Oz Training Standards

[MEL]

Having been through the "school of hard knocks" (a QFI for several years) I am starting to think that the 'old' standards in Oz are fast disappearing.

The CAA put out a day VFR syllabus (a bad attempt at humour) to justify lowering the standards in the new CAR's - many schools including the one I was with, wrote our own. A far superior item - basically no reduction in flight hours from the pre '92 syllabus.

Now I see the CASA are at it again some FOI is jusitfying his/her existance with writing a new perfomance based syllabus - basically so the 'recreational pilot' licence holder is pre rated on most types. I find this yet another step in disolving an already lowering standard.

I ask these simple questions :
How many new "ppls" accurately navigate to within 4 nm of an enroute tracking point (this is only +/- 2 mins) ?

How many accurately hold a sartime or flight note ?

I should think that CASA or whoever want to carry the flag (why has the Oz colleges and tafes got on the wagon ?) should encourage schools to write their own syllabii, rate them when 'accepting' the ops manual and makeit mandatory that the schools that train flight conduct the ground theory aswell ?

The product should be (and I employ some) a pilot who is motivated towards his/her knowledge, can add two or three numbers together and eventually can fly straight ? (this latter doesn't really matter since the computers we have fix this)

I have come across many pilots from the pilot factories, that can fly in balance but can't read an approach chart, don't bother with navigation fixes and my pet hate - can't use the radio properly. Why are these latter skills left to be gained during flight experience - not taught at ground level ?

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I can really understand your frustration here, MEL, but first let me put you right on one point...it is not an FOI who is writing the "competancy based training" syllabus, it is the Transport and Distribution Industry Training Advisory Board. I and many other CFIs and others in the industry have spent hours deliberating over things like "how to measure" a "good" landing. All it is is a way of MEASURING achievement, almost impossible in our industry. Silly, in many ways, but that is the way that all industries are going now and aviation has to keep up.
It does not replace the Day VFR syllabus.
The Oz colleges and TAFEs are merely providing the theory side. Two of my flying instructors are also TAFE PPL and CPL theory lecturers in the evenings.
And you will find that each school does have the means to write its own syllabus in the ops manual, and I know mine and many others goes way beyond the minimums required, especially as I train a lot of UK people and was an instructor there myself for a few years, I have added the two syllabi together to get the best of both. All ops manuals have to detail the school's syllabus and this has to be approved by CASA. So that is already being done. You can't just put "as per the day VFR syllabus" in your ops manual section E!
Totally agree with you about the "sausage factories". Now that Electronic Dick and his cronies at Airservices are getting rid of our ATC at GAAP aerodromes, these people who are taught merely how to pass a flight test, not how to be a Captain (size of aircraft irrelevant), have become a serious safety hazard with their lack of knowledge or regard for MBZ procedures and airmanship. I have had to stop student solo training outside tower hours, as these idiots have made the zone unsafe. I don't want one of my students to be the statistic that makes Airservices and co realise what they've gone and done.
Take heart...there are some of us here who still believe in teaching "airmanship" and all those other old fashioned things!

------------------

[MEL]

I know there are many changes facing YPJK not just the airspace regulatorand administrators - I hope you manage to keep pluggin' away.
You hit the nail on the head - airmanship or Common dog F**K (CDF) is the thing one learns from initial training. The problem here lies with the 'slack' approach that junior instructors have in their own approach. This can stem from the usual and undisciplined approach from some CFI's not giving supervised attention. Unfortunately I tried to change the scene in the East, but the hours involved and the lack of renumeration didn't help.
Surely a performance based traiing scenarios already exsists - if the qulaity is not there the applicant fails the test or requires retraining. Sometimes this is hard to do when the applicant is your own product. Its even harder to do when another ATO will freely give tests away without much effort (but thats for the regulators).

