4 of his 6 stalls demonstrated poor recovery techniques and it took a total of 6 before the instructor in question was satisfied. On the other hand the instructor may of been over zealous, without being there we will never know. There tends to be two sides to a story.

I do recall from my instructing days that you would get the occasional PPL holder that would feel that doing a BFR was a waste of their time and money because they were of the opinion they were good enough already and did not need to prove it, and they typically (not always) were the ones that needed a BFR the most (most likely due to attitude than ability). It is that type of person that I would envision writing the above mentioned letter.

A quick scan through my logbook shows that when I conducted BFRs they ranged from about 1.3 to 1.8 hours duration, though this to me does not mean that a 2.2 hour BFR would necessarily be excessive, it does depend a lot on the candidate.

[Guilders]

The author of the original article is quite correct that the AFR is not a PASS/FAIL matter BUT if he fails to come up to scratch, then the log book endorsement is not issued. As for a 2.2 hour assessment; I do not find that unrealistic at all in certain circumstances especially for a PPL holder. I say well done to the instructor in question!:ok:

[dubbleyew eight]

the BFR/AFR is one of the greatest rorts ever inflicted on private pilots.

sure in airlines they do recurrent training on the complex machines that they fly but perpetual checks on pilots of simple light aircraft. give me a break.

and you wonder why the flying environment is dead and in terminal decline.
what clueless morons you all are to support the clueless CASA bull****.

[Ixixly]

dubbleyew eight, you can't really believe that can you? You're seriously going to have a go at CASA for introducing a law designed to try and keep Private Pilots in check?

We all have to share the same airspace, we all have to overfly the general public to some degree, Commercial Pilots obviously should be under more recency requirements, which we are, but why should there not be some mechanism to ensure that PPLs are also maintaining their skills to an acceptable standard?

Is it really that much of a burden every 2 years to go for a flight with an instructor for a couple of hours to ensure you haven't let yourself lapse into bad habits and to ensure you practice the necessary skills?! You seriously believe that a mere $600-$1000, probably less if you have your own aircraft, set aside over 2 years is CASAs GREATEST rort?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

First off, not current at moment...

If you hate the idea of the AFR as a dead waste of dollars and time, then, do something productive before you fall due. Do an endorsement or go for a rating. I got retract added and my next goal is NVFR. However, this time, because I have been out of the game is a couple of hours dual, some bookwork and then go for an AFR. If you are flying regularly then seriously looking at training for the next step certainly keeps you honed as a diligent PPL.

make that AT LEAST, a couple of hours dual:ok:

[Aussie Bob]

I havent read an Australian Flying Magazine for years. i bought a copy of the November-December issue and finally got around to reading it over an early Sunday coffee.

This was your first mistake ...

[Creampuff]

Is there an AFR/BFR requirement in e.g. the USA, NZ, or Nigeria?

[dubbleyew eight]

it seems an odd quirk in the british colonial mentality that if you create a system where people "can exercise a delegation" then you get all manner of dropkicks who come out with their tin whistles and officious looking hats to really make something of it.

consider two scenarios.

you are tested at the end of your training, deemed competent and thereafter go about flying and enjoying the life as a pilot.

or

you are tested at the end of your training, thereafter treated as an idiot, never seen as competent and are expected to enjoy a regime of tosspots and wankers who want to exert their authority over you. oh and every enjoyment you might make of it is considered a crime of strict liability.

I learnt to fly in the first environment. I can tell you that the current environment attracts absolutely no one.

[SloppyJoe]

Yes you need to do a BFR in USA, minimum of one hour ground and one hour in flight.

[djpil]

Many ways to achieve a flight review in the USA: Pilots - WINGS - Pilot Proficiency Program - FAA - FAASTeam - FAASafety.gov (http://www.faasafety.gov/WINGS/pub/learn_more.aspx)
All very sensible there.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Love the ones who complain, "but my last review was just three circuits!"

Well, seeing as it's my name on your license saying you're safe for the next two years, them I'm going to be damn sure you can actually fly.

I've been contacted by CASA after both AFRs and endorsements when the pilot has screwed something up. If I had done a shifty, guess who would've been in the crap?

