Originally Posted by
Capn Rex Havoc
There was a period at 2FTS when we taught ab initio, all through pilot training at 2FTS. Plus the CFS QFI training, had ab initio training in the syllabus, because the instructors course was the same whether or not you were going to 1FTS or 2FTS.
This shows that ab initio training for all ADF pilots was conducted by the BFTS at Tamworth from 1999-2019. They had (the AAT found) a minimum of 200 hours by the time they came to 2FTS and were instructed by that Pilot. Plus if he had that ab initio training experience it would’ve been presented as evidence into the tribunal wouldn’t it? It doesn’t matter that there was ab initio training in the QFI syllabus, he didn’t have the relevant experience. A civilian Grade 3 FIR course has ab initio training in that syllabus but a graduate doesn’t get to progress to Grade 2 and 1 until they get the minimum hours of experience in instructing those ab initio students to progress to higher grades.
I think we’ve found the crux of the issue. The subject pilot did have experience in some areas, which is why the majority of the endorsements he requested were granted. But for those specific areas which he lacked the specific experience they were not granted by CASA and this was confirmed by the AAT.
He wanted a FIR-FIR endorsement, “train the trainer”? He failed to provided evidence the he had experience or endorsements from the RAAF to conduct instructor training.
He wanted a FIR-MCP endorsement, multi crew training? His only evidence was flying hours, not training, in a King Air 200, hardly “Multi Crew” if it can be flown single pilot even if some operators use 2 crew. I know some operators use two crew in Piper Chieftain for insurance purposes, doesn’t make it a suitable “multi crew aircraft”.
He wanted FIR-MEAI, multi engine class rating training? He showed limited actual experience in training on the F-18, and as he and his witnesses admitted to the tribunal the F-18 isn’t a suitable platform for teaching generic asymmetric flight. He didn’t have any experience in training on an aircraft that produces substantial yaw in asymmetric flight, yet wanted the equivalent civilian rating straight up.
For every other endorsement he wanted he got it because he demonstrated he had the equivalent military experience to gain that endorsement.
I'll reiterate again. The RAAF QFI training and flying is polar opposite to airline sim instructing. An ex RAAF QFI is by far capable enough to be a Grade 1 instructor.
When they have the equivalent experience of training and preparing ab-initio students for first solo, yes.
For one of the endorsements he sought, the FIR-MCP for multi crew training an airline TRI/TRE would have far more relevant experience of training in multi crew operations on aircraft that actually require 2 pilots over a RAAF QFI, yet I don’t believe they are granted the endorsement to train for the Multi crew co-operation course with their TRI/TRE qualification (happy to be corrected if wrong).