TOO GOOD FOR GA?

[deja vu]

You can take the pilot out of the fighter but you can't take the fighter out of the pilot.

These guys are different, deliberately different and are very good at that job That doesn't mean they will automatically be good at another job, particularly one that doesn't require anything but a good average level headed Joe.

Case in point. A colleague of mine in a well known airline ( previous job was steely eyed warrior on an F18) brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque. As a result of the damage to leading edges, engine intakes etc the aircraft couldn't make flight planned levels and required excessive thrust settings to meet performance figures.. It was estimated there was not enough fuel remaining to taxi into the parking area if that had been attempted.

The point being I don't think any GA trained Captain would even think to attempt that. What his FO and FE thought I don't know but it was of course before CRM became a thing.
The episode was widely publicised at the time and the airline defended the Captain as some sort of hero where there was privately a strong advocacy to fire his a..e! but that would have admitted some perceived failure of the airline.

I'm not suggesting that all ex fighter pilots think like that but many that I have encountered do.

[deja vu]

They are just defending their guild.
If it gets easy for skilled and experienced pilots to instruct, the competition will raise
Also some flight schools will have to decide how to be more attractive
By making their students instructors after selling them an FI rating, or by hiring highly skilled ex military instructors?
Clarkey is on a crusade that's why he took the hard way
He is not doing that for his own interest but to make a point
Well if he wanted to make a point he misjudged this by a very long way. Arrogance and ego are the point.

[megan]

brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque.Could you please point to the report on the incident dv.

[Mr Mossberg]

Clarkey is on a crusade that's why he took the hard way
He is not doing that for his own interest but to make a point

I'm wondering what sort of person would go through 3 years of that crap and cost, just to make a point?

If it turns out the case that he was just making a point and it was no skin off his nose, then someone or organisation was funding him? If so, who?

[deja vu]

Could you please point to the report on the incident dv.
Looking, looking. It was over 30 years ago and not in Australia. The regulator involved doesn't make it easy to find. Get back if I come up with the details.

[swh]

You're conflating the AAT's articulation of the issues for consideration - which are durr-obvious from the words of CASR 61.285 - with the way in which the AAT ultimately decided those issues after consideration of them.

You have missed the point and the boat, I really do need a primary school teacher to explain this to you.

The AAT decision affirmed the CASA decision, which the AAT explained in “The Issue” they agreed with and would expand on further down. The CASA decision said the applicant did not have the qualification and experience, which the AAT simply shortened to a single word “equivalence”.

[lucille]

Looking, looking. It was over 30 years ago and not in Australia. The regulator involved doesn't make it easy to find. Get back if I come up with the details.

Then airline and aircraft type would give us a clue. 3 crew, so maybe .. 727, L1011, 74 classic 707,DC8…. .?

Leading edge and windshield abrasions point to volcanic cloud.

[Lead Balloon]

You have missed the point and the boat, I really do need a primary school teacher to explain this to you.

The AAT decision affirmed the CASA decision, which the AAT explained in “The Issue” they agreed with and would expand on further down. The CASA decision said the applicant did not have the qualification and experience, which the AAT simply shortened to a single word “equivalence”.Thanks swh. All this stuff never made sense to me, until you explained it.

[RichardJones]

You can take the pilot out of the fighter but you can't take the fighter out of the pilot.

These guys are different, deliberately different and are very good at that job That doesn't mean they will automatically be good at another job, particularly one that doesn't require anything but a good average level headed Joe.

Case in point. A colleague of mine in a well known airline ( previous job was steely eyed warrior on an F18) brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque. As a result of the damage to leading edges, engine intakes etc the aircraft couldn't make flight planned levels and required excessive thrust settings to meet performance figures.. It was estimated there was not enough fuel remaining to taxi into the parking area if that had been attempted.

The point being I don't think any GA trained Captain would even think to attempt that. What his FO and FE thought I don't know but it was of course before CRM became a thing.
The episode was widely publicised at the time and the airline defended the Captain as some sort of hero where there was privately a strong advocacy to fire his a..e! but that would have admitted some perceived failure of the airline.

I'm not suggesting that all ex fighter pilots think like that but many that I have encountered do.

A good, clear and correct post. Horses for courses. Take a test pilot, for example. They look for trouble. Most of us try and avoid it. Look for trouble, you normally find it.
Experimental Test flying is the only type of flying, where a higher degree of education would be benifical, IMHO.

[43Inches]

You can take the pilot out of the fighter but you can't take the fighter out of the pilot.

These guys are different, deliberately different and are very good at that job That doesn't mean they will automatically be good at another job, particularly one that doesn't require anything but a good average level headed Joe.

Case in point. A colleague of mine in a well known airline ( previous job was steely eyed warrior on an F18) brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque. As a result of the damage to leading edges, engine intakes etc the aircraft couldn't make flight planned levels and required excessive thrust settings to meet performance figures.. It was estimated there was not enough fuel remaining to taxi into the parking area if that had been attempted.

The point being I don't think any GA trained Captain would even think to attempt that. What his FO and FE thought I don't know but it was of course before CRM became a thing.
The episode was widely publicised at the time and the airline defended the Captain as some sort of hero where there was privately a strong advocacy to fire his a..e! but that would have admitted some perceived failure of the airline.

I'm not suggesting that all ex fighter pilots think like that but many that I have encountered do.

This scenario has been done by pilots who have never been near the air force. Generally its a failure of the training department to clearly advise exactly what a 'nearest suitable' airport is. Again using singular evidence of the failure of an individual to abide by loose rules , which in the past were very loose. I know several occasions over the last 20 years where a captain has be disciplined for not landing at the nearest suitable, and none were ex air-force.

I also have a story about an ex-airforce pilot who was not up to scratch, even an ex Roulette, but there was also a medical condition involved so it's not fair to blame the air-force background in that instance.

As for ex school teachers making great instructors, I haven't come across many, but the few I have were OK, but not 'stand out' flight instructors. I've know two ex military 'test pilots', who had converted to civil life, and their flying skills and ability to make things simple for the average human were exemplary. But they were well and above the qualifications of a QFI, having undergone the empire test pilot program. These guys were brilliant at instructor training as they knew everything, but also were very critical if you over complicated something from the basics, they'd also shoot you down very quickly for bull****. In the US at least school teaching qualifications in secondary school or greater are recognized for the PMI component, but not primary school, that is year 7 and above is accepted.

It's a pity that the majority of really good ex-military pilot instructors I've come across are mostly from international backgrounds. Which probably hints at the lack of military converting to GA from the RAAF because it's all too much hassell.

BTW, all my posts before were never insinuating the AAT got it wrong, they were only assessing whether the rules were applied in the correct sense here. My point is that the rules are out of date and don't reflect the modern world, using the UK CAA is a waste of energy, their airspace and procedures for GA training are on a minute scale. We might as well emulate Fiji, or Botswana if you want to copy paste the UK rules sets, as commonality with the majority of the worlds pilots would be achieved via the US system, any thing else is tin pot politics. The FAA has the right idea for just about anything GA oriented, and they have a massive GA industry over a huge country. Whilst I know CASA will never concede to this, that is what should be applied here.

Also think of the aviation tourism opportunity if FAA licensed pilots could just come here without the rig-moral and go on touring holidays. Right now it's way too much hassell. You just have to watch the episode of the Simpsons where they come to Australia, they think we're some sort of Nazi rule oriented backwater.

[swh]

This scenario has been done by pilots who have never been near the air force. Generally its a failure of the training department to clearly advise exactly what a 'nearest suitable' airport is. Again using singular evidence of the failure of an individual to abide by loose rules , which in the past were very loose. I know several occasions over the last 20 years where a captain has be disciplined for not landing at the nearest suitable, and none were ex air-force.

I also have a story about an ex-airforce pilot who was not up to scratch, even an ex Roulette, but there was also a medical condition involved so it's not fair to blame the air-force background in that instance.

As for ex school teachers making great instructors, I haven't come across many, but the few I have were OK, but not 'stand out' flight instructors. I've know two ex military 'test pilots', who had converted to civil life, and their flying skills and ability to make things simple for the average human were exemplary. But they were well and above the qualifications of a QFI, having undergone the empire test pilot program. These guys were brilliant at instructor training as they knew everything, but also were very critical if you over complicated something from the basics, they'd also shoot you down very quickly for bull****. In the US at least school teaching qualifications in secondary school or greater are recognized for the PMI component, but not primary school, that is year 7 and above is accepted.

It's a pity that the majority of really good ex-military pilot instructors I've come across are mostly from international backgrounds. Which probably hints at the lack of military converting to GA from the RAAF because it's all too much hassell.

BTW, all my posts before were never insinuating the AAT got it wrong, they were only assessing whether the rules were applied in the correct sense here. My point is that the rules are out of date and don't reflect the modern world, using the UK CAA is a waste of energy, their airspace and procedures for GA training are on a minute scale. We might as well emulate Fiji, or Botswana if you want to copy paste the UK rules sets, as commonality with the majority of the worlds pilots would be achieved via the US system, any thing else is tin pot politics. The FAA has the right idea for just about anything GA oriented, and they have a massive GA industry over a huge country. Whilst I know CASA will never concede to this, that is what should be applied here.

Also think of the aviation tourism opportunity if FAA licensed pilots could just come here without the rig-moral and go on touring holidays. Right now it's way too much hassell. You just have to watch the episode of the Simpsons where they come to Australia, they think we're some sort of Nazi rule oriented backwater.

There have been reports into military training, and the one of the most recents one I recall reading involved how to retain and promote more women in the military. One of the observations listed in that report was that the RAAF training focused more on the technicalities rather than teaching methods.

One simply cannot say look at one system does, and then transfer that here. Fundamentally the issue here is the RAAF does not issue the same number/levels of qualifications as say the USAF and RAF do. The RAF for example have different levels of instrument ratings which are more like the the old Australian DOT system, class 4 to class 1 ratings. The lowest level of RAF instrument rating increases minima by about 1000 ft, and does not permit entry into CTA. The way the RAAF structure their system suits the RAAF, they don’t give a toss how this is then recognised outside.

The only people that give a toss about how things are/are not recognised are the people who leave the ADF. I don’t see any advantage at all in the ADF making it more attractive to leave.

If you take some time to look at the actual application form converting ADF qualifications into CASA, they do go into some detail to look at exactly what ADF courses were passed. They do look at exactly what the applicant was doing on a case by case basis. In the manual which is used to assess these forms, only a Grade 3 or Grade 2 instructor rating can be granted when converting an ADF qualification. Applying for a Grade 1 is outside the scope of the published procedures.

The applicant had a CASA licence for some time, and they have been flying VH registered aircraft on a CASA licence before they were posted as a QFI, this was not their initial conversion of ADF qualifications to CASA, it was an attempt to get additional qualifications onto their ATPL.