Unfortunately, you can't help what they do after all your efforts.:rolleyes:

[Homesick-Angel]

The only people bitching and moaning about long flight reviews, are probably the remedials that need the extra time. The things flight schools wont ever say to a "customer" is that you are crap. But I can guarantee you, just like any cross section of a community, some of us are awesome, some of us are middle of the road, and some of us are absolutely rubbish (same goes for instructors). Strangely the ego levels don't match the reality.

Just because you have a few hundred hours and own your own aircraft does not make you king, in fact it puts you right in the middle of the worst statistical group for deaths and accidents/incidents in Australia. Thats why CASA are targeting you.

Here's the thing.. If you had to put your name to someone's proficiency, have a think about exactly what that means. If you go out and royally screw up or worse, CASA will come looking for the instructor/s putting their ARNs on the line.

You can tell a lot about a pilot by the way in which he turns up and his basic preparedness, but people do the strangest sh1t under what they perceive as pressure, and if thats all we have to go on and see, we're not ticking all the boxes and you need to do more work.

You will never hear it spoken of like this in your flight school, not to your face anyway, but take it from me, behind closed doors, conversations like this will take place, and its not to be a pain in your butt, or fleece you of dollars, but to do our job (which is to make you a better pilot if we can), and protect ourselves legally.

If the industry paid instructors more, you'd be able to keep people who actually give a sh1t about standards and want to see things lift, stay in the game, but the good guys tend to move on, and the industry is filled with guys who see it as a dirty job they need to do to get in the left seat.

[Sunfish]

Dubbleweight:


the BFR/AFR is one of the greatest rorts ever inflicted on private pilots.

sure in airlines they do recurrent training on the complex machines that they fly but perpetual checks on pilots of simple light aircraft. give me a break.

and you wonder why the flying environment is dead and in terminal decline.
what clueless morons you all are to support the clueless CASA bull****.

I hope you are a MS flight Sim pilot and can never get your hands on a real aircraft.

The BFR is merely a subset of the checking and training that is applied to RPT pilots every few months. Do you wish to suggest their checks are BS too?

Personally, I have been asked where to check the oil on a C172 by a pilot much older Nd more experienced than I. His excuse? "Haven't flown this type for a few years".

[djpil]

I've only had two pilots decline to do an AFR with me after I had explained relevant parts of the CAAP to them. One called later to say he had done a floatplane endorsement rather than waste his money doing an AFR with me. The other said he always had another pilot in the RHS so didn't need a proper AFR - I hope he chose to hang up his headset.

[Mach E Avelli]

Despite being in an airline cyclic program, recently I needed a BFR for my bugsmasher (recreation) certificate renewal. In the past the RA Aus people accepted that a pilot in some other regular checking system automatically qualified for RA. However, and rightly in my view, they now require some proof of competence in more representative aircraft.

Phoning around and making a few enquiries, I got varying responses from "we will just do a few circuits to see if you are OK" to needing a two hour question-and-answer review and "probably about two hours in the air". I don't do OTT, even at work, so scrub that guy. And I really could not see what benefit I would get from doing 'a few circuits' so scrub the el-cheapo guy as well.
I settled for the school that quoted a standard hour, but more if I needed it. Sounded professional and practical, and proved to be so. Their aircraft was immaculate and the instructor, although fairly new to the game, was enthusiastic and thorough. We did a couple of stalls, a couple of forced landing exercises, a steep turn and a simulated EFATO. The boxes were all ticked in 40 minutes, so I was then given the opportunity to practice what I saw as best for me. Because I don't like doing full glide approaches in my own aircraft, I took advantage of theirs to sharpen up this rarely-practiced skill.

This particular school had a minimum charge of an hour, which is fair on two counts: 1. Because there is no pilot on the planet who would not benefit from an hour's dual every two years, and
2. They have a substantial investment in new-ish aircraft and obviously need to run it as a business.

But, if a pilot needs more than an hour and a bit of coaching, there is no doubt that this school would insist on it. If the pilot did not accept those terms prior to the BFR, I would like to think that they would turn away that business.

Of course a pilot unable to accept those terms would probably go to el cheapo in the first place. Which is OK too, because in the fullness of time Charles Darwin will yet again be proven right.

