I wonder...?

[outnabout]

I wonder if there are some issues showing up in the pointy ends of the shiny jets with new pilots joining the ranks and showing some bad habits.

In making enquiries, could CASA now be looking at the testing grounds for GA - up North / Broome / FNQ, and could this have been a contributing factor to the closure of Alligator, DirectAir, et al?

I hear that last week CASA were ramping every person climbing into an aircraft at Parafield - have some pity for the student on their first solo or flight test!

Are CASA now going the next logical step and looking at the breeding grounds for GA - the flying schools, uni, etc?

Could this be, ultimately, a tightening of flying standards? :D

PS: I have no problems with being ramped - the regs are the regs, and we should know them if we're in this game. I do have some issues with how the regs are written, but that's a discussion for the bar, with a bevvy. And no, this isn't a CASA-bashing exercise - I was just curious if there was a trend happening..

[seneca208]

Having never been 'ramped' before myself, would you mind providing some insight as to what these CASA guys are looking for?

[Howard Hughes]

Nothing much really, mostly to see that all your paperwork is in order (licence, medical, MR, etc...) occasionaly an airworthiness inspector will have a quick look over the aircraft. On one occasion, they weighed all my passengers, freight, etc and then I had to explain my load sheet in detail.

They may ask you a few questions about the type of operation that you are about to perform, if you are reasonably well prepared, a ramp check is certainly no big deal. :ok:

[Unusual-Attitude]

That you (and your aircraft) are airworthy and 'legal', Ben.

If you're unsure if what that constitutes, I'd get your head in the regs pronto, cause its not if, but when the little men in yellow bibs and clip boards will come scurrying across the ramp towards you as you pull up! :E

[Sunfish]

The problem, mate, is that if the Rampers really want to find a problem, they will. What is the equivalent of the standard Police excuse of "worn wiper blade rubbers" for declaring a vehicle unroadworthy?

[Ultralights]

just how will ramp checking improve training standards? only skilled experienced instructors will help increase pilot standards and airmanship.

[Centaurus]

What is the equivalent of the standard Police excuse of "worn wiper blade rubbers" for declaring a vehicle unroadworthy


That's an easy one. "Let me look at your maintenance release, Sir. Let me see now, counting the hours on the MR I see it comes to 75 hours since the last 100 hourly inspection. I must say Sir, what a beautiful clean MR you have here. Not one single defect recorded in 75 hours. I think we need to look a little closer, don't you?"

Whoops! that nosewheel tyre looks a bit bald to me. Sits in seat and looks around. My goodness gracious me, Sir - that right hand mixture lever is very stiff and the friction nut spins freely, too. Does it work? What's this Sir? The left cowl flap lever is jammed full open? The park brake doesn't seem to work either.. pilot looks glum and says I was told by my instructor yonks ago to never to trust park brakes so I hold my feet on the brake pedals for run-up so it doesn't matter if the park brake never works. And so on.

[Creampuff]

And so on….

There’s a 100 foot difference between the altimeter readings, despite them having the same QNH settings. Did that happen after landing, Sir?

Gosh that fuel selector placard is hard to read, Sir. Could you show me the ‘off’ position? Hmmmm, you seem to be having some difficulty in getting that selector to move, Sir.

I see your VHF is set to the CTAF that applied here until the first of this month. That might account for no one having heard any call from you inbound or in the circuit. Did you check NOTAMS for this aerodrome before or during your flight, Sir?

Could you show me the VTC you are carrying for this area? No Sir, your Ipad doesn’t count. And from the colour of the label on that paper one, I can see from here that it’s out of date.

You joined a left downwind and conducted a left hand circuit. Can you remind me what ERSA says about the circuit direction here, Sir?

I see your medical certificate includes a condition requiring vision correction. Please show me your spare pair of glasses, Sir.

And what’s this, Sir? Your logbook indicates you flew this aircraft yesterday. You entered 3.5 hours in command, yet the MR records only 1.5 hours TIS.

And so on...

[LeadSled]

You entered 3.5 hours in command, yet the MR records only 1.5 hours TIS.

Creamie,
Very long taxi, big departure delays, no gate available for ages on return, could happen to any of us.

Best I ever saw was 3.5h block, nil on the MR, because the aircraft never got airborne --- winter fog at (then) ASBK, and said pilot needed a min. of 3.5 hours PIC that day, or he missed a promotional slot in QF.
Tootle pip!!

[Jack Ranga]

That says it all really, doesn't it....

[Spotlight]

I agree Jack.

Small things occupy small minds!

[Creampuff]

Very long taxi, big departure delays, no gate available for ages on return, could happen to any of us.

Best I ever saw was 3.5h block, nil on the MR, because the aircraft never got airborne --- winter fog at (then) ASBK, and said pilot needed a min. of 3.5 hours PIC that day, or he missed a promotional slot in QF.Touche, big fella! :) I want to see the FOI’s face the first time an R22 pilot tries it! :)

Jack and Spotlight: to what and whom do you refer?

[VH-XXX]

I've only been half ramped once when they were waiting for me only to find that I was flying the aircraft and not who they thought was in command. I realised why and simply said "Good day Mr Smith" and walked off in response to the then smurk on his face.

[Shagpile]

Could you show me the VTC you are carrying for this area? No Sir, your Ipad doesn’t count. And from the colour of the label on that paper one, I can see from here that it’s out of date.

I'm just amusing myself thinking of how the conversation will go:

Me now: Yes hang on I'm sure it's here. No not this iPad1 or mini- yeah they're just being used for testing. Sorry this iPad4 is in the way. Oh wait here it is behind the iPhone.

Me in 2 years: What is this p-a-p-e-r thing you speak of? Is that like what the bible was written on or something?

[Jack Ranga]

Creampuff, not your posts! I'm actually enjoying them. Learning quite a bit :ok:

I've always been of the opinion if you're doing the right thing a ramp won't be a problem. I'm sure most of the surveillance crew use common sense when dealing with pilots.

