TOO GOOD FOR GA?

[MickG0105]

I don't know all the ins and outs on this one but would someone with GA instructor experience care to opine?

Meet the top gun CASA says is too good to train new pilots​

EXCLUSIVEBy ROBYN IRONSIDE (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/robyn-ironside)AVIATION WRITER
1:41PM AUGUST 23, 2023

A former Australian Defence Force top gun has been refused a flight instructor rating by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on the basis he had the experience but not the qualifications.

Former Royal Australian Air Force squadron leader Adam Clarke challenged the decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but was unsuccessful.

In his judgment, AAT deputy president Stephen Boyle said there was much evidence to attest to Mr Clarke’s expertise as a highly skilled and trained ADF pilot.

“It may also be that because of Mr Clarke’s vast experience and training he would be able to discharge the functions associated with the authorisations he seeks,” Mr Boyle wrote.

“However that is not the enquiry directed by CASA’s regulation. That enquiry is as to the equivalence of the qualification granted by the ADF.”

In his 26 years in the RAAF, Mr Clarke flew F/A-18 hornets and instructed other pilots on the aircraft. He also worked in the 2 Flying Training School (2FTS) as a Pilatus PC-9/A instructor, and provided remedial instruction for students that required additional help.

More recently Mr Clarke worked in Saudi Arabia as an instructor on F-15SA fighter jets, and throughout his career amassed close to 5000 hours of flying time.

The tribunal heard Mr Clarke’s flight training experience was “at least equivalent to the civil standard because the platforms on which he instructed were more complex with higher performance”.

“In-flight instruction is extremely important, but it is improved and focused by pre-flight tutorials, mass briefs, before flight briefs, and most importantly debriefs,” submissions for Mr Clarke said. “These disciplines are a real strength of RAAF flying and particularly fighter flying. This allows significant student improvement and progression in a healthy learning environment.”

But CASA reasoned that as an ADF instructor, Mr Clarke trained pilots in more complex aircraft than the light recreational aircraft used by flight training schools. “It does not matter how experienced the applicant is,” CASA’s submissions to the tribunal said.

“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 CASA regulations)”.

Mr Boyle concluded that to grant Mr Clarke the civilian endorsements he sought would be akin to allowing “a professor of mathematics to teach arithmetic to primary school children”.

“The professor would certainly have the technical knowledge of the subject matter, mathematics, but may be lacking the training or experience in teaching those with effectively no knowledge of mathematics,” Mr Boyle wrote. “While (Mr Clarke) has instructed at 2FTS, those he was instructing already had flight training.”

He upheld CASA’s original decision in the matter, finding the ADF qualification was not equivalent to that required by the regulator.

Mr Clarke’s solicitor Joseph Wheeler, from the International Aerospace Law and Policy Group, said his client was considering his appeal options.

“Australia is privileged to have a significant cadre of highly qualified, talented and decorated ex-defence force pilots, who after concluding their military careers set their sights upon civilian aviation,” Mr Wheeler said. “Their qualifications and experience are globally held in very high regard. Australian flying students could only benefit from lower barriers for ex-defence pilots in this regard as diversity of aviation experience is a proverbial pearl of aviation wisdom they could benefit from.”

A CASA spokesman said they met regularly with Defence “to identify opportunities to align our regulatory arrangements where appropriate”.


Behind a paywall - https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/meet-the-top-gun-casa-says-is-too-good-to-train-new-pilots/news-story/8b2a1565033d9d5b2c79509f7baea10d

[Capn Bloggs]

I can't work out what the exact issue is. Is it that Mr Clarke is trying to get a civee instructor rating without doing all the training/tests/approvals? What "endorsements" is CASA talking about?

As for:
Mr Boyle concluded that to grant Mr Clarke the civilian endorsements he sought would be akin to allowing “a professor of mathematics to teach arithmetic to primary school children”.
:cool:​​​​​​​

[MickG0105]

I can't work out what the exact issue is. Is it that Mr Clarke is trying to get a civee instructor rating without doing all the training/tests/approvals? What "endorsements" is CASA talking about?

I can't figure it out either but I have zero experience from that side of the equation, hence the post.

As for:
Mr Boyle concluded that to grant Mr Clarke the civilian endorsements he sought would be akin to allowing “a professor of mathematics to teach arithmetic to primary school children”.

:cool:​​​​​​​
Yep, that's got to be the go-to quote from that article - you get the impression that it might have been lifted from a "Utopia" script. If Mr Boyle had seen the latest NAPLAN results, he might have wanted to rethink that analogy.
​​​​​​​

[43Inches]

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...

[Chronic Snoozer]

“The professor would certainly have the technical knowledge of the subject matter, mathematics, but may be lacking the training or experience in teaching those with effectively no knowledge of mathematics,” Mr Boyle wrote. “While (Mr Clarke) has instructed at 2FTS, those he was instructing already had flight training.”

Sounds like they weren't comfortable granting a flight instructor rating because he didn't have 'ab initio' instructional experience. (possibly)

[Lead Balloon]

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:61.285 Australian Defence Force qualifications—recognition

Despite anything else in this Part, a member or former member of the Australian Defence Force is taken to meet the requirements under this Part for the grant of a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement, other than an examiner rating, if the member:

(a) holds, or has held, a flight crew qualification granted by the Australian Defence Force that CASA is satisfied is at least equivalent to the licence, rating or endorsement; and

(b) ...

(c) meets the aeronautical experience requirements for the licence, rating or endorsement ...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.

[Chronic Snoozer]

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.

When you're used to cross country navigation at 9NM/min, the maths of doing 1.5 NM/min in a piston can be unsettling.

[Ascend Charlie]

So, only instructors from 1FTS can get a civvy rating, because they have had the "ab initio" experience. Instructors from 2FTS or FCI courses are apparently not eligible, despite teaching students to operate a more complex aircraft in a more complex environment. That would mean that military helo instructors would be ineligible for the qualification as well, because the students had already passed their F/W wings course.

Sounds like somebody in CA$A has a huge anti-RAAF chip on his shoulder, maybe got scrubbed off a CT4 course.

[Lead Balloon]

I think you'll find that 1FTS now operates PC21s (set to 'dumb' mode) for ab initio training. No pistons any more...

[Ascend Charlie]

Yeah, but to be a highly esteemed CA$A FOI he would likely be older than 40, hence the CT4 reference.

[Beez51]

I find it very hard after all of these years to side with CASA on just about anything, however they do have some reasons that I think are worthwhile. In addition, the RAAF has done little to make anything to do with civil licences easy for their pilots. CASA used to certainly recognise all graduates of RAAF Flying Instructors Course for a Grade 3 rating. The RAAF course whether on Macchi or PC9/A up until No.100 FIC (1989 I think) prepared all instructors for Ab Initio instruction. At 100FIC they decided that they were over training the 2FTS instructors and then assumed that they only needed advanced instruction. For example, if you taught spinning you assumed that Bloggs had already done spinning at BFTS and you were just showing them how to do it in a different platform. In classic RAAF planning the ‘powers to be’ decided soon after to try ‘all through PC9/A training’. Guess what, they had few people with Ab Initio experience at 2FTS and had to conduct a number of PC9/A transitions on some BFTS instructors and post them to Pearce. After 2 courses they came to the same conclusion as they did when they tried the same thing with the Macchi, years earlier. Just as well the world is now very different and RAAF is ‘all through PC21/A training! I think RAAF is the only operator doing all through PC21/A training. And no it’s not simulators that have helped. I assume that provided CASA and the RAAF discuss this, the change to PC21/A with everyone now doing Ab Initio training should end up with all recents FIC graduates able to get a Grade 3. Dont hold your breath!
Beez.

[By George]

It is no different coming out of an Airline with years of training experience, you still need the GA ratings. Even more bizarre under the new rules before you can be promoted to be a training captain within the Airlines you have to have an instructor rating. I have witnessed several senior captains who have been out of GA for 30 years going off to the local to get a Grade 3 so they can become a training captain. It is one thing to master the dreaded Cessna 150 after a Boeing or an Airbus but that FOI Exam, or whatever they call it, is a little doozy. I have never read anything quite like it.

'Tis the rules chaps and flexibility or common sense is a strict liability.

[Makiko]

Read the full judgement on austlii.edu.au (just name & CASA into search)

AAT is an independent body

The applicant was seeking stuff like FIR-1, FIR-FIR, FIR-MEAI, FIR-MCP etc etc

[43Inches]

It is no different coming out of an Airline with years of training experience, you still need the GA ratings. Even more bizarre under the new rules before you can be promoted to be a training captain within the Airlines you have to have an instructor rating. I have witnessed several senior captains who have been out of GA for 30 years going off to the local to get a Grade 3 so they can become a training captain. It is one thing to master the dreaded Cessna 150 after a Boeing or an Airbus but that FOI Exam, or whatever they call it, is a little doozy. I have never read anything quite like it.

'Tis the rules chaps and flexibility or common sense is a strict liability.

It's very different, the person in this instance was a qualified Air Force instructor. Which for all intents is probably a higher qualification than a CASA FIR. Airline pilots are just pilots, and unless they were previous instructors have no experience in training and the problems associated with such. There is no part of a CPL or ATPL that covers training activities and methods of instruction.

As far as I know its still not a requirement to hold a FIR to be a training captain, although it's been constantly talked about for a while.

[Capn Bloggs]

The applicant was seeking stuff like FIR-1, FIR-FIR, FIR-MEAI, FIR-MCP etc etc
Got it. More Robyn Ironside aviation click-bait. The Australian should be better than this.

[Lead Balloon]

I posted the link to the AAT's decision earlier.

Let us all give thanks that CASA did not grant the ratings for which Mr Clarke applied, and convinced the AAT that the refusal was a good decision. The skies are so much safer than they otherwise would have been if Mr Clarke now held those ratings.

[Ixixly]

It's very different, the person in this instance was a qualified Air Force instructor. Which for all intents is probably a higher qualification than a CASA FIR. Airline pilots are just pilots, and unless they were previous instructors have no experience in training and the problems associated with such. There is no part of a CPL or ATPL that covers training activities and methods of instruction.

As far as I know its still not a requirement to hold a FIR to be a training captain, although it's been constantly talked about for a while.

And why should being an Air Force Instructor automatically entitle you to being able to exercise all the privileges a CASA Approved Grade 1 Instructor can? No one is saying that Adam Clarke isn't an extremely qualified Pilot and Instructor in general, CASA is saying that they likely have knowledge gaps that need to be covered before being issued the qualifications sought. Let me ask you this, if Adam Clarke walked in off the street right now, seemingly having not flown a Pistol Single as a Civilian for a few decades, would you just throw them the keys to your C172 and let them have at it?

How about for once, instead of just jumping on the CASA hate train (That they admittedly deserve a lot of the time), we instead use some common sense and say that yeah, in this case just signing some paperwork (which is all that happened according to the case details) probably wasn't enough to satisfy that they're fully able to exercise all the rights and privileges that a Grade 1 would convey them?

[Lead Balloon]

And so, having thrown the keys to a C172 to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued.

[Asturias56]

And in the RAAF he will have been training people who have already passed all sorts of tests and examinations designed to winnow out all but the best.

At Grade 1 in civi. street you have to deal with whoever walks in off the street and has a wad of $$$ in their hand - they may be totally physically & mentally dysfunctional.

It's a different game and requires some different skills that's all

[Lead Balloon]

And when one of these physically and mentally dysfunctional students with a wad of $$$ in their hand lobs up to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued had Mr Clarke been issued with the ratings for which he'd applied, and why that carnage would have ensued.

[Asturias56]

rules are rules even tho CAA is not a shining example of commonsense (see the awful Glen B story)

they'd get murdered if there was any accident and they didn't follow their own procedures

[By George]

I was wrong, in my previous company (under NZ CAA) it was a requirement to have an instructor rating to check. Even so, during my years training under the Airline system we had to attend Training Captain schools. I completed these at Ansett and on joining a NZ operation on return from Asia had to attend a five-day instructional technique course run by Air New Zealand.

[Lead Balloon]

What "procedures", Asturias56, weren't CASA following?

Please read the AAT decision, at the link I posted, about Mr Clarke's matter before you respond.

[scrubba]

So Leddie, while taking your point about safety (at least in terms of personal rather than overall system safety), do you agree that tandem training in PC 9/21, Hornets and Eagles is equivalent experience to multi-crew operations as envisaged in the civil system? Do you also agree that being a staff instructor employed as a StandO but not a Flight Commander or CFI is the equivalent of the duties and responsibility of a civil GR1, including eligibility to be a CFI?

[Lead Balloon]

What I'm saying is that the mystique of aviation is one the biggest impediments to the ongoing healthy growth of local aviation capability in Australia. And if we're so thick as to believe that someone of Mr Clarke's experience is going to be so stupid and incompetent that he would unleash unsafe aviators on us in the event he'd been granted the ratings for which he'd applied, then we're....thick.

[Contact Approach]

It's a poor argument to suggest this individual couldn't safely act as a civilian instructor, there's absolutely no reason he couldn't just complete an AOC and crack on... paid for by his employer, of course. Anything more than that is simply ridiculous.

[Mr Mossberg]

FIR-1, FIR-FIR, FIR-MEAI, FIR-MCP etc etc

In that case, no. Perhaps some sort of RPL process, or an assessment of skills and subject matter.

And so, having thrown the keys to a C172 to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued.

I'm not sure if you have or have had an Instructor Rating? But there have been examples of airline pilots who've been a long time out of light aircraft, jumping back into light aircraft, particularly of the light sport category and coming to grief.

​​​​​​​I've dealt with quite a few coming back, most of these fellows have a realistic expectation of where their light aircraft skills are. But some don't.

​​​​​​​And when one of these physically and mentally dysfunctional students with a wad of $$$ in their hand lobs up to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued had Mr Clarke been issued with the ratings for which he'd applied, and why that carnage would have ensued.

I think Mr Clarke will get quite the surprise when he eventually enters the CASA system and has to deal with the difference between those he instructed in the RAAF and those he'll be instructing in civvie. And perhaps entering as a G1 with all the bells and whistles in not the way to cut your teeth.

[Flyingmac]

There have been a number of race winning F.1 drivers who have gone on to fail a driving test. More than once. Just saying.
He's not qualified. Does he even have a PPL? Plenty of ATPLs out there who don't. Wouldn't trust them with my aircraft.:)

[Cloudee]

One of the requirements to obtain a G1 FIR is to have “completed at least 500 hours of flight time conducting initial flight training in an aircraft of the specified category”.

On the information given in this thread this bloke wants a G1 FIR with zero hours of initial flight training. Have to agree with CASA on this one.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

For a while there at 2FTS, we were doing ab initio instructing on the PC9. They ran a few courses through an all through PC9 Course. They went back to having the students go through the 1FTS CT4 course as it was proving a bit too much for them as we couldn't dumb down the pc9s as they can do on the pc21.

I think Clarky may have even been at 2fts during that phase.

I will posit the following question -

What harm would it do to the industry too allow ex military instructors to teach civies?

Clearly he would have to get a flight check on the aircraft he was going to instruct in. Once he showed that he can fly a C172 or Duchess in a flight review, why not let him teach others in that platform?

I wish Clarky all the best in winning this one. If he does, it will set a precedent. I will definitely be putting my hand up to get a refund from CASA for my civie Instructor ratings.

[Cloudee]

What harm would it do to the industry to allow ex military instructors to teach civies?


No harm, providing they don’t all want to start at the top.

[lederhosen]

I recently completed an instructor course for ultralight aircraft having previously been an instructor on various other types from gliders to jets. The required training was shortened. But I needed to demonstrate competence from the right seat in the aircraft.

It involved mainly doing things a jet pilot never does like power off approach and landing from the overhead, demonstrating slips and off field landings etc. I don’t think it is at all unreasonable that you be required to demonstrate specific competences required for a different class of aircraft. Flying a cessna is quite different to a F18 or a 737. The authority’s position seems quite reasonable.

[Clare Prop]

If we go by his logic my 35 years of civvie instructing should qualify me to jump into a PC21 with no conversion training and start training fighter pilots. Yeah right.

When I came here with a UK instructor rating I had to do a conversion too.

Surely this god-like creature can manage to do a PMI exam, flight test and get an endorsement on "single engine aeroplanes below 5700 kg"?
Sounds like he would be a nightmare to work with, the way he looks down on us all, not someone you would want on your team, someone who thinks they can go to the AAT for special treatment instead of just complying with Part 61, the Part he would be teaching!

A few years ago I did a CPL conversion for a guy who had been instructing on Tornadoes in the RAF. He then had to do more conversion training before he went on to instruct at Pearce. He would have been a great civvie instructor as well, because he recognised that they are two very different skill sets and never saw one as inferior to the other, having flown GA before joining the RAF.

[swh]

This is consistent with what CASA has done before.

Pilots have worked overseas on validations of the Oz licences and received training and gained a lot of experience on types that require a type rating by CASA. When these pilots return to Oz, CASA will not put that type rating onto the licence.

A validation of a licence is not a licence, and you cannot add a type rating to a validation. So essentially these pilots had the training, had the experience, however did not have the qualification.

Without the qualification, CASA does not recognise it.

This is not only CASA, many people coming in from overseas have to run through all sorts of hoops despite having training and experience elsewhere.

Also CASA in the past has taken the view that “check and training” in an airline environment is not instructing, it is training someone who already holds a licence. They drew the line as instructing being for the issue of an licence, where training is adding skills to an existing licence, eg pressurisation, a type rating etc.

Pilots that held “check and training” in an airline had to go out and do an initial grade 3 if they wanted to instruct despite having the advanced check and training experience.

If this guy is as good as he says he is, under the competency based training, he should be able to prove himself quickly.

[Chronic Snoozer]

​​​​now operates PC21s (set to 'dumb' mode) for ab initio training.​​​

we couldn't dumb down the pc9s as they can do on the pc21

What is this dumbing down you speak of?

If we go by his logic my 35 years of civvie instructing should qualify me to jump into a PC21 with no conversion training and start training fighter pilots. Yeah right.

No. Using CASA's own analogy that would be like asking a primary school maths teacher to lecture PhD candidates at university.

Surely this god-like creature....Sounds like he would be a nightmare to work with, the way he looks down on us all, not someone you would want on your team

C'mon Clare. You're better than that. He's just pressing to test.

[dr dre]

“Australia is privileged to have a significant cadre of highly qualified, talented and decorated ex-defence force pilots, who after concluding their military careers set their sights upon civilian aviation,” Mr Wheeler said.

Alright….…….. :D


Pilots that held “check and training” in an airline had to go out and do an initial grade 3 if they wanted to instruct despite having the advanced check and training experience.

If this guy is as good as he says he is, under the competency based training, he should be able to prove himself quickly.

Exactly. A lot of experienced trainers, TRI and TRE on heavy jets have had to sit in a Cessna and do their G3 FIR if they wanted to instruct in that arena, I know several who have. They never thought doing the FIR in a Cessna after years of training on Boeing or Airbus was beneath them.

There’s no reason this guy couldn’t have done the same, except perhaps arrogance going off his lawyer’s statement. He was willing to appeal his case all the way to the AAT but not willing to sign up for a 6 week Instructor’s rating.

Hmmmm……


Sounds like he would be a nightmare to work with, the way he looks down on us all, not someone you would want on your team, someone who thinks they can go to the AAT for special treatment instead of just complying with Part 61, the Part he would be teaching!



You’ve nailed it there. Emotional intelligence, attitude and humility are just as important in making a good pilot and a good instructor as technical ability, if not more so. All this guy has demonstrated is arrogance and a belief he’s above the rules. A mentality that the civilian world ‘needs’ him to be able to fly.