[dubbleyew eight]

what a load of codswallop you people write.

we have an environment now where people simply aren't flying enough to remain current. no amount of instructor time is going to fix that.

when are you going to realise then acknowledge that CASA are total effing nutters and have set aviation on a course that is a terminal end game.

you will not fix aviation in this country until you start structuring the environment so that pilots get out and fly their aircraft.

me, I went for a fly over the city on saturday. it wasn't a drama.
the area controller was so bored by the lack of radio traffic that he issued an "all stations, the qnh is 1014" just to relieve the boredom.

ffs you wankers put your tin whistles and important looking hats away and work toward getting aviation in this country working again.

you have no future otherwise.

[Sunfish]

Dubbleyew eight, the BFR is not part of the problem.

[Tee Emm]

but people do the strangest sh1t under what they perceive as pressure,
Decorum, please. This is a professional forum. Outsiders may read these pages and get the impression its just another teen-age facebook like rabble:E

[dubbleyew eight]

sunfish this safety thing is such a pervasive part of aviation that you wonder why.

when you drive down the freeway at higher than suburban speeds I'll wager that you are never focussed on "safety", you are focussed on getting there without pranging or getting lost.

when you go out fishing in the tinny, you stow the safety gear under the seats so that you can get on with the fishing. you are focussed on finding where the fish are, not in drowning or "safety"

so why the great focus on safety in aviation? why not a focus on competent aviation?
I wouldn't mind betting that what is actually at play here is the fear of death.
some people succumb to the rituals of a religion to assuage their fears of the unknown. some people can never realise that while they can't see it because the air is transparent there are huge forces exerted on an aeroplane that will reliably occur if the speed is kept up.
biennials are more of a ritual to assuage the fear of flying than anything of real benefit.

on a personal basis I have no fear of flying. 40 years studying and playing with aerodynamics and a decade of aeronautical engineering study have removed my fear of flying completely.

lets just move beyond the BFR concept. the accidents still occur so what next?
will CASA require co pilots in every private aircraft because it is a demonstrated safety benefit in the airlines.

you have got to conquer your fear of flying or it leads to all sorts of nonsense ritual behaviour.

[ANZAV8or]

W8

You ask why the focus on safety in aviation?

Really?

I think perhaps it's time to pass on your headset.

We want safety so that when we tell people we are pilots they say they want to fly, not start reminding us of all the crashes.

If this is seriously your attitude then I very much recommend that you give it up because our industry does not need you in the air.

An hour and a half every 2 years. Not that hard for a little peace of mind and to check you haven't developed any bad habits.

[scroogee]

To answer an earlier question: yes NZ has a BFR for licenced pilots (can also be done as part of an instructor/instrument etc renewal, if those are being done). Sounds much the same as an Australian one. No minimum time, up to assessing instructors standard (which should be the book standard for the licence held) or it continues until that standard is met.

I've done a few as an instructor, some took about an hour, others a bit longer, some much longer. The much longer ones sometimes stretched to multiple flights.

No I did not milk it, being flown badly about the sky observing variations of incompetance did not make me feel like going back for seconds (or thirds or sixths) but some people were just that bad and there was no way my signature was going into that book until I was happy (same went for any paperwork, I was happy to help and correct, but I wasn't going to do the whole bloodly lot).

At least one had some 'funny' hours and it showed. That one was never finished and we later received phone calls for another training organisation and the CAA about him.

[Wally Mk2]

Guys/gals whilst I don't subscribe to everything that D8 mentions here I think some are getting a little over the top with all this.

I mean flying a plane is nothing special, it's just a learnt skill, much like handling any piece of machinery that requires training. I've said it a few times amongst these pages it's really just a trade, I personally don't call it a profession as such (& that's just my opinion), again it's just a skill that one gets shown, understands the reasoning behind it & then practices it 'till a level of proficiency of achieved, that is it no more.

A BFR is like getting yr car checked every year for road worthiness (not here in Vic which is astonishing!) same with pilots that I believe ought to be done but not go over the top with it as anyone can behave like a circus monkey on the day perform all the required tasks of the tester bluffing them then fly off with the tick/s in the box totally in his or her world.
The concept is a bit of ass covering which society has to have & at times for reasons that are not safety orientated.
Just because you sign someone off on the day does that mean he/she will be as safe the follwoing day? Hardly!


Wmk2

[Sunfish]

W8:

on a personal basis I have no fear of flying. 40 years studying and playing with aerodynamics and a decade of aeronautical engineering study have removed my fear of flying completely.

I fly, drive, sail and scuba dive. Fear doesn't come into it. I have a fair idea of exactly what is going to happen to me and how fast it will happen if I stuff up.