[MEL]

A little while ago (3-4 years) a new schedule of experience in draft format was circulated about new QFI experience levels. An interesting point was along the lines that a junior grade 3 must have at least some other commercial experience. Likewise the CFI's had to have other commercial exposure before 'teaching'.
This was not taken up and still we have too many 200 hour pilots teaching basic nav and ab-initio with no other framework than their own training.
This style (which is very widespread) simply continues to water down skills.
I'm not anti low time kids getting their hours up - but do they have the skills to be training ? They certainly don't have the experience.
I have made application to record the number of training accidents versus experience levels of PIC - when I'm finished I'm sure I'll be back.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Spot on re the watering down of skills. I think of it as more like a virus!
When the standards are already low, and the instructor and student and the instructor's instructor and the instructor's instructor's instructor have done every single flying hour from within the same four walls, how can you expect the standards to improve?! The common denominator has to keep falling.
I'll be very interested to hear the results of your research....

[jetpipe]

CFI
The standards set by many new low hour instructors is very good, if they have the correct attitude to the job and proper supervision. Isn't that why they have to work with a G1 on the premises?
I am sure you would rather have a new keen low hour Instructor working with you than an old sinical one who can't wait to leave the school.
If the self improver mode of gaining an aviation career is to continue you can only hope that the junior G3 stays as the VFR charter jobs are fast running out. You can thank the C208 and insurance companies for that one.
So to remain as a flying school and not be forced out of buiseness by the sponsored airline schemes the PPL will become the staple activity and not the CPL as now.
How can you afford not to have G3's working then?

While I do agree that the sausauge factory does occur and this causes the drop in standards it is upto each CFI to try and remove that from their organisation by providing ongoin training. Isn't it about time that flying schools provided CRM courses, CFIT courses ETC to there staff so as to increase there base knowledge and then through ongoing training the standards will rise.

[CHICKENTRAINER]

To be the cat amongst the pigeons, I learned to fly at a 'sausage factory' and later instructed at one.

Some of my instructors were good, some not so good.

As an instructor I fortunately worked under a gifted CFI. He demanded a high standard of me, and in turn, I of myself and my students. Most of the instructors I worked with had similar standards.

The claim that 'sausage factories' just churn out sausages, in my opinion, is just a claim.

Has anyone ever evaluated the statistics on the percentage of good vs bad pilots from the various types of Flying Schools? With more pilots gaining their licence from said 'sausage factories' than from other establishments, it follows that numerically more duds will emanate from them, not neccessarily a greater percentage though.

Good pilots are so because they set and maintain a high standard. For a junior instructor to mature into a high quality instructor, they must first be the type of person to seek the standard and they must also be guided by their CFI and more experienced colleagues.

The problem as I see it, is determining at the recruitment stage, whether the potential instructor has the vocational calling to produce a good quality student, rather than just to build up hours.

Ultimately the industry will get the standard it sets overall. If ATO's, the final arbiter of the 'standard', grant a licence to substandard pilots what hope is there. This of course creates difficulties for those CFI's and ATO's who DO maintain and expect a standard, as bloggs the customer may chose the 'easy' (financially) way.

To generalise against 'sausage' factories though, has the inherent problems of all generalisations.

Thank you for the use of the soap box! http://pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/smile.gif

------------------
ChickenTrainer




[This message has been edited by CHICKENTRAINER (edited 03 January 1999).]

[Luke SkyToddler]

A kiwi perspective from someone who's still a relatively junior instructor (700 TT) -

I am a product of a so called "sausage factory" at Ardmore, first as a student and then for a year-and-a-bit as an instructor. The company policy re: low timers was "You can work for us if you bring your own students", and they had virtually no quality control for new instructors. I got through my 100 hour "direct supervision" period without having so much as seen a senior instructor in the briefing room let alone take an interest in my flying. While I didn't feel "unsafe" I definitely wished at times for a bit of guidance, certainly the student is the long term loser in that situation.

It's worth noting that the senior instructors in that place were if anything worse than the young ones (who at least were keen): the old timers were in my opinion a bunch of demoralised, cynical pricks who didn't want to be there and it very much showed up in their training standards ...

However, since August last year I've left Auckland, and been working for a small, tightly run, happy organisation in a smaller town with an active airline pilot (Air NZ Saab 340) running the show, and it has been an absolute mind blower for me. I feel like I have learned to fly and instruct all over again ...

