IFR Ratings – 65% in the USA – 16% in Oz – and Even Less with ADSB Mandate

[Dick Smith]

I’m surprised that no one has referred to the article in last Friday’s Australian on page 28 headed, “Few pilots can handle clouds, Smith Warns”

Attached is the no doubt controversial letter I’ve sent to the Prime Minister which instigated the article.

Now with the latest accident at Port Lonsdale, surely there is a message here.

I point out in the USA, even though you do a bi-annual every two years, this has nothing to do with instrument rating and no IFR flight is required for the review.

In less than 12 months’ time the most onerous and expensive requirements in the world will come in, requiring all aircraft that fly IFR to be fitted with ADSB at costs of up to $49,500 per aircraft.

Many owners will drop their aircraft out of the IFR category resulting in the 16% coming down to less than 10% and may result in even more fatalities.

http://www.rosiereunion.com/file/mt22012016.jpg

[thorn bird]

Dick, have you considered the cost of gaining and maintaining a instrument rating
in Australia on top of the costs involved in equipping and maintaining an IFR aircraft, compared to the USA?

Surly aircraft must be falling out of the sky all over the place over there, with all these improperly trained pilots and maintained aircraft.

Their not??..The US is actually a safer place to fly than Australia?..cant be they don't have enough rules that nobody can understand, CAsA should go and audit them and downgrade their airlines.

[Old Akro]

Dick

Thanks for getting the numbers. I think this is a clear example of CASA'a over regulation causing a reduction in safety.

I believe that having more IFR pilots would save lives. VFR flying is fun on a nice day. But when you have an impulsion to go somewhere its demonstrably safer not to be scud running but instead be at a safe altitude in IMC or better still above a cloud layer.

IFR no longer has the situational awareness complexities of interpreting abstract black & white dials now that we can just "follow the magenta line". The act of flying IFR is getting easier, why is licencing (of pilots and aircraft) getting harder?

Why are we not encouraging pilots to go beyond the VFR syllabus that is essentially the same as I did 40 years ago?

[Lead Balloon]

Because there are so many cushy government jobs that depend on the mystique of aviation!

[cessnapete]

Dick,
Same problem here in UK. Probably anti American predudice prevents EASA from just accepting the FAA format. Reduced ground school , just relevant subjects, but the flying test is just as demanding.
AOPA over here are trying to negotiate a lighter touch IR with EASA, but so far seems just as complicated. In fact like most EASA regs you need a lawyer to decipher the bu...hit!!
As you know many of us keep our aircraft on the N reg to enable the safety of the FAA IR. Although trying hard, EASA not succeeded in shutting off this route, been delayed for another year. Again politics seem to rule over common sense and safety.

[IFEZ]

Good try Dick but I can't see Mr Turnbull doing much other than passing it down the line until it ends up in the bureaucratic quagmire. Not sure anyone up there gives a stuff about GA.
Thorn Bird is right. The cost of gaining and maintaining an IR is already out of reach for most private guys. Unless you're using it all the time (as in commercial) its just too hard. The training costs are going to balloon even more once the flying schools increase their prices to recover the costs of ADSB compliance.


Appreciate your efforts though, keep up the fight.

On a side note and just for the record, its POINT Lonsdale.

[27/09]

The FAA instrument rating is very affordable to maintain and it seems to work very well. Something like 3 departures, 3 intercepts and 3 approaches every three months, no annual check.

[A Squared]

The FAA instrument rating is very affordable to maintain and it seems to work very well. Something like 3 departures, 3 intercepts and 3 approaches every three months, no annual check.


Right, but I think that the relevant point here that the OP touched on is that even if you don't stay current, you still have the instrument rating (although aren't able to exercise the privileges) You could earn the instrument rating, and not fly another minute on instrumnts for 30 years, but you'd still have an instrumnt rating on your certificate. As opposed to the Australian method where the Instrument Rating ceases to exist if hot renewed. That's why the statistics are so lop-sided between the US and Australia. I bet if you compared the Number of Australian Pilots with Instrument Ratings with the number of US pilots who have maintained legal currency to fly instruments, the difference wouldn't be as marked.