....That is why I practice risk management and that includes regular practice and consideration of emergency situations.

[Ixixly]

On that same vein then Wally Mk2, why do we bother we Police? Criminals still manage to commit crime anyway so why bother? We still see dodgy vehicles on the road that somehow passed a roadworthy so why bother with those either? Terrorists, drug smugglers and other nefarious fiends are going to find ways to get things onto an aircraft they shouldn't so why do we bother with that?

I know I'm going a little overboard with some of those examples but the fact remains, just because something isn't 100% effective by itself doesn't mean you don't bother, it becomes part of the overall safety net designed to try and make sure people are in good habits and capable.

You're entirely right with the AFRs, someone can pass one and go out and do something exceptionally stupid, in that case the instructor turns around and says "Well, I told him not to be a complete tool, he demonstrated he was capable of being a safe Pilot so I signed him off" Yes, it's a bit of ass covering to some degree but there are plenty of practical aspects to it, doesn't mean we don't do it just because people can go and be twits after the fact!!

[Wally Mk2]

"IXY" I understand where yr comin' & agree with you from but that single word used the world over "WHY" in all languages will always perplex mankind :-)
Why indeed do we do anything from cleaning our teeth to checking the the fuel in our tanks, why we do it is to keep the species alive & maintain some semblance of order & longevity.
It's a bit like insurance, why have it?................. 'Just in case' Doesn't guarantee anything.
Why carry a spare wheel? 'Just in case' Doesn't guarantee anything.
Why do we have a BFR/AFR? "Just in case' Doesn't guarantee anything.

If we didn't 'WHY" then there would be more 'WHY's":-)


Long live the Aeroplane:ok:

Wmk2

[Ixixly]

Hahaha, can't argue with that kinda fuzzy logic Wally MK2!!

You may ask "Why?" Me, I prefer to ask "Why not?" :E

[Aviater]

Just for the record. I've worked for a flight school where the instructors were told to milk the students. In fact, I saw the owner ask for a $3000.00 fee to release a pilots log book after completing a CPL.

[dubbleyew eight]

on one of the threads someone asked me the question something along the lines of ...
"if a biennial flight review costs you $680 for two hours with an instructor, is that really a problem?"

as a private owner I don't normally bother to amortise my costs totally on a per hour basis but the last time I did it it was $55 per hour all in.

what I do is count my fuel costs and oil and if I have that in the wallet I go flying.
21.5 litres an hour fuel burnt at a perth price of $1.54 per litre is just under $34 per hour.
$680 biennial cost divided by $34 an hour is the equivalent of 20 hours local flying. I haven't rigged it, it just worked out that way.

I also looked at a flight Perth to Gawler just north of adelaide.
home to kalgoorlie, 300 nautical miles
kalgoorlie to forrest, 345 nautical miles
forrest to ceduna, 297 nautical miles
ceduna to port pirie, 238 nautical miles
port pirie to gawler, 90 nautical miles.
total distance 1270 nautical miles.

I normally cruise near 120 knots but for preliminary flight planning I plan on a cruise speed of 110 knots, that way I can ignore a headwind up to 10 knots.

at 110 knots I get a flight time of 11 hours 36 minutes.

so a 2 hour biennial with an instructor costs more than a flight across australia for me.
I know which scenario would get me more experience and hone the skills for the $680.

if I use just perth prices for fuel the biennial amounts to the cost of a flight across to gawler and back. obviously the fuel costs in the outback will be higher but a biennial is a significant waste of money.

btw last night my son said "what are you complaining about? every two years I have to have 5 biennials."

... and people wonder why aviation in this country is dead.

[Creampuff]

Perhaps not the correct sub-forum for a thread ending in a question mark, but I’ll leave that to the mods…

During your flight Perth to Gawler, do you practise a diversion, engine failure and forced landing?

For my part, if a BFR/AFR is considered an appropriate requirement in the USA, I don’t see why it’s inappropriate in Australia.

[Skydiveandy]

Dubbleyew Eight -

I was a private pilot for many years, did a number of AFRs and then became a commercial pilot and later an Instructor, now is another story all together.

I have conducted more AFR/BFR than i could certainly ever remember. As an Instrcuctor and ATO I have "passed" many and "failed" a few people over the years.

I was lucky enough to work with an aero club that did not charge the member for the instructor when doing a BFR just the aircraft time.