The 'says it all' comment is in relation to, firstly a pilot that would log 3.5 hours sitting on his/her arse doing nothing with the engine running. Secondly a company accepting this as a 'box tick.' Thirdly an aviation 'system' that allows this as logable time. Fourthly, I'm no LAME but with no airflow over an air cooled engine, the possibility of damage? There's probably a fifth, sixth, seventh etc

[Creampuff]

Roger :ok:

[Howard Hughes]

When I am greeted with a ramp check, I normally open the door and hand them a pile with:

Maintenace Release
Weather & NOTAM's
Weight & Balance
Passenger Manifest
Licence
Logbook (not required, but makes the pile look bigger)

Am usually underway within 5 minutes, got a letter to my employer once complimenting me on the ramp check and the way I conducted myself. They soon moved onto the next guy (who was little less well prepared) and pinged him for a frayed seat belt!

[Ixixly]

Howard Hughes, may I ask what you mean by "Pinged"? just purely out of interest, we talking a rap on the knuckles, stern talking to or something else?

[blackhand]

may I ask what you mean by "Pinged"? I believe it involves a rubber band and a rude part of one's anatomy

[Mach E Avelli]

Pinged = Nicked. Induced by naughty activity.

[Trent 972]

"Pinged" for a "frayed seat belt", according to casa's Aviation Ruling 1/2004 (www.casa.gov.au/rules/rulings/2004/ar0104.pdf) = $8,500. (50 penalty units)
Doesn't matter if no-one is in the seat either. :yuk:

[Ixixly]

Haven't heard it used like that before Blackhand, we must run in different circles :E

And yes Mach E Avelli, I got that one!!

Ouch Trent972, I mean ok, if they were operating with a badly frayed seatbelt that was about to tear with some poor sod sitting in it then sounds fair, but I guess it depends on how badly the fray is!!

[Trent 972]

Ixixly, "badly frayed" may be too much. Chafing and fading of seatbelts are sufficient to require replacement.
AWB 25-2 Issue 1, 4 April 2003 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90521) includes this description...Recommendation
Remove from service and destroy all seat belts and shoulder harness webbing when it reaches 10 years time in service.
Implement inspection procedures to ensure that safety belts and shoulder harness assemblies, particularly those in the pilot and co-pilot positions, are maintained during the recommended ten-year service life to a standard that requires prematurely faded, chafed, or otherwise damaged or chemically contaminated seat belt webbing to be replaced with serviceable assemblies.

[FGD135]

I wonder if there are some issues showing up in the pointy ends of the shiny jets with new pilots joining the ranks and showing some bad habits.
If they are showing some "bad habits", then this has nothing to do with what they did in G.A. or where they came from. At fault is the training and checking by the jet operator.


In making enquiries, could CASA now be looking at the testing grounds for GA ...

Utterly ridiculous to think that CASA has closed some G.A. operators because of some "bad habits" observed in some "shiny jets".


I hear that last week CASA were ramping every person ...
CASA often do ramp checks. It is extremely unlikely those Parafield ramp checks had anything to do with those bad habits in those shiny jets.


Could this be, ultimately, a tightening of flying standards?
Err, no, outnabout. Your naivete is astonishing.

[Centaurus]

firstly a pilot that would log 3.5 hours sitting on his/her arse doing nothing with the engine running. Secondly a company accepting this as a 'box tick.' Thirdly an aviation 'system' that allows this as logable time. Fourthly, I'm no LAME but with no airflow over an air cooled engine, the possibility of damage? There's probably a fifth, sixth, seventh etc








It wasn't that long ago that a certain long standing flying school still in existence that had overseas students, arranged for one of their aircraft to sit on the tarmac with its engine ticking over for two hours or more with no one in it (chocked of course) so that students log books could be falsified by the simple means of a instructor writing up the log book as it if was a cross-country flight completed. This was in Australia by the way.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Ixixly
if they were operating with a badly frayed seatbelt that was about to tear with some poor sod sitting in it then sounds fair, but I guess it depends on how badly the fray is!!


...and what your qualification is to say how much fraying will stand up to an accident that places 8+g on the belt. Would you go parachuting (yeah, let's say you are intending to go in the first place) if the rig had a 2mm tear in one of the harnesses? A 5mm tear? How about 10?

Saw an owner whinge about a LAME going ahead without permission and replacing a belt that was so old it fractured when it was folded in half.:rolleyes:

Centaurus,
Abysmal....:hmm:

Many cases of towers away from home fields phoning schools and asking if they knew one of their aircraft was sitting at the base of their tower idling away for several hours with the student sitting in there. I nailed a couple of these over the years based on overly large MR/FT splits.
Heard of one group who got together and played soccer while chocked aircraft ran at power...until one jumped the chocks...:E

[blackhand]

Frayed/unserviceable seatbelt - placard the seat and belt as U/S. Simples

[Creampuff]

... and endorse the MR or equivalent. :ok:

[Trent 972]

Blackhand, I wonder .... If a private pilot hiring an aircraft, is subsequently 'ramped' by casa, and found responsible for flying with a faded/chafed seat belt, and 'pinged' with a $8500 fine, reasonable?
Do you really think everyone that hires an aircraft in which a seat belt looks to have even the slightest amount of fading/chafing, should enter it as a defect in the MR?
If not, then how much fading/chafing is allowed, just a little bit or 28 of the 50 shades of grey? Or should we get a LAME to appraise the belt condition prior to each and every occasion?
The problem lies in what is one mans idea of fair and reasonable, against what some casa person, trying to make a name for himself, thinks is an offence of strict liability and punishable by a fine equivalent to 30 weeks of a working mans take home pay.

[blackhand]

Trent 972
Do you mean subsequent to the pilot endorsing the MR?

As a generalisation, an owner and maintenance organisation ignoring a damaged seatbelt could indicate deeper underlying issues.
I am yet to deal with any of the Pedant AWIs you are refering to, can anyone relate an actual incident?

I would also surmise, that if the seat was not accupied, it would be subject to an NCN on the registered operator/owner, not the poor private pilot.