There are different levels of QFI, the applicant did not have the RAAF QFI qualification that would have granted them a Grade 2. There is no pathway from a ADF qualification to Grade 1.

When converting either an instrument rating or instructor rating from an ADF qualification, the applicant also needs to do an initial flight test. The applicant in this case would also seem to have wanted to bypass that as well.

[Chronic Snoozer]

There have been reports into military training, and the one of the most recents one I recall reading involved how to retain and promote more women in the military. One way is to discriminate by gender, the length of the ROSO training attracts for females is shorter. Do you have a link to that report?

If you take some time to look at the actual application form converting ADF qualifications into CASA, they do go into some detail to look at exactly what ADF courses were passed. They do look at exactly what the applicant was doing on a case by case basis. In the manual which is used to assess these forms, only a Grade 3 or Grade 2 instructor rating can be granted when converting an ADF qualification. Applying for a Grade 1 is outside the scope of the published procedures. That rating is available to graduates of the CFS QFI course. In the subsequent decade or whatever of instructing, QFIs gain experience and have that recognised by their category - in this case the individual was a B category QFI - for which they must pass theory and practical tests. This might be assessed as equivalent to the G1 rating sought depending on the type and hours logged. That was the whole point of the appeal. It is understandable that a Grade 1 cannot be granted to a new graduate, however after 500 hours of instructing experience, why not? Because it's not experience on an 1500kg aircraft doing RPL competency units is the CASA response. If the appellant had instructed at BFTS on the CT4, I doubt there'd be an issue.

When converting either an instrument rating or instructor rating from an ADF qualification, the applicant also needs to do an initial flight test. The applicant in this case would also seem to have wanted to bypass that as well. Where does it say that in the AATA decision?

[Lead Balloon]

Do you need a primary school teacher to explain it to you CS? ;)

[Chronic Snoozer]

Do you need a primary school teacher to explain it to you CS? ;)

Yes please. Preferably a maths teacher with a PhD.

[Mach E Avelli]

Also think of the aviation tourism opportunity if FAA licensed pilots could just come here without the rig-moral and go on touring holidays. Right now it's way too much hassell. You just have to watch the episode of the Simpsons where they come to Australia, they think we're some sort of Nazi rule oriented backwater.
What killed the once popular self-fly tourism was the dreaded ASIC. Until that became a requirement, many pilot tourists also came from Europe.
CASA could easily validate any ICAO licence for private flying (as they once did), were it not for that embuggerance.

[43Inches]

What killed the once popular self-fly tourism was the dreaded ASIC. Until that became a requirement, many pilot tourists also came from Europe.
CASA could easily validate any ICAO licence for private flying (as they once did), were it not for that embuggerance.

That and the stigma associated with what level of proficiency check will be required to utilize the converted licence, and the complication of learning the Australian rules, which have a reputation outside Australia of being over the top, whether true or not, that's what most expect when they get here.

There have been reports into military training, and the one of the most recents one I recall reading involved how to retain and promote more women in the military. One of the observations listed in that report was that the RAAF training focused more on the technicalities rather than teaching methods.

One simply cannot say look at one system does, and then transfer that here. Fundamentally the issue here is the RAAF does not issue the same number/levels of qualifications as say the USAF and RAF do. The RAF for example have different levels of instrument ratings which are more like the the old Australian DOT system, class 4 to class 1 ratings. The lowest level of RAF instrument rating increases minima by about 1000 ft, and does not permit entry into CTA. The way the RAAF structure their system suits the RAAF, they don’t give a toss how this is then recognised outside.

The only people that give a toss about how things are/are not recognised are the people who leave the ADF. I don’t see any advantage at all in the ADF making it more attractive to leave.

If you take some time to look at the actual application form converting ADF qualifications into CASA, they do go into some detail to look at exactly what ADF courses were passed. They do look at exactly what the applicant was doing on a case by case basis. In the manual which is used to assess these forms, only a Grade 3 or Grade 2 instructor rating can be granted when converting an ADF qualification. Applying for a Grade 1 is outside the scope of the published procedures.

The applicant had a CASA licence for some time, and they have been flying VH registered aircraft on a CASA licence before they were posted as a QFI, this was not their initial conversion of ADF qualifications to CASA, it was an attempt to get additional qualifications onto their ATPL.

There are different levels of QFI, the applicant did not have the RAAF QFI qualification that would have granted them a Grade 2. There is no pathway from a ADF qualification to Grade 1.

When converting either an instrument rating or instructor rating from an ADF qualification, the applicant also needs to do an initial flight test. The applicant in this case would also seem to have wanted to bypass that as well.

I think the additional point I'm trying to make is that the Australia system of Instructor qualification is also flawed. It relies on hours in the book, as an arbitrary standard, rather than showing some sort of competence in actual training. Which is what the FAA focuses on, by first of all letting a instructor free to instruct in what they are endorsed on with a basic level of CFI, CFI-I or MEI. So there is no supervision, but more so recognition and reward of higher pass rates to ensure those that hold ratings are competing on standards. In Australia a FIR G1 can do what they want and be a **** instructor, and nobody would know. In the US they would fail to gain a 'gold seal' and be relegated to be no better than a fresh trainee.

Australia you could be supervised as a G3 by a **** G1 and learn nothing more than what experience you pocket along the way. This is my reasoning as to why training standards have declined over the years. That and the blind leading the blind mentality. Those who advocate the new guys training the newer because the knowledge is fresh forget the simple rule that you can't transfer 100% of you knowledge to the new guy, so if your operational knowledge is already limited, because your experience is limited, then each time a generation passes the knowledge passed on reduces.

Experienced and competent trainers ensure not only are standards maintained, but promoted and expanded on.

Going back to the school educational system it's widely recognised that there is a massive variation in teaching ability and standards across the Australian system. The teachers union heavily pushes back against rating teachers, and with some good reasons, but it also recognizes that the training system for educators in Australia is also flawed. One thing that has waned from the Australian tertiary/post high school education system is practical application, this has been a problem for Engineering, Medicine and the Teaching profession itself. The education system being more of a holding file for future workers instead of the dole and money spinner for the providers. Candidates come out with a head full of knowledge that at times can be out of date already or impractical to what the world needs today.

One thing the FAA system does allow as well is variation in teaching, you can teach your techniques and way of doing things. There is no 'one way' of flying an aircraft, any good experienced instructor would know that sometimes you have to change the procedure or angle you approach something to get through to a candidate who has a different way of learning, or just thinks differently about the world. The Australian system has become overly prescriptive, again, for some ultra control, litigation process. Over the top CBT points, Act, regs, then MOS, then AIP,back to MOS then AIP agin, then CAAPs, then several other layers of regulation. FAA has what has to be taught, not how, and some guidance documents on what they think works. If you screw up the court system will call you in for a chat.

[Clare Prop]

What killed the once popular self-fly tourism was the dreaded ASIC. Until that became a requirement, many pilot tourists also came from Europe.
CASA could easily validate any ICAO licence for private flying (as they once did), were it not for that embuggerance.

Have to disagree with you there Mach, this was my core business and what killed it was when they moved the issue of Certificates of Validation from the regional offices to Canberra. What used to take 24 hours on arrival face to face with the legendary John Pritchard or Maureen then took 9 months and often never happened at all. There was one safari operator who closed down and said it was because of ASICs, maybe it was maybe it wasn't, but that hasn't been a problem for us.
A big part of the delay is getting the other ICAO country to verify the licence.
For example people have to either go to an Australian embassy or find a DAME to get their documents verified for CASA, who unlike the ASIC agents and the regional CASA offices, would not do the process and then have everything ready, pending sighting the originals documents before handing it over, because of course this would have meant every single CoV applicant having to go to Canberra >:(
Processing an ASIC for someone overseas is one of the easy parts of the tortuous process!

[MalcolmReynolds]

SWH, you know all about circumscribing some CASA regulations whilst simultaneously using others to your advantage to gain your Grade 1 early (well before 12 months as a Grade 2) don’t you?

It didn’t stop you trying to deny other people from gaining a CASA qualification under similar circumstances, and as a plus for you, get them in trouble with their employer.

But it’s all about you isn’t it? Nice try!

[43Inches]

Have to disagree with you there Mach, this was my core business and what killed it was when they moved the issue of Certificates of Validation from the regional offices to Canberra. What used to take 24 hours on arrival face to face with the legendary John Pritchard or Maureen then took 9 months and often never happened at all. There was one safari operator who closed down and said it was because of ASICs, maybe it was maybe it wasn't, but that hasn't been a problem for us.
A big part of the delay is getting the other ICAO country to verify the licence.
For example people have to either go to an Australian embassy or find a DAME to get their documents verified for CASA, who unlike the ASIC agents and the regional CASA offices, would not do the process and then have everything ready, pending sighting the originals documents before handing it over, because of course this would have meant every single CoV applicant having to go to Canberra >:(
Processing an ASIC for someone overseas is one of the easy parts of the tortuous process!

We used to have a lot of European pilots come over and hire planes and fly all around the country, Germans especially. It used to be so easy, CASA left it up to us what we checked them on, they got a simple validated licence, we did a short ground course and navex to focus on Australian procedures and the importance of DR navigation (Pre-GPS days) and a day later off they went. Ok, a few NCNs would roll in in the weeks following the trips, but no safety issues, just compliance stuff mostly. I think one group I remember hired over 10 aircraft and flew to Ayres Rock, up to Cape york, down the East coast, over a few weeks, they had a ball, and used to be almosta yearly thing. Last I heard they had all stopped coming because it was all too hard now, it's a pity considering with GPS/moving maps, sat phones and everything else its is so much easier to actually do the flying, keep contact with a local instructor for advice etc etc...

What I was amazed at was how easy it was to fly in Europe as a PPL, I always thought the regulation would have curbed it, but it seemed so much easier than Australia (back then).

[Clare Prop]

Yes we used to get a lot of Europeans who would go off and do their own thing, hour-builders from the UK and some mobs would take them all over the place in guided groups, it was great for GA and for outback tourism but CASA killed it off with CLARC. We lost 60% of our business overnight with that bright idea as we could no longer guarantee it would be processed in time so couldn't take deposits. In some ways it is easier now, you can convert them to a CASA licence without having to do an air law exam and flight test, but you still have to get CASA to do their part which takes months and months, so they need to be living or working here as it doesn't work for holidays.

[43Inches]

Yes, I remember when that changed and the field offices closed. They used to just walk into the local CASA building and walk out with a validation paper. Then not long after the change I had a foreign PPL student from Europe who arrived to start CPL/CIR training, it took ages to get a basic validation for the PPL and then a lot of time further as to what they would recognize towards the CPL. Luckily we could issue a Student licence to get them started. Then there was the issue of converting the PPL so that they could start instrument training prior to the CPL, we gave up on that idea as CASA made it too difficult and it was easier (and cheaper) they just did the CPL and then did IREX.