From what you have written it is obvious that you are a "Sky God" that we should all bow too and in the event of an emergency you will have no problem in dealing with it.

On the other hand, the people I fly with including me, unlike yourself are mere mortals. Many of those I have checked, have flown less than a few hours in the past 12 months but still like to keep "current" so to speak.

All of these girls and guys benefit immensely from the time they spend with the instructor. Getting to practice the things you obviously dont need too.. Flying straight lines from A to B must be very taxing, i am sure your GPS ensures you dont stray to far off course.

Those I flew with then and those I check every day of the week now benefit from the emergency drill practice honing and refining their skills. Of course the ones now are not such high calibre as you, these are only lowly CPL and ATPL guys and girls like myself with 2000-5000 hours. It does astound me though, that even these mortal yet professionals appreciate some practice. Funnily enough some of them even need the practice.

As mentioned I have failed people, including committee members and club presidents.. Not one of them ever complained. The all realised that they were un-current and needed more practice.

My hat is off to you, I hope to meet you some day as I know I will learn a lot from you. One thing that I realised from the start of my flying career is that you will NEVER stop learning, the day you do is the day you should stop flying.

Good luck to you and those that think AFR/BFR's are a waste of time. God help you if you have an emergency.

Please feel free to PM me any time

Andy

[Wally Mk2]

Yr taking that rather personal there 'Andy'. I mean if you don't agree with someone fair enuf but I think yr missing the point here, it's an opinion & right or wrong everyone is entitled to one.
Relax. keep doing what you believe is right & all will be well in yr own world:-0):ok:


Wmk2

[pilotchute]

Wally,

When you talk about a AFR as being a "waste" of money then you should maybe start being an accountant at one of the many LCC's around the place. They see recurrent/refresher training as a "waste" of money also. Nothing falling out of the sky equals "no problem" to them.

[Skydiveandy]

You maybe right Wally,

you may or may not have seen what I have. My point is the BFR is a necessary evil if thats they way you want to look at it.

I am on the side of the instructor who must stand up in front of the coroners court if **** happens.

Andy

[MikeTangoEcho]

For many, gaining a licence is thought of as a licence to not have to practice any emergencies for the next 2 years. "Thank god for that, I couldn't do one to SAVE MY LIFE". Stop whinging about a few hundred bucks. You need to do one so do it. Make it worth your while and get a new sticky label while you're at it. I've done AFRs with navs, easily surpassing 2 hours but guess what, it's usually at the request of the candidate.

[Hempy]

Sometimes I wish this board was 'nonymous' just so I could know who never to get in the air with.

[AU-501]

Hi Andy,

I will side with Wally on this one. I don't think old mate was bagging the need for a check flight. I used to fly for a crust, have all the shiny badges, t shirts and trinkets to prove it but was never afraid to go stand in the room of mirrors for a bit of navel gaze ( introspection ). Old mate may have been a little off topic I don't think was actually having a dig at your part of the story.

Fly Safe all and enjoy the view.

[Wally Mk2]

'Hempy' I think the list would be looong if you could find out:E


Wmk2

[Mish A]

I guess I’ve been privileged to have spent quality time in the air and on the ground with people that have been around aviation for a while. These people always seem to retain the attitude that there is always something to learn and that we are all human and can make a mistake occasionally. This attitude has been passed onto me. I guess the problem being is that we all can’t do our BFR’s with these people.

Self assessment of skills is always going to be problematic. How can you ever do an engine failure drill without priming yourself for it? I guess one option is for the front passenger to pull the throttle without warning. If that happened to me, my passenger would find themselves back on the ground in a rather expeditious manner. Therefore without waiting for the real thing, an instructor who is therefore responsible for what happens to the aircraft after they pull your throttle putting you under the pressure may be the only option.

BFR’s are a standard that ensures us, as pilots retain or can be brought back to the basic standard. Along with the Aviation Medical standard they ensure that former pilots still don’t hold a legal authority to fly. Two non -aviation examples:

First example was watching my grandmother’s newly acquired need for her hand to be covering the handbrake when my grandfather approached intersections told me that perhaps he should do a driving test or go to his Doctor.