The conclusion I have drawn, is that sausage factories by their very nature train to the lowest common denominator. They are very hot on standardisation, which is all well and good and it's obviously the way to go when you have to fly with a variety of different instructors none of whom really get to know the individual strengths and weaknesses of their student. But it can't touch the benefits of true "one on one" training with someone who really knows what they're about and takes an interest in their student.

While there is no substitute for experience, I feel a low time instructor in the right situation can be a fine instructor, as long as someone with experience is looking after them and paying more than lip service to "instructor supervision". And a high time instructor who doesn't want to be there, is about the worst thing a student can have ...

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I've had partially formed sausages come here for help....one had nearly 150 hours and no PPL yet. Huge gaps in knowledge, nothing intrinsically wrong except confidence shot to pieces...( not surprising!)...one who had done effects of controls five times each time with a different instructor....makes me too cross to go on. It gives our industry a bad name. And they bag us smaller, specialised training operators as the "chicken*****tin-pot organisations"

Here company policy is to only employ instructors who are dedicated to teaching, mature and with good people skills. Grade of instructor rating is irrelevant. If a student is being trained by a Grade 3 I do all the solo checks myself. My ops manual doubles as a QA manual. No old cynical instructors here, only one has left since the school started and that was nothing to do with their ability or dedication as an instructor. It takes all sorts I guess!!!

The worry is that if Electronic Dick gets his way, all schools will either be sausage factories or amateurish cowboy organisations!

[MEL]

Well a raw nerve in the QFI column - never let it be said.
As CFI says the smaller quality institutions are the organisations that will find the renumeration harder as the Electric Dick and continual changes take place. My problem here was a low class operation commenced QFI training flooding a small population base with very cheap instructors. (These guys only get $15 per flying hour) The CFI does'nt care and wants out but the younger guys grab the time they can - it is obvious they will move on. The result is any possible 'quality' instruction is too expensive and therefore cannot afford the QFI's needed.
It is a situation which needs the older organisations to close (they will never get money for goodwill) and allow the new orgainsations to grow.
Don't forget a grade one QFI should be worth around $ 65000 - $ 70000 per annum - but thats alot of students. Perhaps that is what is needed, training the "kids" the conditions in a real prostituing industry.

[CHICKENTRAINER]

CFI,

Sounds like you have a great organisation.

I don't think anyone should generalise and describe organisations such as yours as "chicken*****tin-pot organisations". Similarly to generalise and say 'sausage factories .... etc. is just as bad.

My first instructional experience was at a small flying club. The CFI overheard me teaching a new Nav student how to complete a flight plan (circa 1985). Studying wx, calculating HDG, GS, ETI, etc.

The CFI took me aside and told me I was wasting my time as "1 in 60" rule sorted all that out in the air.

Had I not had the sausage factory standard I had, I would have just done as he said.

Generalisations are misleading, don't you agree?




------------------
ChickenTrainer

[ozpilot]

CFI,

Just out of curiousity, do you think there are any of these so called "sausage factories" in WA? Not asking for any names, just curious really.

Cheers

------------------

[Luke SkyToddler]

ChickenTrainer -
sounds to me like your small flying club WAS a chicken**** tinpot training institution. However, the fact that there are shonky small operators as well doesn't necessarily vindicate "sausage factory" training. The place where I was at also had "theory deluxe", the level of detail they went into in briefings, nav exercise planning etc. was phenomenal. Doesn't excuse them from the fact that I had fourteen different instructors by the time I passed my PPL! My theory is that they go overboard and throw everything they've ever learned or read about at the student in the briefing room in the hope that some of it sticks in the air. They're trying to cover for the fact that no instructor is taking a long term interest in the student (except for the amount of dual time they can be milked for).

I'm not going to go too far down the road of blaming the instructors though - so much of it comes back to the way people treat their staff. I was on less than 10 bucks kiwi an hour (paid for flight time only). We had in excess of thirty instructors on our books at one stage and probably about ten full time students, and a couple of dozen weekend pilots. People who have committed fifty grand to get to the "new instructor" stage don't take too long to get demoralised, pissed off and cynical. That attitude rubs off on the students very very quickly. And it does have a profoundly lowering effect on training standards.