This all puts off the foreign students wanting to come over for a flying/training holiday as nothing can really be done at any fast pace.

The only sure validation of any qualification is a check ride, it would be very apparent after a few circuits if they have what they claim to have. The paper work in this day and age is just stupid and causes delays that have no merit. Hans turns up with a log book with obvious entries over time, a licence from the EU that states he's a pilot, shows his passport to confirm it's him, and flies a few circuits at the standard he claims to be, done. The whole process behind the scenes achieves nothing in this day and age, where he could have just stolen the Australian paperwork and ASIC, claims to be Dave-o from down the pub, doesn't have to prove anything about his authenticity and without a check ride would just go flying. Why would you bother falsifying foreign papers for a validation to fly on a holiday, when you could just falsify the local ones.

[Clare Prop]

The paper work in this day and age is just stupid and causes delays that have no merit

And that is the problem...some jobsworth got their KPIs and a nice pay rise but it cost GA and tourism millions! And no-one is going to get thier KPIs for reducing the amount of paperwork so that we can start the tourism up again...plus there are a lot fewer AVGAS outlets now because guess what...the demand dropped off suddenly :(

[Lead Balloon]

We used to have a lot of European pilots come over and hire planes and fly all around the country, Germans especially. It used to be so easy, CASA left it up to us what we checked them on, they got a simple validated licence, we did a short ground course and navex to focus on Australian procedures and the importance of DR navigation (Pre-GPS days) and a day later off they went. Ok, a few NCNs would roll in in the weeks following the trips, but no safety issues, just compliance stuff mostly. I think one group I remember hired over 10 aircraft and flew to Ayres Rock, up to Cape york, down the East coast, over a few weeks, they had a ball, and used to be almosta yearly thing. <snip> Ah, so you were the genius responsible for the gaggles of Germans who departed YSBK without much of clue as to the applicable procedures, causing consternation and complaints from the ‘locals’. Interesting the distinction you draw between “safety issues” and “just compliance stuff”. Some of us take the quaint view that compliance with procedures often reduces the risks to safety.

[43Inches]

Ah, so you were the genius responsible for the gaggles of Germans who departed YSBK without much of clue as to the applicable procedures, causing consternation and complaints from the ‘locals’. Interesting the distinction you draw between “safety issues” and “just compliance stuff”. Some of us take the quaint view that compliance with procedures often reduces the risks to safety.

Hey, they had been the whole way around Australia by then. But yeah, there was a year when they got a bit loose, pretty sure you are referring to that year. One even tried to burn one of the Warriors down starting it in YSBK. Most other trips were not particularly eventful.

Normally it was a big group with a mix of commercial pilots, PPLs and their partners and such, which made sure there was a variety of experience. I think that year there were less ATPL/CPLs, handheld GPS had just sort of come in, and a few other factors. Considering how many years they did it and the miles covered they showed they had enough nous to get around without damaging anything. At the time, and probably still now, there were local PPLs who were getting around using the force who displayed much less ability. With that group there was two pilots who failed to show any sort of standard near even GFPT, they were told they would not be able to fly our aircraft, so they went down the road and hired somebody elses who was less caring. The current CASA rules would not have changed any of that though, as they held PPLs, somehow. They would have just had to wait longer for the issue of a validation.

[Capn Bloggs]

At the time, and probably still now, there were local PPLs who were getting around using the force who displayed much less ability.
Liked. :ok:​​​​​​​

[43Inches]

We used that term to describe how the older PPLs who came in for BFR/AFRs, whatever they are called now, would pass. They could not tell you how or what they do, they don't display any recognizable technique, there is no consistantly evident navigation method, half the time they talk incessantly while looking at something unrelated to what they are doing. But somehow they could navigate anywhere, in a zigzag fashion, completely unstable approaches would result in greased accurate landings, somehow a PFL would just end up lined up with a field, and so on.... So we had to assume they had a strong connection with a force guiding them somehow, maybe, just 'the force'.

[Uplinker]

Here’s a link to the AAT matter (https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA//2023/2628.html).

Essentially, CASA decided that Clarke did not hold and had not held a flight crew qualification, granted by the ADF, at least equivalent to a flight instructor rating to conduct ab initio flight training in ‘little’ piston aircraft. Here’s the relevant reg:Presumably CASA is worried that Clarke would move students too quickly into transonic and supersonic configurations in the Cessna 152, and be getting them to do initial and pitch approaches.

I think the standards of literacy in our schools would be higher if there were more professors of mathematics in them teaching it.

Yes, as you say, a person who can fly fast jets is not necessarily automatically competent at teaching students the initial aspects of flying and navigating in basic piston aircraft. Teaching flying at that beginner level is very different to operating an advanced fast jet weapons platform. And teaching a pilot who has already succeeded and worked their way into fast jets is a very different prospect to teaching a person with no aeronautical knowledge who has never set foot in a small piston aircraft.

Ditto: a professor of maths might not have any knowledge, skill or training in how to engage children and teach them the basics of language. (They might not have the necessary skills to teach the first stages of maths either !).

I have much more than twice the total flying hours that this guy does, (mine are in airliners), but that does not mean I could competently teach a new pilot how to fly a C152 from scratch, since I have no instructor training or rating.

If this guy wants to teach ab-initio flying, he simply needs to pass the relevant instructor qualification - it cannot be considered a 'grandfather right', because the two disciplines are so different.

[Mach E Avelli]

Uplinker, thanks for getting thread back on track. Couldn’t agree more. Despite being an ATPL Examiner with 25000 hours I would have no idea how to train a sprog up to solo, or how to teach them to recover from a spin, despite being able to do it myself. This stuff is best left to those with specific training in the task. Basic instruction is a skill set all of its own.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I have much more than twice the total flying hours that this guy does, (mine are in airliners), but that does not mean I could competently teach a new pilot how to fly a C152 from scratch, since I have no instructor training or rating.

So what you're saying is, to instruct you have to be an instructor?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

UPLINKER and MACH

Clarkey HAS had experience instructing ab Initio. He was an instructor at Pearce. He has taught spins, aerobatics, formation flying. He has authorised first solo flights, in the PC9. He was a qualified flying instructor, having successfully completed the RAAF QFI course at Central Flying School at East Sale.

[dr dre]

UPLINKER and MACH

Clarkey HAS had experience instructing ab Initio. He was an instructor at Pearce. He has taught spins, aerobatics, formation flying. He has authorised first solo flights, in the PC9. He was a qualified flying instructor, having successfully completed the RAAF QFI course at Central Flying School at East Sale.

But wasn’t the actual ab initio training for RAAF pilots in that era conducted in the CT4 at Tamworth? Wasn’t the fact those students already had quite extensive flying experience a reason why the training he provided could not be considered suitable for the direct issue of a Grade 1 FIR?

This was CASA’s reasoning:

(k) It is understandable that an instructor who is assessing whether a student pilot is ready for their first solo should have a minimum number of hours of experience in instructing students at that level of flying skill. A grade 1 instructor is then required to have even more experience with students at that level, because only a grade 1 instructor can be the head of operations of a Part 141 flying school (see CASR 141.125(1)(a)(i)).

(l) The Applicant may well be a very capable instructor, and with the requisite time working as a grade 3 instructor with student pilots he will almost certainly qualify as a grade 2 and grade 1 instructor. However, he does not presently have the required experience with student pilots at that level.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

There was a period at 2FTS when we taught ab initio, all through pilot training at 2FTS. Plus the CFS QFI training, had ab initio training in the syllabus, because the instructors course was the same whether or not you were going to 1FTS or 2FTS.

I'll reiterate again. The RAAF QFI training and flying is polar opposite to airline sim instructing. An ex RAAF QFI is by far capable enough to be a Grade 1 instructor.

[megle2]

How many hours does “ Clarkey “ have in a CT4

[Aussie Bob]

I'll reiterate again. The RAAF QFI training and flying is polar opposite to airline sim instructing. An ex RAAF QFI is by far capable enough to be a Grade 1 instructor.

Perhaps Captain, perhaps. I have flown with a few RAAF pilots over the years and their skills have been exceptional but remember the old adage"

"Those that can do, those that can't, teach" - Bernard Shaw

Often thrown around in a derogatory manner, the adage still bears thinking about. My observations of exceptional pilots is that in fact they are poor teachers because their standards and expectations are too high. They cannot understand why others aren't like them. They resort to demonstration when the hapless student is incapable of either understanding or observing at the rate the instructor expects.

Give the bloke his grade 1 instructor rating, give all ex RAAF pilots who have taught one too. In that I am in full agreement, but wether they will actually make good ab initio trainers, the market will have to decide. Some no doubt will, many already have, some will fail miserably and be generally disliked. It's always been thus.

[RichardJones]

Indeed. When I started learning, we had a instructor who was unable to tolerate any inaccurate flying, whatsoever. Note I didn't use the word learnt, as the learning process, never ceases. He managed to upset most of the students he tried to teach, to the extent he was avoided. Not a commercial success.
We all perform better in a relaxed environment. Captains and instructors should set this tone. IMHO.
We are all human and we like a pat on the back occasionally. If people do a job well, tell they have done a good job

[43Inches]

Perhaps Captain, perhaps. I have flown with a few RAAF pilots over the years and their skills have been exceptional but remember the old adage"

"Those that can do, those that can't, teach" - Bernard Shaw

Often thrown around in a derogatory manner, the adage still bears thinking about. My observations of exceptional pilots is that in fact they are poor teachers because their standards and expectations are too high. They cannot understand why others aren't like them. They resort to demonstration when the hapless student is incapable of either understanding or observing at the rate the instructor expects.

Give the bloke his grade 1 instructor rating, give all ex RAAF pilots who have taught one too. In that I am in full agreement, but wether they will actually make good ab initio trainers, the market will have to decide. Some no doubt will, many already have, some will fail miserably and be generally disliked. It's always been thus.

The adage does not work.

The reality is a good instructor is a good instructor, made better with skill and experience. You can learn about instructional technique, but more than anything it requires personality traits of patience, tolerance, empathy and curiosity. Patience is obvious, everybody learns in their own time, at their own pace. Tolerance, in that you have to accept there are multiple ways of doing things, not just yours, teach different people from different backgrounds and such without treating stereotypes. Empathy, in understanding what the student needs to progress, having regards to what other struggles they may be dealing with. And a level of curiosity to expand your own knowledge and also have interest in learning how and why a particular student is the way they are.

Do ex military all demand high standards? This all comes down to what you might consider high. Some are unwavering, this can be good if you want to achieve that, but, in GA the student can walk to another flight school to get training should they not like it. So even if the instructor (of any background) pushes too higher standard, the market will send them broke if nobody wants that, nothing wrong with them trying though. The market will decide in the long run whether that standard is sought after. But a good ex military instructor will show the traits I listed above, as would a good civilian instructor. So the point becomes moot as in both military and civilian life you will get instructors that don't fit the bill. The military however tends to be way more selective of instructors as the candidate is not paying for the exercise, the air force is. So there is a vested interest that the instructor is capable and competent to reduce training times and scrubs to minimal. In GA a bad instructor is tolerated as the extra training time is money in the bank for the flying school.