[Jabawocky]

A2, naughty boy, don't use inconvenient facts against Dicks arguments! :ok:

[QDMQDMQDM]

Just one of the reasons why the Cessna 185 which I have just bought in the USA is going to stay on the N reg when it comes over.

[Old Akro]

A2 . Actually, Australian IFR ratings are permanent too under part 61.

[gerry111]

A great achievement, Dick.


A newspaper and shock jocks further scaring people away from coming flying in GA aircraft. That's got to be a good thing...

[A Squared]

A2 . Actually, Australian IFR ratings are permanent too under part 61.

Oh, are they? Sorry, I guess I misunderstood how the Oz system works.

[no_one]

Dick,

The sad part about the ADS-B implementation in Australia is that in a few years time all this expensive equipment will be obsoleted by the cheaper newer stuff. By upgrading now we loose the opportunity to spend that money on other things that could benefit safety to a greater extent

In the past few days Garmin have released an all in one transponder/GPS that is $3750US. Imagine what will be available in another few years.

Garmin® Unveils the Next Generation of All-in-One ADS-B Transponders | Garmin Newsroom (http://newsroom.garmin.com/press-release/featured-releases/garmin-unveils-next-generation-all-one-ads-b-transponders)

No_one

[runway16]

A few facts not included in the discussion.

The weather in the USA is much different to that in Australia. They get a lot more snow and inclement weather compared to us here.

To get a CPL in the USA the candidate has to have an instrument rating or be limited to a short radius from home. I can think that that could apply to pilots going into Ag work.
That aspect of needing an IF rating to become a CPL would surely boost the holder numbers to the 65% that Dick mentioned.

Thirdly to get an instrument rating in the USA is easier because it requires a lesser standard than here. 'Get your instrument rating in 10 days'.
In short the Australian IF rating is more demanding and a better ticket at the end of the day.

[no_one]

In short the Australian IF rating is more demanding and a better ticket at the end of the day.


..and yet the accident statistics suggest they are killing people at a lower rate.

[thorn bird]

"In short the Australian IF rating is more demanding and a better ticket at the end of the day."

Certainly a more demanding level of Bullsxxxt to wade through in this country both to achieve the rating then maintain it.

Given our benign weather conditions compared with the USA and according to Runway an appalling standard of training how do they manage to achieve safety standards way beyond ours?

Statistics?..the first Beech bonanza was sold in 1947 for $7975:00. Since then over 18,000 have been built, 12,000 still in service. At a recent fly in in Wichita,
over 1,000 bonanzas turned up. Add to the bonanza all the cessna, pipers etc
that are still flying in the USA, SAFELY, we appear as little children pissing about in the sand box by comparison, yet our sky gods would have people believe that we are the only ones who know anything about aviation.

I have flown around most of the world and the mantra amongst the various regulators is pretty common "Of course, OUR standards are very much higher than anybody else's", except funnily in the USA where they seem quite content with their "standards" which are continuously improving utilising education,consultation, mentoring,and where necessary, as a last resort, a big stick. Ego's don't seem to count for much over there. The essence of their philosophy appears to be to teach, as opposed to our philosophy of check the living bejeezes out of it until it gives up or they run out of money.

CAsA's catchcry as annunciated by a learned gentleman.

" In Australia it is better to die safely, than live non compliant"

[Dick Smith]

We should harmonise with the less expensive , less complex FAA system.

That's what I intended as Chairman of CASA when the private instrument rating was introduced. It was then hijacked by idiots and now hardly anyone has an IFR rating.

And now with the rediculous expensive ADSB mandate for all IFR aircraft the number will drop even more.

Fatalities will increase just like the PMs Dad .

[Jamair]

Ah statistics, gotta love em......

I assume this is about private ops, as professional ops will be IFR. And while I think the ADSB thing has some issues, it is a done deal for commercial ops so there's no point barking about it.

I fly for a living in an organisation where time constraints often apply, so the option to not fly in inclement weather is negated. Additionally 50% of my flying is at night. Disregarding the night flying for private ops, of the remaining day ops in Oz 75% are in conditions where VFR flight is entirely safe, or perhaps that should be 'VFR flight has no weather-related safety issues'.