------------------
Talk to me!!
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/26038235

[CHICKENTRAINER]

Luke, I agree with many of your sentiments. There is no excuse for 14 instructors, etc.

But, you say that tin pot small organisations don't vindicate 'sausage' factories. This suggests to me that you will forgive the small organisations failings but not the 'sausage' factory failings.

My main gripe is the generalisation that 'sausage factories' are no good and small organisations are.

The truth is that there is a wide spectrum, there is good and bad in most organisations, and most types of organisations.

The sausage factories I have been involved with went through stages of good and bad. Dependent, usually, on whether the CI, CFI had high standards AND was strong enough to stand up to the bean counters at the top.

With regard to how staff are treated, I agree that morale is a very important factor. However, I think a personal professional approach should see 'the cynical and uninterested' leave rather than subject their students to their own 'who cares' attitude.

To blame (not you, but the individuals described in your post) 'manangement' for treating staff badly thus causing poor service to the student, is unrealistically absolving those responsible for their own actions. Management may be a causal factor, but once again, instructors should take out their frustrations with management on management, not on the poor ($$$$) student.

Oh for the utopian world, where instructors (and all pilots for that matter) are paid what they are worth, and we can weed the industry of those whose standard is only the making of a buck!

------------------
ChickenTrainer

[MEL]

Pay us what we're worth-
Hear Hear Chookteacher - my hats off to you ! Whoops don't have one.

[Checkboard]

Don't work for less than you're worth!

I know that's a big ask, but that's how wages are maintained!

[WINJEEL]

I cannot help but also look forward to MEL's research results into accidents involving the product of the recycled junior instructors.

But that is only one measure of our current spiralling downward training regime in Australia - a more interesting measure would be to survey the employers of the end product to ascertain just how much extra training is required to make that product safe and useful.

My experience over the years teaches me that the Grade One is the foundation stone upon which the whole castle is built. Whilst it may be approriate to have schools testing in-house for recreational pilot licences, I cannot help but think that the initial vision of the truly Independant ATO must be applied to professional licence candidates. That scheme was abandoned for economic convenience and commercial pressures. And I dont mean CASA doing it but they do appear to have abandoned the field somewhat.

That is not to say that all Grade One's are pushovers and abandon the standards they instinctively know are right - but Blind Freddy will tell you where to find an Easybeat. Most Grade One's are forthright and honest but the Easybeats tend to get the business.

In my humble view, it is far too easy to become a Grade One or CFI and therefore the cornerstone of the standard, the Grade One qualification, should return to the days when the qualification was something not easily attained and one which was accompanied by respect and a modicum of prestige.

My sixpenneth for what it is worth.

[Capt Homesick]

I've taught, and been taught, at big and little schools. I got my UK BCPL and AFI (I guess equivalent to an Oz G3, but I'll not put money on that) at a little school, got all first time passes, and then had to change very little to get the CAA to approve me for CAP509 instruction. For the moment (only a week or so left, possibly) I teach at a major school, and generally the standards are very high, but there is a very definite "within 4 walls" problem; not so much a quality thing as a blind spot.
None of our aircraft are allowed to land on, or take off from, grass runways. The school still teaches short- and rough-field takeoffs and landings, and relies heavily (it would prefer exclusively) on in-house instructors. Thus, you have students learning rough-field techniques from instructors who have never landed on a rough field, and who learned it from instructors who never did it, and in turn learned it from instructors who...
Is it just me, or is there a safety issue there? I've landed on concrete, ashphalt, grass, sand and snow- I can appreciate the need to learn the techniques on a good surface before you try it for real, but I have reservations about teaching something without ever experiencing it. OK, so we do that with emergencies, but with a routine flying practice?
I'll get off my soapbox now (incidentally, the little school where I got my early training was Tayside Aviation, in Dundee, Scotland, and no, I don't own shares).

[Capt Claret]

Excelent points Capt Homesick. I remember my first realshortish field take off, it was damned scary. I had learned at a field with about 1100 m of runway, can't remember ever going into a truly short field during my training, so the visuals when I did it for real were something else!!