[Creampuff]

Leave it to us halfwits, BH

Trent

I’m a big fan of taxes on the stupid. And when I see people rejecting the obvious solutions, I immediately think ‘ka-ching’.

Item 22 of the Daily Inspection list in Schedule 5 (you said private and let’s assume no SOM or MMS) says: (22) Check that the seat belts, buckles and inertia reels are free from damage, secure and functioning correctly. Ramp check of an aircraft flown solo by Bloggs, private hirer, finds frayed back seat pax seatbelt not placarded or endorsed. Daily is signed.

Did Bloggs sign for the daily? If yes, Bloggs has a problem. If no, whoever signed the daily has a problem, and Bloggs has a problem only if he saw the defect during his pre-flight and didn’t endorse it/placard it.

So come on Trent: What have you been pinged for? Why is it that you think CASA FOIs fine private hirers $8,500 for a having a rear seat belt that’s one shade too close to dark grey?

You strike me as being someone who’s been drinking a little too much Leaddied Kool-Aid.

BTW: The amount of money collected from CASA infringement notices is on the public record. How many millions do you reckon it is?

[Trent 972]

blackhand, first of all you'll have to define 'damage'.
Which one of those 50 shades of grey I referred to? I was asking you if it's #1 or #25 or #49 or whichever one, because we mere mortals don't know until after casa has decided whether to take enforcement action or not.
If it's #1, then in this country, aviation is doomed.
Somewhere around #22 would be fair, don't you think? :rolleyes:

edit
That might be your experience, but it is not what the rules allow for. The rules allow for the wielding of the 'big stick' months before the establishment of proof of guilt.

Hello Creamy, you keep saying 'trust me', "we're from the government, we're here to help". You can read it on casa's website, therefore it must be true.
AH AH AAH BULLSH!T.
There are enough people around to know that while casa has 'quite a few good men', they also have more than their fair share of industry retards.
Just look towards the top.
Bye the way, I'm just being 'ornery' to get even for (mainly) you screwing up the Barrier thread.

[Mach E Avelli]

C'mon people, the subject here is whether or not the current crop of pilots are causing the airlines grief when they get into a jet.
Maintenance now has its own thread.
Barrier thread totally destroyed with NOTHING useful to come out of it.

Back on topic, why would a pilot's prior background cause grief at an airline unless the person a) was unsuited to the task anyway and b) did not receive the necessary training and 'attitude' adjustment? If foreign airlines can produce acceptable jet First Officers in less than 300 hours total, surely our lot can beat the occasional cowboy into shape. If said cowboy is keen on an airline career he/she will take the beatings with pleasure.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Excellent suggestion, Mach.

If they are showing some "bad habits", then this has nothing to do with what they did in G.A. or where they came from. At fault is the training and checking by the jet operator.

Ahhh, partially. The C&T system cannot reasonably (read as realistically) be expected to retrain every single facet of a pilot's technique in the initial induction period. The best that can be expected is to catch and standardise the most important and safety related behaviours (and there will be some conjecture as to what that constitutes).
To remove the responsibility of GA (and I am including initial flying training in this definition) for producing RPT line pilots makes no sense. All that indicates to me is complacency as to the standard of instruction/mentoring in these early levels and not just in training, but by chief pilots and base managers as well.

If the correct habits are introduced at the early stage, there is no need for a jet operator to have to remove them, and to that end, the industry needs to provide better incentive to retain experienced pilots as instructors. Sorry if this seems like a plug, but guys like Brian Weston, Alan Dunbar, Tub Matheson and Ken Ames (those who know them will attest) are absolute treasures and the amount of knowledge these guys posess and have passed on to other pilots is invaluable. I would love to see guys like GG return to instructing with their level of experience to pass on, but where's the incentive (besides being say too old to maintain a command spot on international ops - not you specifically, GG)?

[Creampuff]

Barrier thread totally destroyed with NOTHING useful to come out of it.In your opinion. And the mods were always free to delete irrelevant/inappropriate posts, and did so on a couple of occasions …

Anyway, in my opinion MIHC and Cynical are correct. I’d merely add that “correct habits” should not be confined to flying techniques.

[FGD135]

The C&T system cannot reasonably (read as realistically) be expected to retrain every single facet of a pilot's technique in the initial induction period.

That is arguably true, but it is also true that the C&T system is responsible for the performance of their pilots. The C&T system cannot point to a pilot's G.A. background as an explanation for his unsatisfactory performance.

If it is too hard to "retrain" pilots, or exorcise "bad habits", then the C&T system needs to take a different approach (e.g, cadet schemes).

[Howard Hughes]

Howard Hughes, may I ask what you mean by "Pinged"? just purely out of interest, we talking a rap on the knuckles, stern talking to or something else? An NCN, as it was called in "those days"...:ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

If it is too hard to "retrain" pilots, or exorcise "bad habits", then the C&T system needs to take a different approach (e.g, cadet schemes).

Nothing untrue about that statement, but would it not be easier to do the job properly the first time around?:cool:

With regard to cadet schemes, personally, I would much rather the FO up the front of the burner my wife and kids were on came with 1500 hours worth of experience than 300. What did happen to Xenephon's questions about the industry anyhoo?

[weloveseaplanes]

just how will ramp checking improve training standards? only skilled experienced instructors will help increase pilot standards and airmanship.

Worth saying again . . .

just how will ramp checking improve training standards? only skilled experienced instructors will help increase pilot standards and airmanship.

Mind you, more revenue and more of a power trip in fining people . . .

[Creampuff]

Or …

The regulator might pick up and nip in the bud some behaviour or misunderstandings or ignorance that results in avoidable risks.

Or …

The regulator might find information to indicate that certain instructors and schools produce pilots who should not be let loose on the world.

You may have noted that some of the posters in this thread have suggested that some schools, and their instructors, conspire to falsify logbook entries.

Don’t know about you, but I’d prefer that those schools and instructors be removed from the industry (through administrative action initially) then put in goal (through the prosecution process), so that my loved ones aren’t put at greater risk than they should be.