So for the limited number of private operators, flying for recreation or leisure with no compelling rationales for pushing daylight or weather boundaries, 75% of their proposed flying can be done in completely benign weather.... why would they want to operate under the IFR?

If I was to buy another aeroplane for private use (gods forbid) it would be VFR, and no less safe for it. I would also put a Garmin ADSB-GPS in it 'cause I like gadgets and if I can afford an aeroplane just for ****s & giggles, I can afford a few bucks worth of toys.

Really, I think you should quit flogging this particular horse; it's dead.

[cattletruck]

I went flying last Sunday at YMMB for the first time in a long while. It was coincidently a very beautiful VMC day and the place was freakingly devoid of the usual fair-weather flyers on days like that. I was expecting to squeeze myself into a fully packed circuit as it used to be in days gone by, but no, I could have done it with my eyes closed. Sign of the times.

Although I never bothered with one, I feel the IFR rating should be mandatory as they are a learned skill just like short field landings.

I could have gotten one, but with all that bureaucracy involved, I chose to investigate unusual attitudes with aerobatic craft instead.

This reminds me a bit of the mandatory TAC fee here in Victoria which is $422 added on top of the normal car registration fee. That money could buy you 4 new tyres or a service to improve your vehicle safety, but instead it's used to create a refugee camp for marketers and over servicing doctors... sound familiar.

[CHAIRMAN]

So for the limited number of private operators, flying for recreation or leisure with no compelling rationales for pushing daylight or weather boundaries, 75% of their proposed flying can be done in completely benign weather.... why would they want to operate under the IFR?

Can't believe you would say that Jammie - that 25% remaining is exactly why private (and business) operators have an IFR rating, either IFR or PIFR. Because they want to go when they want or have (for business) to go - just like you for your job.
If I was to buy another aeroplane for private use (gods forbid) it would be VFR, and no less safe for it. I would also put a Garmin ADSB-GPS in it 'cause I like gadgets and if I can afford an aeroplane just for ****s & giggles, I can afford a few bucks worth of toys.

Again I can't believe what you're saying. Most private IFR machines are not maintained in that state for '****s and giggles'. '****s and giggles' aircraft are old 172's/150's,Cubs, Tigers, Chippies, RAA etc, and aren't the subject of this thread. Where they operate they mostly don't need ADSB, because 25% of the time it doesn't matter if they can't go.
And the 'few bucks' you talk about, at current ADSB pricing can represent up to a third of the cost of current IFR private aircraft, once installation costs are taken in to account, and will more than double the cost of your '****s and giggles' aircraft. Can't really see you going there.
Many current IFR maintained machines in AUS will become VFR only because of the current early mandate. How can this possibly be anything other than a lowering of safety standards?
As has been pointed out in this and other threads, the cost of installing ADSB equipment is falling exponentially as we get closer to the USA 2020.
But then again Jammie, you, and CASA seem to believe that we really, really, really NEED to be first in the race. COST, COST?? Not our problem!

That's why Dick's argument is valid!

[CaptainMidnight]

Many current IFR maintained machines in AUS will become VFR only because of the current early mandate. How can this possibly be anything other than a lowering of safety standards?No doubt some owners may elect to hold off for a few years until costs come down and fly VFR. That's not permanent, not the end of the world and will probably happen in the U.S. as well in due course.

Give them some credit for being professional enough flyers to not endanger themselves, passengers and aircraft by getting into unsafe situations.

Airservices Australia has pushed CASA into introducing a mandate that all small planes that fly in cloud must be fitted with an expensive electronic box called ADSBTo Mr and Mrs Joe Public, that probably sounds like a good thing i.e. in their thinking small planes shouldn't fly in clouds and be a hazard to themselves and bigger planes unless they have the proper equipment.

[Lead Balloon]

To Mr and Mrs Joe Public, that probably sounds like a good thing i.e. in their thinking small planes shouldn't fly in clouds and be a hazard to themselves and bigger planes unless they have the proper equipment.And therein lies the heart of what's so wrong about decision-making in Australian aviation regulation.

Let's not make decisions on the basis of objective risks and cost/benefit. Let's do it on the basis of what Mr and Mrs Joe Public feel (especially when we can justify just about anything by scaring the bejesus out of them).