He sounds like a disaster in any civilian aviation environment.

[Checkboard]

Military: Highly motivated, pre-screened students with military indoctrination from their initial officer's course and guaranteed deference to a higher rank officer on an invariably full-time intensive course with no income, living or training payment difficulties in a fully aerobatic aircraft with large power reserve, and on a mission to pass or cut.

Civilian: Somewhat nervous, differing ability students with greatly variable motivation and confidence sometimes with weeks between lessons and with great concerns about the cost of each lesson and thus each repeated training exercise in a non-aerobatic aircraft of limited performance and a mission to continue training to a pass level (safe, not polished) or the instructor has failed.

Yeah - I'm with CASA on this one.

[605carsten]

The audacity of the authorities is shocking… the UK have been fast tracking “Fast Jet” aces into every job there is.. high fives all around in the old boys RAF club..

[jonkster]

Given his experience he may make a great GA instructor but there are differences (as others above have mentioned).

I don't know all the ins and outs on this one but would someone with GA instructor experience care to opine?

Typical ab-initio students coming in off the street in GA are usually a different kettle of fish from highly vetted, already trained advanced airforce pilots.

Even ab initio airforce trainees will already have been screened for aptitude and the training will be highly regimented, the students well prepared and disciplined.

In GA your ab-initio student may be of mediocre aptitude, requiring flexiblility in how you approach their training, they may bring as well, inflated views of their ability and you need to work out how to safely deflate that without losing them as a customer (scrubbing an airforce candidate is not the same as pissing off a customer).

They may have been self preparing themselves by a diet of you-tube videos of sometimes eyebrow raising quality and self instruction on microsoft flight sim and require some undoing. Sometimes this "prior learning" can be quite insidious.

Some students may have already achieved in their non aviation life a high degree of success and are expecting immediate success in aviation and so present an interesting pyschological environment for the instructor. The instructor is being paid to provide them a service - to get them to achieve an outcome rather than in the airforce where (usually) there is a hierarchy normally in the instructor's favour and where the student is required to meet a standard or be dropped, rather than to be brought up to a standard even if not a good candidate for that role.

There are also students scrambling to fund their flying, working night shifts, turning up to lessons tired, having to take big breaks in their lessons due to cash flow and requiring more flexible program with lots of revision.

Finally many may look down on ab-initio training as being somehow the easy bit of instructing. I generally find ab-initio more intense and fatiguing and requiring more thinking on my feet than more advanced training.

None of this is no to put down the skills, ability, instructional ability and aptitude of the person in question, they may be a brilliant instructor but I think ab-initi instructing is not a walk in the park. Simply because that is the phase of training we throw new G3s at doesn't mean it is a doddle. What it does do is teach instructors some great skills in managing people in a cockpit under stress and a deeper understanding of human factors. Which is probably a good reason why we throw new G3s at it :)

My 2c

Welcome to the world of GA instruction :)

[Capn Rex Havoc]

DRE
Exactly. A lot of experienced trainers, TRI and TRE on heavy jets have had to sit in a Cessna and do their G3 FIR if they wanted to instruct in that arena, I know several who have. They never thought doing the FIR in a Cessna after years of training on Boeing or Airbus was beneath them.


Im sorry, but yo( and others) are missing the point here.
Your Boeing/Airbus TRI, TRE analogy is invalid, Those TRI's and TRE's have never had an Instructional course in the same ball par/league as a RAAF QFI/FCI.

For the folk talking about his "attitude" etc, that is irrelevant. If he does a Civie Instructor course -he will go out in the world with the same personality he had before. (I know Clarky, and his attitude is NOT in question. He would make a superb instructor to an ab initio pilot in the civie world, with or without a Civilian CASA rating.

The Issue is - Does he need a Civie instructor course that is CASA approved? Does he need to demonstrate to a civie examiner that he can teach a stall in a c152? Really?

I say, good on him. I wish him all the best, and I hope he wins.

[runway16]

What CASA is saying is that regardless how much flight time Clarke has or how much instructional time he has give if he want to hold a CASA civilian instructors ticket then he would have to start at the bottom of the ladder and become a Grade 3 instructor.
I have heard this situation more than once in the past. Only CASA can change the situation.

R

[Clare Prop]

Capt Havok
Yes he has to demonstrate competency in all the elements in the Part 61 Manual of Standards
He has to show that he can teach all the elements in the MOS
He has to demonstrate that he can assess all the elements in the MOS
He has to provide written evidence that the student has achieved competency in all the elements in the MOS
He has to have a Single engine <5700 kg type rating

He just has to do what every other civvie instructor has had to do, whatever their background. I didn't know that "Top Gun" was actually a thing in Australia but it doesn't sound like something that would fit in comfortably in a busy GA flying school. Maybe in the cinema, or propping up an aero club bar, but Top Gun? Really?? Because don't we all just love having people around those of us who are not worthy, who have been waved through and given special privileges?

If he wasn't aware of how things work then perhaps this would have been a good place to start.
Skills recognition | ADF Members & Families | Defence (https://www.defence.gov.au/adf-members-families/transition/skill-recognition)

[Clare Prop]

What CASA is saying is that regardless how much flight time Clarke has or how much instructional time he has give if he want to hold a CASA civilian instructors ticket then he would have to start at the bottom of the ladder and become a Grade 3 instructor.
I have heard this situation more than once in the past. Only CASA can change the situation.

R
I know of ex-military instructors who had done ab-initio in the RAAF being able to fast-track through from Grade 3 to Grade 2 but still had to start at the bottom.

[dr dre]

DRE

Your Boeing/Airbus TRI, TRE analogy is invalid, Those TRI's and TRE's have never had an Instructional course in the same ball par/league as a RAAF QFI/FCI.

I don’t know about the levels of each instructional course but in my decades of aviation I can confidently say former military trainers I’ve encountered are no better than wholly civilian trainers, so trying to pass off RAAF trained instructors in a civilian environment as superior doesn’t hold up.

For the folk talking about his "attitude" etc, that is irrelevant. If he does a Civie Instructor course -he will go out in the world with the same personality he had before. (I know Clarky, and his attitude is NOT in question. He would make a superb instructor to an ab initio pilot in the civie world, with or without a Civilian CASA rating.

Really? - some comments by his lawyer show an air of arrogance about his arguments - a definite ‘I’m better than you and you civvies need me’ mentality.

“Australia is privileged to have a significant cadre of highly qualified, talented and decorated ex-defence force pilots, who after concluding their military careers set their sights upon civilian aviation,”

Australian flying students could only benefit from lower barriers for ex-defence pilots in this regard as diversity of aviation experience is a proverbial pearl of aviation wisdom they could benefit from.”

I mean c’mon.

The Issue is - Does he need a Civie instructor course that is CASA approved? Does he need to demonstrate to a civie examiner that he can teach a stall in a c152? Really?

Yes. Heavy jet TRI/TRE can train for stall and unusual attitude recover in a high performance jet yet still have to demonstrate those competencies to CASA to obtain an FIR.

Anecdotally I’ve heard some fast jet pilots sometimes struggle with low powered light training aircraft. They don’t always show the required competency straight up. It’s only 30hrs of dual instruction required for an G3 FIR anyway.

I say, good on him. I wish him all the best, and I hope he wins.

Given the time in courts and appeals, and the legal fees he’s spent, if he just had done a 6 week G3 FIR course he’d probably would’ve had his desired outcome much cheaper and quicker.

[Bbtengineer]

All this fellow has to do is take and pass the inspections relevant to the qualification he seeks.

Given his other qualifications it shouldn’t be that difficult. So what reason does he have for not just taking the relevant tests and acing them?

I am (or was) reasonably competent at analyzing the propagation of electromagnetic waves through a wave guide using Fourier analysis.

In other words I can operate

v(t)=∑n=1∞12n−1sin((2n−1)2πft)

Amazingly I can also divide numbers.

That didn’t qualify me to teach long division to a five year old.

I have a five year old and bluntly whilst I could tell them the answer I couldn’t teach them consistent with the curriculum because the way they were supposed to do it made no sense to me.

I hadn’t done it that way since I was five years old myself and that was decades ago.

It only took me a few minutes of study to refresh myself on how I was taught to do it when I was five.

That’s all this guy has to do here.

[Mach E Avelli]

When I was a lowly student, and later when I got to airlines, some of the best - and worst - instructors I flew with were ex-military. Ditto with airline trainers & checkers - some great mentors, and some who were barely adequate as line donkeys (the 'screamers' etc).
No matter a pilot's background, suitability for instruction comes down to personality, knowledge, ability to impart knowledge, and natural flying ability.
But CASA is not in the business of psychoanalysis (praise be for that small mercy!), so they do their usual 'jump through ALL the hoops' BS for every case. CASA is unable to think outside their tiny square.
With the industry allegedly facing a pilot shortage, you'd think that some middle ground could be found in the way CASA recognises prior experience in the intersts of creating a fast track to more advanced instructor ratings and approvals. There will always be a trickle of hour-building Grade 3's coming through the pipeline, so that is probably not a problem for industry. The problem lies in the hours it takes a Grade 3 to move up the instructor food-chain, by which time many move on.
For someone with military or airline instructional experience, a short PMI course tailored to ab-initio training, a few hours in the relevant aircraft type, some self -study to bone up on briefings for the entire PPL/CPL syllabus should not be too much to ask, and not too expensive. It shouldn't need a six week Grade 3 course.
Then require a pass in a practical test for issue of Grade 2.
Expecting a Grade 1 with all the 'fruit' from the get-go with no prior exposure to the GA way of doing things could end in failure for the candidate, or disappointment for students.
Whatever further qualifications are desired should be subject only to proof of prior relevant experience (credits for instrument, multi etc instruction) and a practical test - same as any other instructor moving up. Exemptions in time required as Grade 2 before applying for Grade 1 could be appropriate.
If people baulk at being tested to prove competence, they have no place in aviation.

[junior.VH-LFA]

At least this is somewhat more justifiable than making qualified military pilots do IREX and a flying test for an insturment rating - an absolute ridiculous cash grab if there ever was one.

[deja vu]

Some significant differences between civilian and military instructing I would reckon.

A military trainer gets a student who has been through culling programme after culling programme to get to a series of interviews where at least 50% more get culled. Flight training begins with chopping slow learners and more chopping and sends them off to ATC or transport or wherever. So the trainer is left with outstanding (their words) students, piece of cake. I don't know the figures, would it be 5% 10%

The Civvy instructor gets a student who has wandered in from who knows where, all sorts of backgrounds all sorts of reasons to want to learn to fly, all ages, all sorts of aptitude. No chopping here but finding a way to get them up to speed if at all possible . These $200 per hour students don't need an ace, they need and deserve an instructor who has been in their shoes.

I'm not saying a military guy can't make the transition, many have, but as in this case arrogance is not needed in GA

[deja vu]

What I'm saying is that the mystique of aviation is one the biggest impediments to the ongoing healthy growth of local aviation capability in Australia. And if we're so thick as to believe that someone of Mr Clarke's experience is going to be so stupid and incompetent that he would unleash unsafe aviators on us in the event he'd been granted the ratings for which he'd applied, then we're....thick.
Well Mr Clarke has demonstrated a degree of arrogance that would suggest he could well unleash unsafe aviators. Of course arrogance and an inflated sense of ego is always seen as an asset in military aviation

[Duck Pilot]

With CASA recently relaxing the FIR/Examiner prerequisites for experienced pilots to do Part 61 training activities for aerial work (Part 138) under certain conditions as a result of industry consultation, maybe it’s time to proactively as an industry throw a few robust suggestions to CASA to relax the FIR requirements for the air transport side of the industry.

Certainly needs to be some bridging requirements, however the full Grade 3 FIR training under the current requirements are effectively prohibiting experienced pilots from entering the training arena.

The requirement for some green horn CPL holders to do a GA ready course says it all with regards to the quality of training that some schools are delivering, that ultimately reverts back to instructor experience.

Only need to look at a few recent fatal accident reports to prove the above statement!

[43Inches]

Well Mr Clarke has demonstrated a degree of arrogance that would suggest he could well unleash unsafe aviators. Of course arrogance and an inflated sense of ego is always seen as an asset in military aviation

I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.

I assume even if he was granted RPL he would still need to pass a proficiency check to be able to use said qualifications. I have many ratings on my licence, some I haven't used in years, so I would have to do a check ride to be able to use them. So having the rating does not equate to unfettered use of such.

[Ixixly]

And so, having thrown the keys to a C172 to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued.

Many years ago I remember seeing an instructor have to go out to the flight line and tell someone to shut down their 172. This Pilot was a 747 Captain, highly experienced, had flown GA but not for a couple of decades and was trying to get a 172 out of an absolutely impossible spot it was parked in and nearly took out the damned wing in their efforts. That's the type of carnage I'm talking about and I've no doubt most experienced Instructors, especially at smaller schools, have similar stories.

How about this, Mr Clarke as a Grade 1 is able to sign off Grade 3s, a Grade 3 is meant to be teaching the fundamentals and one of those fundamentals is Airlaw, do you think walking straight out of the RAAF that Mr Clarke would be fully conversant on all laws as they apply to Civilians? What about Part 91? Or any of the newer regulations? But you feel he should be given these rights and privileges without having actually demonstrated them? In what world does that make sense?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't just throw him the keys, I'd want to go do a couple of circuits with him first for my own peace of mind.

[zegnaangelo]

I read the case, seems the AAT and CASA's decision is well reasoned

What is unclear to me is the Applicant sought 9 ratings, but only argued 4 with the AAT. The remainder 5, would be given by CASA, but Applicant has refused. Was a G3FIR rating part of that?

It seems to be G3 needs 200hours (?) of ab-initio experience before being able to graduate. Given the Applicant does not seem to have any ab-initio training experience, I am not even sure how he can ask for a G1 rating. As it stands, I have been instructed by a senior G1, but I dont think they were a particularly good ab-initio instructor, what more a person who has never done it at all...

As an aside, I guess another pilot could presumably train and get a G3, then go on instructing to fly the Space Shuttle. But never be able to advance to G2 or above.





By the Decision, CASA refused to grant nine authorisations sought by the Applicant.

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. The authorisations still in dispute are:(a) Flight Instructor Rating: Grade 1 training endorsement (FIR-Grade 1);(b) Flight Instructor Rating Instructor rating training endorsement (FIR-FIR);

(c) Flight Instructor Rating with multi-engine aeroplane class rating instructor training endorsement (FIR-MEAI); and

(d) Flight Instructor Rating Multi-crew pilot training endorsement (FIR-MCP).


https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA//2023/2628.html

[Ixixly]

I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.

I assume even if he was granted RPL he would still need to pass a proficiency check to be able to use said qualifications. I have many ratings on my licence, some I haven't used in years, so I would have to do a check ride to be able to use them. So having the rating does not equate to unfettered use of such.

From what I can tell from the AustLii link handing him something like an RPL or PPL was not in question, they were happy to do that. We're talking about handing him a Grade 1 Flight Instructor Rating and some other higher-level qualifications that would have given him rights and privileges for which he was unable to properly show he had the ability to execute fully. I don't think anyone here would doubt his skills as a Pilot or ability to handle an Aircraft but there are a lot of civilian procedures, laws and such that he wouldn't be current on and as a Grade 1 you're expected to be current on them and know them based on the current laws and requirements.

[deja vu]

I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.

I assume even if he was granted RPL he would still need to pass a proficiency check to be able to use said qualifications. I have many ratings on my licence, some I haven't used in years, so I would have to do a check ride to be able to use them. So having the rating does not equate to unfettered use of such.

Well would you consider it arrogant of me if took my 20,000hours of which 8000 IC hours are on the A330 and 5000 IC on the B737 to the RAAF and insisted they gave me the appropriate tickets and a job flying the wascally wabbit all around the world because I am so much more experienced than the lot who are doing it now. And if they said no I would challenge them in the courts and call their system outdated.

[Duck Pilot]

I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.

Tested??? Why???

CASA have got a lot of things wrong with regards to the implementation of the new rules dating back to the introduction of Part 61, however I fail to understand why industry and individual ARN holders need to be tested with regards to the introduction of the new regulations.

And CASA recon all the Part 133 and 135 operators are going to have a CASA approved SMS and Safety Manager in place by the end of 2024.

Wonder why CASA relaxed the exemption instrument deadlines for the new requirements relating to SMS, HF and NTS and Helicopter performance procedures.

And now CASA are enforcing Part 135 operators with IFR aircraft to have a MEL for their aircraft. Where did that little gem come from? Even the current regs don’t mandate this. Certainly wasn’t raised in Part 135 advisory material prior to the new regs being implemented in December 2021, nor consulted with industry.

[DynamicStall]

And now CASA are enforcing Part 135 operators with IFR aircraft to have a MEL for their aircraft. Where did that little gem come from? Even the current regs don’t mandate this. Certainly wasn’t raised in Part 135 advisory material prior to the new regs being implemented in December 2021, nor consulted with industry.

135.045

[dr dre]

I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.


Hmmm if this RAAF instructor wanted to truly “test” the system then wouldn’t it be more prudent to undertake a G3 FIR course himself. Then potentially review and analyse the positive/benefits of that training course in the ab-initio environment and if it could be shortened for former military or airline trainers who have training experience but not ab-initio instructor ratings. Then submit a review to CASA and work with them to simplify the system?

Instead he’s gone straight to the courts (and failed) to argue that he, as an ex military pilot, is superior to mere “civvies” and therefore normal rules shouldn’t apply to him. This story isn’t really helping to overturn the reputation and stereotypes of military pilots.

Not only is this arrogant but it also leads me to think there’s an ulterior motive behind it. Surely a G3 FIR course would’ve been quicker and cheaper than a court case and appeals?

[Lapon]

I find it uncomfortably easy to agree with CASA on this.

Sure the guy is experienced and probably a great instructor, but that experience is pretty irrelevant to the role he's trying to avoid qualification for.

Qualifications and experience aside, I have some questions regarding what's going on in this guys head even trying this argument on in the first place.

[Lead Balloon]

The 'bottom line' is that the AAT agreed with CASA so, absent some glaring error of law, that's that!

Very interesting debate and the balance of (very) experienced instructor opinion supports CASA and the AAT's decision. I'm now convinced by those far (far) more experienced than me.

[zegnaangelo]

Did he get a G3 FIR though? I think he did. I think this guy wanted a G1 FIR.
At least with G3 you still are under the supervision of the G1...

[Duck Pilot]

Just need to ask the question why GA Ready Courses are required!

[Flying Bear]

When I joined the military, I was a (relatively) experienced civvie pilot with approximately 5,000 hrs behind me. Grade 1 Instructor, ME IFR & a whole range of other tricks…

The military made me no concessions because of that & made me start “from the bottom” - in order to teach me not just the skills & knowledge, but also the attitudes required to be a military aviator.

They were correct to do so.

Several years later, I left the military & re-engaged in civvie aviation & although CASA gave me a
licence to fly a category of aircraft that I hadn’t had previously in civilian life - they didn’t gift me the qualifications to teach it - even though I held the highest category of military flying instructor rating on that category of aircraft.

They were correct to do so.

It’s all aviation, but there are fundamentally different skill sets between flying military, airlines, heavy jets, fighters & piston singles…

These different skills, knowledge & attitudes need to be learnt in context!

To think that there is nothing to learn from each different discipline / type of aviation is somewhat professionally arrogant - which carries significant risk.

CASA on this occasion has it correct.

