CASA initial grade 3 FIR

[keenAV8er]

Myself and a friend are rapidly approaching our initial grage 3 flight instructors rating. CASA are now doing all the inital grade 3 ratings and I am wondering if anyone has been tested, or knows anyone who has been tested?

It is hard to get the information out of CASA themselves, on what to expect on the "big day"!!!

We have just received the bill for the flight test and we are looking at $830 each for the day plus the hire of the aircraft!!! Maybe a little bit stiff!!?? Certainly a little bit excessive for a public service!!

As you would agree, we don’t want to fail due to the price of the test and also the having to go through the stress again!!

If anyone has any tips on what to expect from CASA it would be very much appreciated!!

Cheers.

[muffman]

Make sure you've completed the syllabus your flying school has in their ops manual, with nothing left out. If your instructor has graded anything as not to standard, make sure it is fixed and documented before the test. They are very particular about making sure the course has actually been completed. They are also looking to see some direct involvement of the CFI in your training, so at least get him/her to listen to some briefs and go for a fly with you.

CASA have said the majority of people being tested are passing, however a good deal of people are not actually attempting the test because in the eyes of the examiner, they haven't completed the course.

[Clare Prop]

I'm surprised that the people running your instructor course haven't told you "what to expect".

Have a look at the back of the flight test form, and know your Day VFR syllabus inside out would be a good start. Also know your legal obligations, limitations and responsibilites.

Good luck.

[keenAV8er]

Hahaha too true Owen!!

We are the first to do FIR at my school with CASA. Our CFI would have done the test but CASA insist on now doing it.

He is unsure on how much detail they will go into various subjects in regards to the underpinning knowledge or even just random questions.

Thanks for all your help. Any more tips would be great!!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Yep......
Warm up properly about half an hour before to start...
Grabbing your ankles should be the required degree of flexibility:p

[Clearedtoreenter]

Heard of two. One didn't make it past the briefing, the other failed due to a preflight issue. Not sure what happened about their $800 fees. I wonder if CASA have reliable data to show that 'improving' the standard beyond what a few well qualified (and much cheaper) ATO's could do will improve training standards.

[glenb]

go to the casa website and look up ATOM, which is the new manual on how flight tests are to be conducted. very informative. cheers.

[Droste]

Now, is this a new ruling that all initial grade 3 F.I. rating has to be tested by CASA? :eek:

Can threadstarter or somebody clear this doubt for me? :confused:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Certain tests, eg Initial Issue GR3 and GR1, META Approvals, will require 7 day notification instead of 1 and will either be conducted by a CASA officer, Core ATO if none are available and so on down to the regular ATOs (as far as I understand) in an effort to raise the quality of successful applicants.
Some people (rightfully so) are sick of seeing GR3 instructors who can't perform in x-winds or at AoB's greater than 45deg.

[flyboy_nz]

I just finished my GR3 rating in Melb. I had to do the flyt test with a CASA ATO. I have no complaints.

I got asked on all the IR requirements and limitations, a few questions on Aerodynamics and had to give a mass brief on S&L, and pre-flight brief on Climbing and D. The weather forcecast said expected thunderstorms, winds gusting upto 35kts, x-wind upto 20kts. I got told by the ATO that I could do my flight on some other day. I told him, I wouldn't take my student up in this weather, but I will give it a shot. The flight went well n I got through.

I am against the rule that if CASA can't find an ATO to conduct the flight test, the CFI can conduct it. I think the student should wait for a CASA ATO to conduct it.

[coke drinker]

If CASA screened the ATOs to ensure that there weren't some giving away licenses and endorsements like lollies, we wouldn't have had this issue.

[ReverseFlight]

I understand that CASA gives new G3s a copy of their book Flight Instructor Manual (Aeroplanes) after obtaining the rating. It contains detailed description of all the sequences to CASA standard. A copy is downloadable from CASA's website.

Follow that to the letter and they can't fault you for the air exercises at least.

[Droste]

I am against the rule that if CASA can't find an ATO to conduct the flight test, the CFI can conduct it. I think the student should wait for a CASA ATO to conduct it.
You've passed and that's why you are happy to say this.

[Droste]

Now, you see, foreign students jutst want to have a "smooth" pass and thereafter, leave Australia.