What I do see here a is a lot of comment from pilots with no instructional qualifications. I've trained pilots from all walks of life, including ex military from several different countries, some converted to instructing, others to airlines. I've trained instructors, inducted them into both flying schools and airlines. I would have no issue with a QFI being unsupervised training new pilots, after a check of their skills. Generally I'd be happy with most FIR G3s training unsupervised (Mentoring and supervision are two different things BTW), because in reality they do that anyway, no one is watching them actually conduct flights, you could possibly do this in a 4 seater, but not in a C152. You can sit in on briefings, but that's not going to show much, and safety wise, maybe you might stop a vicious paper cut, or ruler poke out an eye. Most PPLs could probably safely teach somebody how to fly without instructor qualifications, just some right seat practice before hand, not saying they would all be safe, effective, efficient instructors, however standards would definitely dwindle towards road type skills.

[RichardJones]

The adage does not work.

The reality is a good instructor is a good instructor, made better with skill and experience. You can learn about instructional technique, but more than anything it requires personality traits of patience, tolerance, empathy and curiosity. Patience is obvious, everybody learns in their own time, at their own pace. Tolerance, in that you have to accept there are multiple ways of doing things, not just yours, teach different people from different backgrounds and such without treating stereotypes. Empathy, in understanding what the student needs to progress, having regards to what other struggles they may be dealing with. And a level of curiosity to expand your own knowledge and also have interest in learning how and why a particular student is the way they are.

Do ex military all demand high standards? This all comes down to what you might consider high. Some are unwavering, this can be good if you want to achieve that, but, in GA the student can walk to another flight school to get training should they not like it. So even if the instructor (of any background) pushes too higher standard, the market will send them broke if nobody wants that, nothing wrong with them trying though. The market will decide in the long run whether that standard is sought after. But a good ex military instructor will show the traits I listed above, as would a good civilian instructor. So the point becomes moot as in both military and civilian life you will get instructors that don't fit the bill. The military however tends to be way more selective of instructors as the candidate is not paying for the exercise, the air force is. So there is a vested interest that the instructor is capable and competent to reduce training times and scrubs to minimal. In GA a bad instructor is tolerated as the extra training time is money in the bank for the flying school.

What I do see here a is a lot of comment from pilots with no instructional qualifications. I've trained pilots from all walks of life, including ex military from several different countries, some converted to instructing, others to airlines. I've trained instructors, inducted them into both flying schools and airlines. I would have no issue with a QFI being unsupervised training new pilots, after a check of their skills. Generally I'd be happy with most FIR G3s training unsupervised (Mentoring and supervision are two different things BTW), because in reality they do that anyway, no one is watching them actually conduct flights, you could possibly do this in a 4 seater, but not in a C152. You can sit in on briefings, but that's not going to show much, and safety wise, maybe you might stop a vicious paper cut, or ruler poke out an eye. Most PPLs could probably safely teach somebody how to fly without instructor qualifications, just some right seat practice before hand, not saying they would all be safe, effective, efficient instructors, however standards would definitely dwindle towards road type skills.

Well said. 👍

[Chronic Snoozer]

Perhaps Captain, perhaps. I have flown with a few RAAF pilots over the years and their skills have been exceptional but remember the old adage"

"Those that can do, those that can't, teach" - Bernard Shaw

Often thrown around in a derogatory manner, the adage still bears thinking about. My observations of exceptional pilots is that in fact they are poor teachers because their standards and expectations are too high. They cannot understand why others aren't like them. They resort to demonstration when the hapless student is incapable of either understanding or observing at the rate the instructor expects.

Give the bloke his grade 1 instructor rating, give all ex RAAF pilots who have taught one too. In that I am in full agreement, but wether they will actually make good ab initio trainers, the market will have to decide. Some no doubt will, many already have, some will fail miserably and be generally disliked. It's always been thus.

Backed up by another adage - "Bloggs will learn in spite of you".

[dr dre]

There was a period at 2FTS when we taught ab initio, all through pilot training at 2FTS. Plus the CFS QFI training, had ab initio training in the syllabus, because the instructors course was the same whether or not you were going to 1FTS or 2FTS.

This (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_Force_Basic_Flying_Training_School) shows that ab initio training for all ADF pilots was conducted by the BFTS at Tamworth from 1999-2019. They had (the AAT found) a minimum of 200 hours by the time they came to 2FTS and were instructed by that Pilot. Plus if he had that ab initio training experience it would’ve been presented as evidence into the tribunal wouldn’t it? It doesn’t matter that there was ab initio training in the QFI syllabus, he didn’t have the relevant experience. A civilian Grade 3 FIR course has ab initio training in that syllabus but a graduate doesn’t get to progress to Grade 2 and 1 until they get the minimum hours of experience in instructing those ab initio students to progress to higher grades.

I think we’ve found the crux of the issue. The subject pilot did have experience in some areas, which is why the majority of the endorsements he requested were granted. But for those specific areas which he lacked the specific experience they were not granted by CASA and this was confirmed by the AAT.

He wanted a FIR-FIR endorsement, “train the trainer”? He failed to provided evidence the he had experience or endorsements from the RAAF to conduct instructor training.

He wanted a FIR-MCP endorsement, multi crew training? His only evidence was flying hours, not training, in a King Air 200, hardly “Multi Crew” if it can be flown single pilot even if some operators use 2 crew. I know some operators use two crew in Piper Chieftain for insurance purposes, doesn’t make it a suitable “multi crew aircraft”.

He wanted FIR-MEAI, multi engine class rating training? He showed limited actual experience in training on the F-18, and as he and his witnesses admitted to the tribunal the F-18 isn’t a suitable platform for teaching generic asymmetric flight. He didn’t have any experience in training on an aircraft that produces substantial yaw in asymmetric flight, yet wanted the equivalent civilian rating straight up.

For every other endorsement he wanted he got it because he demonstrated he had the equivalent military experience to gain that endorsement.

I'll reiterate again. The RAAF QFI training and flying is polar opposite to airline sim instructing. An ex RAAF QFI is by far capable enough to be a Grade 1 instructor.

When they have the equivalent experience of training and preparing ab-initio students for first solo, yes.

​​​​​​For one of the endorsements he sought, the FIR-MCP for multi crew training an airline TRI/TRE would have far more relevant experience of training in multi crew operations on aircraft that actually require 2 pilots over a RAAF QFI, yet I don’t believe they are granted the endorsement to train for the Multi crew co-operation course with their TRI/TRE qualification (happy to be corrected if wrong).

[Mach E Avelli]

The Brits have a civilian category of instructor which allows PPLs to instruct. It’s really intended for flying clubs. They are not permitted to send a student solo. At club level I am not even sure that they have to be supervised by a higher grade. Someone more familiar with that system could comment?
Because there is no military equivalent, no RAF rating is recognised by CAA for this, even if a QFI elects to only hold a civilian PPL
A RAF QFI who converts to a CPL or ATPL can also get an instructor rating, subject to flight test. Privileges of that rating are dependent upon what said QFI did while in the service; e.g. to be able to send students solo, must have already done certain minimum number.
CASA’s approach is very similar, though in the past may have been inconsistent. No surprises there!

[junior.VH-LFA]

This (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_Force_Basic_Flying_Training_School) shows that ab initio training for all ADF pilots was conducted by the BFTS at Tamworth from 1999-2019. They had (the AAT found) a minimum of 200 hours by the time they came to 2FTS and were instructed by that Pilot. .

I don't know where 200 hours has been plucked from. That isn't remotely close to accurate.

The ADF BFTS course was 60 hours - it isn't even close to a CPL standard. It's not ab-initio but they're definitely not winged qualified pilots. When it comes to things live navigation a PPL standard was substantially higher than what students had leaving BFTS. For this reason compleition of BFTS but not 2FTS did not entitle students to a PPL, let alone a CPL.

[Aussie Bob]

The adage does not work.

I never said it did, I simply said it bears thinking about. 🤔 You don't get to be a retiring ADF pilot without being exceptional. You don't need to be exceptional to instruct, you simply need the attributes you eloquently outlined.

[Chronic Snoozer]

This (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_Force_Basic_Flying_Training_School) shows that ab initio training for all ADF pilots was conducted by the BFTS at Tamworth from 1999-2019. They had (the AAT found) a minimum of 200 hours by the time they came to 2FTS and were instructed by that Pilot.

200 hours is what a graduate would have at the end of the course. It is unclear how the AAT came to this figure. The decision doesn't state when the applicant taught at 2FTS, the reader has to presume it was after 1999. C. R. Havoc says he has ab initio time but it needs verification.

I think we’ve found the crux of the issue.

This was elucidated on page 1 of this thread as was the link to the decision.

The subject pilot did have experience in some areas, which is why the majority of the endorsements he requested were granted. But for those specific areas which he lacked the specific experience they were not granted by CASA and this was confirmed by the AAT. ....For every other endorsement he wanted he got it because he demonstrated he had the equivalent military experience to gain that endorsement.

CASA states in their evidence -

"CASR 61.285 provides for recognition of equivalent flight crew qualifications, not equivalent qualifying experience. It does not matter how experienced the Applicant is; if he has not received an equivalent flight crew qualification to the endorsements that he is now seeking, then he is not entitled to the endorsement under CASR 61.285."

Then there is the matter of relevant aeronautical experience in 61.285(c)

Although the CASA FCL goes some way to establishing 'at least equivalent' qualifications, it seems to stop at graduation from FIC. There doesn't seem to be any recognition of QFI categories.

[dr dre]

The ADF BFTS course was 60 hours - it isn't even close to a CPL standard. It's not ab-initio but they're definitely not winged qualified pilots. When it comes to things live navigation a PPL standard was substantially higher than what students had leaving BFTS. For this reason compleition of BFTS but not 2FTS did not entitle students to a PPL, let alone a CPL.

But it’s hardly “ab initio” (from the beginning). Students are sent solo, and are trained to a standard (stats (https://raafsca.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/improving-opportunities-for-women-to-become-fast-jet-pilots-in-the-raaf.pdf#page67) show a rough 20% failure rate at BFTS) in things like aerobatics, IF, VFR Nav and night flying. To a point the CASA and the AAT are satisfied the student pilots in question were too advanced to be considered “ab initio” (which would’ve been training up to RPL standard or GFPT as it was known in the day).