Of course, that won’t happen, because the regulator’s job is, apparently, to ‘promote’ and ‘partner’ with the industry, so that fare paying passengers are free to put their lives in the hands of dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers. :ok:

[Ixixly]

I agree with the sentiments expressed in regards to instructors, if you truly want to improve aviation in general you need to start from the ground up, as other have said, by instilling the right ways of doing things and the right ways of thinking from the beginning.

Of course pay is one side of the coin for retaining experienced pilots as instructors, but the other side of course would be requiring minimums. I've always wondered why it is that Heli Instructors require 400hrs (pretty sure it was...can't remember exactly as i'm Fixed Wing with not Heli!) to become an Instructor and why there is no such rule for Fixed Wing, can anyone in the know explain why that is? Maybe when the rule for Heli Instructors came in?

[mjbow2]

FAA ramp check;

May I see your log book?
NO

May I see inside your aircraft to see that the AFM is accessible to the pilot?
NO

Did you file a flight plan?
Thats none of your concern

Did you use a current chart to navigate here?
Thats none of your concern

How much fuel did you arrive with?
Thats none of your concern

There are only 6 pieces of information you legally have to supply for an FAA inspector under Part 91.

1. License
2. Medical
3. Airworthiness certificate
4. Radio station license
5. Aircraft Registration certificate
6. Aircraft Flight Manual.

Note an FAA inspector cannot board your aircraft without your permission. You are not required to give that permission either.

If an inspector wishes to view your log book they will have to get a court order to view it, unless you have it with you and are foolish enough to let them view it...

In short, you are not required to answer any question an FAA inspector may ask. Your only requirement is to supply those six items for inspection. Anything more than that is an inspector on a fishing expedition.

[Jack Ranga]

God bless Ameeeeericahhhhhh:D

My favourite amendment you ask? The right to bear arms :D

[Sunfish]

When I was doing my cross country work, the school always asked you to fill up at your destination and present the fuel receipt to your instructor on your return.


......and being a mature age pilot learning for the fun of it, it never even crossed my mind why they would stipulate this.

[BreakNeckSpeed]

MakeItHappenCaptain:
If the correct habits are introduced at the early stage, there is no need for a jet operator to have to remove them, and to that end, the industry needs to provide better incentive to retain experienced pilots as instructors.

Hear Hear!

The notion of a fresh CPL holder obtaining an instructors rating to "get hours up" needs to be quashed! Boost the minimum requirements (not just hours, but time in industry, varied experience - not just scenic flights within the comfort of the Sydney basin), maybe that in turn will increase the amount schools need to pay to entice appropriately qualified people to mentor the next generation of pilots!

I have to laugh when I see an instructor who has never flown outside of a flying school environment giving guidance to a newbie on how to fly "commercially"!! :ugh:

[Jack Ranga]

BNS,

Will NEVER happen mate, NEVER! Great idea but

[outnabout]

FGD135;

I'm not sure that I am naive - it seems to be that if there is a deterioration of skills at the top end (ie in the pointy end of shiny jets), then it seems to me to be only logical that a responsible Regulator will attempt to discover the cause. And that a truly responsible Regulator will seek to improve the situation.

If I see a (for example) 2000 hr pilot, I have a higher expectation of their skills and levels of knowledge & understanding than I do a 200hr pilot. And if those skills & levels of knowledge are not there (in the 2000 hour pilot) then I think I am allowed to consider why.

Some of the stories that have come up in this thread, frankly, frighten the bejasus out of me. Having an aircraft running on chocks to clock up time - how in God's sweet name does that help a pilot develop skills & procedures?

And what kind of pilot accepts this, and logs the time?

And BNS - I agree, 100%.

[baswell]

If new pilots are less skilled than in the past, as it is alleged, then why is HCRPT safer than it has ever been and getting safer all the time?

[Creampuff]

Some of the stories that have come up in this thread, frankly, frighten the bejasus out of me. Having an aircraft running on chocks to clock up time - how in God's sweet name does that help a pilot develop skills & procedures?

And what kind of pilot accepts this, and logs the time?Hear! Hear!

What flabbergasts me are the people who criticise the regulator for taking tough action against these shonks.

Let’s instead turn it into a ‘learning experience’.

FOI: You know you’re not learning much while you’re sitting here drinking coffee and surfing the net, while the aircraft is idling away unoccupied?

Bloggs: Really? Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll make a note of that.

FOI: Good for you. And do you also realise that if you put hours in command in your log book for time you weren’t in command, people will think you have that experience when you don’t.

Bloggs: But why's that a problem?

FOI: Well it's like this: The number only means something if it’s true. The point of the hours is to give you actual experience, so that your skills actually meet or exceed the required standard.

Bloggs: Really? Now that I think about it, I realise that you’re right. Again, thanks for that!

FOI: No worries – I’ll go and have a chat with your flying school as well.

Do we really want Bloggs to make it to the pointy end of an aircraft full of fare paying pax?

[Trent 972]

Wouldn't it be a bit more true to our system of procedural fairness in law, if the 'shonks' were proven to be such, in an appropriate court of law, before the 'regulator' took "tough action"?
Surely the time for 'toughness' is when to penalise the guilty.
What flabbergasts me are the people who criticise the regulator for taking tough action against these shonks.
What flabbergasts me are people who support the regulator for taking tough action against people/companies that have not been found guilty of any crimes!
'Someone' told me Creamy was in to illegal gambling, runs a string of whores and kicks tired old dogs while they lay in the shade.
The 'big stick' will be used to bash Creamy and send him to the poor house, 'just in case' the allegation is true. :yuk:
edit (thread relevancy)
Any C&T department that cannot demand/enforce standards on their co-pilots, whether 200 hours or 2,000 hours isn't doing their job.
GA and Airline ops are totally different, except in my experience, when the going gets tough, the ex experienced GA pilots are far more reliable when under strain.