The second example is a story of a gentleman getting a security audit of his firearms by the Police. They checked his rifle and ammo for the rifle. They then found shotgun cartridges. The Police enquired about their use when the gentleman didn’t possess a shotgun. They were shocked when he replied that due to his deteriorating vision he couldn’t shoot anything with the rifle so he borrows a relative’s shotgun (scatter gun). Apparently after further conversation the gentleman deemed it best if he handed in his licence.

We, as humans are not always so good at self assessment. We need to acknowledge that we cannot always be at the top of our game. We need to retain an industry wide standard and thus we have the BFR. It’s just a pity that they can’t all be conducted by an experienced instructor that’s known us and our aviation journey.

I can’t find the reference but I thought that we operate under the privileges of a licence. It’s not a right; therefore we can’t always presume that every pilot that has a licence retains the skills and abilities without being assessed by an appropriate person against a standard at regular intervals.

[Aussie Bob]

Andy, I too have done way more BFR/AFR's than I can remember. What I think dubbleyew eight is trying to say is that it would be great if we were encouraged to take more responsibility for ourselves and have less stringent rules and regulations.

The number of AFR's I have done with pilots who plain didn't need them is considerable. On the same note, the number of pilots who didn't require an AFR but requested a checkout because they hadn't flown for a while has been encouraging.

dubbleyew eight has made some valid points, not the least of which is that personal responsibility is an unthinkable possibility in our current political climate. Damn shame about that.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Aussie Bob,

I read W8's posts as implying that he doesn't feel he should comply with the same rules as mere mortals. The fact that one does a lot of flying in one's WarpBorer MkVII doesn't mean anything about your ability to self-asses as Mish so eloquently pointed out above.

Skydive Andy outlines the issues well.

As an instructor both RAAus and GA I have found the candidate's resistance to doing a BFR is usually in direct proportion to their need for one.

People who resist the BFR I have typically found to be very slack on everything except raw stick/rudder skills and often they are found wanting in that department too.

We all rant and rave about the old man in the Volvo with the hat doing 60 in the Right hand lane on the freeway (Wally Mk2 that's you :} ) and we all ask where's the $%^& policeman when we see the P-plater overtaking at 100 kph in the cycle lane outside the Primary school.

Both these drivers think that they are doing the right thing or at least are not causing harm. Most of us here would argue differently.

Yet some here seem to think that pilots should be allowed - nay, have the inviolable RIGHT - to do the equivalent thing in an aeroplane without review or correction.

...while loudly protesting their own professionalism and airmanship :rolleyes:

[Aussie Bob]

Very eloquently put HL. I haven't seen much resistance to doing an AFR, almost none so I guess I am fortunate. Also we charge dual for the AFR plus a fee and I can't recall anyone begrudging us the fee too badly..

The big thing is folks like you, me and Andy can never have a lightweight or "no fee" AFR cause CASA insist on doing ours and their charges and thoroughness vastly exceed any I have ever seen in the industry.

[Sunfish]

HL, I agree with you. When I started flying I took the "old pilot, bold pilot" mantra to heart and I am constantly asking myself "what don't I know? I will fly with any instructor at the drop of a hat just to get some new perspective on what I try to do and have never been disappointed - there is always something new and valuable to take away.

Contrast that with the "know it all" attitude of W8. He should stick with MS flight Sim.

[Jack Ranga]

HL, I agree with you. About Wally Mk2 :E..............







No I don't Wal! Just takin' the p!ss :E

[Jabawocky]

JR.....that is Wally alright :ok:

Hey I should PM you two each others phone numbers :E....see who calls who first! ;)

Actually we should catch up down there for a steak and beers :ok:

[Obidiah]

HL has nailed it.

D8 I here your frustration with the demise of private flying but the AFR is not the vehicle to carry it.

I normally cruise near 120 knots but for preliminary flight planning I plan on a cruise speed of 110 knots, that way I can ignore a headwind up to 10 knots.at 110 knots I get a flight time of 11 hours 36 minutes.


That's nice...but what is the point, you aren't actually "planning" anything your just guessing. Maybe you are like many of us who don't do a proper plan from year to year, if nothing else a good AFR is a wake up call for things like this.

If you resent a genuinely needed lengthy AFR then at least spend some similiar time in the room full of mirrors.

[dubbleyew eight]

I have been away so haven't seen the comments.

Aussie Bob's post 52 was the only sensible one.


it would be interesting to see how much of an instructor's income was generated by the AFR's. it might give people a real idea why all this crap was so well supported.