[junior.VH-LFA]

But it’s hardly “ab initio” (from the beginning). Students are sent solo, and are trained to a standard (stats (https://raafsca.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/improving-opportunities-for-women-to-become-fast-jet-pilots-in-the-raaf.pdf#page67) show a rough 20% failure rate at BFTS) in things like aerobatics, IF, VFR Nav and night flying. To a point the CASA and the AAT are satisfied the student pilots in question were too advanced to be considered “ab initio” (which would’ve been training up to RPL standard or GFPT as it was known in the day).

I literally said it wasn't ab initio in my original comment - you even quoted it.

What isn't accurate is to suggest (not you, the AAT) that every student taught by the applicant had 200 hours - that isn't correct.

[dr dre]

I literally said it wasn't ab initio in my original comment - you even quoted it.

What isn't accurate is to suggest (not you, the AAT) that every student taught by the applicant had 200 hours - that isn't correct.

Ok. Just trying to state where the AAT and CASA may have gotten their reasoning from.

[Clare Prop]

"Ab intio" is no longer used, it is "initial flight training" ie “initial flight training means a dual flight conducted for training in the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the grant of a recreational pilot license”

For the n'th time those are not the same units of competency that are used in the military therefore he does not have the required aeronuatical experience because he was not teaching or assessing those competencies relevant to that MOS or licence.

[43Inches]

Maybe the RAAF should gather up all the Act, MOS, AIP, CAAPs, SUP/AIC, ASICs, AVIDs, and whatever else CASA has burdened us with and drop it on our enemies. Whoever the initial drop of 100 megatons of sheer bureaucratic tripe does not kill with blunt trauma will be demoralized as soon as they open up and read the absolute bull**** contained within. There will be no more will to fight, almost immediate surrender, and they will never bother us again out of pity for what we have to endure from our own leaders.

Ok. Just trying to state where the AAT and CASA may have gotten their reasoning from.

CASA didn't reason anything, they applied the regulations of equivalence, which in their own terms has to be exactly the same as what you are seeking, but with another name. The AAT just confirmed that CASA applied the law appropriately, and that there was no bias or mis-understanding.

I mean seriously the way people are treating this then RAAF pilots should not get any civilian qualifications, seriously, he was flying an F18, hawks, pc-9s, never flown the likes of a single engine piston aircraft, so he should be prevented from flying a Cessna 152 or a piper warrior. It seems this would be too difficult for an ex RAAF QFI. What if his whole plan is to operate a school specializing in fast jets?

PS, I know he may have flown a CT-4 at some stage, but the new breed of RAAF pilots will never have touched a piston single, let alone taught in one.

[Aussie Bob]

For the n'th time those are not the same units of competency that are used in the military therefore he does not have the required aeronuatical experience because he was not teaching or assessing those competencies relevant to that MOS or licence.

Come on Clare, I normally have a lot of time for your posts but the MOS? Really? I train under a Part 41 approval and use the CASA syllabus that directly relate to the MOS. I could train a student solely using the old "Flight Instructors Manual" issued by the then DCA and the end result would be a pilot with the same skills as someone trained under the MOS "tick-a-box" crap paper we use today.

If the MOS is good for anything, it is a precise guide for an instructor to use, so painfully spelled out that any ex military instructor would be able to understand and follow it. Everything is spelled out in the CASA syllabus, with a direct reference and anyone who understands curriculum can follow it.

Maybe the RAAF should gather up all the Act, MOS, AIP, CAAPs, SUP/AIC, ASICs, AVIDs, and whatever else CASA has burdened us with and drop it on our enemies. Whoever the initial drop of 100 megatons of sheer bureaucratic tripe does not kill with blunt trauma will be demoralized as soon as they open up and read the absolute bull**** contained within. There will be no more will to fight, almost immediate surrender, and they will never bother us again out of pity for what we have to endure from our own leaders.

Pure Gold!!!!!

[Clare Prop]

Just saying that is the definition, and presumably what the AAT meant when they said that his qualifications weren't equivalent, because he had not been teaching the units of competency as detailed in the Part 61 MOS.

The MOS details what the outcomes need to be to demonstrate competence and what the examiner is testing, not how to teach it. That is the purpose of the syllabus which will be in the ops manual of the part 141 or 142 organisation. The CASA Day VFR Syallabus went out in 2014. The curriculum is what courses you teach. All different things/

All the student training records have to refer to the MOS. What we teach is pretty much the same, it is how it is recorded that has changed, remembering that we all need that evidence if the worst should happen and we have to prove in a court of law that we covered everything, the old subjective "little Johnny did some quite good landings today" just won't cut it. Nor will instructing in the ADF.

[dr dre]

I mean seriously the way people are treating this then RAAF pilots should not get any civilian qualifications, seriously, he was flying an F18, hawks, pc-9s, never flown the likes of a single engine piston aircraft, so he should be prevented from flying a Cessna 152 or a piper warrior. It seems this would be too difficult for an ex RAAF QFI. What if his whole plan is to operate a school specializing in fast jets?


There’s a lot of straw-manning there; no one said he should be completely prevented from flying a 152 or a Warrior? He was granted a a grade 3 FIR based on his military qualifications so he’s legally allowed to train in them. F-18s, Hawks, PC-9s are irrelevant when he wanted training approval for multi engine (real ME aircraft that produce yaw) and multi crew co-operation despite not holding those training approvals in the RAAF. He was granted an FIR endorsement for Aerobatics training because CASA found he had the equivalent in the RAAF.

He hasn’t been prevented from doing most forms of civilian training, he just needs to get a bit of experience and specific endorsements in those few remaining categories to get those added to his civilian licence. That’s it. He’s not being told to start flight training again from Effects of Controls.

[Lead Balloon]

Surely they didn’t let him loose with a G3? Oh the humanity…

And his ability to fly a 172 safely was questioned earlier in this thread, IMMSMC.

[Aussie Bob]

Thanks Clare, but there is one thing:

That is the purpose of the syllabus which will be in the ops manual of the part 141 or 142 organisation.

The Part 141 operation I work for has no syllabus in their ops manual. The cops manual was written by CASA and it points to the CASA syllabus which is downloaded and printed prior to each lesson. In reality the download remains on the office computer. CASA tell us (verbally) that we need to make sure that the same version Is used and student files should not contain copies of multiple versions.This syllabus (surely you have seen it) is convoluted repetitive and very time consuming prompting "tick (number) a box and move on. The student signs each lesson as having been completed when the instructor deems the lesson complete.

if the worst should happen and we have to prove in a court of law that we covered everything, the old subjective "little Johnny did some quite good landings today" just won't cut it. Nor will instructing in the ADF.

I don't normally comment on things jurisdictional but I can't help but wonder if little Johnny's signature in a box on the CASA syllabus would cut it either.

[josephfeatherweight]

I don't know where 200 hours has been plucked from. That isn't remotely close to accurate.

The ADF BFTS course was 60 hours - it isn't even close to a CPL standard. It's not ab-initio but they're definitely not winged qualified pilots. When it comes to things live navigation a PPL standard was substantially higher than what students had leaving BFTS. For this reason compleition of BFTS but not 2FTS did not entitle students to a PPL, let alone a CPL.

The ADF BFTS course was eventually 60 hours, but only in its latter years of existence.
My ADF BFTS course was significantly fatter - I have 137 hours on the CT4 - that would include about 20 hours of Flight Screening and about 3 hours of remedial training - so it was definitely over 100 hours for ADF1/2/3/4 or so...
I already had a CPL - I certainly believe ADF BFTS was CPL level when I did it.

[43Inches]

I always loved the part about CBT, where the student signs that they have received all the training required, and that they agree with what the instructor recorded. Because, of course, a new 'initial flight training' trainee is fully qualified to understand the waffle presented to them and understands completely that the instructor did not omit or miss anything important.

It really just sums up what CASA is trying (very poorly) to achieve, and that is some sort of watertight punitive system that makes it easy to prosecute anyone who breaks a rule. However the major failure is that it is so complicated that the average human would never be able to determine exactly what the rules are as they contradict on numerous occasions.

[Clare Prop]

I think you are referring to their dreadful sample syllabi, which note still point to the Part 61 MOS for recording the competency standards.
Sample syllabuses for flying training operators | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/resources-and-education/publications-and-resources/industry-guides-and-publications/sample-syllabuses-flying-training-operators#Contentsofsamplesyllabuses)
A very different thing to the former Day VFR Syllabus.

CASA provide guidance and templates, which are mostly horrible things to use, but they don't write them for you.
We have a completely different system in our 141 manual which is much easier to use. If feel sorry for people who use the CASA templates because you are right they are horrible clunky things. Any school can modify them, providing you can show CASA that you have a way of achieving and recording the required competency standards.

Edited to add for 43", all our students get a hard copy of the MOS and it forms an essential part of the pre flight and debrief and it referred to so they know exactly what we mean by, for example, competency 2 in straight and level and why it is that level; so yes they do know what they are signing and what they need to prepare for, they also get to read the Flight Examiners Handbook prior to flight test, so there are no surprises and the onus is also on them to be sure that they are familiar with it all and can assess thier own progress.

[43Inches]

I think you are referring to their dreadful sample syllabi, which note still point to the Part 61 MOS for recording the competency standards.
Sample syllabuses for flying training operators | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/resources-and-education/publications-and-resources/industry-guides-and-publications/sample-syllabuses-flying-training-operators#Contentsofsamplesyllabuses)
A very different thing to the former Day VFR Syllabus.

CASA provide guidance and templates, which are mostly horrible things to use, but they don't write them for you.
We have a completely different system in our 141 manual which is much easier to use. If feel sorry for people who use the CASA templates because you are right they are horrible clunky things. Any school can modify them, providing you can show CASA that you have a way of achieving and recording the required competency standards.

Edited to add for 43", all our students get a hard copy of the MOS and it forms an essential part of the pre flight and debrief and it referred to so they know exactly what we mean by, for example, competency 2 in straight and level and why it is that level; so yes they do know what they are signing and what they need to prepare for, they also get to read the Flight Examiners Handbook prior to flight test, so there are no surprises and the onus is also on them to be sure that they are familiar with it all and can assess thier own progress.

Pretty sure it would get treated in court as TLDR, the same as any contract of sale that is the same. Any contract thats more than a few pages long and its considered too long for an average human to comprehend. Unless you specifically explained each item explicitly. "Sir they gave me a heap of books, but never told me how to read them, its all in weird jargon".

[Capn Rex Havoc]

DRE
​​​​​​For one of the endorsements he sought, the FIR-MCP for multi crew training an airline TRI/TRE would have far more relevant experience of training in multi crew operations on aircraft that actually require 2 pilots over a RAAF QFI, yet I don’t believe they are granted the endorsement to train for the Multi crew co-operation course with their TRI/TRE qualification (happy to be corrected if wrong).

Two issues here.
1. I have never commented on any other aspect of his submissions, just the Grade 1 certification.

2. All RAAF QFIs in the transport world, did the CFS instructor course, and usually (but not always time at 1FTS or 2 FTS) before returning to their squadron to do training on that platform, eg Hercs, Caribous, 707s etc.