[Head..er..wind]

And so, having thrown the keys to a C172 to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued.

meanwhile you can walk us through how a professor of mathematics can improve literacy rates, as you stated earlier.

[swh]

Im sorry, but yo( and others) are missing the point here.
Your Boeing/Airbus TRI, TRE analogy is invalid, Those TRI's and TRE's have never had an Instructional course in the same ball par/league as a RAAF QFI/FCI.

That really depends on the airline, my mob it takes around 10 months to train a simulator TRI.

Aircraft TRI/TREs do a PMI style course as part of their training, they also receive a letter from the regulator granting them the qualification/delegation, that is limited to while employed with that airline.

The regulator does the initial test for a TRE. They undergo bi-annual assessments as trainers. They undergo annual trainer refresher.

They are also trained on ICAO competency based assessment.

Despite all that, to teach abinitio, they would have to go and do an initial G3.

[Lead Balloon]

Because, Head..er..wind, sadly, a mathematics professor is likely to be more qualified to teach mathematics to school students, in Australia, than the people actually teaching.

And everyone realises that CASA has authorised Clarke to fly a C172, don't they...

[zegnaangelo]

Because, Head..er..wind, sadly, a mathematics professor is likely to be more qualified to teach mathematics to school students, in Australia, than the people actually teaching.

And everyone realises that CASA has authorised Clarke to fly a C172, don't they...

i think thats plain wrong. for example.
1. many mathematics professors are good at the actual concepts and base theorems, they are actually pretty bad at arithmethic
2. many of them are ****e teachers / lecturers. great reasearchers, but teaching. neh. and many don't like that aspect of their work3
3. also, teaching primary/secondary students requires a BEd or GradDipEd. don't think any joe can just walk off the street and get a job as a teacher. whereas, teaching university students, well, you could be a final year or honours student teaching first year tutorials.
i'm not sure you will have john nash teaching primary school math....

[josephfeatherweight]

They went back to having the students go through the 1FTS CT4 course as it was proving a bit too much for them as we couldn't dumb down the pc9s as they can do on the pc21.

A few comments in this thread suggesting the PC21 has a “dumb” or “basic” mode. This story was widespread in the early days of the (for want of a better name) “PC9 replacement” project, possibly spread by Pilatus, however the reality is, is that there is no such mode available.

[menekse]

Well Mr Clarke has demonstrated a degree of arrogance that would suggest he could well unleash unsafe aviators. Of course arrogance and an inflated sense of ego is always seen as an asset in military aviation

If we go by his logic my 35 years of civvie instructing should qualify me to jump into a PC21 with no conversion training and start training fighter pilots. Yeah right.

When I came here with a UK instructor rating I had to do a conversion too.

Surely this god-like creature can manage to do a PMI exam, flight test and get an endorsement on "single engine aeroplanes below 5700 kg"?
Sounds like he would be a nightmare to work with, the way he looks down on us all, not someone you would want on your team, someone who thinks they can go to the AAT for special treatment instead of just complying with Part 61, the Part he would be teaching!

A few years ago I did a CPL conversion for a guy who had been instructing on Tornadoes in the RAF. He then had to do more conversion training before he went on to instruct at Pearce. He would have been a great civvie instructor as well, because he recognised that they are two very different skill sets and never saw one as inferior to the other, having flown GA before joining the RAF.
I have no idea about Australian CAA and their formalities
I strongly disagree that an ex military pilot would show a bad attitude, at least on 95% of the occasions.

''Sounds like he would be a nightmare to work with, the way he looks down on us all, not someone you would want on your team''

A person, as you describe just wouldn't survive the Air Force Academy and the later career.
Teamwork is the cornerstone of the military, especially if we talk for air operations.
Can't be an Air Force pilot without good flying skills, SA, etc. The system is built like that
A civilian FI could be a skilled teacher and excellent pilot, could also be a limited pilot who got the license cause he just paid for it
Some good relationships with the flight school, an overpriced FI rating and gets the job maybe without a proper salary
Just to log some hours, present himself as a pilot instructor and make some videos on instagram
God helps the students
Of course, some checks before getting his rating are ok but is ridiculous to ask a military pilot to have the same course for FI rating with a 200 hours piston pilot and paying the same money for that

[Clare Prop]

I am going by his arguments to the AAT in this particular case, not making generalisations about ex military pilots. He thought he should be fast tracked straight to a Grade 1, so there is no comparison to your analogy of the Instagram/200 hour pilot you describe, who probably wouldn't last long enough to get the hours for a Grade 1 either.

I have no idea about Australian CAA and their formalities
Clearly, as you don't even know the name of the regulatory body.

GA doesn't owe this man anything, in fact we've been paying his salary all these years with our taxes. I wonder why he is not staying in the RAAF where his skills would be appreciated if he is so keen to continue instructing?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

DRE,
Airline TRIs and TREs, are mainly about checking not training.

Clare prop,
your input re being tax funded etc etc is totally irrelevant, and ludicrous. That has no bearing on whether or not he would be capable and competent as a civil instructor.

All of the competencies in the MOS would be equivalently covered in the RAAF instructor pubs.

A question - is there a civilian course for formation training flying? If I taught formation flying in the military do I need to do a civilian course?

[dr dre]

DRE,
Airline TRIs and TREs, are mainly about checking not training.

It’s in the name, Type Rating Instructor. All those training courses I and every other airline pilot have completed in our careers weren’t about training were they?

Clare prop,
your input re being tax funded etc etc is totally irrelevant, and ludicrous. That has no bearing on whether or not he would be capable and competent as a civil instructor.

The only measure of competency as a civil instructor would be for him to compete a CASA mandated course to demonstrate those competencies, which he is refusing to do.

All of the competencies in the MOS would be equivalently covered in the RAAF instructor pubs.

So you’d have no problem letting pure civilian instructors directly train in the RAAF then would you? I mean the guy’s lawyer said it’s best trainee pilots get as diverse a range of teachers as possible, maybe the RAAF need some civilian C&T pilots to show them how to really fly……

[inbalance]

It’s not that the military pilots don’t know how to fly, but general aviation is a completely different world.
I did some training with ex military for them to get a civil license.
They have a lot of experience on fast and heavy jets, but many had problems with a c150 because the lag of power.
All of them would have killed themselves in a taildragger or when spinning a citabria.
even the most qualified of them , a former German Starfighter jockey with 500 hours on typ. Phantom Instructor and at the end of his career flying as a tornado instructor at cottesmoore, had problems with the very light aircraft.
He adapted very fast, but the additional training was well spent and absolutely needed.

Another thing is the civil trainees.
Many of them aren’t the best of the best, because they haven’t passed any selection process and don’t have the right attitude either.

[Bosi72]

I don't think the former Squadron Leader Clarke is asking for more than he deserves.

After investing lots of public $$$ into the training, education, it is a fact that many ratings/endorsements do not translate into the civilian system, Yet, we all share the same skies.

Unfortunately the only way to change the Law for the benefits of others is to go through the legal system, which I believe is what the Officer is trying to achieve.

​​​​​​​Maybe including PMI, IREX, AirLaw, HuF lessons at the Academy, which I am surprised they are not already covered?

[Duck Pilot]

135.045

Many thanks DS👍

Searched for the requirement when I first heard about it and couldn’t find it. Makes sense now, not that I agree with the new requirement.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

DRE
It’s in the name, Type Rating Instructor. All those training courses I and every other airline pilot have completed in our careers weren’t about training were they?


UMMMM how many TRIs sat in the seat and did a DDM (Demo, Direct, Monitor) of a sequence? NONE. Sitting at the sim console, critiquing when someone doesn't do something correctly is not instructing. And I don't know what outfits you worked at, but at my previous airline, many a person was failed on a training day. Just saying. Where as Mil instructors would have demoed every single sequence in the Aircraft.

​​​​​​​The only measure of competency as a civil instructor would be for him to compete a CASA mandated course to demonstrate those competencies, which he is refusing to do

Which is the whole gist of his legal action. He is positing that his experience in the RAAF has demonstrated those competencies to a high standard, and therefore should be given the appropriate exemptions.
What about a formation endorsement? Should he be granted the right to teach formation flying? Or should he have to do a "CASA mandated course to demonstrate those competencies" as you claim.
Or what about aerobatics? same thing.

So you’d have no problem letting pure civilian instructors directly train in the RAAF then would you? I mean the guy’s lawyer said it’s best trainee pilots get as diverse a range of teachers as possible, maybe the RAAF need some civilian C&T pilots to show them how to really fly……

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. But to play your purile game - yes if you happen to know a civilian C&T pilot who has thousands of hours instruction in fast, single pilot jets that are capable of high G's and then yes, let em have a go instructing the military - I don't reckon the available suitable candidates are many.

Inbalance
​​​​​​​All of them would have killed themselves in a taildragger or when spinning a citabria.
even the most qualified of them , a former German Starfighter jockey with 500 hours on typ. Phantom Instructor and at the end of his career flying as a tornado instructor at cottesmoore, had problems with the very light aircraft.
He adapted very fast, but the additional training was well spent and absolutely needed.

You are missing the point. He has proven himself capable of flying the civilian platform - eg C172, His capability of flying said civilian airplane is not the issue. The issue is being allow to instruct.

​​​​​​​All of them would have killed themselves in a taildragger or when spinning a citabria.

Pretty harsh generalisation. But then again you are referring to non RAAF pilots, so I can't comment on the lack of skills of other countries. (I have flown with many RAAF pilots who have comfortably and safely spun a decathlon.

[Ascend Charlie]

A question - is there a civilian course for formation training flying? If I taught formation flying in the military do I need to do a civilian course?
​​​​​​​

I moved to a flying school that was teaching foreign military pilots to a modified Oz military syllabus. It included formation flight, something which I had been doing since 1972 in the RAAF, in jets and helicopters.

BUT!! Under CA$A rules, I didn't have the official sign-off for a civilian rating, because the RAAF simply marked the log book as "qualified" on type, as it covered GF, an Instrument Rating, low flying, hoist, cargo hook, and formation. So, I had to be "checked out" by a "qualified" formation pilot. This instructor (with 2000 hrs) had done 3 hours of formation training and had been signed off as qualified. He was then checking me (with 13,000 hrs). I showed him what formation was really about, and he was gripping the edge of his seat. His hand was still shaking as he signed me off.

CA$A horsefeather regulations, totally unnecessary.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Thanks Ascend Charlie. Perhaps we should start a court action against CASA for automatic Form and Aeros endorsements on our civie licences.

[flyauskiwi]

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...

That is one weird thing about this industry. How can someone barely qualified be the right person to teach a person from scratch? As a first-gen pilot, I find myself always explaining to friends/family that the industry is backwards. As pilots, first we learn, then we teach, then we do. Everywhere else, it’s learn, do, teach.

Surely this guy is more proficient at instructing than a 250 hour TT Pilot.

[swh]

UMMMM how many TRIs sat in the seat and did a DDM (Demo, Direct, Monitor) of a sequence? NONE. Sitting at the sim console, critiquing when someone doesn't do something correctly is not instructing. And I don't know what outfits you worked at, but at my previous airline, many a person was failed on a training day. Just saying. Where as Mil instructors would have demoed every single sequence in the Aircraft.


DDM is certainly done in simulators, most larger airlines these days do all their training in the simulator, when they get into the aircraft, they have paying pax in the back for the first flight. Frankly by the number of posts you have made about how training is done in airlines, you sound pretty clueless on what goes on. And your claim that most work in airlines is checking, and not training, that depends on what cycle the industry is at the time. The majority of airlines are doing more training than checking at the moment, training capacity is the bottleneck worldwide.

[Trevor the lover]

SWH - DDM is NOT ever done in a sim. Direct and monitor, yes. But never have I seen a sim instructor get in the seat of a sim and do demonstrations of the sequences to come. On saying that, I have demonstrated engine failures after take off a few times to weak students. But what Rex Havoc is saying is true - there really is no Demonstrations done in sim training like in an aircraft. I think if your career has seen instructors getting in the seat to demonstrate sequences to you, then you are the definite exception and it is you who must therefore be clueless.

[43Inches]

I think what is showing is more a lack of knowing what proper instruction is. DDM being a key part of ab-inito training, which falls off as the candidate becomes more proficient and is able to join the dots in later sequences, which is the whole idea of proper instruction. This is where airline trainers and checkers really are not 'instructors' in the sense but easement pilots, who help the transition of a pilot to their companies SOP and procedures. They are not teaching a pilot how to fly, and the candidate should have all the basics to be able to join the dots and carry out the sequence, that is, the candidate pretty much has everything at their fingertips and in the skills bag to complete the operation, they just need some coaching.

QFI/FIR, trained, qualified, endorsed, recognized instructors.

The major difference between being civilian and military is that the civilian has all the rules/procedures and such readily available before starting. Military you can not access most of the training as its secret business and you have to be trained in it, you can not prepare yourself for those aspects, therefore it is reasonable that a civie pilot can not cross over to military flying without training. That being said most good civie pilots would be able to fly most military planes with very little coaching, just not effectively in a combat scenario, but that is not what the thrust of the argument is.

In essence I don't really see what additional a military instructor pilot could learn by doing 200 hours or so ab-initio in a cessna 152, that they could not learn in the first 10 hours, from books, and online resources. The 'supervision' lauded by many here from FIR G1s is really next to none existent in most flying organisations, involving a signature to go out, or independent solo checks. In theory a FIR G3 could progress with never having a student put up for solo check. Then as a FIR G2 there's no supervision so to say, and you could have all the hours for FIR G1 by the time you get to the next proficiency check. Fly for one of the big sausage factories and you might progress through to G1 having only taught several sequences over and over, to only that companies training requirements.

I will add though, that one thing that military pilots can struggle with in civilian flying is the lower standard of candidates, that can not be just scrubbed if they fail. If they are too tough with students they will struggle to keep them and they will move to other flying schools. Although maybe GA needs a high standard flying school that attracts the top candidates to get through with a better training outcome, who knows. I know Civil Flying School was started on the premise of being the 'CFS' of the civilian scene back in the 60s, it survived quite some time, being very popular, before its eventual demise under very much under different leadership.

[swh]

SWH - DDM is NOT ever done in a sim. Direct and monitor, yes. But never have I seen a sim instructor get in the seat of a sim and do demonstrations of the sequences to come. On saying that, I have demonstrated engine failures after take off a few times to weak students. But what Rex Havoc is saying is true - there really is no Demonstrations done in sim training like in an aircraft. I think if your career has seen instructors getting in the seat to demonstrate sequences to you, then you are the definite exception and it is you who must therefore be clueless.

DDM is done all the time in the sim and other fixed based trainers, if it isn’t at your mob, that is a reflection of your mob. For example, it is common for for us to do initial circuits with a trainee in the RHS and instructor in the LHS. When running through system abnormals, it is common to demonstrate first how to run checklists/EICAS/ECAM both practically as well as the associated mouth music. That is how we build our foundation.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Thanks Ascend Charlie. Perhaps we should start a court action against CASA for automatic Form and Aeros endorsements on our civie licences.

You can add formation and aeros to your civi licence with the 61-ADF form - no one in recent times has had any issues being signed off for either of those that I know of.

[43Inches]

Just so we know where you are coming from, how many people have you nominated for a flight test, and how many KDRs have you done ?

It's been a number of decades since I achieved my grade 1 with about 3000 hours ab-initio under my belt now. Even been part of the airline training system and converted many military pilots to civilian qualifications, both GA and coached them in airline flying. Ex military pilots are a dream candidate, always prepared and know more than enough, and willing to learn, I will extend that to RAF/USAF and RAAF ex mil, I don't know how ex Bolivian airforce candidates go yet. The hardest are downgrading airline pilots (not all of them) as they often try to tell you how they did it somewhere else and how you do it wrong...

[Mach E Avelli]

DDM is done all the time in the sim and other fixed based trainers, if it isn’t at your mob, that is a reflection of your mob. For example, it is common for for us to do initial circuits with a trainee in the RHS and instructor in the LHS. When running through system abnormals, it is common to demonstrate first how to run checklists/EICAS/ECAM both practically as well as the associated mouth music. That is how we build our foundation.
That is true of a good operator. I know some sim instructors who do avoid the Demonstration bit for fear of embarrassing themselves, but generally we hop in the hot seat to demonstrate when deemed necessary. Some exercises in particular, such as wind shear recoveries, usually need to be demonstrated - certainly in my experience anyway, if only to prove that the exercise is flyable.
But we aren’t going to waste valuable sim time demonstrating basic stuff like climbing and descending turns, so I suppose that sets us apart from a G 3 teaching a pre solo student.
The Demonstrate part of DDM continues at the line training stage, where typically the trainee observes a few sectors from the jump seat before sitting in the operating seat, and sometimes the instructor pilot will elect to fly the first sector when something new is being explored, such as perhaps nil slope guidance or narrow runway operations.

[43Inches]

That is true of a good operator. I know some sim instructors who do avoid the Demonstration bit for fear of embarrassing themselves, but generally we hop in the hot seat to demonstrate when deemed necessary. Some exercises in particular, such as wind shear recoveries, usually need to be demonstrated - certainly in my experience anyway, if only to prove that the exercise is flyable.
But we aren’t going to waste valuable sim time demonstrating basic stuff like climbing and descending turns, so I suppose that sets us apart from a G 3 teaching a pre solo student.
DDM continues at the line training stage, where typically the instructor pilot will fly the first sector when something new is being explored, such as perhaps nil slope guidance or narrow runway operations.

Hmm except that line-training in airlines is not instruction, its supervisory. CASA would have a very dim view of an operator that required candidates to be 'instructed' on how to fly while carrying passengers. Whilst some candidates are a bit weaker than others the whole idea of line training is baby sitting a new 'company' pilot until they get the hang of SOP and the differences between you and other operators. If a candidate can't land, or perform an approach without guidance then it's back to the simulator. This is why 'line trainers' don't need instructor qualifications. When the trainer is flying they should always be demonstrating SOP compliance and the trainee practicing SOP as the PM. If you are actively teaching somebody how to fly during line training you are crossing a line that the candidate is not competent to be in the seat, that gets very grey in the rules. Teaching finesse is another matter, how to be smoother or do things more efficiently. But even during line training if you have to take over from a candidate when they are flying for safety reasons it's technically a re portable occurrence.

[Mach E Avelli]

That is one weird thing about this industry. How can someone barely qualified be the right person to teach a person from scratch? As a first-gen pilot, I find myself always explaining to friends/family that the industry is backwards. As pilots, first we learn, then we teach, then we do. Everywhere else, it’s learn, do, teach.

Surely this guy is more proficient at instructing than a 250 hour TT Pilot.
The problem is cost. Students either can’t afford, or don’t want, to pay for experience. Experience can’t afford to, or doesn’t want to, work for peanuts.
OTOH retirees with prior airline or military instruction time can usually afford to, and may want to, teach in GA, but some of us are unwilling to jump through all the CASA hoops for the privilege.

[zegnaangelo]

DRE


You are missing the point. He has proven himself capable of flying the civilian platform - eg C172, His capability of flying said civilian airplane is not the issue. The issue is being allow to instruct.



I think you are missing the point. Said applicant wants a FIR-G1 and other more senior instructor ratings. Does applicant even have 200 hours of ab-initio instruction?