[Creampuff]

No Trent

I’d prefer that Australia have an unaccountable regulator which can unilaterally cancel licences and certificates on the basis of malicious rumours. Plus I’m hoping it will issue $8,500 fines to private pilots who hire aircraft with an unoccupied pax seatbelt one shade of grey too light. :ok:

(Give us a hint: what were you busted for?)

Anyway, back to the thread. Are you advocating that one of the criteria for the issue of an ATPL be some amount of experience in ‘GA’? What are your thoughts on how that would be described? (Serious questions)

[Stan van de Wiel]

C.P.
Don’t know about you, but I’d prefer that those schools and instructors be removed from the industry (through administrative action initially) then put in goal (through dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers), so that my loved ones aren't put at greater risk than they should be.

Who put them there in the first place? Maybe we should look at the system that allows this to happen. A bloated regulatory system which (like the tax code) requires more training than all the theory subjects put together and then there is still the matter of interpretation. Complex systems are great for the lawyers but achieve little in terms of that much quoted "safety".

Like our schooling system and the Gonski report, we have the teachers, but not the informed talent. It would cost no more to educate (new) teachers to the required higher standard in order that they can teach our kids to the required levels. It's not that Australians are less capable, we just follow the "she'll be right mate" credo.

Our training standards are poor, yet we have the most (quantity) prescriptive documentation of any country on the planet! There are some great aids to teaching nowadays, but why did we manage such high standards in "old" aircraft without all this. Just a minute, our aircraft are still the same but for a glass cockpit and a modern paint scheme. Maybe our instructors were taught the basics from ab initio.

Now this may be controversial, but Gen X (to a certain extent), Y and Z have had their ab initio life training totally transformed by P.C., hands on is on a keyboard or a joy stick. All very well in an electronic world, but Flight Training is still an ANALOG world despite FBW, computors and Electronic displays. When things go wrong (AF 744) they go wrong in the Analog sense. I 'd be the first to admit that earlier generations (like me) have our ab initio problems with the programming/operating, despite our generation having designed most of it.

We now have the situation with Recreational Flying that the training standards have dropped even further, due to the low entry levels (no offence to the medically unfit ex G.A. instructors who are trying to do a good job) I have observed some atrocious standards. a Sport Pilot Licence should be acceptable as the first Module towards a PPL etc. The fact that this is affordable flying shouldn't take away from "safety" My early training and instructing was mostly in an LSA qualifying type aircraft!

CP. Of course, that won’t happen, because the regulator’s job is, apparently, to ‘promote’ and ‘partner’ with the industry, so that fare paying passengers are free to put their lives in the hands of dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers.

there is a great difference between "promoting" the G.A. Industry as a whole or promoting a specific company. CASA bonuses (if any) should be based on industry growth! An opposite to promote is destroy! In cases like "alligator" whether justified or not. The destruction of the company is almost instant. there is no regard for jobs et al. In the company sense an "administrator"can be appointed. But in the operating sense the AOC is immediately lost, no CP available and even if, appointment is through the same CASA operative who closed them down. The answer in such cases an independent CP is immediately made available. Oh No, a CP is not a rating in this country as CASA want total control, so CASA should at their own expense appoint one of their own. Unfortunately in many cases this would further degrade the operation? so we settle for destroying, the one thing CASA are good at!

As to "partner" with GA. Where there is a total lack of trust between two parties this becomes difficult, yet there are a few cases where individual CASA operatives get on extra well with operators. Makes you wonder!$!

CPdangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers

With all the protracted entry requirements how do these "criminals" get there in the first place. Yes I agree there are some out there, but they generally have their contacts in the right places. Hempel?

CPdangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers

Maybe the same "processes" should be applied to several CASA operatives who would qualify under that definition. This would garner a bit of trust from industry.

The above may seem an attack on CP, but it is the material he puts forward which appears so one sided. a lot of lateral thought might help here.

"Empty skies are Safe skies"

[Trent 972]

Creamy, I'm finding it difficult to work out if you are now or always have been playing the 'devils advocate' or advocating the devil. :confused:
Answered in order as asked.
1. ..busted for? Me nothing. I am the best of the best, too good to be true and yet, I am. :E
2. I don't advocate any amount of GA (or Mil) experience to hold an ATPL. However I think the yanks have got it right by mandating a min. of 1,500 hours to sit in the front seat of an airliner.

I have many thousands of hours experience with co-pilots with a couple of hundred hours in their logbook, and I find GA & Mil pilots with a lot of previous experience to be far better performers, especially when 'under the pump'.
Of course there are always exceptions either way, but generally it holds true.
I don't get to decide who I fly with, but I know who I prefer.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Trent...

Re standards...

Hear hear...:ok:

To those who take offence to these sentiments,

Even the best airline captains started at the bottom. I wouldn't have wanted me in the right hand seat of a scarebus when I had 300 hours either.:ouch:

[PookeyMaster]

With regard to cadet schemes, personally, I would much rather the FO up the front of the burner my wife and kids were on came with 1500 hours worth of experience than 300. What did happen to Xenephon's questions about the industry anyhoo?

I've been around these forums for a couple of years just reading, but this is my first proper post.

I've looked at both GA and Cadet Schemes and there seem to be a lot of people on here with these opinions. For Virgin and Qantas, in both cases, the Cadet's will still have at least 1500 hours before stepping in to a 737 as a FO and they're training is from day one targeted specifically at the few aircraft models that make up that airlines fleet.

It's like saying I'd rather a Jack of All Trades who can do plumbing, electrical work and carpentry instead of a master electrician to carry out the cabling in my new house. What advantages do GA pilots offer over a Cadet who's been trained specifically for that role in the airline? The Cadets still end up flying a variety of planes before they get to a 737, it's just on a fast tracked schedule.

As for Cadet schemes like the one at Rex, if you're a good enough Pilot, you can get in to a FO position with only 500 hours, a similar amount to what a Cadet would have after their Cadetship and training (plus any prior flying they had).