The flight testing standard is going to be tougher than ever especially to those candidates tested by CASA! And is going to make students life miserable and pressursing.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Droste,
does a smooth pass mean a substandard instructor???
These people have to be able to COMPETENTLY pass on experience to a student. I have seen way too much of instructors who can't physically perform the sequence themselves. On my first job one of the other new instructors wasn't allowed to teach x-wind landings due to his lack of ability. I flew with him and he tried to take-off with the windscreen fogged over!:ugh:
WHY WAS THIS PERSON GIVEN AN INSTRUCTOR RATING??????

I seem to remember Mick Toller (?) went to Fiji and said every Australian trained instructor working there required retraining in some area.
If we are to train students properly the instructor's standard must be high.
Not saying everyone need to come out with a grade 1 skill level, but you cannot give someone the rating just because they paid the money.
Are you happy with the thought your instructor mightn't be able perform what he's trying to teach???

Personally I like the rotary system. No Grade 3's and 400 hrs command time required.

[ReverseFlight]

Droste, the FI rating is no easy walkover. I think you need to be psychologically prepared for this. It's not a rating for accumulating hours or showing off. You really need to have a temperament to care for students. If you're a picky or apathetic type of person, you should think twice before spending money on the rating.

MakeItHappenCaptain, rotary FI ratings require 400 hrs total (not command). The rules say you can apply for the rating when you have 400 hrs total while the rating itself requires a minimum of 40 hours. Most students therefore start learning their rating at 360 hrs total.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Minor point, RF rolleyes: PS 400 command would be even better anyway.
I'm not a rotary pilot but the principle being presented was that the instructor actually has some experience before they start teaching. It's hardly going to be 250 hours of dual flying in those hours now, is it?
I see many pilots who can't even interpret CAO 40.1 properly and it comes from people who teach from a textbook with no practical experience.
Perfect example: if you do two stints of duty 7-10am and 4-7pm just because you had 6 hours off in between doesn't mean you don't leave those out of the total. IT IS A 12 HOUR TOTAL.
Not saying every new Gr3 is like this, everybody has to start somewhere, but if you are purely hour building before you go airlines, find another stream of aviation. An instructor will pass 80% of what they know onto a student and if they don't top up their own knowledge base, 80% of 80% starts to mean not much is actually being taught.

In short, my advice to new instructors is keep studying!
Get some more advanced aerody books. Ask questions of senior instructors. Understand your topic and take pride in producing a higher and more importantly safer standard of student.
Back on topic, all the best for your test anyhoo!:ok:

[300Series]

"I see many pilots who can't even interpret CAO 40.1 properly and it comes from people who teach from a textbook with no practical experience.
Perfect example: if you do two stints of duty 7-10am and 4-7pm just because you had 6 hours off in between doesn't mean you don't leave those out of the total. IT IS A 12 HOUR TOTAL."


Make it happen captain. You are flaming someone for not understanding the regs regarding the flight & duty limits. You even gave them a wrong reference, flight and duty limits are CAO 48 or company ops manual if the said company has a dispensation.

Looks like someone needs to go back and relearn and restudy to understand the CAO's!

300

[that chinese fella]

I precess this reply by saying that I do not have any fixed wing experience but as a Grade 1 Helicopter instructor I have always wondered how much value a F/W student is getting from someone who, with all due respect, possibly has minimal experience themselves, before gaining a F/W Grade 3?

I guess the Gr 3 system has been going awhile so if it was an issue it would have been addressed some time earlier.

Feedback welcome. :)

[Unhinged]

PS 400 command would be even better anyway.
I'm not a rotary pilot but the principle being presented was that the instructor actually has some experience before they start teaching. It's hardly going to be 250 hours of dual flying in those hours now, is it?

The 400 hours required for heli instructor has nothing to do with passing experience on to students.

Helicopters are unstable in all axes, and it's extremely easy to fatally damage a two-bladed rotor system with mis-handled controls. Without significant time on the controls, it's very possible that a new instructor would find themselves in an unrecoverable situation when they let new students fly. Add pattering into the mix, and watch things get interesting.

Conversely, most training aeroplanes are stable in all axes (up to a few degrees of roll), so the workload is quite manageable and the student's ability to kill you is fairly limited. Pattering while letting a trimmed aeroplane fly itself is not outrageously challenging.

While it is very important that instructors have skills & knowledge to pass on to students, let's be realistic about how much flight experience is needed to teach someone to fly straight & level. Bugger all.

(Yes, I am currently instructing on both)

[das Uber Soldat]

This 'if you don't have 32,000 hours experience you're a junk instructor thing' is starting to irritate me. After 3 years of it, I've seen just as many experienced GA and Arline people come into the job for the first time and be just as absolutely garbage at it as freshly printed Grade 3's.