[Mach E Avelli]

Hmm except that line-training in airlines is not instruction, its supervisory. CASA would have a very dim view of an operator that required candidates to be 'instructed' on how to fly while carrying passengers. Whilst some candidates are a bit weaker than others the whole idea of line training is baby sitting a new 'company' pilot until they get the hang of SOP and the differences between you and other operators. If a candidate can't land, or perform an approach without guidance then it's back to the simulator. This is why 'line trainers' don't need instructor qualifications. When the trainer is flying they should always be demonstrating SOP compliance and the trainee practicing SOP as the PM. If you are actively teaching somebody how to fly during line training you are crossing a line that the candidate is not competent to be in the seat, that gets very grey in the rules. Teaching finesse is another matter, how to be smoother or do things more efficiently. But even during line training if you have to take over from a candidate when they are flying for safety reasons it's technically a re portable occurrence.
That may be true in CASA’s perfect world, but they live in la-la land. Calling it ‘supervisory’ is their way of avoiding a formal instructor rating category for airlines. The airlines wouldn’t want it either, and who can blame them for that!
The Kiwis do it better, in that they have a specific instructor rating for airline training.
Back to the sim for a botched approach or landing requiring intervention? A reportable occurrence? I guess I was negligent in the performance of my duties all those years, because unless it was really bad, I would not even document it on the pilot’s training record, other than mark the ‘below average’ box, or whatever the form required to indicate that the candidate had not yet met company standard.
Anyone who has flown with 250 hour cadet pilots in the RHS will have instructed during line operations (DDM) and sometimes taken over the controls - either for survival’s sake or for the good of the airframe. And even 5000 hour pilots transitioning to a new type occasionally get it wrong.

[Ascend Charlie]

in civilian flying is the lower standard of candidates, that can not be just scrubbed if they fail. If they are too tough with students they will struggle to keep them and they will move to other flying schools.

One student came to our (civvy) flying school, having done 15 hours with That Other School, and told me he was ready for solo. He deposited $30,000 with us to cover ground school theory and the rest of his flying training. Looking good.
On the first flight, I saw that he could barely hover, so the "ready for solo" comment was a bit off the mark.
We got into his training, with 2 weeks intensive theory and preflight briefings, and then daily flights to consolidate that learning. After 2 weeks, I said to him that it was unlikely that he would pass the theory (his recall of the previous day's theory was atrocious) or be up to the standard for a commercial pilot. I suggested that he save his money, hire the chopper with pilot whenever he felt like flying, and stay in the money business (where he was making wads of cash.) I returned his unspent money, which hurt, as I could have just burned up the rest of it in training, but in all honesty I couldn't do that to him. He thanked me and left.

A month later he landed in our heliport in a B206 from That Other School, told me he got 86% in all his exams and finished his CPL and 206 endorsement. He loaded the machine with 4 big men, their golf clubs and overnight bags. I suggested that he was a little overweight, particularly as he was headed for a landing at 3000'amsl, but he told me that the W&B calculation was done by The Other School and they told him he was in limits. He started up, hovered in his usual up-to-**** manner, and used a lot of the airfield to get airborne. Dunno if he stayed in the industry or is still alive.

So, as suggested above, I scrubbed him, The Other School took his money, did his exams for him, and gave him a licence.

[megan]

one thing that military pilots can struggle with in civilian flying is the lower standard of candidatesKnew a chap who was ex F-111 who took up an instructor position post military at a major city GA airfield, told one of his students that flying was not for him and suggested he give up the ambition, boss went ballistic at the loss of an income stream, instructor left and set up his own school at a country airfield.How can someone barely qualified be the right person to teach a person from scratch? As a first-gen pilot, I find myself always explaining to friends/family that the industry is backwards. As pilots, first we learn, then we teach, then we do. Everywhere else, it’s learn, do, teachIt can be done. The US military where I trained some students upon getting their wings were then put through an instructors course and sent back as instructors, helicopters, piston, jets, of course they operated under a very regimented system.

[43Inches]

That may be true in CASA’s perfect world, but they live in la-la land. Calling it ‘supervisory’ is their way of avoiding a formal instructor rating category for airlines. The airlines wouldn’t want it either, and who can blame them for that!
The Kiwis do it better, in that they have a specific instructor rating for airline training.
Back to the sim for a botched approach or landing requiring intervention? A reportable occurrence? I guess I was negligent in the performance of my duties all those years, because unless it was really bad, I would not even document it on the pilot’s training record, other than mark the ‘below average’ box, or whatever the form required to indicate that the candidate had not yet met company standard.
Anyone who has flown with 250 hour cadet pilots in the RHS will have instructed during line operations (DDM) and sometimes taken over the controls - either for survival’s sake or for the good of the airframe. And even 5000 hour pilots transitioning to a new type occasionally get it wrong.

The fact that you stated you would not annotate a take over event in the candidates training file really shows your airline and your training standards as very poor. And that shows you are covering up possibly serious legal issues for the sake of pushing a pilot through. Line trainers are not instructors, the candidate is not training for a licence, rating or endorsement. They already hold a command endorsement and ratings for the flight. If they are unable to land then they should have failed their endorsement training, or you are given them sectors outside of their skill set ability.

[deja vu]

That is one weird thing about this industry. How can someone barely qualified be the right person to teach a person from scratch? As a first-gen pilot, I find myself always explaining to friends/family that the industry is backwards. As pilots, first we learn, then we teach, then we do. Everywhere else, it’s learn, do, teach.

Surely this guy is more proficient at instructing than a 250 hour TT Pilot.
Who better than someone who has just recently successfully completed a course designed purely to teach newbies how to fly.

55 years ago I was that 250hour TT brand new "C" grade instructor as it was then known.

With a bare CPL I undertook 50 dual hours of CA45 instructor rating training, additionally probably 100s of hours of ground briefing and de-briefing every sequence in the laid down syllabus. I undertook a test with a DCA examiner and apparently met the standard required. The syllabus was not made up by a couple of guys in the pub, enormous research went into it many years before.

My job was to demonstrate first and then critique the students attempts at each sequence until he or she reached an acceptable standard, then move on as laid down There was no need to be the ace of the base but it was more important to put myself in the shoes of the student, a place I had just come from not so long ago. It was not unusual to disguise my own inadequacies by having the student look outside for traffic while I recovered from my 100 plus feet loss of altitude in my steep turn demo.

Many of my early students went onto have successful careers in various airlines and other aviation roles, so I did them no harm.

It's worth mentioning that very early in my own training, at about 5 hours, a senior instructor ( ex military) from my flying school took me out in a Chipmunk, not as a lesson but just for a ride along and scared the living bejesus out of me as he demonstrated his bravado. It took me awhile before considering continuing with the whole thing.

[Head..er..wind]

Because, Head..er..wind, sadly, a mathematics professor is likely to be more qualified to teach mathematics to school students, in Australia, than the people actually teaching.

And everyone realises that CASA has authorised Clarke to fly a C172, don't they...

Thankyou for confirming that you don’t know what literacy is, and don’t know a great deal about teaching versus knowledge.

[Lead Balloon]

Thankyou for confirming that you don’t know what literacy is, and don’t know a great deal about teaching versus knowledge.
You probably meant ‘numeracy’. But, in any event, you’re welcome.

[Mach E Avelli]

The fact that you stated you would not annotate a take over event in the candidates training file really shows your airline and your training standards as very poor. And that shows you are covering up possibly serious legal issues for the sake of pushing a pilot through. Line trainers are not instructors, the candidate is not training for a licence, rating or endorsement. They already hold a command endorsement and ratings for the flight. If they are unable to land then they should have failed their endorsement training, or you are given them sectors outside of their skill set ability.
I won’t rise to that bait.
But at the risk of thread drift, here is a true story of what can happen when new pilots with a command endorsement think that they are truly competent to command standard…because it says so on their licence, right?
A new FO was being ‘supervised’ (because in his view he was not training) by a very experienced Training Captain. On approach to RWY 33 at Cairns, he got very high and refused to heed the Captain’s advice. At the point where a go around was nearly inevitable the Captain announced “my control “. Trainee refused to hand over, and a brief struggle ensued which fortunately the Captain, being bigger, stronger and by then pumping adrenaline, won.
I sacked the pilot on the spot and he had to ride home by bus.
On that occasion, of course we DID report the incident to CASA. When the sacked pilot tried it on for wrongful dismissal and racial discrimination (because he was not an Anglo), we got the AFP involved, trotting out the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and a few other laws - authority of PIC etc. His lawyers went quiet and his licence was revoked.

[43Inches]

I won’t rise to that bait.
But at the risk of thread drift, here is a true story of what can happen when new pilots with a command endorsement think that they are truly competent to command standard…because it says so on their licence, right?
A new FO was being ‘supervised’ (because in his view he was not training) by a very experienced Training Captain. On approach to RWY 33 at Cairns, he got very high and refused to heed the Captain’s advice. At the point where a go around was nearly inevitable the Captain announced “my control “. Trainee refused to hand over, and a brief struggle ensued which fortunately the Captain, being bigger, stronger and by then pumping adrenaline, won.
I sacked the pilot on the spot and he had to ride home by bus.
On that occasion, of course we DID report the incident to CASA. When the sacked pilot tried it on for wrongful dismissal and racial discrimination (because he was not an Anglo), we got the AFP involved, trotting out the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and a few other laws - authority of PIC etc. His lawyers went quiet and his licence was revoked.

That has happened with crew that have been checked to line for thousands of hours, its nothing to do with line training. Thats basic NTS skills training failure. A lot of crew have studied various itterations of that scenario in NTS theory.

[dr dre]

DDM is certainly done in simulators, most larger airlines these days do all their training in the simulator, when they get into the aircraft, they have paying pax in the back for the first flight. Frankly by the number of posts you have made about how training is done in airlines, you sound pretty clueless on what goes on. And your claim that most work in airlines is checking, and not training, that depends on what cycle the industry is at the time. The majority of airlines are doing more training than checking at the moment, training capacity is the bottleneck worldwide.

I agree. I definitely have had more than one DDM sequence in a training program in both the sim and real aircraft. And a training program for sure.

[dr dre]

Which is the whole gist of his legal action. He is positing that his experience in the RAAF has demonstrated those competencies to a high standard, and therefore should be given the appropriate exemptions.


And he lost. Doesn’t seem to be many grounds for an appeal, and it’ll cost him.

And as I’ve said from the beginning wouldn’t it be more prudent to undertake the FIR course, analyse it’s strengths and weaknesses and then submit a review to CASA to simplify the system? Rather than try an appeal to an unqualified judge with zero aviation knowledge to change aviation safety regulations for a course you haven’t even bothered to attempt?

[PiperCameron]

It's worth mentioning that very early in my own training, at about 5 hours, a senior instructor ( ex military) from my flying school took me out in a Chipmunk, not as a lesson but just for a ride along and scared the living bejesus out of me as he demonstrated his bravado. It took me awhile before considering continuing with the whole thing.

Sounds like nothings changed then. Post-pandemic pinching all the truly experienced instructors, it seems your average Flight School these days typically has either (a) a lot of young, fresh-faced flight instructors often trained in the same school supervised by (b) the ones that either got left behind by the airlines or recently retired and needed pocket money... and if the young one is a good teacher, they're usually the better bet if only because they haven't quite yet grown sufficient bravado to push the aircraft to it's limits - although the longer they hang around the old guys the more likely it is at some point.

It's the old guys that are the worry: I recently failed a night rating simply because the Examiner (a crusty old semi-retired airline captain) simply couldn't keep his mouth shut and allow me to fly the plane the way I'd been trained. I found out later that he didn't get to fly much so the way to pass with him was simply to act dumb and let him 'demonstrate' it how he wanted and, so long as I didn't say anything stupid, he'd write out the ticket on the basis of him knowing my Instructor without me ever needing to touch the controls! :rolleyes:

Bravado in the extreme.

[compressor stall]

SWH - DDM is NOT ever done in a sim. Direct and monitor, yes. But never have I seen a sim instructor get in the seat of a sim and do demonstrations of the sequences to come. On saying that, I have demonstrated engine failures after take off a few times to weak students. But what Rex Havoc is saying is true - there really is no Demonstrations done in sim training like in an aircraft. I think if your career has seen instructors getting in the seat to demonstrate sequences to you, then you are the definite exception and it is you who must therefore be clueless.

My Airbus Flight Crew Training Standards manual outlines 16 training exercises that should be taught using in seat instruction to prevent negative training outcomes, ie. the instructor occupies the PF or PM role. Has been that way for some time.

Sometimes the world moves on outside your reference frame.

[Head..er..wind]

You probably meant ‘numeracy’. But, in any event, you’re welcome.

Perhaps you should read your own post; you were the one who stated literacy. I’ve merely quoted you.

[Dunhovrin]

The audacity of the authorities is shocking… the UK have been fast tracking “Fast Jet” aces into every job there is.. high fives all around in the old boys RAF club..
So Biggin Hill didn’t go well then?

[Clare Prop]

I recently failed a night rating simply because the Examiner (a crusty old semi-retired airline captain) simply couldn't keep his mouth shut and allow me to fly the plane the way I'd been trained. I found out later that he didn't get to fly much so the way to pass with him was simply to act dumb and let him 'demonstrate' it how he wanted and, so long as I didn't say anything stupid, he'd write out the ticket on the basis of him knowing my Instructor without me ever needing to touch the controls! :rolleyes:

Bravado in the extreme.

Extraordinary. A Flight Examiner isn't allowed to influence or allow bias to change the outcome of a test in any way. If the way you were trained led to a safety critical error, or your skills weren't up to scratch then that's "simply why" you would have failed. Also, an examiner is not allowed to "demonstrate" anything on a flight test. You can only pass/fail a candidate based on their ability to perform to the competency standard in the MOS, nothing more, nothing less.

What you are accusing this guy of is a very serious matter indeed.

[Ascend Charlie]

You can only pass/fail a candidate based on their ability to perform to the competency standard in the MOS, nothing more, nothing less.

That's why a Flight Review is a good thing, if you don't perform a task to the standard, the FOI is allowed to demonstrate and direct until you reach the standard. The old Private Instrument Rating was excellent for this, no fails, always get to be up to speed, and good for 2 years.

[605carsten]

Also, in the civvie world, the students are paying his bills.. so you cant talk or behave towards a paying customer like you can in the military cadet world… alot of students in my experience have swapped instructors as the chemistry was “off” due to aviation culture differences.

So it would make sense to make them go thru a civvie teaching course to learn how to treat customers and teach there after… a meek housewife cannot be taught or spoken to how to fly in same manner a subservient young flight cadet who knows they are only still doing the course by the grace of god/instructor

[Lead Balloon]

Perhaps you should read your own post; you were the one who stated literacy. I’ve merely quoted you.You are correct. I made a mistake. Well spotted!

[Tbot]

Here are my insights/2c as a G1 instructor who luckily has moved on to bigger and better things.

I worked as an instructor for over 4 years at one of Australia’s biggest schools. The qualities that make a good civilian instructor; patience, compassion, empathy, composure, are almost by definition the opposite of how a military pilot is moulded over their career.

Additionally, I have helped to convert many military pilots (fighter pilots included) from multiple western countries to civilian licenses as part of their training for their Airline employer that used our school. I can unequivocally say they demonstrated NO enhanced abilities to learn, retain or apply the training being provided, including aircraft handling. They are just regular people who chose a different path.

[Lead Balloon]

But will you be able to bring to your instructing task an ‘appropriate’ level of understanding and accommodation of the almost-infinite levels of competence challenges of students with whom you deal, such that you will be able to nurture someone who’s a complete gumby through the exacting process of separating them from their money? That is the safety issue. It is - apparently - a subject dealt with in the CASA Syllabus.

[Cloudee]

Additionally, I have helped to convert many military pilots (fighter pilots included) from multiple western countries to civilian licenses as part of their training for their Airline employer that used our school. I can unequivocally say they demonstrated NO enhanced abilities to learn, retain or apply the training being provided, including aircraft handling. They are just regular people who chose a different path.

I too have flown GA aircraft as an instructor with RAAF pilots of all types. I’ve found all of them to have above average skills, very quick to learn and only need to be shown once. If they didn’t have those qualities they would have been washed out early in their training. I still don’t think they should come in as a grade 1. But I’m sure they’d progress quickly from grade three if they could stomach the CASA BS.

[Clare Prop]

I've done a mix of GA, RAAF and CASA over 30+ years, and can say with absolute certainty that the CASA position, whilst 'technically correct' is a total joke and missing the big picture. They are just answering why it doesn't fit their busted ass regulatory framework which they don't have the inclination or knowledge to rectify. Far easier to say no and go eat a muffin over the road at 'Space'

After 4000 hours or so of GA and military, I did the GA instructor course. Whilst mildy entertaining for the first 3-4 flights all I really did was turn money into CO2. Could have done the test on day 2 and passed easily, far above the standard of a fresh CPL 18 year old out of Bankstown. Getting in and out of class D at 1.5 nm/min is different than a minimas approach to Honiara in a C130 after a 6 hour SAR, but hardly rocket science. The CASA beurocrats can't seem to grasp that a military trained pilot who has attained check and training (let alone actually gone to CFS for 3 months so they can teach triming and flaring) can pick up any syllabi and just teach. Very well. The expertise they bring with extensive training in CRM, AVRM, flying supervision, airborne instructional technique, sim checking, route checking, AVMED, etc far, far surpasses the CASA requirements. AB initio has its quirks, but is not exactly challenging compared to the rest of the skill set.
The only gap is showing a bit of knowledge of piston operations, and civil framework / regulatory differences of being a Civil instructor - ie what you can teach, crew duty, blah blah blah. This could be achieved by a flight test and an air law type quiz.
Oh, and don't tell blogs to f off home when he rocks up completely unprepared - smile, teach it in the air, tell him he did a great job so he comes back next week, and take his money.
Is it just me or is the arrogance of this post quite astonishing? This is exactly the "what-ho Squiffy" attitude that I am talking about.
So, Bloggs is unprepared, could have all kind of valid reasons for that, so perhaps you can help him with some tips to manage his time to fit in flying with other commitments, rather than just pat him on the head and patronise him?

[dr dre]

Is it just me or is the arrogance of this post quite astonishing? This is exactly the "what-ho Squiffy" attitude that I am talking about.


I thought it was a wind up at first, but then I remembered the real life comments of the subject complainant’s lawyer and wasn’t so sure……

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Zeg-
I think you are missing the point. Said applicant wants a FIR-G1 and other more senior instructor ratings. Does applicant even have 200 hours of ab-initio instruction?

I have no idea how much ab initio instruction he has. But that is not the point. Again, he is saying that the instruction standards of a highly experienced Military QFI are equivalent to the standards of a Grade 1 civilian instructor, and should be recognised accordingly.

Compressor stall -
What airbus you talking about? The A220? There was nothing like that in the a330, a340 or a380. Never over 25 years of sim time did an Instructor occupy the Left or Right seat in a sim to demo anything.

DRE - Please tell us which outfit you received such DDM training with? With a major Airline? I doubt it.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Exactly. A lot of experienced trainers, TRI and TRE on heavy jets have had to sit in a Cessna and do their G3 FIR if they wanted to instruct in that arena, I know several who have. They never thought doing the FIR in a Cessna after years of training on Boeing or Airbus was beneath them.

There’s no reason this guy couldn’t have done the same, except perhaps arrogance going off his lawyer’s statement. He was willing to appeal his case all the way to the AAT but not willing to sign up for a 6 week Instructor’s rating.