I feel that a lot of this negative attitude comes from existing pilots who feel that their positions are under threat from these new Cadet schemes (I would agree with this). I believe some of them also feel jealous (I can't think of a better word to use at the moment) that these Cadets are able to skip over all the hard years they spent flying half dead planes in rural areas.

For the record, I'm neither a Cadet or GA ( I started flying while at school but dropped off until very recently). But I do think the attitude to Cadets is unfair. In most cases, they are the cream of the crop who would have ended up in airlines anyway.

I believe in the military, you get sent solo really early ( far earlier than you would at any flying school). It's a high pressure, high performance environment where only the very best are chosen and thrive on this atmosphere. I suspect the same applies to airline Cadetships, most of them will thrive on the pressure to learn quickly and perform well.

[Trent 972]

...they're *[sic] training is from day one targeted specifically at the few aircraft models that make up that airlines fleet.
What makes you think a pilot who came through GA can't learn new tricks?
When the day comes for the airline to get a different type, then by your reasoning, it would be best for those pilots to be discarded irrespective of what they have learned in the interim and be replaced by cadets trained on the new type?????
"Sorry Pooky, you were only trained as a B737 F/O, but now we need A350 F/O's.... Goodbye".
Not to be read as a cadet bash, because if they can make the standard then good on 'em, but to come on here and think that being spoon fed through a cadet course makes you a "Master Electrician" shows you might believe in fairies.
By the time cadet/GA/Mil pilots have a couple of thousand hours in an airline, you shouldn't be able to tell them apart.

edit
"cream of the crop", is the quote that got up my nose.
Take your hand off it, you can't even use the correct there/their/they're, that one would expect of the "cream of the crop", FFS.*
signed
Trent, cranky old b@st@rd.

[PookeyMaster]

What makes you think a pilot who came through GA can't learn new tricks?

Nothing, the guy who could do electrical, plumbing and carpentry work could learn to specialise in one if he wanted.

The problem is people alluding (like your post I quoted) to a Cadet being inferior to a GA pilot when both are on their first day as an FO at an airline. I'm pretty sure the one who spent several years in the airline cadet program is at least equivalent to the GA pilot who comes in blind to the companies operations even if they have 20 years industry experience.

When the day comes for the airline to get a different type, then by your reasoning, it would be best for those pilots to be discarded irrespective of what they have learned in the interim and be replaced by cadets trained on the new type?????
"Sorry Pooky, you were only trained as a B737 F/O, but now we need A350 F/O's.... Goodbye".
Not to be read as a cadet bash, because if they can make the standard then good on 'em, but to come on here and think that being spoon fed through a cadet course makes you a "Master Electrician" shows you might believe in fairies.

No, as I indicated above, everyone can learn new tricks.

You could turn that one in to "but to come on here and think that slogging it out as a GA pilot makes you any better than a Cadet Shows you might believe in fairies".

If Cadets were as useless pilots as plenty of people make them out to be, Qantas wouldn't have run their program for 20 years, it wouldn't have made sense.

By the time cadet/GA/Mil pilots have a couple of thousand hours in an airline, you shouldn't be able to tell them apart.

I completely agree. The issue I had was (as I said above) with this assumption that a GA pilot "with 1500" hours is superior to a Cadet. If they join at the same time, they should progress at the same rate and by the time they become Captain, there shouldn't be a noticeable difference.

edit
"cream of the crop", is the quote that got up my nose.
Take your hand off it, you can't even use the correct there/their/they're, that one would expect of the "cream of the crop", FFS.*
signed
Trent, cranky old b@st@rd.

I never claimed to be one of the cream of the crop so you don't need to take offence at me over it.

You have a Gen Y mixed with the iPad's auto correct to blame for the there/their/they're issue ;)

As for "the cream of the crop", are you saying the Air Force simply take any old random who walks up to them? Or the 8 Cadets Virgin took last year out of 20,000 applicants were simply the 8 who smiled at them the most?

I've never applied for a Cadetship so I'm not biased in any way. I simply can't understand why there are so many people who go out of their way to put down and ostracise Cadet Pilot's from the general Pilot group.

[Trent 972]

Yes, silly me.. fell for the wind up.
If you read my post without blinkers on Pooky, you will notice I did not bag cadetships, unlike you bagging GA pilots.
All the best.

[Jack Ranga]

You can't correct the auto correct? Too hard? lol, always somebody else's fault?

So you won't 'correct' the autopilot? Too hard? lol, autopilots's fault?

[PookeyMaster]

Yes, silly me.. fell for the wind up.
If you read my post without blinkers on Pooky, you will notice I did not bag cadetships, unlike you bagging GA pilots.
All the best.

I fail to see how I've bagged out GA pilots. You indicated that a Cadet would be inferior to a GA pilot because they would be given a FO role with only 300 hours when this isn't completely true and there certainly aren't FO with 300 hours sitting in jets at Qantas for example.

I stated in a variety of ways that GA pilots are not superior to Cadets and how there seems to be a desire to driver Cadets out of the industry. You haven't given any reasons why they are superior so my comment stands.

Enlighten me, what genuine issue is there with Cadets? From what I've read, there seems to be plenty of misinformation and it seems to be all about Cadets 'stealing' jobs from GA pilots and 'jumping the queue' and with most of them being young, it's assumed that they will be naive and sacrifice working conditions and wages. The Virgin cadet thread has plenty of posts where people are complaining that it's eight less jobs for GA pilots. The Rex cadet thread from a while back had posts saying it would result in reduced EBA outcomes.

You can't correct the auto correct? Too hard? lol, always somebody else's fault?

So you won't 'correct' the autopilot? Too hard? lol, autopilots's fault?

There's no need to troll. :rolleyes:

Attack the post, not the user. Grammar, punctuation and spelling have nothing to do with the contents of the post, unless we were discussing a spelling contest.

Yeah, I could have corrected the auto correct, I didn't proof read it. I fail to see how I blamed anyone else for it though? I'm a member of Gen Y (the 'tech' generation) and I relied on the auto correct in my iPad. My bad.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

The Rex cadet thread from a while back had posts saying it would result in reduced EBA outcomes.