Its down to the individual, how much drive and commitment they have to excellence, hand eye coordination to fly the plane bang on the numbers and the desire to learn and further themselves. Just because you flew 15,000 hours in a 747 or even RFDS Kingair doesn't mean you can teach a half decent circuit in the venerable C152. I've seen some shockers from these blokes.

Experience is invaluable, but its not paramount. Some of these kids coming out with new ratings are actually pretty switched on. The skillset required to teach straight and level is, as mentioned, bugger all.

That said I admit , the current standard of instructors is not what it was 5 years ago, but the pilot shortage will do that.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Not saying that low time pilot's can't instruct, but if you are teaching commercial pilots, it would be beneficial to actually have some experience in commercial operations, rather than teaching from a textbook.

300-
Evidently I don't know anything about flight and duty times. Are you saying I was wrong with the given example?
No, I just need to watch typos so that I don't give nitpickers ammo.:rolleyes:
CAO 48.1 is what is taught in the CPL syllabus. If people don't understand it they are potentially breaching their limits. This stuff should be covered properly during training. If the company has a dispensation all well and good. I wasn't flaming anyone, just illustrating my point.
Someone needs to find something more solid to rebutt on than a keystroke.

[ReverseFlight]

You may be a good pilot but a bad teacher - the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Back on topic, I never really understood why a FW G3 can qualify as FI on a CPL + NVFR/IR with no experience while a Heli G2 FI must have a minimum of 400 hrs to qualify (no NVFR/IR required).

What's more, it is well known in the industry that heli instructors are unlikely to get instructor jobs unless they have at least 1000 to 1500 hrs - so why did CASA pick 400 hrs ?

[OhForSure]

Anyone done their G3 initial lately? A fair while has passed since this thread was updated and I was hoping that somebody might have some insight into how things are done by these CASA guys (especially the 2 in Sydney). As there are 101 million things to study in a finite period of time, and every testing officer has their own set of favourite areas, any input would be greatly appreciated.

(And yes, I have the ATOM, Day VFR Syllabus, Kermode etc)... there are only so many hours in the day!!! :{

Cheers in advance guys; and of coarse, PMs are appropriate in this case.

[A37575]

Get some more advanced aerody books. Ask questions of senior instructors.

Just because they are "senior" instructors does not always mean they are the experts. Often the reverse is true. There is a lot of personal opinion around which are presented as facts. Never trust completely all that another pilot tells you when it comes to procedures, engine handling and so on. Check for facts. One thing you must know, however and that is a thorough knowledge of the manufacturer's POH that goes with the aircraft type. This includes the go-around procedure. Many instructors make the error of teaching a generic go-around procedure rather than the correct one from the POH. Pilots have come to grief using a non-standard go-around procedure for the aircraft type.

[OhForSure]

Thanks guys. That's a good start. One thing I do keep hearing is that CASA will test if they can, but sometimes they're booked or just don't have testing officers available on a given day, so a standard ATO is chosen to do the test. Apparently the standards are VASTLY different though...

I've heard of guys being failed for the most absurd reasons, and also heard of half-wits passing!

So it begs the question... why did CASA introduce this new testing system if the standards aren't remotely consistent???

[Tinstaafl]

Who can do tests varies from year to year, and decade to decade. 25 years ago my RPPL & PPL were with the CFI. A year later both NVFR & CPL was with DoA/CAA/CASA/whatever, '87 my CIR was the CFI, in '89 my Gr.3 was with the Dept. again but a little over 18 months later my Gr.1 was a CFI. Numerous CIR renewals & instructor renewals have been Dept or other.

I found no difference in what was expected between Dept. examiners & ATOs. Some seemed a bit easier than others in their manner, others a little more stern - but none of them ever seemed to expect anything other than what the test form required. Sure, each examiner had his or her pet topic or favourite subject but that applied across the board.

About the only difference was my own psychological comfort in that it seemed subjectively less stressful if I knew the examiner (or had previously done an exam with him/her). But when I reflect upon what I was asked to do? It was all much of a muchness w.r.t. the test form.

----------
Later:

I should add that I've always found it easier to do a renewal compared to an initial issue test. Probably an 'I've done this before so I can do it again' sort of thing.

That applied to all my Oz tests and also my UK & USA ATPLs + renewals or equivalents while working in those countries.