Apart from the fact that he didn't need to The Applicant merely seeks to upgrade his Grade 3 Instructor Training Endorsement to Grade 1 and to add three endorsements to his (already held) Flight Instructor Rating

[Mr Mossberg]

I've done a mix of GA, RAAF and CASA over 30+ years, and can say with absolute certainty that the CASA position, whilst 'technically correct' is a total joke and missing the big picture. They are just answering why it doesn't fit their busted ass regulatory framework which they don't have the inclination or knowledge to rectify. Far easier to say no and go eat a muffin over the road at 'Space'

After 4000 hours or so of GA and military, I did the GA instructor course. Whilst mildy entertaining for the first 3-4 flights all I really did was turn money into CO2. Could have done the test on day 2 and passed easily, far above the standard of a fresh CPL 18 year old out of Bankstown. Getting in and out of class D at 1.5 nm/min is different than a minimas approach to Honiara in a C130 after a 6 hour SAR, but hardly rocket science. The CASA beurocrats can't seem to grasp that a military trained pilot who has attained check and training (let alone actually gone to CFS for 3 months so they can teach triming and flaring) can pick up any syllabi and just teach. Very well. The expertise they bring with extensive training in CRM, AVRM, flying supervision, airborne instructional technique, sim checking, route checking, AVMED, etc far, far surpasses the CASA requirements. AB initio has its quirks, but is not exactly challenging compared to the rest of the skill set.
The only gap is showing a bit of knowledge of piston operations, and civil framework / regulatory differences of being a Civil instructor - ie what you can teach, crew duty, blah blah blah. This could be achieved by a flight test and an air law type quiz.
Oh, and don't tell blogs to f off home when he rocks up completely unprepared - smile, teach it in the air, tell him he did a great job so he comes back next week, and take his money.

​​​​​​​Howya goin' Clarkey?

[Ascend Charlie]

So, Bloggs is unprepared, could have all kind of valid reasons for that, so perhaps you can help him with some tips to manage his time to fit in flying with other commitments, rather than just pat him on the head and patronise him?

I had a student who was a highly-qualified lawyer who wanted to learn to fly choppers. But he had big troubles retaining skills. He booked a slot one morning, and I saw his car arrive just in time. I had prepared his lesson, and waited for him to come in. After 30 minutes of no-show, I walked out to his car, where he was deep in conversation on his phone. He finally hung up, stepped out, and asked "What are we doing today?"
"What did you PREPARE for?" I replied.
"Umm.. nothing..."
"Get back in your car, go home, and next time prepare for the flight to avoid wasting your time and mine - my next student is already here and reading his paperwork."

Where is the arrogance in that? Taking him flying would have done several things - burn up his money, re-teach him the previous lesson, and make me late for the next (well-prepared) student. He eventually went solo, after 70 hours! And then decided to stay a lawyer, as he didn't think he really had the ability to fly helicopters.

[Checkboard]

Never over 25 years of sim time did an Instructor occupy the Left or Right seat in a sim to demo anything.
I fly for a major European A320 airline. Over the last five years EVERY sim session has involved some in-seat instruction. Jet upset, Baulked landing etc etc.

[dr dre]

Apart from the fact that he didn't need to

So he already had the rating but wanted to skip the minimum experience levels to upgrade to Grade 1?

Get in line and do your time son. It’s only 750 hrs of Instructional experience for G1, can knock that off in a year if you work hard.

If an already qualified and highly experienced civilian A330, 737 or Falcon 7X pilot, maybe even with TRE experience, wanted to fly one of those types in the RAAF would they be able to straight up? No, they’d have to go through the rigmarole of officer training, initial and advanced pilot’s course, maybe have to serve some time on another aircraft before getting back to one of those types, and maybe only in the right seat. The RAAF would have pink kittens if the former was suggested, yet here some of them are demanding the same in the civilian world.

If a RAAF pilot joins an airline, regardless if they were a wing commander or the best F-18 or C-130 captain there they still have to do their time in seniority before getting back in the LHS. I’m sure a lot have complained about this and tried to jump the queue (there was a case in India some years back of ex IAF fighter pilots suing for fast tracked commands in Air India and losing).

Get in line and do your time….

[Chronic Snoozer]

So he already had the rating but wanted to skip the minimum experience levels to upgrade to Grade 2 and 3? You should really read the AATA decision.

Get in line and do your time son. It’s only 750 hrs of Instructional experience for G1, can knock that off in a year if you work hard.. And you have the temerity to make post after post about arrogance and perceived personality traits of the individual.

The debate is a healthy one. I just don't see the need to denigrate an individual by resorting to the usual and very, very tired stereotypes of the military. (or GA for that matter) Many posters have somewhat skewed views of what military flying training is like today. One point, overlooked by much of the discussion, is that RAAF flying training is conducted in tandem seat aircraft which presents unique challenges when compared to side by side seating as undertaken by most civilian schools. In this particular case, the individual introduced his experience of instructing in Saudi Arabia, no doubt that has quite specific challenges which could be akin to the experience of teaching competency units on a CASA RPL to a fresh student because of the language barrier. There are a number of factors which could have been explored further in this decision.

However, CASA is the arbiter of its regulations and the decision is clear. I'll believe the safety of air navigation was preserved by this decision if they say so.

If an already qualified and highly experienced civilian A330, 737 or Falcon 7X pilot, maybe even with TRE experience, wanted to fly me of those types in the RAAF would they be able to straight up? No, they’d have to go through the rigmarole of officer training, initial and advanced pilot’s course, maybe have to serve some time on another aircraft before getting back to one of those types, and maybe only in the right seat. The RAAF would have pink kittens if the former was suggested, yet here some of them are demanding the same in the civilian world.

I'm not convinced anyone is demanding anything. A process has been followed. It is an individual's right to challenge the regulations. As for your example, when you hear of someone wanting to do that why don't we debate the pros and cons on here without rubbishing each side. Given there is a shortage of candidates for the ADF, one can only speculate what would be considered.

If a RAAF pilot joins an airline, regardless if they were a wing commander or the best F-18 or C-130 captain there they still have to do their time in seniority before getting back in the LHS. I’m sure a lot have complained about this and tried to jump the queue (there was a case in India some years back of ex IAF fighter pilots suing for fast tracked commands in Air India and losing).


And you've indicated that it is about seniority, not equivalent experience which is what this case is about.

[dr dre]

And you have the temerity to make post after post about arrogance and perceived personality traits of the individual.

Well I’m not the one suing for the right to skip the standard process every other G1 instructor in the country had to go through. I’m not the one getting a lawyer to publicly talk about how great I am and how the civilian world ‘needs’ me.

The debate is a healthy one. I just don't see the need to denigrate an individual by resorting to the usual and very, very tired stereotypes of the military.

It’s the military complainant who’s perpetuating that stereotype himself, aided by some posters supporting him here.

I'm not convinced anyone is demanding anything.

So why did he go to court then? Did he first try to change the process the proper way by making a submission to CASA? If he did he didn’t get his way so went to the courts to force an outcome in his favour. That’s him demanding he be exempt from the rules.

And you've indicated that it is about seniority, not equivalent experience which is what this case is about.

It does point to the truth that some military pilots see themselves as above civilian pilots, and that their ‘military’ status should give them some type of privilege in the civilian world.

[Chronic Snoozer]

It’s the military complainant who’s perpetuating that stereotype himself Is it? Emotional intelligence, attitude and humility are just as important in making a good pilot and a good instructor as technical ability, if not more so. All this guy has demonstrated is arrogance and a belief he’s above the rules. A mentality that the civilian world ‘needs’ him to be able to fly. He sounds like a disaster in any civilian aviation environment.​​

So why did he go to court then? They're not in court. It's an administrative appeal.

[Clare Prop]

There is an issue here also, that the reason a Grade 1 needs to have that ab-initio experience and 750 total TEACHING THE PART 61 MOS or equivalent, (most ICAO countries having very similar syllabi and standards) is because that grade qualifies you for a supervisory role, including HOO. Grade Threes need guidance and mentoring from a Grade 1. As do Grade 2s to a lesser extent.

f you have never flown the sequences in that type of aircraft, or been in "their shoes" in any other way, particularly dealing with the many and varied personality types and competency levels that you will be dealing with, then how can you effectively mentor/supervise someone else?

This is why he is a Grade 3 now and will have to be supervised by a Grade 1. If that rankles then civvie instructing is not for you.

[finestkind]

Is it just me or is the arrogance of this post quite astonishing? This is exactly the "what-ho Squiffy" attitude that I am talking about.
So, Bloggs is unprepared, could have all kind of valid reasons for that, so perhaps you can help him with some tips to manage his time to fit in flying with other commitments, rather than just pat him on the head and patronise him?

Clare if the trainee rocks up unprepared do you not think that the instructor (most I know do/would) would comment, nicely, that to get more bang for his buck that they should do a, b, c. If the trainee decides to ignore the advice what then. Do you say bugger off your wasting my and your time (again I know a few that would/have done) or do you look after the business and if they are happy, keep taking the money. The beauty of the military is self-motivation combined with reaching a standard in the required time and not a requirement to keep the company financially viable. You turn up unprepared that's a fail.

[43Inches]

There is an issue here also, that the reason a Grade 1 needs to have that ab-initio experience and 750 total TEACHING THE PART 61 MOS or equivalent, (most ICAO countries having very similar syllabi and standards) is because that grade qualifies you for a supervisory role, including HOO. Grade Threes need guidance and mentoring from a Grade 1. As do Grade 2s to a lesser extent.

I've seen about 3 schools in 20 that have even the basic form of Grade 1s actually mentoring Grade 3s. It's pie in the sky stuff, sounds great, and it's written in the rules, but in reality Grade 3s do mostly their own thing and that's it. I remember one school with 4 seaters where grade ones or the CFI might occasionally sit in the back of a training flight to watch what a company instructor did. Two other schools that made working groups where grade ones were teamed up with grade 2/3s for mentoring. Another 10+ schools where a grade 3 was an annoying liability until they were senior G3 and didn't need someone 'present' to supervise them, and then they did what they wanted to do until the next check ride.

All I see here is waffle about the regulations and no idea of the reality of what actually goes on in most flying schools.

So all this talk that the 750 instructional hours actual amounts to real, tangible, teaching experience is kidding themselves. It's hours in the logbook, and whether the candidate makes a good grade 1 or not will be luck and personal aptitude.

I quiver when I look at the damage that the introduction of CBT and now all the MOS has done to the training industry, lots of words and a skyrocketing accident rate, because everyone is looking at rules and recommendations and forgetting the basics. Something is very wrong in the GA training industry, we all know it. Why can the FAA do it without 1000 pages of 'MOS' and have a better safety record in less forgiving environment....

By the way a USAF instructor pilot can convert to a CFI/CFII or MEI as long as they held the equivalent in the forces and pass a theory and practical exam.

[Clare Prop]

Clare if the trainee rocks up unprepared do you not think that the instructor (most I know do/would) would comment, nicely, that to get more bang for his buck that they should do a, b, c. If the trainee decides to ignore the advice what then. Do you say bugger off your wasting my and your time (again I know a few that would/have done) or do you look after the business and if they are happy, keep taking the money. The beauty of the military is self-motivation combined with reaching a standard in the required time and not a requirement to keep the company financially viable. You turn up unprepared that's a fail.

That's a good question.
In my circumstances I'm not having to chase cash flow, I teach because I want to, I can pick and chose my students, the onus is on them to be able to stay on the course. So yeah if I have a student who isn't prepared to commit the time and effort they need we will give them three warnings then tell them that we will dedicate our resources to genuine students, particularly if they are a CPL student. If they have something like a new baby or illness in the family we will be accommodating and put them last in the day's schedule so that a late cancellation rather than a wasted lesson doesn't disrupt the whole day, but if they are just bone idle then we don't want them here, they are in fact a liability and will usually self-cull through our no show/late cancellation policy (three strikes and you're out). They will then go to another school with some made-up story about how mean we are and become someone else's problem, this is why we don't accept students coming from other schools mid course - usually the last place is glad to see the back of them.

[Clare Prop]

All I see here is waffle about the regulations and no idea of the reality of what actually goes on in most flying schools.

So all this talk that the 750 instructional hours actual amounts to real, tangible, teaching experience is kidding themselves. It's hours in the logbook, and whether the candidate makes a good grade 1 or not will be luck and personal aptitude.

I quiver when I look at the damage that the introduction of CBT and now all the MOS has done to the training industry, lots of words and a skyrocketing accident rate, because everyone is looking at rules and recommendations and forgetting the basics. Something is very wrong in the GA training industry, we all know it. Why can the FAA do it without 1000 pages of 'MOS' and have a better safety record in less forgiving environment....


Care to give us a reference for the "skyrocketing accident rate"?

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/608x444/atsb_snip_4336054eebfff24ed5e9a5a63a6ea82393a95078.jpg
Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2010 to 2019 | ATSB (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2020/ar-2020-014#:~:text=What%20the%20ATSB%20found%201%202019%20In%202019 %2C,5%20General%20aviation%20...%206%20Recreational%20aviati on%20)

It's unfortunate you seem to have come across some very sub-standard flying schools in your world, I'm assuming you are Grade 1 to be able to speak with such authority? If so why did you not do something to improve things while you were in a position to?

[43Inches]

Care to give us a reference for the "skyrocketing accident rate"?
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/608x444/atsb_snip_4336054eebfff24ed5e9a5a63a6ea82393a95078.jpg


It's unfortunate you seem to have come across some very sub-standard flying schools in your world, I'm assuming you are Grade 1 to be able to speak with such authority? If so why did you not do something to improve things while you were in a position to?

You only quoted the past 9 years, and we have done this to death on other threads, Australia has an abysmal safety record in GA compared to the US... when compared in rates.

By the way I did a lot to improve things in GA as I helped implement the instructor mentoring program at two schools. Try to play with other peoples ponds and you get nasty kickback.

PS in my line of work I know what goes on in about 90% of flying schools in Australia, so it's pretty wide spread the problem at hand.

[Clare Prop]

CBT came in in 2000, part 61 in 2014, so that is a representative sample of the time you say the accident rates are "skyrocketing" due to those things.

"Done to death on other threads" isn't a reference...if you are going to make these allegations and lay the blame at the feet of flying instructors, then at least cite a credible source.

[43Inches]

CBT came in in 2000, part 61 in 2014, so that is a representative sample of the time you say the accident rates are "skyrocketing" due to those things.

"Done to death on other threads" isn't a reference...if you are going to make these allegation and lay the blame at the feet of flying instructors, all I am asking for is a credible source.

Can't be bothered doing it again, you provide the evidence against it.

PS I think one of the next few threads , the mid air one, FDR provided statistical evidence that mid air collisions alone were 3.5-7 times more likely in here than in the USA.

[Lookleft]

PS in my line of work I know what goes on in about 90% of flying schools in Australia, so it's pretty wide spread the problem at hand.

​​​​​​​The aviation community is so honoured to have one so noble and humble amongst its ranks. Accept a thousand pardons for anyone daring to speak against one so exalted.

[43Inches]

I just did a quick check of 2019 statistics and the US managed close to its long term fatal accident rate of 1.05 accidents per 100,000 flights. Australia was in the region of 2 accidents per 100,000 flights. That's double the accident rate for a massive country with next to no GA compared and benign weather and terrain....

Based on NTSB stats of 205 GA fatal accidents over around 20,000,000 flight hours, and, ATSB 22 fatal accidents over around 1,000,000 flight hours. (Sport and recreational aviation is not included in either numbers)

Here's something sobering, from 1990 to 2000 the accident rate for Australia averaged about 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flights. However the data suggests that in 1990 the rate was around 1.6 reducing to 0.9 per 100,000 by 2000. From 2000 onwards the rate has steadily climbed back up towards 2 accidents per 100,000. So what does that tell you?

The ATSB won't even quote the actual rate of accidents in the latest data as they probably don't want direct comparisons made to show up how badly we have done here.

[menekse]

Is it just me or is the arrogance of this post quite astonishing? This is exactly the "what-ho Squiffy" attitude that I am talking about.
So, Bloggs is unprepared, could have all kind of valid reasons for that, so perhaps you can help him with some tips to manage his time to fit in flying with other commitments, rather than just pat him on the head and patronise him?
It's just you
Plain truth is not arrogance

[menekse]

I just did a quick check of 2019 statistics and the US managed close to its long term fatal accident rate of 1.05 accidents per 100,000 flights. Australia was in the region of 2 accidents per 100,000 flights. That's double the accident rate for a massive country with next to no GA compared and benign weather and terrain....

Based on NTSB stats of 205 GA fatal accidents over around 20,000,000 flight hours, and, ATSB 22 fatal accidents over around 1,000,000 flight hours. (Sport and recreational aviation is not included in either numbers)

Here's something sobering, from 1990 to 2000 the accident rate for Australia averaged about 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flights. However the data suggests that in 1990 the rate was around 1.6 reducing to 0.9 per 100,000 by 2000. From 2000 onwards the rate has steadily climbed back up towards 2 accidents per 100,000. So what does that tell you?

The ATSB won't even quote the actual rate of accidents in the latest data as they probably don't want direct comparisons made to show up how badly we have done here.
I opened this thread https://www.pprune.org/interviews-jobs-sponsorship/652728-nepotism-pilot-selection.html?highlight=airbaltic
The local CAA occuses the pilot selection for an incident
There are a lot of posts regarding that the specific airline was hiring below the entry requirements they published
Seems that is not that relevant with this thread but that's pretty much the situation in flight schools
Most of the FIs are fresh CPL graduates that mommy could afford to pay the FI course in the same school so they were hired there
I come from the military, fighter jet experience, commercial jet experience I would be fine to give any exam for a FI rating but I would never pay 10.000+ euros to obtain the same course with a 200 hours piston pilot
I could write some pages for the reasons

[Mach E Avelli]

Having waded through the tribunal report, I gather that because he had never trained ab initio students, CASA granted him a Grade 3, so they were not totally refusing to recognise his military instruction time. Maybe I got that wrong ? But if they granted him a G 3, he did not have to spend a cent before going to work, albeit at apprentice wages.
Instead of getting CASA offside by lawyering up (bad idea) why did he not grab the G 3, train a few pilots up to solo standard to prove his worth, then apply for a Grade 2 on the basis of prior experience, get that, add other approvals or endorsements based on prior experience, and do whatever qualifying hours or time or tasks needed for Grade 1? He probably could have knocked it all over in 18 months, and given an employer in need of his skills, without spending a cent.
I am no CASA lover, but (generally) got what I needed out of them by (usually) taking a non-antagonistic approach. Which is saying that unless they threaten you, don’t wind them up because it may come back to bite you.

[menekse]

Having waded through the tribunal report, I gather that because he had never trained ab initio students, CASA granted him a Grade 3, so they were not totally refusing to recognise his military instruction time. Maybe I got that wrong ? But if they granted him a G 3, he did not have to spend a cent before going to work, albeit at apprentice wages.
Instead of getting CASA offside (bad idea) and getting lawyers involved (even badder idea), why did he not grab the G 3, train a few pilots up to solo standard to prove his worth, then apply for a Grade 2 on the basis of prior experience, get that, add other approvals or endorsements based on prior experience, and do whatever qualifying hours or time or tasks needed for Grade 1? He probably could have knocked it all over in 18 months, and given an employer in need of his skills, without spending a cent.
Maybe it's not about himself, probably he wanted to make a point
If he had a fund raising for lawyer expenses I would support

[dr dre]

It's just you
Plain truth is not arrogance

How do we define "truth"? Here's some excerpts from the post Clare was responding to:

After 4000 hours or so of GA and military, I did the GA instructor course. Whilst mildy entertaining for the first 3-4 flights all I really did was turn money into CO2. Could have done the test on day 2 and passed easily,

Are you so sure mate? No wonder the description of arrogant is being used here.

The CASA beurocrats can't seem to grasp that a military trained pilot who has attained check and training (let alone actually gone to CFS for 3 months so they can teach triming and flaring) can pick up any syllabi and just teach.