Yup. I got a call from a previous student last year asking if they knew of any twin command jobs because they couldn't get any time away from REX to meet the requirements for another job. Seems they were locked in for the next four years (seven total) repaying a substantial loan on crap pay while having no possibility of getting anything other than FO time. They weren't happy.

Cadets for overseas airlines are getting paid absolute peanuts. FOs in the US live on food stamps. Do you really think cadet programs are really for the "best" pilots? Nothing to do with the financial benefit of locking in a pilot for three times the cost of their initial training and a fraction the pay of a more experienced right seater?

Buddy, if cadet programs were serious about "the best" they would pay the cadets, same as the RAAF does, and eliminate them after their second remedial ride, same as the RAAF does, rather than emilinating the financially disadvantaged from day one.

That being said, once they have achieved their 1500 hrs observing the Captain, there is no question they are better pilots than when they started. Those that left the fold and built some command time in GA to return have gained the experience. Justify buying your job any way you like, but you can't argue the benefit of experience.:cool:

could have corrected the autocorrect, I didn't proof read it
Hope it's not a general example of the near enough, good enough attitude of aspiring cadets these days...

[Jack Ranga]

Mate, I'm just having a bit of a laugh. Whether you like it or not grammar and spelling says a lot about the person. Not about to explain it to you though ;)

[seneca208]

Enlighten me, what genuine issue is there with Cadets?

As a young, new pilot, half the problem I see with cadets in my fellow age bracket is attitude. They seem to think they're better than any GA guys. I guess the 'shiny jet syndrome' plays a role to all those slogging around in crappy GA planes, but hey, if you start flying a jet at age 18 and 300 hours (Yes, Jetstar Cadets do join the line on JET aircraft with under 500 hours total aeronautical experience) you'll never have anything to look forward to and you'll be bored by the time you're 30!

Although I have read from some Captains that the flying exhibited by some is below par, I don't think this is a problem in itself. Having only just begun my career, I probably don't fully understand the consequence of 'command experience' and how it will affect my transition from the right to the left seat in the future, but I would have thought after 10 years in the right seat, surely some of these cadets would exhibit similar skills to other direct entry, twin turbine/whatever pilots.

[Tankengine]

The thing about experience is that you don't know what you don't know.:uhoh:

[j3pipercub]

Pookey,

Most of us won't respond because as tankengine said you just don't know what you don't know.

j3

P.s. By 'Cream of the crop' I assume you mean financial crop...

[PLovett]

I seem to recall hearing of a higher than average failure rate at the pointy end of RPT in 2007 when the airlines were recruiting like it was going out of fashion. They were all ex-GA pilots then. Admittedly the airlines were busily lowering their minimums in those days to the point that so long as you had ATPL theory done and a pulse you were at least assured of an interview but it does point to an issue that GA is not the be-all-to-end-all that some claim.

I don't necessarily think cadets are a bad thing but it depends entirely on the quality of the training and the bean-counters seem to be busily destroying that. However, the GA route does expand one's horizons and will probably give you the best aviation memories of any career. Miss out on that and you will never know what a fantastic experience you have missed.

[baswell]

Australia is quite unique in having the option for airlines to cherry-pick from a plethora of GA pilots. Looking at Europe, this isn't the case and for decades, 250 hour HCRPT FO's have been the norm. (The long-haulers may have some SO time.)

Statistics show those airlines are every bit as safe as ours.

I have no doubt a 250 hour FO would create more of a work load for the captain than does a more seasoned pilot, but at the end of the day, statistics don't lie.

It's all a much of muchness in the end.

[LeadSled]

Bas,
I suppose you know you are committing aviation heresy, by sticking to the facts.
Don't you know you are not supposed to let the facts get in the way prejudice, parochialism and good old Australian bloody mindedness.
After all, we know best in Australia, don't we??
If aviation safety outcomes were proportional to the cubic volume of regulations, or the number of bureaucrats per aeroplane, we should be the world's safest.
Unfortunately, the statistics (presented in ICAO or FAA format) suggest otherwise.
Tootle pip!!

[Trent 972]

baswell, good info.
Are you able to update us with the statistics on Chinese airlines, that use 250 hour cadet pilots?

[Creampuff]

[S]tatistics don't lie.I reckon that one may come to back to bite you.

[compressor stall]

Had a J* capt tell me that one of his (cadet) FOs said,

"In my experience, experience counts for nothing."

[PookeyMaster]

Yup. I got a call from a previous student last year asking if they knew of any twin command jobs because they couldn't get any time away from REX to meet the requirements for another job. Seems they were locked in for the next four years (seven total) repaying a substantial loan on crap pay while having no possibility of getting anything other than FO time. They weren't happy.

You've hit the nail on the head for why I'd never personally sign up to the Rex Cadetship. That's not the first time I've read that sort of story. It seems good for the first three years and then they realise its not so rosy. Seven years is a long time in anyone's book. I know the RAAF have similar return of service times but your training is significantly more advanced than commercial aviation and includes a three year degree so I think it's justified.

Cadets for overseas airlines are getting paid absolute peanuts. FOs in the US live on food stamps. Do you really think cadet programs are really for the "best" pilots? Nothing to do with the financial benefit of locking in a pilot for three times the cost of their initial training and a fraction the pay of a more experienced right seater?

Not just cadets, in the US, pilots at Regionals can earn less than $20,000. I agree with the 'financial benefit' thing regarding schemes like the one at Rex but Virgin's is reasonable I think. They outlay $40,000 and you suffer a ~$15,000 pay cut for three years.

Buddy, if cadet programs were serious about "the best" they would pay the cadets, same as the RAAF does, and eliminate them after their second remedial ride, same as the RAAF does, rather than emilinating the financially disadvantaged from day one.

I would like to see them do that. It would be good if Virgin took the top 30 or 40 instead of 8 and actually put them all through flight training assessments to pick the best of the bunch instead of basing it solely on paper applications and interviews.