[scroogee]

In my case, not much. Most income came from being flown in variously sized, approximately rectangular, flights about the airfield datum.

For the fun of it: in just over 1 year 16/11/99-26/11/00 651 hours (~600 instructing) I did 16 BFR issues, plus 15 'revision flights'. Over half the BFRs were 1 flight, and of the rest only a couple had more than 1 revision flight. There were a couple of revision flights where I did not do the final issue.

Issues took 1.2-1.6 and revision flights 1.0-1.4 (engine start to stop).

16/11/99-27/3/00 7 revision flights, 13 issues.
27/3/00- 22/5/00 0 and 0
22/5/00-26/11/00 8 and 3

[Skydiveandy]

Obviously you didnt quite read the tongue in cheek,

I certainly dont beleive you, I or anyone is a Skygod, I was saying you may have believed you were above the normal level pilot ;)

Just for your information, I didnt get paid per hour for doing BFR's, I was paid a salary. It meant nothing to me from an income perspective if you took 1 hour or 3 and I can assure you the last thing i needed was flight hours.

I will tell you though I have seen schools doing the wrong thing, miking every penny they can from their students and it continues today.

I dont and will never believe the BFR is a waste of money or time. It is absolutely necessary and should follow the CAAP.

Like Scroogee my average BFR's took around 1.5 block time with some requiring a little over 2

I would estimate that most instructors income was derived from flying rectangles, at least to start with.

Most of the instructors that I know and worked with would have only equated less than 5% of their flying for the year to BFR's and thats the busy ones, the rest would be less than 1%

The likes of Sunfish are the pilots I love to fly with, the guys that are looking forward to learning something new or at least improving their skills,

dubbleyew eight - If your really keen, I am more than happy for you to come here and come for a fly with us, no cost for the flight. May give you an interesting perspective. Send me a PM.

stay safe

Andy

[Hempy]

andy,
You are a gamer man than I...

[glenb]

The other consideration is our wish to have less CASA interference. The best way of achieving that is a responsible industry. It's hard to sell a thorough AFR in most cases, if there's a 1 hour zip to the training area available. The day it all turns bad, the public howls, the government tightens the noose and we all bitch about CASA. If the public perceives it as acceptable it works for all. A 1 hour AFR doesn't cut it.

[Skydiveandy]

As Glenb states. the best way to keep casa off our back is to ensure we follow the advice..

have a look at the CAAP (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/5_81_1.pdf) its an interesting read. It is the guidelines that we should be following.. Any person conducting a BFR not following the CAAP is a game person. The day something goes wrong, and it will is the time that the instructor is going to have to explain to the coroner why they hadn't followed the guidelines set out by the regulator.

I am sure a few of you have been involved or seen the coroners court in action, i have unfortunately, it can be a bad bad place. Luckily for me I was just an onlooker. Pity the poor person being questioned.

You want to keep GA safe, then follow the rules and dont give them ammunition to make it worse.

[Skipping Classes]

Hmm. An interesting thread.

I've never done a BFR in Australia, but quite a lot in the States and Europe. I can't imagine things are much different between lets say UK and Australia.

I believe a lot depends on the ability of the instructor to do proper time management, and set clear goals together with the student beforehand. If you agree on one hour of flying time, you should also have a realistic time plan for this hour and clearly tell the student right away during the flight when you are going to need an extra time or training and let them make the decision (with some advise) whether to abort the check and do some re-training later or continue. Its not a rocket science. The student is your customer after all and its their money.

If something can be fixed by repeating a drill, it is probably better to take 5 minutes extra. 2,2 hours flying lesson is way too long to be effective. If you could not get it done in 1 hour and a bit, you can not be sure you will be able to get the student to pass in 2,2 and then you are wasting time, plus putting a lot of extra pressure on yourself to pass the student.

Make a clear realistic plan together and state clearly and immediately when you need to change it.

[scroogee]

Seeing as this is near the top again, I'll add though that we did peroidicaly get an instructor who's flights were a little bit too long or who's students seemed to take a while longer than the average to make their way through the hoops.

Sometimes a quiet word was had, sometimes someone senior 'poached' the student for an assessment or just to move them on to another instructor.

At least once the offending instructor was sent away for a few days to think about how things were done, what their role was and what the priorities actually were.

Really, I guess it comes down to how the organisation is set up and run and the attitudes of those involved.