Apart from the two spelling errors this genius here believes military pilots have the ability to just magically teach anything, even if they've never actually done it themselves. That's an opinion, not a truth.

The expertise they bring with extensive training in CRM,AVRM, flying supervision, airborne instructional technique, sim checking, route checking, AVMED, etc far, far surpasses the CASA requirements.​​​​​​​

That's an opinion, not a truth. In my own personal experience I would say the skills of some ex military I've encountered has been lacking in some of those areas, especially CRM.

[menekse]

How do we define "truth"? Here's some excerpts from the post Clare was responding to:



Are you so sure mate? No wonder the description of arrogant is being used here.



Apart from the two spelling errors this genius here believes military pilots have the ability to just magically teach anything, even if they've never actually done it themselves. That's an opinion, not a truth.



That's an opinion, not a truth. In my own personal experience I would say the skills of some ex military I've encountered has been lacking in some of those areas, especially CRM.
It's not an opinion that fighter jet pilots are highly skilled professionals
It's just a fact
Filters in military profession guarantee the emotional balance
What more could you ask from a teacher?
Experience matters, that's why there is ZFTT

[EXDAC]

There is an issue here also, that the reason a Grade 1 needs to have that ab-initio experience and 750 total TEACHING THE PART 61 MOS or equivalent, (most ICAO countries having very similar syllabi and standards) is because that grade qualifies you for a supervisory role, including HOO. Grade Threes need guidance and mentoring from a Grade 1. As do Grade 2s to a lesser extent.


I can't comment on "most ICAO countries" but I can comment on FAA and USA. I hold FAA flight instructor ratings for glider, airplane single engine, and instrument. There are no "grades" of instructor in USA. The day I was issued each of those ratings I had the same instructor privileges as an instructor with 10,000 hours instruction given.

It was a little different in UK where I was granted glider "assistant instructor" privileges based on my FAA glider instructor rating and experience. I could not have been a "full cat" instructor without additional training.

[Mr Mossberg]

There is an issue here also, that the reason a Grade 1 needs to have that ab-initio experience and 750 total TEACHING THE PART 61 MOS or equivalent, (most ICAO countries having very similar syllabi and standards) is because that grade qualifies you for a supervisory role, including HOO. Grade Threes need guidance and mentoring from a Grade 1. As do Grade 2s to a lesser extent.

Good point, took a while for it to come about :ok:

​​​​​​​I've seen about 3 schools in 20 that have even the basic form of Grade 1s actually mentoring Grade 3s. It's pie in the sky stuff, sounds great, and it's written in the rules, but in reality Grade 3s do mostly their own thing and that's it.

I'm a new participant here, but out of genuine interest, are you retired? And are you using ChatGPT? The bolded comment above, really? I've worked in lots of schools obviously started at Grade 3 (I didn't fly for the RAAF so couldn't skip straight to Grade1) and in every one of them the majority of Grade 3's would naturally gravitate to 2's and 1's for advice. And most HOO's tell Grade 3's on induction tell 3's 'if in doubt, ask a 2 then a 1.

In regards to Clare's comment above it further reinforces CASA's excellent decision.

[Clare Prop]

EXDAC
I'm referring to the syllabus they are teaching to students rather than the syllabus for the instructor rating.
Meanwhile in the UK this document refers.
Military Aircrew Accreditation Scheme (caa.co.uk) (https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Military%20Aircrew%20Accreditation%20Scheme%20CAP2254.pdf)

[swh]

I hold FAA flight instructor ratings for glider, aircraft single engine, and instrument. There are no "grades" of instructor in USA. The day I was issued each of those ratings I had the same instructor privileges as an instructor with 10,000 hours instruction given.



I doubt you do, as the FAA does not issue pilot licences, nor do they issue instructor ratings. The FAA ratings are instrument, multi-engine, helicopters, gyroplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, and seaplanes. If you had 10,000 hrs given, you would also probably be a DPE and gold seal, they have more privileges than a CFI/CFII.



If you tried to convert a FAA CFI/CFII with 10,000 hrs instructional, CASA would only grant a Grade 3. If you were to convert a NZ A Cat, CASA would grant a Grade 1. There is a equivalence in qualification and experience.

[43Inches]

I doubt you do, as the FAA does not issue pilot licences, nor do they issue instructor ratings. The FAA ratings are instrument, multi-engine, helicopters, gyroplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, and seaplanes. If you had 10,000 hrs given, you would also probably be a DPE and gold seal, they have more privileges than a CFI/CFII.



If you tried to convert a FAA CFI/CFII with 10,000 hrs instructional, CASA would only grant a Grade 3. If you were to convert a NZ A Cat, CASA would grant a Grade 1. There is a equivalence in qualification and experience.

And despite Australia having all this higher qualification and multitude of rules the accident rate is double here in GA. Whats the point? Also FAA rules only have one additional requirement above holding a rating for what you train in and that is for instructor training, where additional experience is required. However they do not care about what type of training you have done.

You can look up the FARs on requirerements for an instructor rating, it's only about one page of reading, including syllabus.

[EXDAC]

I doubt you do, as the FAA does not issue pilot licences, nor do they issue instructor ratings. The FAA ratings are instrument, multi-engine, helicopters, gyroplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, and seaplanes.

Section XII RATINGS on the back of my FAA instructor certificate shows the RATINGS that I listed. Maybe you should become more familiar with the subject before posting. Perhaps start with 14 CFR 61.181 and 61.191.

[RichardJones]

If this instructor chap wanted to become a civil instructor he should have been offered a practical test or assesment, including briefing and debriefing. Carried out by a CASA testing officer for the grade he applied for? If he passed that, like every other instructor in the civilian training world, then he shorld be allowed to instruct in the civilian environment.

[Mach E Avelli]

Section XII RATINGS on the back of my FAA instructor certificate shows the RATINGS that I listed. Maybe you should become more familiar with the subject before posting. Perhaps start with 14 CFR 61.181 and 61.191.
Ex DAC, genuine question to follow.
The FAA instructor appointment system seems too simple to those of us labouring under CASA complexity. Yet, the GA accident rate in the USA is lower than that in Australia, despite your more demanding environment.
Is it true that the FAA keep a close watch on individual instructors by having examiners test students and reporting a first time pass rate? An instructor must achieve a certain student success rate to continue without FAA involvement. Or some similar quality assurance?

[43Inches]

Ex DAC, genuine question to follow.
The FAA instructor appointment system seems too simple to those of us labouring under CASA complexity. Yet, the GA accident rate in the USA is lower than that in Australia, despite your more demanding environment.
Is it true that the FAA keep a close watch on individual instructors by having examiners test students and reporting a first time pass rate? An instructor must achieve a certain student success rate to continue without FAA involvement. Or some similar quality assurance?

I think what you are referring to is the 'Gold Seal'. You can apply for it and are rewarded with this if you maintain a high level of activity in instruction as well as an 80% or better pass rate for candidates. It's checked at each renewal.

28 GOLD SEAL FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATES OTHER THAN FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS WITH A SPORT PILOT RATING. Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 2, Section 13, Issue a Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificate, contains the specific requirements for the Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificate other than flight instructors with a sport pilot rating. Flight instructor certificates bearing distinctive gold seals are issued to flight instructors who have maintained a high level of flight training activity and who meet special criteria. Once issued, a Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificate will be reissued each time the instructor’s certificate is renewed. Applicants for Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificates must meet the following requirements:

1. The flight instructor must hold a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an instrument rating (glider flight instructors need not hold an instrument rating) or an ATP Certificate;
2. The flight instructor must hold a ground instructor certificate with an advanced or instrument ground instructor rating; and
3. The flight instructor must have accomplished the following within the previous 24 calendar-months:
• Trained and recommended at least 10 applicants for a practical test, and at least 80 percent of the applicants passed their tests on the first attempt;
• Conducted at least 20 practical tests as a DPE, or graduation tests as chief instructor of a part 141 approved pilot school course; or
• A combination of the above requirements. Two practical tests conducted equal the credit given for one applicant trained and recommended for a practical test.

This is actually a great idea, and rewards a good instructor for having high pass rates. It's also a very good marketing edge to attract students. Compare something like this to a FIR G1, where they may have hours under their belt, but there is no proof they are any better than a FIR G3 other than having passed the flight test requirements. Currently in the Australian system there is no real identification for whether an instructor is good or not, the FIR G1 just recognizes that you have some training time under your belt and can pass a test.

There is also a pass requirement if you wish to train instructors, but have not held a CFI for more than 24 months.

Technically even in Australia CASA will get involved if they hear of low first time pass rates, it may be just in the form of more frequent Audits. Which sounds proactive, until you realize they don't do much but check duty times and inspect placards on trainers.

[EXDAC]

Is it true that the FAA keep a close watch on individual instructors by having examiners test students and reporting a first time pass rate? An instructor must achieve a certain student success rate to continue without FAA involvement. Or some similar quality assurance?

I never instructed professionally, only at clubs and for friends. I am not aware that FAA has taken any interest in my first time pass rate (it is 100% but for a very small number of recommendations).

An FAA flight instructor certificate expires 24 months after the issue date (14 CFR 61.19(d). FAA flight instructors have to "renew" every 2 years. That can be on the basis of student success if enough recommendations are given. I don't do nearly enough for that and have to take a flight instructor refresher course every 2 years. ref - https://ctipft.com/how-to-renew-your-cfi/

My ground instructor certificate does not expire.

[EXDAC]

In FAA world they are instructor CERTIFICATES, not ratings.

FAA cannot issue an instructor certificate with no associated ratings. The RATINGS are listed on the certificate. Did you read the references I provided?

Have you ever held an FAA flight instructor certificate? If so, please save us the drama and read what is written on it.

[Mach E Avelli]

The aeronautical experience requirements for various RATINGS are listed in 61.129, there is no instructor RATING. The ratings they refer to in 61.181 is when you want to say add on a helicopter RATING to your Commercial Pilot/CFI CERTIFICATE. In the FAA world, RATING sets forth the special conditions, privileges, or limitations on a CERTIFICATE. The Commercial Pilot/CFI are the CERTIFICATES, RATING is the privileges/limitations on the CERTIFICATE, e.g. airplane, helicopter, multi-engine etc.

In FAA world they are instructor CERTIFICATES, not ratings.
Rating, certificate, endorsement, licence, license, approval, authorisation …who gives a toss what you call it, or how you spell it, all that matters is what it allows you to do.

[Xeptu]

It gives me no pleasure agreeing with CASA on this one. Having significant experience on both sides of the coin, there are a number of very good instructors in the Airline Industry and the ADF, delegates, that have trained many 3000 hr plus commercial pilots on various types and have never held an instructor rating. This does not make them a Grade One Flight Instructor. I support consideration or credits for previous experience, but not a substitute for.

[43Inches]

It gives me no pleasure agreeing with CASA on this one. Having significant experience on both sides of the coin, there are a number of very good instructors in the Airline Industry and the ADF, delegates, that have trained many 3000 hr plus commercial pilots on various types and have never held an instructor rating. This does not make them a Grade One Flight Instructor. I support consideration or credits for previous experience, but not a substitute for.

So you are totally ignoring what we are talking about, that a USAF instructor pilot can basically get a CFI/CFII or MEI recognized, to teach whatever ratings they hold. They have no requirements for 'ab-initio' training, just a general 'have conducted' x amount of training to be involved in instructor training, which would be the only similarity to a FIR G1. And with all that have a safer system than Australia? I can't agree with CASA regulations on this as it's a draconian bureaucratic system that holds tight to laws and not outcomes. The AAT basically had it's hands tied as the way CASA regulations are written mean that they can not disagree with CASA.

The aeronautical experience requirements for various RATINGS are listed in 61.129, there is no instructor RATING. The ratings they refer to in 61.181 is when you want to say add on a helicopter RATING to your Commercial Pilot/CFI CERTIFICATE. In the FAA world, RATING sets forth the special conditions, privileges, or limitations on a CERTIFICATE. The Commercial Pilot/CFI are the CERTIFICATES, RATING is the privileges/limitations on the CERTIFICATE, e.g. airplane, helicopter, multi-engine etc.

I'm not sure you understand the US FAA system for instructor certificates.§ 61.181 Applicability.This subpart prescribes the requirements for the issuance of flight instructor certificates and ratings (except for flight instructor certificates with a sport pilot rating), the conditions under which those certificates and ratings are necessary, and the limitations on those certificates and ratings.

There are different certificates that you apply for with different ratings.

(2) An instrument rating, or privileges on that person's pilot certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought, if applying for—

(i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating;

(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating;

(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating; or

(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.

That's where the terms CFI/CFII or MEI come from.

Once you have some experience you can then apply for a 'Gold Seal', which gives you a fancy certificate and bragging rights.

[dr dre]

So you are totally ignoring what we are talking about, that a USAF instructor pilot can basically get a CFI/CFII or MEI recognized, to teach whatever ratings they hold. They have no requirements for 'ab-initio' training, just a general 'have conducted' x amount of training to be involved in instructor training, which would be the only similarity to a FIR G1. And with all that have a safer system than Australia? I can't agree with CASA regulations on this as it's a draconian bureaucratic system that holds tight to laws and not outcomes. The AAT basically had it's hands tied as the way CASA regulations are written mean that they can not disagree with CASA.

The US does a lot of things different to the rest of the world. Doesn't mean that it's better.

They seem to have a love affair with military trained pilots. For instance under their ATPL rules a military pilot can qualify for a restricted ATPL and sit in an F/O's seat with only 750 hours total time, whereas most civilian trained pilots would have to wait until 1500 hours is obtained. This is discrimination in favour of military pilots (or alternatively against civilian pilots). Thankfully most of the world doesn't follow this and treats candidates equally and fairly.

As several posters have pointed out for this person to get his G1 FIR it would only be about a year or so of instruction, so that by the time he reaches G1 and is granted privileges like supervising brand new grade 3's he has enough relevant experience in that environment he can supervise them properly.

[43Inches]

The US does a lot of things different to the rest of the world. Doesn't mean that it's better.

They seem to have a love affair with military trained pilots. For instance under their ATPL rules a military pilot can qualify for a restricted ATPL and sit in an F/O's seat with only 750 hours total time, whereas most civilian trained pilots would have to wait until 1500 hours is obtained. This is discrimination in favour of military pilots (or alternatively against civilian pilots). Thankfully most of the world doesn't follow this and treats candidates equally and fairly.

As several posters have pointed out for this person to get his G1 FIR it would only be about a year or so of instruction, so that by the time he reaches G1 and is granted privileges like supervising brand new grade 3's he has enough relevant experience in that environment he can supervise them properly.

I think the way I look at it is that CASA relies on arbitrary hours to assess whether a candidate is any good, which we all know is not the measure of a good pilot, it just says they have some rudimentary experience, of any kind. In the US quality of training, and measurable positive outcomes allow you to reduce the amount of hours required for a number of things. That means somebody who excels in the area can get ahead faster and get recognition for having higher standards.

Again the Australian GA accident rate is double that of the US, despite having virtually no terrain, benign weather and seriously less concentration of traffic, also without a massive variation in the mix of types and speeds of relative traffic. The real eye opener is that Australia has over 3 times the Mid air collision rate of the US despite having mostly empty skies. You can not seriously say the Australian system is even close to being good, it's terrible. The FIR system is not producing quality outcomes, as the proof is the rate of accidents. Or is it that US pilots are just naturals vs Australians who struggle with the concepts?

There are many CFI/CFI-I and MEI in the US who are ex military, who have converted from military instructors to civilian. There is absolutely no proof they are any more dangerous without supervision than the civilian trained pilots. The proof is there that the Australian system is preventing this cross over for absolutely no beneficial reason.

Other good parts of the US system is the requirement for teaching skills at the start, not at some later stage, again a practical and evidence based approach.

[43Inches]

Again missing the point earlier that Australia had reduced it's GA accident rate from 1.6 in 1990 to about 0.9 in 2000. What changed after that to make it jump back up again? It's not ageing aircraft, the average fleet age is younger now than in 1999, as that was pre all the influx of new trainers and caravans etc.. and contrary to the witch hunt CASA is on, airframe failure due age is not high on the list of reasons pilots crash. The 90s were also pre the mass introduction of GPS, so no fancy navigation, moving map displays, ACAS for GA, etc... All clocks, maps and DR. In the 90s large GA airports like Moorabbin were still thriving, so large concentrations of GA aircraft, so it's not that either. It was also pre-ADSB, so virtually no radar coverage outside of the main cities. Lots of GA airplanes plying the skies around the country and no huge rate of mid airs either, a lot more country airstrips because CASA had not deemed they need some sort of oversight, manager and law suits coming up because some idiot crashed there, claiming the grass was not inline with some MOS somewhere.

Hmm what changed in the early 2000s? Oh that's right we went to a fancy new system that focuses on competency rather than the age old system of 'is that pilot safe'. We also made it ten times harder for CFI/CP to get involved in the practical operation of the flying school due to them being inundated with regulations, procedures and dealing with CASA. The regulated difficulty in running a decent flying school with the 1000s of pages of paperwork required to prove somebody competent has removed the simplicity of the instructors task of just teaching and assessing somebody 'safe' and moving on. Add to the list an unworkable and contradictory rule set, that requires a 'MOS' to interpret the convoluted rules, which the 'MOS' in itself is as convoluted and unintelligible. Now if I want to look something up quickly I look in the AIP, where a simple answer used to be, it now says refer MOS xxxx, and I have to dig through that, and half way through give up and just do what I think is right...

The only thing that has really changed is the regulatory environment and procedures. CASA is directly responsible for the current issues in GA in Australia, as well as many other problems in Aviation at all levels. Safety has gone backwards since 2000.

What is really sad is that for all the new aircraft, ADSB coverage and new fancy navigation and collision avoidance technology, we have gone backwards since it was all introduced.

[dr dre]

I think the way I look at it is that CASA relies on arbitrary hours to assess whether a candidate is any good, which we all know is not the measure of a good pilot, it just says they have some rudimentary experience, of any kind. In the US quality of training, and measurable positive outcomes allow you to reduce the amount of hours required for a number of things. That means somebody who excels in the area can get ahead faster and get recognition for having higher standards.


That's funny because it's the US that threw in the arbitrary 1500 hr limit for airline F/Os (less for military pilots) without any real data backing up the 750/1500 hour rule as a positive for safety.

To say the "quality of training" allows the hour requirement to be reduced is questionable itself. To me the quality of training would only be demonstrated by military pilots achieving better standards when they are placed in the same environment as a civilian trained pilot. The most common arena where these two groups would interact is in the airline world with ex RAAF pilots joining an airline and then being assessed in the same system as civilian trained pilots. As far as I know there hasn't been any recent studies on the differences in outcomes between the two groups, and anecdotal experience and feedback from a wide variety of pilots who have flown with each group in an airline career indicates no observable evidence that military trained pilots are "better" in any respect than civilian trained ones.

So to me the 750/1500 difference is unproven (the whole 1500 hour rule is stupid to being with) and CASA just doesn't rely on arbitrary hour limits, there require competencies to be demonstrated in multiple areas in order to be granted ratings and privileges.

[43Inches]

That's funny because it's the US that threw in the arbitrary 1500 hr limit for airline F/Os (less for military pilots) without any real data backing up the 750/1500 hour rule as a positive for safety.