That being said, once they have achieved their 1500 hrs observing the Captain, there is no question they are better pilots than when they started. Those that left the fold and built some command time in GA to return have gained the experience. Justify buying your job any way you like, but you can't argue the benefit of experience.:cool:

And this is the basis of my argument, I can't see any major difference between a Cadet or GA FO at say Virgin or Qantas. By the time they are a fully fledged FO, they should be very similar (hence why I don't understand the severe bashing the Cadets seem to get).

Mate, I'm just having a bit of a laugh. Whether you like it or not grammar and spelling says a lot about the person. Not about to explain it to you though ;)

Having a laugh is fine, it just seemed to me that all you were doing was picking on my English language skills rather than what I'd said ;)

As a young, new pilot, half the problem I see with cadets in my fellow age bracket is attitude. They seem to think they're better than any GA guys. I guess the 'shiny jet syndrome' plays a role to all those slogging around in crappy GA planes, but hey, if you start flying a jet at age 18 and 300 hours (Yes, Jetstar Cadets do join the line on JET aircraft with under 500 hours total aeronautical experience) you'll never have anything to look forward to and you'll be bored by the time you're 30!

Thanks for your insight Ben :)

Out of curiosity, how far along are you? Have you got your PPL yet?

The thing about experience is that you don't know what you don't know.:uhoh:

Very true, my grandfather has a similar quote regarding life and your process through it.

Pookey,

Most of us won't respond because as tankengine said you just don't know what you don't know.

Lol, I find that a stupid position to hold. Just because we're young doesn't mean we're not willing to learn. If everyone held your position, nobody would ever learn anything!

I seem to recall hearing of a higher than average failure rate at the pointy end of RPT in 2007 when the airlines were recruiting like it was going out of fashion. They were all ex-GA pilots then. Admittedly the airlines were busily lowering their minimums in those days to the point that so long as you had ATPL theory done and a pulse you were at least assured of an interview but it does point to an issue that GA is not the be-all-to-end-all that some claim.

I would say that would be more to do with the minimum entry requirements than that they were GA. Also, there were probably people who applied knowing there was an influx of positions available where normally they would not have as they may not have had the required hours or didn't feel ready, etc.

I don't necessarily think cadets are a bad thing but it depends entirely on the quality of the training and the bean-counters seem to be busily destroying that. However, the GA route does expand one's horizons and will probably give you the best aviation memories of any career. Miss out on that and you will never know what a fantastic experience you have missed.

I agree, you're hardly going to experience any exciting memories flying jets, most of your time in long haul would be spent staring at the auto pilot. It's one reason why I'll more than likely continue with the GA route. I think flying small planes for a while would be more fun than heading for jets as quickly as possible.

Bas,
I suppose you know you are committing aviation heresy, by sticking to the facts.
Don't you know you are not supposed to let the facts get in the way prejudice, parochialism and good old Australian bloody mindedness.
After all, we know best in Australia, don't we??
If aviation safety outcomes were proportional to the cubic volume of regulations, or the number of bureaucrats per aeroplane, we should be the world's safest.
Unfortunately, the statistics (presented in ICAO or FAA format) suggest otherwise.
Tootle pip!!

You speak many truths there :ok:

[Tankengine]

And, back to my previous post.:hmm:

[Metro man]

If you were a police officer at a road block and had the choice of two cars to stop and check, which one would you pick ?

a) New family sedan being driven by a middle aged man wearing a suit with his wife and children in the car, all wearing seat belts.

b) Beaten up XF Falcon driven by a couple of young males wearing singlets and covered in tattoos.

Of the above two choices, which one is more likely to result in some tickets being issued for insurance/licence/registration/road worthy/outstanding warrants/drink driving/drugs/stolen property etc

Apply the above thinking in a aviation scenario.

[Jack Ranga]

Pokey, mah man.........well done :D looks like you've overridden iPad bullish!t spell & grammar check! Mate, cadetships are all well & good done properly. Thing is, Jetstar only do it to cut costs & shaft their pilots over P&C's

I've had two occurrences of Captains being incapacitated (us old blokes get a bit fragile & need looking after occasionally ;)) at the controls. The ultimate test has always been, would I be happy with my family being flown by this company/pilot? A 2 fiddy hour cadet at the controls in the above circumstance? Fark off :ugh:

I do a bit of flying, I put my money where my mouth is. I really don't give a rats arse if pilots undercut each other, whore themselves to fly. Just so long as I've got options when I'm buying a ticket for myself or for my precious cargo :ok:

[seneca208]

Thanks for your insight Ben :)

Out of curiosity, how far along are you? Have you got your PPL yet?



I have a CPL and recently scored my first job flying a 206 and I'm loving it. I have friends in cadetships, and although they certainly don't seem bored or disappointed with the future prospects at the moment, it will be interesting to see down the track what happens.

[j3pipercub]

Pookey,

You seem to have already made your mind up about cadetship progams, so tell us what you want to hear so we can regurgitate it back to you.

j3

[josephfeatherweight]

I paid Rex $85000 to leave (breaking my bond) for a c172 job and co pilot on a pa31 on the other side of the country...

Obviously I am ignorant of your situation, but where on earth would a junior pilot find $85,000 spare to pay off an airline like that?
I'm pretty flabbergasted...
Big brass ones, good luck to ya!

[PookeyMaster]

Pookey,

You seem to have already made your mind up about cadetship progams, so tell us what you want to hear so we can regurgitate it back to you.

j3

So I take it you think I'm going the Cadetship route then? Well, I'm not actually. I haven't ever applied for any yet so I'm not likely to start any time soon. Once I get my PPL it would sort of be a waste of time and money anyway starting over when you're half way there (seeing as most of them recognise little of your existing training).

For those who go for one straight out though, it's a good way to fast track your career if flying jets is your ultimate goal. I wouldn't hold it against someone for choosing this path.

[josephfeatherweight]

Hat's off to you! I'm sure such an undertaking would not have been taken lightly. All the best, sounds like it's going well...