------------------
bottums up

[MEL]

Not wanting to seem too bold.
All landings and takeoffs conducted in accordance with the flight manual actually STOL.
Or the expression should be maximum performance. An aircraft crossing the threshold at 50' at Vref (Vat) and touching down at the correct spot is what the AFM states. Likewise the T/O is always measured from Static thrust to 50' (35') after t/o.
The casual approach to a rolling start and touching down at the end of the runway are not IAW the flight manual and therefore may be held against the PIC in the following investigation.
I was always taught and teach the position of touchdown should be accurate off a 50' crossing height - if the end of the RWY is used to touchdown then the strip is far too short for the operation.

[triadic]

This subject is one that is somewhat dear to me. Tragically I believe that we are now suffering a form of cancer in the industry which is the result of over twenty generations of junior flying instructors teaching junior flying instructors teaching junior flying instructors…..etc.… WITHOUT appropriate supervision. How many senior instructors or CFI's now fly with their line instructors? How many students get checked during their progress, as a check on the instructor? Not that many I would bet.

The general product with a new CPL is very poor. They seem to think that everyone owes them a job, but when you suggest the only way up is to go bush and fly a single for a year, they don't 'cause they believe they should be in a twin.

I have seen over the year's pilots join my company and they don't even have their basic flying skills refined. Airmanship seems to be a thing of the past. Radio procedures are yet another area where there is no standardization. The ability to make a constant powered approach to a nominated point on the runway is something that is foreign to many!

The trouble is that this cancer is now evident at training levels within some airlines because there is no effort by CASA to ensure that training pilots are given even the basic instructional skills of a grade 2 or 1 instructor - not even a PMI course. And as many of the pilots in the industry have never been an instructor they do not have even the books at home to revise from. Tragic..! Further, because they become C&T Capts they then think they are experts… sorry, but I know a few such people that would not make the grade at a country flying school as a grade III. And CASA does not have either the guts or ability to address the problem, mainly I suspect because many of the FOIs are a victim of the same cancer.

Further there is very little that can be done about it… And I don't think this problem is unique to Australia. My observations show the cancer exists all over… Just maybe the only way to fix it is at the very bottom ??

[CHICKENTRAINER]

triadic,

In the outfit I work for, all Check and/or Training Captains who haven't held Instructor Ratings MUST complete an approved PMI course. This requirement is written into our Ops Manual and is adhered to.

I am surprised, if as you say, CASA does not require a PMI pass for Training staff.

------------------
ChickenTrainer

[Checkboard]

Hear! Hear!

No it's not required at our (fairly major) airline either - to my constant amazement. I should say at this point that I am an ex-instructor, but it is a mojor oversight at the airline, and CASA I feel.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

It is a requirement under the CAOs that an instructor must have done a standardisation check in the last twelve months with the CFI, and any student being trained solely by a Grade Three must also fly with a grade one or two at least every three months.
If this isn't being enforced then it is a CASA problem.
By the way most FOIs I know are ex military so have come through a completely different system to GA. Is that a good thing? What does it matter as long as they do their job well and fairly, which I reckon they do.

The appalling standards is very evident here when the tower closes and it becomes an MBZ. Many pilots are either totally unaware of correct procedures, or just don't care. We have had to stop student pilots with and without GFPT flying solo outside tower hours because it is unsafe... It's not just the pilots who turn against the circuit direction after take off, and who come screaming down to join the circuit (often on the wrong side) on base, or just cut in front of you on downwind; but the ones who line up in the face of opposite direction landing aircraft,forcing them to go around even though they have right of way, because it is too far to bother to taxi to the hold of the runway in use, and numerous other examples. If the FOIs would like to stay back for a couple of hours and watch the mess from 6pm onwards it would be good, then maybe something could be done. But at the moment it is anarchy!! And much of this is because of this "cancer".
Who taught these people that it's OK to display a total lack of airmanship and sfety awareness? These things can only be learned BY EXAMPLE.

It's the same callsigns, over and over again....


------------------

[Capt Homesick]

There used to be the same problem in Britain, of Training Captains with no instructional experience. A couple of years ago, the CAA introduced a Type Rating Instructor qualification, which seems to have helped- it's one of the reasons why I plan to keep my instructor ticket valid, even if it takes me years to graduate to the left seat.