To say the "quality of training" allows the hour requirement to be reduced is questionable itself. To me the quality of training would only be demonstrated by military pilots achieving better standards when they are placed in the same environment as a civilian trained pilot. The most common arena where these two groups would interact is in the airline world with ex RAAF pilots joining an airline and then being assessed in the same system as civilian trained pilots. As far as I know there hasn't been any recent studies on the differences in outcomes between the two groups, and anecdotal experience and feedback from a wide variety of pilots who have flown with each group in an airline career indicates no observable evidence that military trained pilots are "better" in any respect than civilian trained ones.

So to me the 750/1500 difference is unproven (the whole 1500 hour rule is stupid to being with) and CASA just doesn't rely on arbitrary hour limits, there require competencies to be demonstrated in multiple areas in order to be granted ratings and privileges.

I do agree with you there, as that is one rule that does not make sense, especially since the accident that pushed it forward involved two pilots that were well above that threshold. However since that rule does benefit pilots in general, I'm not so against it. There is probably some political motivation for the military pilots getting a cut, to promote more pilots enlist to keep airforce pilot numbers up. The US does like to keep a large amount of military trained pilots in reserve duties so if there is a war they can pull on civilian pilots with previous military experience. Some of those that move to civilian jobs are probably still reservist pilots on the side. Australia does not really have an equivalent for the reserve airforce pilot or navy for that matter.

Just a point on 'quality' of training, I think is also a factor of 'consistency' of training. The Air Force is a known quantity with predictable standards. In some countries this is not compatible with airlines, in the US it is with little effort. I don't think it will be long before the large airline academies get the same concession based on training standards. It has been tested a few times lately, and will continue to be tested, as the airlines struggle more for adequately experienced pilots. I think the major hurdle is proving that the civilian academies will maintain standards, especially when aligned with an airline hungry for pilots, will they bend to just push them through? Where the air force you meet the standard or get the boot...

Prior to the current shortage of pilots there were particular paths you had to follow to get into certain airlines. The airlines could trust pilots with experience from these operators would be of a consistent standard that would make them easy to train in low hours. They would not entertain many applicants, even those with higher hours from outside these sources. As hours did not mean somebody had the required standard, and they didn't want to waste time finding out.

[Clare Prop]

43" if you are going to present statistics you need to cite your source and please provide a link.

Anyone can say "Statistics show dot dot dot", the media do it all the time, but to analyse statistics correctly and have a sensible debate you need to know more, a lot more.
For a start the sample sizes of the USA and Aus would be very different, have your figures been adjusted for that? Are we talking about null hypothesis testing or just trying to ram a point home by belittling people who don't accept it at face value? Or something in between such as presenting data in a graphical form with a written explanation like this? Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2010 to 2019 (atsb.gov.au) (https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/5777724/ar-2020-014_final.pdf)

If you don't cite your source then your argument has little merit. If you just try to shout down others then it has no merit at all.

[43Inches]

43" if you are going to present statistics you need to cite your source and please provide a link.

Anyone can say "Statistics show dot dot dot", the media do it all the time, but to analyse statistics correctly and have a sensible debate you need to know more, a lot more.
For a start the sample sizes of the USA and Aus would be very different, have your figures been adjusted for that? Are we talking about null hypothesis testing or just trying to ram a point home by belittling people who don't accept it at face value? Or something in between such as presenting data in a graphical form with a written explanation like this? Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2010 to 2019 (atsb.gov.au) (https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/5777724/ar-2020-014_final.pdf)

If you don't cite your source then your argument has little merit. If you just try to shout down others then it has no merit at all.

Its all online available material from ATSB and NTSB. You are just being lazy not to look it up yourself. However, notice that the ATSB does not even provide a 'rate' of occurence in that 2010-2019 data. Previous trend data, like the 1990s data set they do provide the rates. They are avoiding the direct comparison with the US statistics. If you can't do a basic search to find this information that confirms what I'm saying then you yourself have no place commenting here, from your own words, because you are not providing any citations or opposing resources to prove that I'm wrong, just a link to the latest data set that confirms the Australian data I presented. So you sir are just shouting down anybody without any proof at all, because you have obviously not search further than that one graph you presented.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/research_fatality_tr

Contained in that dataset is the trend data that clearly shows a reduction in fatal accident rates over that period. And accident rates in general.

The 2010-2019 dataset you presented clearly shows a higher accident rate, at almost double the 1990s figures for both accidents in general and fatal accidents compared to hours flown. This number had jumped in the mid-late 2000s and remained higher since.

[Clare Prop]

If you had clicked on the link I cited you would have found a lot more than the example graph I presented, which is why the link was provided. So I presume your level of education doesn't go up to the bit where you need to back up things you say with references. That's OK, but doesn't excuse gaslighting.

I've asked you to provide a link to prove your assertion that accident rates have "skyrocketed", it will be interesting because hyperbole and statistics are rarely seen together and I'm looking forward to it.

As for my bona fides to comment on this thread, 14,000 hours/ 33 years as a GA flying instructor must count for something. Plus coming from a military family and being married to a soldier. However, I do not answer to "Sir". You are wasting your time trying to get personal.

[43Inches]

Your response tone tells me you take it very personally when it was not intended as a personal slant. There's only one here saying 'I'm better than you' and that's you. I'm just peddling the stats. Just because you don't like it you don't have to get up on a soap box, I'd rather you actually provide some proof I'm wrong, which so far you have provided nothing of the sort. I wait in anticipation.

And my comment on whether you should comment on this thread was in direct response to what you accused me of, but have done yourself.

PS I'm not writting a thesis here, or making a submission to some peer group, so if you want to disprove my statements, go on, do it, show your facts.

Getting back to the thread;

The premise is that a military (RAAF) instructor somehow needs supervision to be safe and effective when the comparative military instructor (USAF) converting in the USA does not. The statistical data shows that the US accident rate in GA (and recreational aviation) is similar if not better than Australia. Therefore it is quite easy to say that there is no benefit to safety to require a converted RAAF instructor to be supervised at all, as the training required for military instructors in the RAAF and USAF is very high, and both make competent civilian instructors. Are we seriously saying that USAF instructors are way better than RAAF ones, or is there some truth that I have missed here?

The benefit would be to make it much easier for long serving RAAF instructors to come back to be senior instructors to assist with the drain in basic aeronautical knowledge that has afflicted Australian aviation.

Also it's quite easy to see that the US system favors promoting instructors with high pass rates, to give them recognition of their abilities. Australia does no such thing. It's very easy to see the safety benefits from encouraging high first time passes, as that means the training is solid.

As for the aeronautical knowledge of airline training/check captains, you have probably heard of certain ones who ask candidates about retreating blade stall on turboprops, and that you have to be careful turning out of wind (on autopilot) in case the downwind stalls you....

[Lead Balloon]

Take a deep breath, 43, and ask yourself whether you’re sure all instructors are male…

[43Inches]

Take a deep breath, 43, and ask yourself whether you’re sure all instructors are male…

OK, I see the error, sorry about that, probably worse seeing that I should be aware the pronoun was wrong for CP.

I'll even concede the rates did not 'skyrocket', just using some poetic licence.

My point still stands however on the rest. I'm all for robust debate on how bad the regulatory system in Australia has become. Especially in regards to the imposts on training organizations.

[Clare Prop]

What you are training an Air Force pilot to do, eg go to war and kill the enemy if required, and what you are training a civilian pilot to do, eg transport people and things from place to place without killing anyone, are two different skill sets. Just as I wouldn't presume to be able to train someone to control a very fast killing machine, so I wouldn't presume a trained fighter pilot to be able to assess the progress of a civilian student who is doing it for all sorts of reasons other than to defend the country. Switching both ways would require some conversion training and hands-on experience, particularly before going into a supervisory role. What is so outrageous about that?
If this one individual was given the exemptions they sought, there would still be the obstacle of finding an employer and team who were OK with that.
LB isn't it ironic when people talk about prejudice and then make those sorts of assumptions!

[Lead Balloon]

Indeed. We all have our prejudices.

I note that most RAAF pilots (and most of the pilots of any country’s air force) are not fighter pilots, and it’s been many years since any RAAF pilot fired a shot or dropped a bomb in anger. I think the most recent RAAF pilot to score a ‘kill’ - bad guy’s aircraft shot down - was Kim Osley (sp?) during one of the Iraq turkey shoots and another RAAF pilot chose not to engage (or maybe drop bombs) due to concerns about the accuracy of the identification of the target. I think many would be surprised at how human and empathetic most if not all RAAF pilots are. They’re chosen on many bases beyond just aeronautical aptitude.

[Clare Prop]

Indeed LB, but the one we are talking about on this thread was training on the FA18 and PC9s and F15s.

BTW..."Sir" isn't a pronoun.

As for the imposts on flying training organisations, that is really only for the ones who go for part 142, because they are given the route to CPL with less hours than 141, so need more oversight and standardisation. The impost on Part 141 organisations is minimal, an audit every three years and the occasional random drug test.
There are many faults in the regulatory system, but it is what it is, and other countries have plenty of issues with their regulators too..

[swh]

Its all online available material from ATSB and NTSB. You are just being lazy not to look it up yourself. However, notice that the ATSB does not even provide a 'rate' of occurence in that 2010-2019 data. Previous trend data, like the 1990s data set they do provide the rates. They are avoiding the direct comparison with the US statistics. If you can't do a basic search to find this information that confirms what I'm saying then you yourself have no place commenting here, from your own words, because you are not providing any citations or opposing resources to prove that I'm wrong, just a link to the latest data set that confirms the Australian data I presented. So you sir are just shouting down anybody without any proof at all, because you have obviously not search further than that one graph you presented.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/research_fatality_tr

Contained in that dataset is the trend data that clearly shows a reduction in fatal accident rates over that period. And accident rates in general.

The 2010-2019 dataset you presented clearly shows a higher accident rate, at almost double the 1990s figures for both accidents in general and fatal accidents compared to hours flown. This number had jumped in the mid-late 2000s and remained higher since.

The ATSB has provided an occurrence rate, that is the rate of fatal events per calender year. Between 2003 and 2022 the average number of fatal accidents was 22.25 events per year with a standard deviation 0f 5.47. The NTSB I can only really get an occurrence rate between 2012 and 2021. For the ATSB sample between 2012 and 2021, the average 22 events per year, with a standard deviation of 6.02. The ATSB report also shows between 1991 and 2000 there were 215 fatal accidents, which is an average of 21.5. So no significant change in the average number of fatal accidents per year over the 30 years between 1991 and 2021.

If you look at the ATSB report “Figure 1 of the Exposure by activity 2014 to 2018”, there has been a very small increase the amount of flying. It would then follow, the rate occurrences per year per hours flown would have the smallest of downtrends, nothing statistically significant.

Looking at the NTSB “General Aviation Accident Dashboard: 2012-2021”, they averaged 231 fatal accidents per year between 2012 and 2021, with a standard deviation of 22.52. They have also seen a small decline in the number of occurrences per year per flight hour, that like the ATSB data is not due to the reduction of events per year, it’s because their has been a small uptick in the number of hours flown.

Both the ATSB and NTSB data shows that the number of fatal accidents per year has been fairly constant, with small annual variations normally within 1 standard deviation of the mean.

[Mach E Avelli]

Someone please explain what this evolving pissing contest about relative accident statistics has to do with recognition of military instructors, and whether our CASA is unreasonable compared with FAA.
To debate suitability of instruction methods and instructor backgrounds in achieving safety, instead of trotting out obscure charts and numbers on GA rates, why not also compare relative accident rates between the USA military and Australian military? Crashes per thousand hours flown, please, so that we can understand the numbers.
No? Too hard?

[The Love Doctor]

Y


As for the aeronautical knowledge of airline training/check captains, you have probably heard of certain ones who ask candidates about retreating blade stall on turboprops, and that you have to be careful turning out of wind (on autopilot) in case the downwind stalls you....

Far out. I flew thousands and thousands of hours on turboprops back in the day and I have never even heard of turboprop retreating blade stall :ok:

[Mr Mossberg]

Don't know how you can compare the US Instructor structure, where independent instructing is wide spread and across most ratings, endorsements etc, and the CASA system that is greatly different. Supervision is a key component of G1 and like it not, so is CBT across licences, ratings and endorsements. All this fellow has to do is prove is competency in the areas that don't show up on his RAAF quals.

[Lead Balloon]

I don’t want to incur Mach’s wrath, but comparisons on the basis of “fatal [events/accidents/occurrences] per year” without more is BS.

However, the strategic conclusion to be drawn from this thread is clear. Australia will keep being Australia, because…well, because… it’s Australia.

[RichardJones]

In the military, part of the brainwashing and reprogramming involves getting into the heads of personal, that they are the best of the best. If you go to war, with the mindset you aren't the best of the best, you are a looser!!
The case in question may be a carry over of this indoctrination and a dollop dollop of a sense of entitlement
Military agreesion and the above attitude has no place in civil aviation.

[Lead Balloon]

At least RAAF pilots can spell and chose the correct word for the context. (Nothing personnel, and I don’t want to appear to be advocating for loser standards or aggregation, Richard.)

[RichardJones]

No not taking it personally. I was an aviator. Not an academic by any stretch of the imagination. Left school at 15 which gave me an early start in aviation. First job at 20. Qualified as a CFI before I was 21.

[junior.VH-LFA]

In the military, part of the brainwashing and reprogramming involves getting into the heads of personal, that they are the best of the best. If you go to war, with the mindset you aren't the best of the best, you are a looser!!
The case in question may be a carry over of this indoctrination and a dollop dollop of a sense of entitlement
Military agreesion and the above attitude has no place in civil aviation.

This thread is starting to become pretty funny now :D You will have to pass this on to all the ex military pilots flying in Australia that they have no place in civil aviation. Perhaps time to let Qantas HR know as well.

[Lead Balloon]

I left school at 15, too, Richard.

First job in aviation at … 15. In the RAAF.

[menekse]

That's funny because it's the US that threw in the arbitrary 1500 hr limit for airline F/Os (less for military pilots) without any real data backing up the 750/1500 hour rule as a positive for safety.

To say the "quality of training" allows the hour requirement to be reduced is questionable itself. To me the quality of training would only be demonstrated by military pilots achieving better standards when they are placed in the same environment as a civilian trained pilot. The most common arena where these two groups would interact is in the airline world with ex RAAF pilots joining an airline and then being assessed in the same system as civilian trained pilots. As far as I know there hasn't been any recent studies on the differences in outcomes between the two groups, and anecdotal experience and feedback from a wide variety of pilots who have flown with each group in an airline career indicates no observable evidence that military trained pilots are "better" in any respect than civilian trained ones.

So to me the 750/1500 difference is unproven (the whole 1500 hour rule is stupid to being with) and CASA just doesn't rely on arbitrary hour limits, there require competencies to be demonstrated in multiple areas in order to be granted ratings and privileges.
So you need proofs that someone who has 750 hours on F16 is more skilled and safer pilot than someone who has the same amount of hours on cessnas or LET410s
Serious airlines don't ask just hours
Usually ask for hours on aircrafts above 20 tones for example
EASA regulated that ZFTT applies only for planes above some standards. Do you also find it funny?
Not all the hours the same and that is recognized by the market and by some authorities

[43Inches]

Someone please explain what this evolving pissing contest about relative accident statistics has to do with recognition of military instructors, and whether our CASA is unreasonable compared with FAA.
To debate suitability of instruction methods and instructor backgrounds in achieving safety, instead of trotting out obscure charts and numbers on GA rates, why not also compare relative accident rates between the USA military and Australian military? Crashes per thousand hours flown, please, so that we can understand the numbers.
No? Too hard?

OK one more time,

The reason I used relative accident rates was to establish if there was tangible difference between the standard of training between the US and Australia. Once you understand that the overall accident rate between the two countries is pretty much the same with the US being ahead of late then one can assume that there is no major flaw between the two when it comes to how pilots are trained and their relative competencies. If anything, Australia seems to have more issues with accident rate than the USA, particularly in regard to mid air collisions, which dealing with traffic is something that should be taught during all stages of gaining a licence/certificate, so therefore is a training failure if the rates are statistically higher. Considering the USA has much more complicated/difficult flying conditions then you should deduce that the accident rate should be higher than Australia by it's nature, but it's not.

So we come to the part where we join the dots wrt military pilots. Many civilian instructors in the US are ex-military who gained their certificate through conversion and do not require any form of direct supervision, they can teach whatever they can convert relative to their military ratings. So that means they could teach anything from ab-initio through to multi engine IFR, immediately, without supervision. The accident rate shows that there is no increased problem occurring from all these converted military instructors acting without supervision. After all the reason we have rules, certificates and ratings is to ensure pilots are safe and competent to do what they are doing.

So why is it, with that in mind, that Australia will not let a RAAF QFI convert to high level instructor authorizations and act unsupervised? There's no arrogance or elitism about it, it's a valid question when you compare what we do to the USA.

[dr dre]

The benefit would be to make it much easier for long serving RAAF instructors to come back to be senior instructors to assist with the drain in basic aeronautical knowledge that has afflicted Australian aviation.


Whilst I would disagree with the statement "there's a drain in basic aeronautical knowledge in Australian aviation" that only RAAF pilots can fix, I'm scratching my head to why some here think that this pilot or any RAAF pilot are not allowed to become civilian flying instructors. They are certainly allowed to, as long as they meet the same prerequisites that civilian instructors do. Is spending about a year as a civilian flight instructor before getting a Grade 1 rating really too much for them to handle? Is the minimum amount of Grade 3 leading into Grade 2 instruction going to be an impossible task for this guy, even though his lawyer states he's pretty much one of the most skilled pilots in this country?

[dr dre]

So you need proofs that someone who has 750 hours on F16 is more skilled and safer pilot than someone who has the same amount of hours on cessnas or LET410s


That legislation is the minimum hour requirement to sit in the right hand seat of multicrew airliner. A LET410 is a multicrew airliner. Statistically there's no evidence that a 750 hour F-16 pilot is better in an airline job than any civilian trained pilot. The skills, mentality and operation of those kinds of flying are totally different.

[menekse]

It gives me no pleasure agreeing with CASA on this one. Having significant experience on both sides of the coin, there are a number of very good instructors in the Airline Industry and the ADF, delegates, that have trained many 3000 hr plus commercial pilots on various types and have never held an instructor rating. This does not make them a Grade One Flight Instructor. I support consideration or credits for previous experience, but not a substitute for.
Is it reasonable to have 3000 hr on commercial airplanes and need to have the same course for FI rating with a 200hr piston pilot?
I agree with the skill test but not with the full course

[43Inches]

Whilst I would disagree with the statement "there's a drain in basic aeronautical knowledge in Australian aviation" that only RAAF pilots can fix, I'm scratching my head to why some here think that this pilot or any RAAF pilot are not allowed to become civilian flying instructors. They are certainly allowed to, as long as they meet the same prerequisites that civilian instructors do. Is spending about a year as a civilian flight instructor before getting a Grade 1 rating really too much for them to handle? Is the minimum amount of Grade 3 leading into Grade 2 instruction going to be an impossible task for this guy, even though his lawyer states he's pretty much one of the most skilled pilots in this country?

Never said that ex RAAF pilots are the complete answer to the drain, just they would be a welcome addition.

In regard to the 1 year as a grade 3, it may be that the school they propose to work at does not have the supervision capability, or they are looking to become a CFI/CP of a small organisation.

[dr dre]

Is it reasonable to have 3000 hr on commercial airplanes and need to have the same course for FI rating with a 200hr piston pilot?
I agree with the skill test but not with the full course

If a 20,0000 hour airline Type Rating Examiner without a FIR wishes to take up a job or a side gig as an ab initio flying instructor their previous airline TRE experience counts for squat, and they need to start from scratch with a grade 3 qualification. I have known several airline pilots who have taken such a course, never did they complain about having to start from scratch again or cry to a Tribunal to change the rules in their favour. They were humble enough to accept the rules and the new environment they were entering. Humility is an important attribute for a pilot. Arrogance is not.