I don't know what you are smoking, but I simply don't understand this pre occupation of yours to think that a civilian airline TRI could or should train in the RAAF world.

To become a TRI in the civilian airlines you have to be a line pilot, keep out of **** with management, maybe do an interview for the job, then do a bit of sim training then you are let loose.
I am all for your TRIs teaching in the RAAF, just let them pass a wings pilots course first, then pass CFS QFIs course.

​​​​​​​

[Mr Mossberg]

Trying to claim MEAI, with asymmetric experience in an FA18.

mmm, think I might claim an A330 type rating with experience in the BE76.

Just to make a point of course.

[Lead Balloon]

Nope, would have needed to do a flight test first. To get an instrument or instructor rating based off ADF conversion requires an initial flight test for that rating.Are you saying he wasn’t granted G3?

The AAT said this at para 5 of its reasons:Prior to the commencement of the hearing, CASA conceded that a number of the authorisations sought by the Applicant should be granted and the Applicant advised that he no longer pursued certain authorisations.What were the authorisations granted to Clarke by CASA?

[PiperCameron]

Trying to claim MEAI, with asymmetric experience in an FA18.

mmm, think I might claim an A330 type rating with experience in the BE76.

Just to make a point of course.

And a CT-4 vs C152 comparison would be more like V8 Supercar vs Kia Rio - both have piston engines and 4 wheels, but are designed for completely different purposes and, for that reason, are completely different to drive (in many ways the CT-4 is easier). Chalk and cheese. Just to make a point of course.

[dr dre]

I don't know what you are smoking, but I simply don't understand this pre occupation of yours to think that a civilian airline TRI could or should train in the RAAF world.

No, what I said was civilian TRIs have experience in teaching and training that could be transferred to the civilian ab-initio arena in some fashion - but this still shouldn’t grant them any type of Flight Instructor Rating straight up without having to meet all the CASA competencies to gain that instructor rating.

Could an airline TRI do the type rating training for an equivalent RAAF 330, 737 or Falcon 7X pilot? Yes, in fact a lot of current RAAF pilots were trained and do their checks in civilian airline C&T systems.

To become a TRI in the civilian airlines you have to be a line pilot, keep out of **** with management, maybe do an interview for the job, then do a bit of sim training then you are let loose.

It’s a bit more than that. Relevant experience, standards, knowledge and instruction for the position. But trained especially for that role, and not granted automatic privileges in other forms of training based on status, unlike what the subject pilot was seeking. Airline training now is heavily geared toward the HF and CRM aspects of Multi Crew training and an airline TRI most definitely would have the experience of guiding and assessing the development of multi crew skills more so than a military instructor who hasn’t trained in multi crew ops, yet even they are not granted an FIR-MCP privilege (I believe) automatically.

I am all for your TRIs teaching in the RAAF, just let them pass a wings pilots course first, then pass CFS QFIs course.


Like I said you may want to do your research better as plenty of civilian TRIs are teaching RAAF pilots how to fly equivalent types. Civilian TRIs who’ve never set foot on a RAAF base or had any desire to wear a blue uniform.

[Clare Prop]

Pretty sure it would get treated in court as TLDR, the same as any contract of sale that is the same. Any contract thats more than a few pages long and its considered too long for an average human to comprehend. Unless you specifically explained each item explicitly. "Sir they gave me a heap of books, but never told me how to read them, its all in weird jargon".

There are 44 pages of the MOS that are relevant to Day VFR PPL and CPL standards for the flying, non technical skills, English Language and airspace operations units. Just 44 with double spaced text.

Taking the Little Johnny example, if neither he nor the instructor are aware that this is what is actually meant by "competent in land aeroplane" ie when he can consistently do all of the things in this unit then you are right the student records become meaningless and belive me I get some meaningless tick.n.flick student records forwarded to me often and wonder what on earth the HOOs are doing.

So on pre flight brief say "this is what you will need to be able to demonstrate to me and to the examiner to be deemed competent" then everyone knows what is expected.

So if LJ lands well but is consistently outside the +/- 2m of the centreline, or slams on the brakes, or forgets to put his flaps up before taxi, he will not be competency 1 and the record should match the debrief in explaining why so that he knows what to work on next time.

It's a worry that there are instructors who are unaware of this. eg when a certain school churns out another lot and they come knocking on my door with their halloween pilot costume and resume, I ask how they would deem someone competent in say recovery from unusual attitudes and get the blank stare and then the most annoying phrase an examiner gets: "My instructor told me..." ie they have had the subjective method of instructing that doesn't belong in modern training systems and it's a disgrace that flying schools are still churning out new instructors this way.

I don't consider this example weird jargon or too difficult for an average human to comprehend. A flying instructor and student should certainly be able to comprehend it or they really have no place in the flying training industry.



https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x371/mos61_12b65e66f64f57b013ce864ba87b51900f4859f1.jpg

[PiperCameron]

It's a worry that there are instructors who are unaware of this. eg when a certain school churns out another lot and they come knocking on my door with their halloween pilot costume and resume, I ask how they would deem someone competent in say recovery from unusual attitudes and get the blank stare and then the most annoying phrase an examiner gets: "My instructor told me..." ie they have had the subjective method of instructing that doesn't belong in modern training systems and it's a disgrace that flying schools are still churning out new instructors this way.

It's not always the Instructors fault: it seems many kids these day (millennials) coming through our broken school system are being taught by rote / multiple choice, rather than how to rationally think for themselves. Hence the "My instructor told me..." response. It's a disgrace for sure, then made worse by ex-Airline "instructors" (with lots of experience, sure, but not a teaching bone in their body) who are so scared of what these rote-learnt students will do, they insist on flying the plane for the student rather than setting some boundaries for the student to work within... because that's not what is written down in the manual!

Within flying schools at least, common sense is becoming less common. And mountains of CASA regs and requirements isn't helping.

[43Inches]

I wasn't commenting on whether instructors would know this stuff, rather aspiring PPLs will not give a stuff about it and just want to learn how to fly, 44 pages is a decent read for anyone that's not very academic in nature. If one of them came to grief post training, or during training the court system will not really care for the signed documents as the trainer can not put the onus on a trainee to learn something that they have contracted the trainer to teach them, ie you have not signed up for a self education course when learning to fly. In almost all situations, it's the trainer and checkers responsibility to ensure the standard is met, both in training and on check day. Where it gets tricky is when a student comes to grief and is seriously injured or dies and the family sues the flight school for compensation, at this point it will be scrutinized as to whether the student was competent to be conducting that solo exercise, signed documents will only go so far, but will provide some insight into the schools process. Now in the states some public cases have gone through where student pilots have tried to sue the instructor for damages post an accident. Usually the court will rule on the outcome of the accident, that is, if they successfully employed some technique or procedure and survived the trainer/checker are absolved.

The purpose of signed documents in flight training is more that the student has read and accepts the outcome of the particular lesson. Then if it's disputed later if the student over runs hours the school can go back and say, 'on several occasions you were told you needed to improve xxxx, and you put in little effort, so your progression was hampered by your own attitude'. If you went back and all the documents showed progress with no notes as to why sequences were repeated, you could be in for some refunds...

Taking the Little Johnny example, if neither he nor the instructor are aware that this is what is actually meant by "competent in land aeroplane" ie when he can consistently do all of the things in this unit then you are right the student records become meaningless and belive me I get some meaningless tick.n.flick student records forwarded to me often and wonder what on earth the HOOs are doing.

Performance criteria for a sequence should be briefed prior to the flight, hence the old Aim/Objectives of a mass/pre-flight brief. It should be clearly spelled out at that point and discussed as to what you are trying to achieve and to what standard is required to pass. This should be covered for all sequences of training. If instructors are not adequately briefing students pre-flight then I can understand now why average solo times are ballooning to 10-20 hours.

I agree that a student should have access to the MOS, and standards by which they will be assessed, but this does not mean the onus is passed from the instructor to the student somehow being able to interpret these documents. And most importantly the MOS does not give an instructor the techniques to be applied, just what are the units to assess competency.

[EXDAC]

I don't expect to ever fly in Australia and certainly do not expect to ever instruct there. However, I have found the discussion quite interesting. The most recently posted gem leaves me wondering about the competence of those who write Australian rules and procedures:

"(a) Maintain a constant landing position aim point"

I have taught aim point technique to primary students and introduced the concept to rated pilots who have never heard of it.

Fundamental to aim point technique is that the aim point is NOT the landing position. Unless there is no flare the aircraft will always land past the aim point. The aim point must be selected making allowance for the flare if the touchdown is to be at the intended spot.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

DRE-
Like I said you may want to do your research better as plenty of civilian TRIs are teaching RAAF pilots how to fly equivalent types.

Can you please name one? and which base? and just to confirm, these civilian TRIs were not ex RAAF?

[43Inches]

I don't expect to ever fly in Australia and certainly do not expect to ever instruct there. However, I have found the discussion quite interesting. The most recently posted gem leaves me wondering about the competence of those who write Australian rules and procedures:

"(a) Maintain a constant landing position aim point"

I have taught aim point technique to primary students and introduced the concept to rated pilots who have never heard of it.

Fundamental to aim point technique is that the aim point is NOT the landing position. Unless there is no flare the aircraft will always land past the aim point. The aim point must be selected making allowance for the flare if the touchdown is to be at the intended spot.

My point on how the Australian rules are over prescriptive and miss the mark by a wide margin in some cases. An individual has written a lot of the MOS and supporting documents and unfortunately especially in the early stages put in personal preferences instead of leaving it with a wider application margin.

[Clare Prop]

Absolutely right 43" on post 323, and all the more reason why they need to know what the standard is. We refer to the units of competency pre and post flight when debriefing so we all know exactly what is expected and what they are signing. I'm university educated so I tend to reference everything, we both know how much hearsay and old wives tales abound in this industry and I am absolutely a pedant.
It's really not too much to expect them to do a bit of homework and have some curiosity and interest in their own progress, or to say "I would like to do a bit more work on my steep turns" etc. It's a two way street in adult education. But the signed document is evidence in the worst case scenario if they say eg "You never taught LJ how to do a missed approach"! you do have some comeback.

How often has that happened? AFAIK never, in Australia but the MOS is the book they will throw at you if it does.
There was this case in Scotland in 2002, which makes interesting reading, including how the family tried to apply shariah law in a Scottish court.... MOHAMMED ALI SHAHER AND OTHERS v. BRITISH AEROSPACE FLYING COLLEGE LIMITED (scotcourts.gov.uk) (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=1fd486a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7)

and the Pprune thread at the time UK Court finds Instructor negligent in fatal training accident. - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/69677-uk-court-finds-instructor-negligent-fatal-training-accident.html)

[43Inches]

I think we're more or less on the same page, just some semantics getting in the way.

