View Full Version : CASA works on draft rules for third-party training providers

22nd Oct 2010, 07:31
Steve Creedy
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
September 17, 2010 12:00AM THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority hopes to have rules drafted by the end of the year to tighten coverage of training providers.
The 2007 Melbourne Jetstar incident and a QantasLink hard landing in Darwin drew attention to the fact that there are no CASA regulations or orders covering third-party training providers and this made the chain of responsibility unclear. Under the new rules, air operators will have an obligation to ensure training and checking of pilots is conducted in accordance with the operator's approved standards.
"In short, the operator of an aircraft will have the responsibility to make sure their crews operate their aircraft to the procedures specified in their operations manual, regardless of who is conducting the training and checking," a CASA spokesman said.
"Currently there are detailed requirements for the training and checking of pilots engaged by holders of air operators certificates set out in the civil aviation regulations and orders.
"Until the new regulations are introduced, CASA is ensuring air operators who engage pilots who have undertaken third-party training are aware of the need to ensure training is in accordance with their operations manual.
"It should be noted that regular public transport operators are required to have an active safety management system that should identify any issues that could arise from third-party pilot training."
CASA expects the rules to be ready by year's end.
This is well overdue; the background music is "Believe it if you like" supplied by 'Sometimes' for your general edification and amusement.


22nd Oct 2010, 08:36
This could create a legal minefield as you are hired by these airlines after the endorsement. There is a disconnect between your endorsement and your employment. I think there was a Jetstar pilot who tried to sue recently after passing the endorsement and failing line training.

Also it is the training provider who is issuing the endorsement not the airline so how can they provide an endorsement stamped by the training provider yet not to their procedures but to one particular airline?

Could make for some interesting times with the whole 'pay for endorsement' scene.

22nd Oct 2010, 09:52
Heard a couple of 'horror' stories this week.

One guy says he had his IR pulled by a guy who would not accept company SOP. (Third party ATO).

Another story given, seems to indicate that the "authority" rigged a base check into a chop ride, to suit their needs. (Third party sim).

All tall tales of course, but, suppose, for one minute that the tales were true.

Make your eyes water. I think so. Anyway, as the bards say. Food for thought.

22nd Oct 2010, 13:55
Type rating is=regulatory standard. ie. CASA IR issue tolerances for the type issued; End of story. An IR renewal under 217 or ATO is = regulatory standard, ie CASA issue/renewal; End of story. A companies standard can EXCEED or equal this; end of story.

This does not include or make allowances for having a good check day on one and a bad check day on another. Line checks are, by luck sometimes, very straight forward, sometimes not. Of course the sim check can always be subjective and, inevitably will raise some doubt; Particularly given the environment that check Captains have to work in....

In summary: Endorsement rating is relatively fixed to type competency,
Airline operations have subjective assessment.

Not always fair and objective but, in Australia has without doubt been backed by statistics on the safety outcome by world standards....!!!

PS. We do, however, have room for improvement. (Note: to Senator Xenophon.)

22nd Oct 2010, 18:54
Sentence Fifty penalty units.

An offence of strict liability.

22nd Oct 2010, 22:52
My experience with 3rd party training has been several type ratings done at Flight Safety in the USA. The program was always followed to the letter. The oral exam and final checkride was always done by a FAA Check Airman. Although some emphasis was different to CASA, in every case there was a high standard of airplane systems knowledge and handling expected. Never any questions about the rules because they reckon they can see practical application in the test. Like if you have no visual contact you fly the miss or fail. If you are below glideslope at minimums you fail. Here it seems that if you can answer 10 questions on alternate requirements and the tolerances and the duty time rules you are more than 50% thru the test already.
Best part of the FAA system is knowing exactly what is required. A simple matter of standardization by all the examiners. A concept that CASA don't have a clue about.
Going overseas for training is a great way to learn from a much bigger experience base. CASA should encourage it, not make it hard.

23rd Oct 2010, 19:54
Strange thing Gassy, CASA spend vast amounts of public money sending FOI's to Flight safety for recurrency,so I guess they must pass Australia's exacting standards. For what purpose I have no idea, their not generally allowed to fly with anyone, only check the checkers. Asked a few other grey beards how many IR renewals they'd done with CASA the past ten years or so... "None". Which leads me to the conclusion that CASA dosnt have a clue what the standards are like at the coal face.