Funny thing is that apparently Mr and Mrs Joe Public don't get asked about how they feel about the exemptions. Or perhaps Mr and Mrs Joe Public are sufficiently sophisticated to understand that - somehow - it's dangerous for airliners and other aircraft to fly around in cloud without ADS-B, but not dangerous for airliners to fly around in cloud with ADS-B unserviceable for a few days. :rolleyes:

[Old Akro]

As has been pointed out in this and other threads, the cost of installing ADSB equipment is falling exponentially as we get closer to the USA 2020.

To nitpick - the cost of INSTALLING ADS-B equipment in Australia is not falling. The cost of the ADS-B equipment might be falling, but the major cost is the installation itself.

The FAA in the US allows ADS-B installations to be done under "Field Approval". CASA however still require the full deal including engineering orders for the installation.

[Dick Smith]

We have 12 months to get this mandate removed. It's possible as no measurable safety problem is being addressed.

Come on. How about a bit of guts from the GA industry on this!

[Old Akro]

We have 12 months to get this mandate removed.

Dick, we'll write a cheque for about $48,000 for our ADS-B install tomorrow. So, I'm beaten. But I applaud the cause!!

Come on. How about a bit of guts from the GA industry on this!

A key problem with GA is that we don't have a peak body. The AOPA has deserted us. And unless someone has yours or Boyd's visibility, you need a peak body with Australian governments. The RAAA did a pretty good job of representing the interests of all aviation when Jeff Boyd was heading it. But its not as active now. The ABAA looks after the jet / turboprop territory, but private IFR is lost in the middle. I can't see a way forward. Can you?

[dhavillandpilot]

Dick

I'd be happy to be involved but how? The industry needs a strong leader.

On a separate note I have probably one of the few pressurised aircraft that doesn't have radar. Under the new proposed rules ALL pressurised aircraft be piston or turbine have to have Radar.

So I have to install a radar unit, yet when I was in the USA I flew a great Aero Commander 685 that had a Garmin530wAAS unit with a satelite radar attached. Cheap more reliable and compatible with the rest of the aircraft equipment at a fraction of the weight and more reliable.

Can I get it here, don't be silly we are flying aircraft and systems based on the 1960's

[Dick Smith]

When does this new radar rule come in?

Does the FAA have an equivalent mandate?

[dhavillandpilot]

The new Radar proposal is in the draft of Part 135

Specifically 135.670

I've tried to get guidance whether a storm scope is acceptable, but NO ONE in CASA knows

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Old Akro, if it isn't a state secret, can you post a breakdown on your $48,000 spend. Equipment, labour, compliance?

[Dick Smith]

Is this an existing requirement in the USA?

[dhavillandpilot]

Dick

From what I can see, the FAA part 135 only talks about large passenger transport aircraft

However under a different section they talk about IFR in known thunderstorm conditions, which is like Australia. But it talks about detection system ie Radar OR storm scopes.

[Pimp Daddy]

CASA however still require the full deal including engineering orders for the installation.

Say you have a 172 with a 430W and KT76A already fitted, surely you can just fit a KT74 that slots straight into the rack using the FAA AML STC.

FAA STCs are issued by an acceptable foreign authority so should suffice in that case, then it's just labour to run the GPS data wire to the rack and set up the new unit.

[Old Akro]

I'm sure we'll get a LAME correcting this, but in my experience it seems to vary depending on LAME, type of aircraft, the last time an electrical load analysis was done and the last time a weight & balance was done.

But yes, a simple ADS-B installation (in Australia) may require one or more engineering orders, an electrical load analysis and potentially even a re-weigh.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
What is being missed, in all this, is that neither FAA nor EASA are mandating ADS-B OUT for the greater percentage of IFR operation in light aircraft --- "light aircraft" being aircraft that don't exceed 250kt IAS, or operate above 10,000 AMSL.

We had the spectacle of Skidmore, at Senate Estimates this week, extolling the "safety" virtues of ever widening surveillance of an ever widening range of aircraft.