[Clare Prop]

Yep!

Re post 326. the old Day VFR syllabus was a collaborative effort of many CFIs, I was one of them; and the MOS is taken mostly from there, not written by an individual.

It's far from perfect as you would expect when a bunch of CFIs try to agree on what is a good landing, but as I said that is the book they will throw at you so you just have to learn to work with it and if you think it needs improving then talk to your local CASA person, good luck with that!

It isn't set in concrete as seen with the recent change of the unit "Recover from incipient spin" to "avoid spin" and there was consultation on that.

[43Inches]

Yep!

Re post 326. the old Day VFR syllabus was a collaborative effort of many CFIs and the MOS is taken mostly from there, not written by an individual.

It's far from perfect as you would expect when a bunch of CFIs try to agree on what is a good landing, but as I said that is the book they will throw at you so you just have to learn to work with it and if you think it needs improving then talk to your local CASA person, good luck with that!

I was there and was quite happy to transition to CBT at the start, however several things always irked me about how it was used. Especially the day VFR syllabus being used as a training guide, where instructors were substituting good technique for just achieving a tolerance. When the correct technique should be taught and practiced/refined until the tolerances are met. There was a lot of talk about meeting tolerances, and little discussion about what was wrong with the technique, which prior to the CBT you would assess 'safe' as meaning they showed all the attributes of somebody with solid technique and application.

One flying school I worked with would not assess early lessons, as they wanted to promote that technique was key, not trying to meet a standard that was not required until later.

This always came up when an instructor was new to sending solos, 'how do I know they are ready?'. Hang on, you have been filling out their training records, everything says 3s or whatever, so are they not ready to go? That's when you fly with the student and find out that somebodies interpretation of a 3 might be your 2 or 1. You get into airlines where some checkers won't give you above a 4 unless they have seen you over several sims consistently do the impossible, others will give you a 5 straight away. So it really all just comes back to the same S/N from previous years, except now you get a nice graph that you can manipulate up or down depending on whether you like the person or not.

[swh]

Are you saying he wasn’t granted G3?

The AAT said this at para 5 of its reasons:What were the authorisations granted to Clarke by CASA?

They get a letter saying they held the equivalent of a Grade 3 or Grade 2 depending on the type f QFI they are and where they were posted. They don’t need to do any of the ground components, just a flight test, essentially treated like a renewal. Explained on the flight test form https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/form61-2adf.pdf

From what I remember, the applicant had not been posted as a QFI for around 15 years at the time the application had been made.

Instrument rating, they need to have do the CASA theory exam, plus a flight test.

ATPL, need to do all of the CASA ATPL exams.

[AerialPerspective]

So a Professor of Mathematics is not allowed to teach Primary school kids math? This is probably why Australia has terrible literacy rates, of course CASA (and our education department) would have them teach Art class while a graduate who didn't even do math at high school teaches math subjects to kids. I agree some highly educated people can be poor teachers because of personality traits, but that goes for those with low education as well. Pretty sure somebody that has a deeper understanding of a subject that also has the traits to be a good teacher is better than somebody who has very basic understanding of something....

If they are seeking RPL for the relevant experience so that they do not have to do the hours required in GA aircraft, or PMI course, I can't understand why not. That is if they still have to pass the test itself. If they are trying to get out of the test itself, I can see an issue and hurdle they will never get over.

Let them do the test, if they have what it takes they pass, done, move on and teach. Having a wide base of experience in GA is exactly what GA needs. CASA seems to prefer a method where toddlers are teaching babies to play concert piano...

For goodness sake, it's "maths". What are you, American?

[43Inches]

For goodness sake, it's "maths". What are you, American?

What part of America would you have me from, North, South or Central?

Also how long have you been stewing over an 's'? I think we mayhave found who writes Australian air law....

[finestkind]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x371/mos61_12b65e66f64f57b013ce864ba87b51900f4859f1.jpg
Always love the bureaucratic written stuff. I know students will but, if no balloon during flare how do you judge their ability to control. Same applies to bounce.

[Mach E Avelli]

Always love the bureaucratic written stuff. I know students will but, if no balloon during flare how do you judge their ability to control. Same applies to bounce.
Depends on how one interprets the MOS. If the student does not balloon or bounce, they have controlled it.
If the MOS wanted a demo of the ability to recover, the wording would be “ recover from….”
Inducing a balloon or bounce would be negative training at that stage of a PPL syllabus. Instructors must demonstrate ability to talk a student through these situations, as well as take control when necessary. Knowing how far to let a student go is in itself a bit subjective.
But I do admit that the MOS could be better worded. “Does not balloon or bounce” is surely what is intended?

[Mr Mossberg]

Clare, any chance you'd have an old copy of the Day VFR syllabus? For the life of me I can't remember the format it was in. I do remember it being not to hard to read or digest.

[43Inches]

But I do admit that the MOS could be better worded. “Does not balloon or bounce” is surely what is intended?

There's no problem with a minor balloon or bounce if it's corrected. The wording does insinuate that it should be checked. It should be written as "any ballooning controlled and corrected as required", that would then imply that only if a balloon occurred then the candidate should deal with it in an appropriate manner. In a few schools I've worked at students are not taught to "control" a balloon or bounce, just told to go-round from the situation. Again the MOS being written by someone with experience in traditional trainers, Cessna and Pipers, where this would be normal. Hence why I don't like over prescriptive rules, as eventually they delve into 'type specific' issues that make it hard to comply with. I remember some instructors with significant hours that did not understand 'landing attitude' because they were used to basically stalling their Piper or Cessna onto the ground. This then gets them into trouble with aircraft that tail strike at high nose attitude, which is more common in light aircraft these days.

I'd be more in favor that these excursions be treated with a go-round, as once you start playing with power to soften the next landing you are now going to land well beyond your intended landing point, nullifying your landing distance calculations, that is, you are more likely to over-run the strip. Easier to go-round and come back for another go.

[Clare Prop]

Clare, any chance you'd have an old copy of the Day VFR syllabus? For the life of me I can't remember the format it was in. I do remember it being not to hard to read or digest.

Day VFR Syllabus (Aeroplanes) (casa.gov.au) (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/syllabus-day-vfr-aeroplane.pdf)

If you download Schedule 2 Part 61 Manual of Standards Instrument 2014 (legislation.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021C00449/Download) the relevant pages for comparison are 77, 80-104 and 106-126

The MOS schedule 3 also includes the requirements for the aeronautical knowledge which they need to know what to study, standard learning objectives for any course and referenced in the Knowledge Deficiency Reports. All covered in the ATC and Bob Tait texts.

[Clare Prop]

There's no problem with a minor balloon or bounce if it's corrected. The wording does insinuate that it should be checked. It should be written as "any ballooning controlled and corrected as required", that would then imply that only if a balloon occurred then the candidate should deal with it in an appropriate manner. In a few schools I've worked at students are not taught to "control" a balloon or bounce, just told to go-round from the situation. Again the MOS being written by someone with experience in traditional trainers, Cessna and Pipers, where this would be normal. Hence why I don't like over prescriptive rules, as eventually they delve into 'type specific' issues that make it hard to comply with. I remember some instructors with significant hours that did not understand 'landing attitude' because they were used to basically stalling their Piper or Cessna onto the ground. This then gets them into trouble with aircraft that tail strike at high nose attitude, which is more common in light aircraft these days.

I'd be more in favor that these excursions be treated with a go-round, as once you start playing with power to soften the next landing you are now going to land well beyond your intended landing point, nullifying your landing distance calculations, that is, you are more likely to over-run the strip. Easier to go-round and come back for another go.

I tell my students that the word "Perfect" does not appear in any of the documents. The idea is that they apply the non-technical skills to those situations and make the right decision as to whether to go around or try to recover from the bounce, rather than using the "my instructor told me I should always go around" method; well good luck with that in the event of a glide.
On that note of bouncing, agreed, the aeroplane bounces because it has too much energy. Adding some power but not enough for a go around isn't going to improve that situation, makes a runway excursion more likely and wouldn't be available in the event of a glide anyway. They need to be able to preferably prevent it but if it does happen, to control it without the use of power. Plus they might have bent to undercarriage or hit the prop and could have an unexpected outcome in the climb out or the next landing which is potentially much worse. But again by first solo they should be have the skills to make that decision for themselves.

[43Inches]

I tell my students that the word "Perfect" does not appear in any of the documents. The idea is that they apply the non-technical skills to those situations and make the right decision as to whether to go around or try to recover from the bounce, rather than using the "my instructor told me I should always go around" method; well good luck with that in the event of a glide.
On that note of bouncing, agreed, the aeroplane bounces because it has too much energy. Adding some power but not enough for a go around isn't going to improve that situation, makes a runway excursion more likely and wouldn't be available in the event of a glide anyway. They need to be able to preferably prevent it but if it does happen, to control it without the use of power. Plus they might have bent to undercarriage or hit the prop and could have an unexpected outcome in the climb out or the next landing which is potentially much worse. But again by first solo they should be have the skills to make that decision for themselves.

I think the terminology could be better worded. The syllabus talks about correcting balloons or bounces with attitude only, which is really saying that the excursion is very minor, that is, you are not really ballooning, just transitioning too high, or not really bouncing, just skipping a bit, so don't over react and push forward onto the nose wheel. A balloon to me is to gain significant height after flaring, usually a result of excessive speed and over reacting on the controls. You get to a certain size of aircraft and they won't bounce anymore, things just break instead.

The issue with both the bounce and balloon at those flying schools was that mishandled it would inevitably end up in a tail strike or prop strike, the aircraft involved were very unforgiving in that respect. So going round was a far safer option to practice, glide approach, the aircrafts already in bad shape if the engine failed, so if the landings a bit lumpier who cares.

[RichardJones]

Some good and informative posts on this thread.
When I was instructing, I remember there was a window of opportunity to get them solo before they, sought of lost interest. It can be left a little late. This of course if the student has had the same instructor up to solo, helps. I am talking over 50 years ago. Things have changed since then of course. Certainly no box ticking. K.I.S! Keep it simple.
I've had one or two solo at 5 hours.T.T. You know when they are ready. Depends also of course on traffic etc. I instructed mainly at nocontrolled quiet airfields.
On the other hand, if I went though a studends log book and saw he or she had done steep turns for example pre solo, then I know they have had a good instructor.
I didn't solo until I had 10 hours.

[EXDAC]

Does this august group of instructors really believe that a bounce only results from having too much energy?

The case where a pilot flares too high and fails to check descent rate with power will quite likely result in a bounce. The problem here is far too little energy. Maybe it's not seen much with the "drive it on" landings that seem to be taught these days. You will see a few if you teach tailwheel 3 point landings.