24th Oct 2010, 07:15
All tall tales of course, but, suppose, for one minute that the tales were true.

And what makes you think it is not true?

Tootle pip!!

chimbu warrior
25th Oct 2010, 07:41
Gas chamber I can only conclude that you have been fortunate with FSI, and I assure you that not all overseas training organizations are alike.

I have had 2 overseas experiences (not with FSI), of which one was "average" and the other dreadful. Both seemed focused on passing the check ride, based on the school's knowledge of the check pilot's nuances (yes, despite the practical teat standards, they vary too). In the worst case, the sim training (what there was of it) was continual re-runs of the script that they knew the check pilot was going to use.

My frequent questions regarding systems or procedures were greeted with "..don't worry, your employer will cover all that..". Fact is, my employer sent me there to learn the aircraft, not just pass a check. Furthermore, both providers reneged on their promise to my employer to incorporate our SOP's into the training.

Sadly, both these training providers were accepted by CASA as they met the standards of FAR 142 (or equivalent). I would not recommend either school. Neither provided a syllabus, and one could not even offer a class schedule; it was a case of cramming you with the minimum knowledge to tick each box.

I am a firm believer in tailored training, and training to a standard of skill and knowledge, not to a price.

I am sure FSI are an excellent provider, but sadly there are some shonks out there.

25th Oct 2010, 08:39
This article is spot on, will matter when sim box ticking becomes mandatory and begs a couple of very pertinent questions.

Should a third party sim instructor /check pilot be 'company legal'. i.e a fully company approved T&C bloke ?.

How can a third party provider who is not 'inducted' into the company system provide for the operators needs ?.

Accepted, the AFM and probably SOP is probably (almost) the same for "big" aircraft, but what about the rest.

There are some real horror stories out there, right now.

Mach E Avelli
25th Oct 2010, 11:12
When I was forcibly 'retired' from the CAR 217 airline system I did a single-pilot IR renewal on a light twin. The ATO was very experienced in that field and I am sure could have used the time to bring me up to speed on the shortcomings of that category of aeroplane. Some performance questions would have been in order, even though they are not part of the CASA form. Instead, I got a grilling on all sorts of obscure regulations.
Having proved that I only knew about 50% (at best) of these regulations, presumably the 50% that I did know was the necessary stuff, because we then proceeded to flight test. So I dunno what the point of the obscure questions was, because I promptly forgot all of it anyway.
The flight test took 45 minutes and was a total walk in the park, even though I only had 2 hours on that aircraft type. The probable reason for the 45 minutes was that the operator was paying, not because I was acing the test.
IMHO the CASA approach to the Instrument Rating has far too much emphasis on the regulations and not enough on raw flying skills. Also the test seems to require no understanding of performance, the assumprtion being that you retain this stuff from your initial studies.

Captain Stoobing
26th Oct 2010, 06:06
Check out the CASA website and go to the Flight Training and Testing office. There is a post implementation review that recommends the for the need for oversight of all delegates, whether within a CAR 217, independanyt ATO , GA operation or an external service provider.

Hopefully this will be a good thing.

26th Oct 2010, 13:32
Going overseas for training is a great way to learn from a much bigger experience base. CASA should encourage it, not make it hard

Another side of the story however: Fact: Australian GA pilot bought a 737 type rating in USA. Very compressed course compared to third party provider in Australia. His plan was to go to Indonesia where rumour was that low hour (1000 hours TT in log book) pilots needed on 737 Classics. News filtered down from other candidates that the sim assessment in Indonesia consisted of all manual flying with no automatics such as FD and AT.

He decided to get some practice first in Australia but struck trouble as all his type rating "training" in Miami was almost total automatics and not even one circuit. Even raw data manually flown no FD, no AT ILS never happened. This really showed out

In other words he was never going to get through the Indonesian carrier's sim assessment because he had only been trained to fly on automatics. . Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on one's point of view) he never got to Indonesia since the Indonesian carrier moved the goal posts revising the min requirement to 500 hours on type to satisfy the Indonesian pilots union.