"The depressurization problem isnt a biggy if your trained for it"
No disrespect to anyone and just a different point view but the statement a "depressurization problem isnt a biggy if your trained for it" is a biggy for real in my view and one that no amount of training can realistically prepare you for, especially in the high flight levels (e.g FL350 and higher).
Any aircraft that operates at those sorts of levels commands a very high level of respect and training (both initial and ongoing) IMHO.
I would like to see where the prescriptive "requirement for 4 proficiency checks per year for each C&T man, each of a 3 hour duration, plus check rides with CASA" as advised by kimwestt is published, can you post it here Kim (if that is your name) as I would like to review it please.
Gentlemen, I've been reading the posts here and the issues raised, some I agree with some I dont. Many are missing the point a little. When our company began operating the Mustang in Charter category we felt we were lifting the game by offering an aircraft far superior in both comfort and above all in safety than many of the current 30 year old machines. We have also invested a considerable amount of money to equip the machine for aero medical transfers, which it can accomplish in a very cost affective manner. We are mindful of the fact that this is a whole new era we are entering, and perhaps we are the first to put our toe in the water so to speak. To say we would let anyone loose in the aircraft without proper experience and training is unimaginable, we already run a training and checking program close to CAR 217 standards. I agree with CASA's concerns regarding oversight and standards for these VLJ aircraft, and I also agree that some sort of C&T should be required, but this is not a fleet of aircraft we are talking about here it is a single aircraft. If it is successful I have no doubt that more will follow, where formal CAR 217 may become cost effective. The imposition of CAR 217 for a single aircraft is huge cost burden and in itself may be counter productive in encouraging operators into modern safer aircraft. I feel that oversight and standards could be tackled in a much more cost effective way. Examination of the requirements of CAR 217 the regulations are written for a one size fits all, ie there is not much difference between what is required by say, Qantas, or for a small charter operator. It has been mentioned here operators should carefully choose a multi purpose fleet of different types to fit the market, CAR 217 discourages that because once you go past 3 or 4 types your C&T staff would be spending more time doing checks on themselves than actually checking line pilots, CAR 217 is written basically for a single type fleet. CAR 217 will also not address the issue of private operation, there are already many far higher performing aircraft mixing it with the heavy traffic that have no CASA oversight, either because they are privately operated or on a foreign register. The imposition of CAR 217 for a single aircraft also raises a safety issue of currency. The machine in its first year flew 300 hours, it is expected to fly 400 in its second. CAR 217 will require those hours to be divided between two pilots. There is a lot of evidence from the USA to suggest that when currency drops below 200 hours per year the potential for an accident rises dramatically. The requirement for CAR 217 has been imposed selectively on VLJ's but not on their main competitors turbo prop and larger piston types which in many ways are far more complicated to fly yet share fairly close performance parameters. Back when I first started flying all flight tests were conducted by CASA, an instrument ratings required a six monthly check by a CASA FOI. Perhaps the answer to this issue is put some wings on the emu's CASA employs as FOI's and get them out in the industry checking standards until such time as an operation can sustain a full CAR 217 organisation.
"Perhaps the answer to this issue is put some wings on the emu's CASA employs as FOI's and get them out in the industry checking standards until such time as an operation can sustain a full CAR 217 organisation".
Great idea, but the 1st to operate a type would have to foot the bill for any CASA FOI training. In the country of airplane builder of course so USA, France, Brazil here we come! Those guys only go business class, too.
In addition to whatever CASA may require the more logical driver of competency checks will be the insurance companies.
The premium hike for a flying organisation who employs a business jet jockey and does not require them to undergo biannual competency training is more than the cost of such training. In addition the premium on the Directors and Officers cover will also take a substantial hike if they travel with an organisation that does not comply with industry standard check and training.
I was made aware of these requirements when one of Australia's richest men had to hire an aircraft to complete a journey rather than travel in his own aircraft. It was the insurance company who held his Directors and Officers insurance that mandated he only travel in a multi-crew aircraft and where the crew met certain training standards, otherwise no cover.
Anyone (other than the Casa) shed any light as to why CASA are mandating that Check & Training be put in place for the new Cessna Mustang? Well under the 5700 kg level, this aircraft was designed and built by Cessna to be one of the easiest, single pilot aircraft ever built to fly (and it is)!
Because when you take a machine which requires certain skills to operate and make it very simple to operate they start to fall into the hands of idiots who have more money than brain cells and the result is....
Same goes for Ferraris, just google wrecked ferraris and you'll see what I mean.
1. Cessna mandates that Flight Safety trains new Mustang pilots to a certain standard. Firstly before you go to FSI you have to fill out a questionnaire outlining previous experience. Once that is completed and submitted FSI will get back to you and advise if in fact you can sit for a Single Pilot Command FAA type rating or they will advise that you will be given a type rating with a "Schedule Of Experience" requirement. This means that you have to have an experienced 'Mentor" pilot sit next to you for 50 - 100 hours.