[RichardJones]

Like this? The only thing the pilot got right on this one, was to go around. The cross wind skills aren't there anymore.

https://youtube.com/shorts/WmwWNPy8Y1Y?si=4Ktf0cfzIYQ6P-3J
Here is another

https://www.facebook.com/reel/245688734908158?s=yWDuG2&fs=e illustration of deteriorating handling skills.

I spoke to a management pilot of a major carrier in Eurooe about 20 years ago. He said and I quote, "flying skills are well down the list of priorities in this company"

[Clare Prop]

Does this august group of instructors really believe that a bounce only results from having too much energy?

The case where a pilot flares too high and fails to check descent rate with power will quite likely result in a bounce. The problem here is far too little energy. Maybe it's not seen much with the "drive it on" landings that seem to be taught these days. You will see a few if you teach tailwheel 3 point landings.
A bounce is due to potential energy.
How would you teach a glider pilot to recover from flaring too high?
Better to train them where to focus so as not to flare too high in the first place.

[EXDAC]

A bounce is due to potential energy.
How would you teach a glider pilot to recover from flaring too high?
Better to train them where to focus so as not to flare too high in the first place.

The energy of a landing aircraft is the sum if its potential and kinetic energy. A bounce is caused by high sink rate which can happen with the total energy both high, low, and nominal. To say that all bounces are caused by excessive energy is nonsense.

I have taught quite a few glider pilots to land. I was a glider instructor long before I was an airplane instructor. The immediate response to flaring too high in a glider is to close the airbrakes and lower the nose. If the student does not respond immediately to verbal instruction the instructor must take over. I assume you have lots of gider time and would know this.

[Clare Prop]

So we are saying pretty much the same thing. I am not a glider instructor but I do teach my students that they need to be able to recover without taking power for granted (I also encourage them to go and do some glider flying to reinforce this) and an aircraft has quite a bit of potential energy in its undercarriage that will contribute to the total in a bounce. The amount of pilots who come for flight reviews who seem to have no idea what the pedals are for could lose pitch and directional control with the application of power and lead to a runway excursion and/or wingtip strike. So IMO best to leave it alone unless you commit to a go-around. I'm talking about small singles, pre solo stuff.

[43Inches]

The A320 above was not a bounce as such, the pilot over reacted to the high sink rate and yanked back, the aircraft touched down in the process of the transition to the new flight path, yes there was probably some amount of push off on the landing gear but the whole event was PIO at low level. The aircraft became airborne again because it had energy to fly, which most airlines will land well above stall speed, so a hard yank back will throw it back into the air. If you were to 'bounce' an airliner purely by it's impact with earth and the resultant push back by the landing gear then things are going to break. Light aircraft are much easier to bounce because of the light weight and springy undercarriage. PA-28s love a good bouncing sequence and about the 3rd or 4th time the nosewheel usually gives up and allows it to stop bouncing and slide to a stop. The simple recovery is to just hold appropriate backpressure, set an attitude, and resist the urge to force it nose down onto the ground.

That's where landing attitude awareness is important, as in a bounce or balloon you want to correct to the normal landing attitude. Then as long as you are not excessively fast or high the aircraft will settle onto the runway under control and in the right attitude, it may be firmer than you would have liked, but perfectly safe. In any case where this attitude and process would result in a large drop or landing too far down the runway, or lowering the nose will result in significant rate of descent, those are key indicators that a go-round is now the safer option.

[RichardJones]

What is glaringly obvious to me, is the lack of crosswind technique attempted. In fact there is none. The truth is, crosswind landing skills are sadly lacking. Probably because they haven't been taught. Not taught because there is no one with the skills to teach them.
Oh the boxes would have been ticked , you can guarantee that. For what? Attendance? The results are plain to see in both videos.
Sadly a lost art. Lost when they got rid of the conventenal U/C training A/C.

[Runaway Gun]

What is the Angle of Bank limit for the above aircraft, during landing?

[RichardJones]

What is the Angle of Bank limit for the above aircraft, during landing?

Put it this way. Any into wind angle of bank, while executing a crosswind landing, is preferable to any downwind angle of bank, during a. Crosswind landing, or any attempt there of.
If the correct procedure is adhered to, I.e., slipping into wind, (into wind wing down) the angle of bank should be within limits, up to max xwind limit for the aircraft type.
Down wind wing down, you're in trouble. That, is one recipe for a "pod" strike.

[swh]

What is the Angle of Bank limit for the above aircraft, during landing?

Pod strike will occur at 16 deg angle of bank with the gear compressed, or 18 degrees with the gear uncompressed.

The manufacturer recommends a wings level approach and landing with a maximum of 5 degrees of less of bank, and a maximum 5 degrees of crab for stronger crosswinds. They don’t recommend landing it like a C172 at high winds.

Light crosswinds can by flown with a GA side slip technique or the normal wings level technique.

[RichardJones]

Pod strike will occur at 16 deg angle of bank with the gear compressed, or 18 degrees with the gear uncompressed.

The manufacturer recommends a wings level approach and landing with a maximum of 5 degrees of less of bank, and a maximum 5 degrees of crab for stronger crosswinds. They don’t recommend landing it like a C172 at high winds.

Light crosswinds can by flown with a GA side slip technique or the normal wings level technique.

The basics are the same. Whether it be a 172 or a 747. Operated them both.

"When you can touch down, at max demonstrated crosswind for the aircraft type, on the centre line, the aircraft heading and track the same as the runway direction and maintain the above. Then you can land crosswind. This is what we aim to do right? Well if it can't be done, then it could be argued the handling pilot does not have full control of the aircraft. Or does he or she?"

[Lookleft]

I love a good thread drift. So the thread should be retitled to NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR AIRLINES?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

This thread has done its course, It has drifted so far off centreline, like an Airline pilot with 5 kts of crosswind. You might as well close it MODS.

[Mr Mossberg]

Who cares if it drifts? Like there's some sacrosanct unwritten rule? 'Thou shalt not thread drift'

And the old favourite 'You might as well close the thread mods'

[Lead Balloon]

The Voice turned me into a newt...

[lucille]

This thread has done its course, It has drifted so far off centreline, like an Airline pilot with 5 kts of crosswind. You might as well close it MODS.

Come now, surely the arcane and dark arts of flying a PA-28 must surely be of interest.

[Lookleft]

As well as thread drift there is poor spelling and mangled cliches. "Thou shalt not thread drift"

[PiperCameron]

Come now, surely the arcane and dark arts of flying a PA-28 must surely be of interest.

Ooo! Now you're talking.. :cool:​​​​​​​

Does the 1-in-60 rule apply to thread drift?

[Capn Bloggs]

Who cares if it drifts? Like there's some sacrosanct unwritten rule? 'Thou shalt on thread drift'
Seriously?
Who cares?? The people who look at the topic header, that's who. Annoying when one sees a topic, opens it and finds the latest posts are nothing to do with it.

(Pot, kettle, black I'll get my coat and see myself out! :{)

[Clare Prop]

Well...the topic is about transferring to instructing in GA so it hasn't drifted that far, really!

[Chronic Snoozer]

The Voice turned me into a newt...

I got better….



…unlike this thread.

[Mr Mossberg]

As well as thread drift there is poor spelling and mangled cliches. "Thou shalt not thread drift"

My grammar and spelling is impeccable, I don't mangle cliches, didn't spell check, simple. I apologise if I offended you.

​​​​​​​Who cares?? The people who look at the topic header, that's who. Annoying when one sees a topic, opens it and finds the latest posts are nothing to do with it.

Poor Bloggs wasted approximately one minute of his day. Thoughts are with you.

[Lead Balloon]

My grammar and spelling is impeccable…Is they?

[Mr Mossberg]

Is they?

;) :D

​​​​​​​My grammar and spelling is impeccable

Sarcasm alert.

And also a thread drift, can we get back on topic. MODS, please..................

[Clare Prop]

OK so back on thread, is "Clarkey" now working as a Grade 3?

[dr dre]

OK so back on thread, is "Clarkey" now working as a Grade 3?

I suspect he didn’t want the rules changed because of a desire to instruct students at G1 level at Bankstown or Moorabbin in a 172 or Warrior after skipping instructing at G3 and 2 levels.

[smallfry]

Surely, if he is as good as he thinks he is, all he has to do is sit the exams, fly the check rides and bingo, he has the ratings!.... should be a doddle.. Anyone as good as he is shouldn't have any issue at all jumping through the hoops.

[43Inches]

Surely, if he is as good as he thinks he is, all he has to do is sit the exams, fly the check rides and bingo, he has the ratings!.... should be a doddle.. Anyone as good as he is shouldn't have any issue at all jumping through the hoops.

I think the main issue is the time needed to get the experience required for the upgrades, not the check flight itself. If he doesn't hold the experience required for the RPL, then he has to gain it all before applying for a higher grade of FIR. Even if CASA grants a licence or rating you then have to pass a prof check done to at least the level you intend to use before you can wield the privileges. So even if CASA had granted the licences and ratings he would still have 'hoops' to jump through before exercising those privileges.

[421dog]

My closest friend is a 37 yr (69 y/o)
16000+ hr Ga trained flight instructor. He makes the majority of his living out of teaching poor performers from the local Division 1 university flight school how to fly.
My upper-level instructors all taught in WW2 or Korea. He’s kinda the same way.
Not a lot of fails with his students regardless of jerk Designated Examiners…
Flying in the military, and learning to fly an airplane are different. I suspect that the reason Colorado Springs is infested with 172s has something to do with this. (I further suspect that the reason that the USAF wrecks a few planes could be reduced by flying a trainer that will bite when stalled…)

[island_airphoto]

I gotta go with CASA. The USAF for a time had instructors that came off careers flying B-52s and such wrecking Slingsby Fireflies (T-67s) because they had no clue how to deal with just one engine instead of eight and the Firefly was not as forgiving a plane as the old T-41s they replaced.
Also as I learned teaching at a military associated club, flight instruction and military flight instruction are very different things. I got in trouble for being "too nice". Not that I let anyone slide with bad flying, but I wasn't yelling at them like some bad recreation of a drill sergeant. (cue scene from An Officer And A Gentleman). I was like "My students pay my bills, if I yell at them they will find another school or another hobby and I won't eat".
* while the Air Force rethought their training, new students got a check for civilian flight schools and they got more pilots for less money than ever before LOL

[Lead Balloon]

How much yelling have you observed RAAF instructors doing, in either military or civilian training? (There is, of course, the notorious 'Screaming Skull', but he wasn't screaming in the capacity of an instructor.)

[megan]

First heard this story during flight training 1967 and thought it unlikely, came across the videos a few years ago and it forced a smile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snq_CT_7rrk&t=23s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5LoTgDfYYg&t=19s

[43Inches]

I don't know about military instructors, but I've known several civilian instructors that yell and carry on berating students, as well as those that physically hit students with folders and other items at hand. I'm sure a few military instructors may have had anger issues, as do many civilian ones, there's no place in an airplane for dramatics and carry on.