In almost the same breath, he was unable to answer a simple question from WA Senator Glen Sterle, who wanted an explanation of why, if ADS-B was so essential for safety, why some VARA aircraft had been given long term exemptions for carrying ADS-B, and was this a commercial decision overriding a safety matter.

Of course, in risk management terms, the exemptions are entirely reasonable, but Skidmore could not explain to the good Senator (and apparently his EM Airports and Airways couldn't either) that those aircraft will operate with greater separation without ADS-B, so there is no reduction in separation assurance.

It was certainly a bravura performance by CASA.

It is reported, second hand, that Skidmore has even remarked that "all aircraft should have ADS-B". Given his performance this week, (and his approach to the CVD matter) I can believe it. No safety case, not the slightest suggestion of cost/benefit justification, just ill-informed opinion that would not wash in an aeroclub discussion on a Friday evening.

Questions from the Senators about whether ADS-B had been subject of a safety case, or just imposed on the aviation community, made some people on the CASA "bench" very uncomfortable, of course it wasn't answered --- we all know that there never was a credible one, and one of the intended "side effects" of the ADS-B mandate was the effective mandating of C-145/146 GPS upgrades by stealth.

It is the upgrade to C-145/147 (not ADS-B) that has enabled ASA to pull out navaids, saving a fortune for ASA, at the cost of transferring huge costs onto the aircraft owning/operating community, across the board.

None of the major airlines have yet been able to show any return, let alone a commercial return on their not inconsiderable investment in ADS-B.

Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

Australia us the only country in the world mandating ADS-B for ALL IFR flights at ALL levels in ALL airspace types.

[sunnySA]

LeadShed
It is the upgrade to C-145/147 (not ADS-B) that has enabled ASA to pull out navaids, saving a fortune for ASA, at the cost of transferring huge costs onto the aircraft owning/operating community, across the board.

Saving a fortune for ASA?? I suspect that the big end of town said that they don't need, don't want and won't pay for the NDBs around the country. Just goes to show that the user pays model for aviation infrastructure is flawed.

[LeadSled]

Saving a fortune for ASA?? I suspect that the big end of town said that they don't need, don't want and won't pay for the NDBs around the country

sunnySA,
Sunny, believe me (I was part of many early discussions) the "ADS-B" mandate's consequential requirement for everybody to update to C-145/146 based GPS was well understood by ASA to be the real payoff for mandating ADS-B.

Airlines took exactly that position (just as they made it very clear, from the word go, that no saving to airlines from navaid reduction would go to a subsidy, in any any shape or form, for GA equipment) , but, I repeat, airlines have not been able to show a return, let alone a commercial return on the investment. The airlines were conned, just as was everybody else who was involved.

The cost to airlines has been considerable, many times that suggested by CASA and ASA in the original propaganda. In fact, the cost to modify, say, a -8/100-200 has been about the FAA estimate, around US$300,000+, just a tad more than the AUD$25,000 suggested by CASA for a Regional type.

Returns on investment would include any reductions in ASA charges to airlines, as a result of "savings". What reductions??

Tootle pip!!

[sunnySA]

Reductions can seen from two sides, an actual reduction in charges or a smaller increase in charges.

In the case of aviation, the government should providing appropriate infrastructure. Funding models that include "user pays (only for the services they use) and ASA paying the government a dividend are IMHO flawed.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[Old Akro]

Saving a fortune for ASA?? I suspect that the big end of town said that they don't need, don't want and won't pay for the NDBs around the country. Just goes to show that the user pays model for aviation

The interesting thing - if you study the list of back up aid locations - is that NDB's in remote & rural locations are the major navaids that are being left. It's the areas around the major cities that are going to be devoid of any ground based aids. VOR will become nearly worthless for GA. Pretty much only VOR's Sr. Primary airports will be left.

God help you if you want to do VOR or ADF training or currency in the Melbourne basin after the shutdown.

GPS is not infallible. It's subject to RAIM outages, jamming and equipment failure ( notably antennas). It would be nice to have some redundancy of AIDS for GA - not just the airlines.

[gerry111]

We landed, refuelled and overnighted at YBKE three weeks ago. The NDB antenna; towers and electrical boxes look brand new. So something's happening to preserve these basic Nav Aids in the bush. :D