2. Now please note in the above comment that the FAA calls it a type rating as opposed to a multi engine endorsement. Secondly nowhere is it suggested that CASA imposed any of these requirements. It was the manufacturer, Cessna.
3. In my experience the number of checks required under CAR217 is once every 6 months with a requirement that part of the check must contain a sector flown at night once every 12 months.
4. I understand that one particular CASA FOI was sent to do the Mustang course at the expense of CASA and not at the expense of any operator.
So to all of those out there who believe they are good enough to do a quick 2.5 hour endorsement and fly away as PIC in a Mustang please let me know when you are flying so I can stay safely on the ground.
i was wondering where you were groggy, memory or the legs? As I understand it, the current requirement (read interpretation) for Mustang C&T is for 4 company check rides in a 12 month period, each of three hours, plus check rides with CASA, as CASA requires. A bit more than the six monthly routine, eh? Some of, to my knowledge, that is, of the newly endorsed drivers are getting their endorsements from recently FSI recurrent certified pilots, one in particular has thousands of hours on the Citation family aircraft. Those that are going to be "TURNED LOOSE" commercially will not be turned loose until after the completion of the C&T programme. That being said, you might feel a little more confident in getting airborne!!
"As I understand it, the current requirement (read interpretation) for Mustang C&T is for 4 company check rides in a 12 month period, each of three hours, plus check rides with CASA, as CASA requires" - for the second time please post the specific details and not an "as I understand it.... which with all due respect means nothing (to me at least).
Davidgrant, thank you for your measured response. If your VLJ will only fly 400 hours in a year, it seems that you have two problems. The first is how to make a profit on 400 hours out of such an investment, and is no-one's business except yours. CASA rightly is not concerned with your profit and loss situation, unless losses translate to dodgy operational practices. Your second problem should be a concern to yourself, your clients and insurers etc. How to keep your pilots up to speed with relatively few flying hours/sectors? Why not approach CASA with 'an equivalent level of safety' argument? Offer to send your pilots back to Flight Safety once per year for refresher training and a proficiency check in the simulator. Small operators (and even some quite large) tend to fall behind the times if they don't expose their training staff to outside influences. They often develop some rather quaint practices - reinventing aviation for the mere sake of it - or end up in a training time-warp by never updating procedures. Specialist training companies like Flight Safety gather information from many incidents, accidents and operators' service problems, so regular visits there can only be beneficial. Then, to satisfy the CASA regulation regarding two checks per year, offer to do a line proficiency check at the mid-year point in the actual aircraft on revenue operations. Make it over a minimum two sectors per pilot with two instrument approaches. Of course, keeping the emergency scenarios to question and answer and touch drills only. I recall the pertinent regulation uses words to describe the proficiency check emergency requirements rather loosely - as in 'of sufficient nature' etc etc.
I hear you, been a long time recipient of Flight Safety training, sort of makes OZ style GA training look like kiddies playing in a sand box. I envy the airline guys with the resources they have available. Its really all about economy of scale unfortunately. There are a lot of things I'd like to do, but time and a budget unfortunately play against you at times. As I mentioned we are perhaps the first in the market with this "Toy" as you call it, I call it a "giant Coke can powered by two hair dryers", but regardless it still offers a level of safety way above its older competitors.Hopefully we can continue to grow its utilisation to a level where a formal check and training program is sustainable, as I said we already run an informal one, we use a very senior retired airline C&T pilot for oversight, without the cost burden of CASA. In the near future we are hopeful that a Flight Safety type simulator will become available in Australia which, if it is available to us, will solve a lot of the cost issues.In the mean time CASA could surely help encourage the move to modern,safer aircraft by taking responsibility for oversight and standards, I have no problem, in fact I would encourage them to fly with us, at the end of the day its all about safety. Regards David
I'm with you - why waste the effort on one end only!! The scenario I painted was from CASA directly. One of the most disturbing parts to me is that there is seemingly no relationship between the CAAP and the publicly available documents and the verbally espoused requirements. Oh, and yeah, there is supposed to be a secret and confidential document that wil, if you are allowed access to said document, allow you to produce a CAR217 program that might get signed off. God help anyone who relies on the CAAP and the info from the CASA web site (AOC guide).
I haven't read every post, so excuse me if this is already covered.
Some one will set up a 217 organization that will cater for these type of machines. Much cheaper than employing your own check pilot, has to be better than a CASA FOI who in reality will probably have no practacle experience on the types mentioned.
If there is one of a kind aircraft it won't be cheaper, possibly higher quality, more than one of a kind and there are $$$$$$ savings.
Courtesy Capt W.J.R. Hamilton. I love this!!. A MEMBER RECENTLY ASKED ME WHY WE HAVE --- SPECIAL RULES FOR JETS IN “G”
In light of my almost 40 years experience on almost 100 types, here is the most probable reason for this local peculiarity, a result of “aeroblight” , a recent discovery of widely acclaimed aviation consultants Aero Omni Pestcontrol Associated, or AOPA for short, not to be confused with Any Old Pilots Association, AOPA for short. Consultancy is the only thriving sector of Australian aviation.
Dear Jim Firstly, by virtue of the fact that a jet at 150 knots is flying much faster than a Dash 8 or a BAe Pipedream 31 at 150 knots, and a 38 seat high capacity jet carries many more people than a low capacity 38 seat Dash 8. All turbines simply streak past a Cessna 421 dawdling downwind at 150kts. We all know how fast jets are !!
Jets have only one lever per engine, ( Cynthia, the anti ice is a switch) compared to the much more simple turbo prop, with its throttles, condition levers, and propeller control levers, propeller anti ice systems, or; the super simplified throttle levers, mixture levers, pitch levers, carb. hot air levers, cowl flaps levers or switches, fuel boost HI/LO and magneto switches and propeller anti ice system etc. of the average piston engine, ------ not to mention the average of sixteen ways you can screw up the fuel selection on the average piston twin, for instant silence.
The ON/OFF ( and in some cases not even ON/OFF --- Just OFF when you pull a Fire Switch) jet fuel systems are just too much for the average pilot A even greater problem on all the modern jets is something called FADEC, which eliminates the power and engine life enhancing “ Instant Detonation” mode of piston operation, when in the “ham fisted overboost” phase of flight, starting as it does just, after engine start and ending at engine shutdown.
A further problem with a jet engine is very slow acceleration time, where it can take as long as 4 seconds to go from flight idle to in flight takeoff thrust, compared with the very rapid 4 seconds it can take a turbo prop to increase from flight idle to max torque.
None of this compares with the almost instant effect of slamming the throttles of any piston engine of the GTSIO variety to the firewall ---- the tinkle tinkle little cash register effect. Other jet performance impediments, include such as a lousy rate of climb out of low level airspace of as little as 4000 ft per minute, compared to the sparkling 800 ft per minute of a Beech Porcupine (on a good day) and the positively breathtaking performance of a hot, high and heavy Cessna 402, as in it: takes your breath away that you didn’t hit anything, again !! Blessed be the curvature of the earth.
Thus we must have a standard safety rule from CASA that says that all airfields which have jet services must be an MBZ. Very dangerous these new fangled machine are, only been operating them for more than 50 years, not like the tried and true turboprops that we have been operating for nearly 55 years.
Remember also that the large windows of new jets cockpits do not have the advanced and enhanced visibility features of the viewing ports of the BAe Baddream 31, or the vision enhancing engine running indicators, attached to big round things bolted to large planks, usually found just above the pilot's respective outboard ears, or buttocks, depending on particular manufacturer preferences.
Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, the view from the BAe146 is just great, especially if you have the DV windows open. This window open not only eliminates the blue oil haze in the cockpit but allows you to “ look through” the bugs smeared on the windscreen. At least pilots do not have a problem with bird strikes on the 146, birds don’t fly that slowly.
The BAe 146 aircraft has a further very important feature to encourage pilots to look out, and be vigilant for other traffic.
You can’t see half the instruments, so you may as well look out for other traffic. The HSI is barely visible, and the CDI is obscured to pilots of normal stature, as operators await the availability of the long rumored “transparent control column” Service Bulletin.. All this is a real safety gain, as research shows that compliance with communications procedures at CTAFs are better than MBZ's, clearly making MBZ's safer, as at least somebody is looking out the window, rather than just talking, on some flights around an MBZ.
OR IS THERE A FLAW IN MY LOGIC ??? Naturally, to enhance safety, no croppy (aerial pest exterminators, or APE, as they are popularly known as) with a dud radio would consider flying into Longreach on Wednesday (without radio), just in case last Sunday's weekly jet was a little behind schedule.
Standardisation is a laudable aim, so naturally we should always promulgate unneeded, unjustified, meaningless, pointless and unenforceable airfield restrictions H24, one cannot be too safe, can one. As the years go by, services will increase, nothing like having any unnecessary and ineffective restrictions well proven years ahead.
Plan ahead, that’s what I say. Say after me the creed, "Marconi Rules, OOOH Yeahhhh", ( No, not the Sydney Soccer Club, Cynthia, the Italian bloke who invented the flapping lip mode of flight, refined and perfected in Australia, an antipodean unique application of acoustic lift theory – if you quit talking, the aeroplane quits flying)
Strange that other countries are not flocking to our door, to see how we organize a collapse in a vital industry, General Aviation, once a major jobs generator in rural and regional Australia.
The Australian economy is the best it has been for many years. General Aviation elsewhere is booming, we have obviously struck the correct balance in Australia, eliminating such simplistic notions as “when the economy booms, aviation booms.” Regards, Bill Hamilton.