[Clare Prop]

Can success only be measured by accident rate?
I can think of several other performance indicators that could be used to measure success, particularly when keeping your business viable and giving the student value for money is a factor, this has been discussed at length already.

[menekse]

That legislation is the minimum hour requirement to sit in the right hand seat of multicrew airliner. A LET410 is a multicrew airliner. Statistically there's no evidence that a 750 hour F-16 pilot is better in an airline job than any civilian trained pilot. The skills, mentality and operation of those kinds of flying are totally different.
Started the basic training with piston props, I have fighter jet hours and currently I am flying a Gulfstream
Studying the SOPs can prepare you for airline operations
No studies can prepare enough you for the physics of flight, energy handling, stressful situations managing
You can't compare the energy management of a LET410 with an F16
Airliners are quite aerodynamically efficient jets, lowering the landing gear won't give you enough drag to keep the speed slow while descending in an approach like the LET410 does

[43Inches]

Can success only be measured by accident rate?
I can think of several other performance indicators that could be used to measure success, particularly when keeping your business viable and giving the student value for money is a factor, this has been discussed at length already.

I'm only using that as a KPI as safety is the main aim of the rules and procedures we abide by. Having pilots trained to a competent standard is so that accident rates are minimized, that's the whole point of training, otherwise there would be no need for instructors as it is. However we have to be careful that the requirements for training fit what is needed. In aviation training takes time, time equates to lots of money spent. Training unnecessary sequences or placing requirements that achieve very little in safety value are just a waste of money, and not many can afford to pay for the privilege of knowing things, just because somebody thought it made sense without any proof.

What is 1 year to a pilot? A long time if you have the option of going right hand seat in an airline, and grow fat on a decent pay check. As opposed to working your arse off as a junior grade 3 on minimum wage, when you could have gone directly into a senior role and be paid for your experience. We could be talking tens of thousands of dollars in pay difference. That could be the deciding factor on whether the RAAF pilot decides to instruct, do the easy airline route or just retire and enjoy life. Telling a fresh out of the factory newbie pilot to suck eggs is one thing, telling somebody with decent qualifications and experience to is another, and just means they are less likely to do something that helps the industry.

The RAAF has some weird and wonderful rules as well, like helicopter pilots height limits based on the knee cut off for ejector seats.

[menekse]

If a 20,0000 hour airline Type Rating Examiner without a FIR wishes to take up a job or a side gig as an ab initio flying instructor their previous airline TRE experience counts for squat, and they need to start from scratch with a grade 3 qualification. I have known several airline pilots who have taken such a course, never did they complain about having to start from scratch again or cry to a Tribunal to change the rules in their favour. They were humble enough to accept the rules and the new environment they were entering. Humility is an important attribute for a pilot. Arrogance is not.
In my point of view, training is bussines
Asking a 20.000 hours commercial pilot to take a full course for a FI rating only benefits the flight schools and the prop instructors who make a living from that
I wouldn't give 10k+euros plus a full course even if I was fancy to teach on my off time
Students are harmed from this policy as instead of a highly qualified and experienced teacher, they will have some only propeller who payed some extra to the flight school for the FI course and now can say to friends that he is a pro

[menekse]

What you are training an Air Force pilot to do, eg go to war and kill the enemy if required, and what you are training a civilian pilot to do, eg transport people and things from place to place without killing anyone, are two different skill sets. Just as I wouldn't presume to be able to train someone to control a very fast killing machine, so I wouldn't presume a trained fighter pilot to be able to assess the progress of a civilian student who is doing it for all sorts of reasons other than to defend the country. Switching both ways would require some conversion training and hands-on experience, particularly before going into a supervisory role. What is so outrageous about that?
If this one individual was given the exemptions they sought, there would still be the obstacle of finding an employer and team who were OK with that.
LB isn't it ironic when people talk about prejudice and then make those sorts of assumptions!
Captain Sully was an ex-Air Force pilot

[swh]

In my point of view, training is bussines
Asking a 20.000 hours commercial pilot to take a full course for a FI rating only benefits the flight schools and the prop instructors who make a living from that
I wouldn't give 10k+euros plus a full course even if I was fancy to teach on my off time
Students are harmed from this policy as instead of a highly qualified and experienced teacher, they will have some only propeller who payed some extra to the flight school for the FI course and now can say to friends that he is a pro

A fair amount of the instructor course involves developing and practicing the short and long briefs, this is the teaching material you will continue to use throughout your instructing. The practical aspect is teaching the sequences that lead up to the the issue of a licence. The test normally involves delivering a long and short brief, and then a sequence in the aircraft.

Having 20,000 hrs does not translate into being a good teacher. The best instructors I have worked with were former primary school teachers.

The more successful ATPL ground school instructors tend to also have previous teaching experience.

[RichardJones]

One can have all the knowledge in the world. However if we can't teach it on effectively we aren't suitable instructor material. There is also a lot of phycoligy involved in effective instructing CRM and Captaincy, for example, IMHO.
The day we stop learning and think we know it all. Is the day too give it up.
Excuse typos etc. I was born with a limited amount of brain cells. I will be f&&&ed if I am going to waste any of them on unnecessary absorption of rubbish.
You cant teach ability, flair or aptitude.

[dr dre]

What is 1 year to a pilot? A long time if you have the option of going right hand seat in an airline, and grow fat on a decent pay check. As opposed to working your arse off as a junior grade 3 on minimum wage, when you could have gone directly into a senior role and be paid for your experience. We could be talking tens of thousands of dollars in pay difference. That could be the deciding factor on whether the RAAF pilot decides to instruct, do the easy airline route or just retire and enjoy life.

It's not just RAAF pilots who have dilemmas, a civilian pilot could have a dilemma to stay at one airline where they have a command, or go to a larger company with slower progression but higher pay even if it means a demotion. That's just how the system works, so you're not going to get any sympathy for a pilot who's had a long taxpayer funded career and job security deciding he wants to skip the rules that every other pilot has diligently followed. From his biography he's well advanced in his career, having spent many years in the RAAF and teaching in Saudi. I'm sure he won't be homeless if he doesn't become a Grade 1 instructor overnight.

Telling a fresh out of the factory newbie pilot to suck eggs is one thing, telling somebody with decent qualifications and experience to is another, and just means they are less likely to do something that helps the industry.
.

Despite what his lawyer thinks the civilian industry doesn't need him. If anything I'd prefer the rules to be altered to get more experienced airline pilots to mentor and teach ab initio students, as most civilian trained pilots will end up flying for airlines not the RAAF.

[dr dre]

One can have all the knowledge in the world. However if we can't teach it on effectively we aren't suitable instructor material. There is also a lot of phycoligy involved in effective instructing CRM and Captaincy, for example, IMHO.
The day we stop learning and think we know it all. Is the day too give it up.


I agree. Maybe the complainant pilot should spend time as a Grade 3 and 2 instructor before progressing to Grade 1, he may be surprised that even some "civvie" supervising instructor can teach him valuable lessons he wouldn't get anywhere else.

[menekse]

Despite what his lawyer thinks the civilian industry doesn't need him. If anything I'd prefer the rules to be altered to get more experienced airline pilots to mentor and teach ab initio students, as most civilian trained pilots will end up flying for airlines not the RAAF.
Of course
Civilian industry needs inexperienced but happy to pay pilots for FI courses to log some hours
And to protect the monopoly of their people
Imagine all the military or commercial pilots could teach buy just taking a skill test
Who student would prefer a 200 hours instagram pilot?

[Clare Prop]

Thanks Mach, I wasn't aiming the question at you and agree with what you say, particularly the second paragraph, I've had plenty of gaslighting on this thread but there will always be those types on a forum like this. I just genuinely asked for a citation so I could run the usual checks you do on any stats (source, sample size, methods of collecting data, biases, conflicts of interest etc etc) and am still waiting.

I don't have time right now but it would be interesting to see how many of those Australian accidents were newbies heading up north and getting into strife in the wet season. Not all of Australia is benign all the time. Even in Perth we can get some wild weather in winter, poor vis due to smoke in summer etc - things that could trap the unwary VFR pilot..

[menekse]

Thanks Mach, I wasn't aiming the question at you and agree with what you say, particularly the second paragraph, I've had plenty of gaslighting on this thread but there will always be those types on a forum like this. I just genuinely asked for a citation so I could run the usual checks you do on any stats (source, sample size, methods of collecting data, biases, conflicts of interest etc etc) and am still waiting.

I don't have time right now but it would be interesting to see how many of those Australian accidents were newbies heading up north and getting into strife in the wet season. Not all of Australia is benign all the time. Even in Perth we can get some wild weather in winter, poor vis due to smoke in summer etc - things that could trap the unwary VFR pilot..
Captain Sully and Captain Rasmussen were both ex military pilots and saved all the passengers of doomed aircrafts.
There are plenty of examples of crashes involving perfectly working aircrafts.
Of course these pilots were not ex military

[RichardJones]

Captain Sully and Captain Rasmussen were both ex military pilots and saved all the passengers of doomed aircrafts.
There are plenty of examples of crashes involving perfectly working aircrafts.
Of course these pilots were not ex military

Like the B52 at an airshow years ago?
No one is amune to mistakes. In fact I am wary of the people who don't make mistakes.

[menekse]

Like the B52 at an airshow years ago?
No one is amune to mistakes. In fact I am wary of the people who don't make mistakes.
Pushing the limits can result an accident.
Accident rates are higher in the military, not because of pilots skills but cause of nature of operations
If some how civilian pilots were flying in these type of ops, fatalities rate would be at least 50%
Exact the opposite if military pilots fly in civilian ops

[RichardJones]

Pushing the limits can result an accident.
Accident rates are higher in the military, not because of pilots skills but cause of nature of operations
If some how civilian pilots were flying in these type of ops, fatalities rate would be at least 50%
Exact the opposite if military pilots fly in civilian ops

After instructing I did ag flying for 10 years. Retired at 31. About as demanding it can get. More than one fatality at outfits I worked in 6 different countries, were exmilitary.
The fire bomber that crashed in Greece recently was crewed by military pilots. Not to point the finger, as noneone is amune. I was lucky. As better pilots than I were killed at it.
What about the perfectly serviceable RAAF B707 that was destroyed. Possibly that sought of thing should be done in the simulator?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

OMG the thread drift that's got on here is incredible.

The biggest whiners on here are people who have never been military QFIs. All this talk about b52 crashes etc have NOTHING TO WITH INSTRUCTION.

DRE - Humility is an important attribute for a pilot. Arrogance is not. . DRE keeps banging on about arrogance etc. Unfortunately for you mate, it makes not a shred of difference whether or not, legally, Clarkey should be given his grade 1 based his DRE Arrogance rating, but rather it is to be based on his past instructional military expertise experiences. Leave your baseless emotions out of this discussion.

You have a real s...t attittude against military pilots - that's plain for all to see.

You are too thick to comprehend that this thread is not about ex Airline pilots being awarded their instructor rating, it's all about an EX RAAF QFI getting his Grade 1. Can he safely exercise the purview of a Civilian Grade 1 instructor rating? Absolutely. Could he authorise and supervise first solo flights - Absolutely.

I am privy to Clarkey's story on LinkedIn, I can assure you, that there is not an IOATA of arrogance displayed on that thread.

[menekse]

After instructing I did ag flying for 10 years. Retired at 31. About as demanding it can get. More than one fatality at outfits I worked in 6 different countries, were exmilitary.
The fire bomber that crashed in Greece recently was crewed by military pilots. Not to point the finger, as noneone is amune. I was lucky. As better pilots than I were killed at it.
What about the perfectly serviceable RAAF B707 that was destroyed. Possibly that sought of thing should be done in the simulator?
On the jet trainer I was flying at Academy, if not out of spin by 5000ft, eject
That's it.
Let's see about this about this perfectly serviceable RAAF B707 that was destroyed
The 1991 RAAF Boeing 707 crash occurred on 29 October 1991, resulting in the loss of the aircraft and all five crew members. The aircraft, serial number A20-103 with the callsign Windsor 380, was on a training flight involving a demonstration of the aircraft's handling characteristics at minimum control speeds in a "double asymmetic" condition, with two of its four engines at idle power. During the non-approved manoeuvre, the aircraft stalled and entered a spin before crashing into
In civil aviation you do that only in simulator
Now let's see about this fire bomber
It was diving between mountains to drop water above the fire. This can change the balance of the aircraft rapidly plus the microclimate induced by the fire temperatures
Low altitude ops in unstable wind conditions with rapid change in aircraft balance.
Yes, you see it everyday in civilian operations

[swh]

Exact the opposite if military pilots fly in civilian ops

I don’t think the statistics will back you up there, over the past 30 years, the majority of wide body hull losses had one or more pilots being ex-military, not only places like Korea, the majority of Fedex and UPS wide body hull loses as well.

[RichardJones]

On the jet trainer I was flying at Academy, if not out of spin by 5000ft, eject
That's it.
Let's see about this about this perfectly serviceable RAAF B707 that was destroyed
The 1991 RAAF Boeing 707 crash occurred on 29 October 1991, resulting in the loss of the aircraft and all five crew members. The aircraft, serial number A20-103 with the callsign Windsor 380, was on a training flight involving a demonstration of the aircraft's handling characteristics at minimum control speeds in a "double asymmetic" condition, with two of its four engines at idle power. During the non-approved manoeuvre, the aircraft stalled and entered a spin before crashing into
In civil aviation you do that only in simulator
Now let's see about this fire bomber
It was diving between mountains to drop water above the fire. This can change the balance of the aircraft rapidly plus the microclimate induced by the fire temperatures
Low altitude ops in unstable wind conditions with rapid change in aircraft balance.⁸
Yes, you see it everyday in civilian operations

The fire bomber handling pilot could also have been subject to "target fixation". A trap for the unwary carrying out low level operations. I and more experienced agpilots, have almost been caught out, concentrating a little too long on the "target". However we will never know. It was pilot error no matter what.

[menekse]

I don’t think the statistics will back you up there, over the past 30 years, the majority of wide body hull losses had one or more pilots being ex-military, not only places like Korea, the majority of Fedex and UPS wide body hull loses as well.
You can share these statistics

[Xeptu]

I don't have time right now but it would be interesting to see how many of those Australian accidents were newbies heading up north and getting into strife in the wet season. Not all of Australia is benign all the time. Even in Perth we can get some wild weather in winter, poor vis due to smoke in summer etc - things that could trap the unwary VFR pilot..

I'm with you Clare. IMHO, Western Australia has some of the worst weather conditions in the country. A cold stream thunderstorm and a tropical thunderstorm are completely different beasts. Give me the tropical cell every time.

Rarely do accidents have anything to do with training.

[43Inches]

Rarely do accidents have anything to do with training.

I find that a very strange comment when the opposite is true. Solid training prevents actions and attitudes that lead to accidents. Very rarely do the wings fall off an aircraft in a way that the pilot has no way of dealing with it. In most cases a scenario will present itself to the pilot where they call on their experience and training and make a decision. Training is supposed to cover the gaps made by lack of experience, that is if the pilot encounters something outside their experience then how they were trained should get them through. We all have had those 'scare' yourself moments where you tested your abilities, training will give you the little voice that tells you to bug out before it gets fatal, you might still scare yourself, but that feeling that somethings wrong, go back, is probably something triggered from your training days.

So we all know proper training will give you the physical skills to be a good stick and rudder pilot. But, proper training also involves instilling an attitude. If the instructor takes risks during training the candidate will be likely to take risks and so on. If the instructor pushes weather during training, the candidate is likely to do the same, with much less experience. Then there is just instructors who wash over critical things like weather awareness, dealing with high traffic, how to increase situational awareness and free up excess capacity. It might be that they are inexperienced or just lazy, or chasing money and not taking enough time for proper ground instruction to cover these things.

So when you consider that a large amount of accidents are pushing weather, end of daylight, and so on, these are all things instilled in training as an attitude. Landing with excessive crosswind, tailwind, accepting speed deviations when landing in performance critical airstrips. These are all results of training, both skills and attitude. Botching an engine failure, stall spin accidents, are all skills based errors, where the pilot has placed themselves in a scenario training would have said don't go. Even a lot of mechanical failures in flight can come back to a lack of training in pre-flight procedures, walk around effectiveness and attitude towards the health of the aircraft in general. Pilot took off with water in the tanks, pilot took off with the wrong tanks selected, pilot took off with something wrong... which afterwards was obvious and showed a lack of thorough pre-flight checks. Running a tank dry and crashing (multiple recent events) is directly a training issue, improper techniques and discipline instilled, taking off on a runway where too much is going on, again an attitude and awareness issue.

Why do we say after these events that the pilot needed "re-training", it's because they were lacking in these areas. A good attitude will have the pilot seek re-training when they know they are rusty, whether it's self education in books or practice, or going as far as booking a flight with an instructor for a re-fresh.

Some things a pilot may never be really tested on in life until a few thousand hours. So we are not just talking about someone fresh out of flight school either. This is why instructors learn about primacy and how pilots tend to revert to their original training in stressful situations.

With the right ATTITUDE, a pilot, combined with training and experience will avoid the situation that leads to an accident. And yes, ATTITUDE can be taught.

BTW military pilots are not trained to be 'killing' machines, quite the opposite, fighter/bomber pilots are trained to survive and make independent decisions in fluid situations, yes there is obvious a component that will teach you how to deploy the weapons on board to maximum effectiveness, but there are many considerations before this happens. The training is focused on survival, and getting home after each mission. Modern military aircraft are expensive and will not be thrown away in battle for some blood thirsty kill fest, especially if you are in the non combatant aircraft, which make up most of the air forces, such as transports/tankers, special operations and surveillance. Most of the training and operational control will be to avoid the enemy where possible, just like a civilian avoids enemies like weather...

Ground forces are a different matter, front line ground forces and Spec Ops are trained to kill, and face to face if necessary, this is a very different concept to dropping a missile/bomb from a remote location and has very different mental repercussions.

[Mach E Avelli]

I deleted an earlier post, written late while under the influence of too much good malt. Here is the polite version.
Not having ever done basic instruction, and never having held a Grade 3, it may be that I am unqualified to comment on the relative merits of airline or military instructor experience, as applied to GA. However, I have been on the receiving end of many a graduate from various sources, and rarely had issue with 250 hour cadets fresh out of school, 5000 hour ex RAAF fast jet jocks, or 20,000 hour airline pilots (though the latter sometimes needed firm handling to eradicate former SOPs). Also, GA pilots who have done some instructing work at G 3 level usually do very well when transitioning to airline flying. They may not initially have the manipulative skills of the other groups (too much time watching, not enough driving), but they are often most receptive to learning new tricks. By the time they get their commands - regardless of where they got their experience - most airline pilots will be on a par. The few who didn’t make it? Well, part of my job was to identify and weed out the incompetent ones, and I never shirked that responsibility (despite 43" insulting aspersions...). As for which ones made the best airline instructors (sorry 43" SUPERViSORY pilots), often those recently appointed to command, regardless of origins, were best, because their own upgrade process was still fresh. Which supports the theory that a newly-minted G 3 could be the better option for teaching basics. Note to 43" et al: I said "could be".
Whether CASA should do as the FAA do, and have a "one size fits all" approach to the issue of instructor certificates and acceptance of military instructor time is moot. CASA will NEVER adopt FAA. because their stuff is not obscure enough.
For RAAF aspirants to civvie street, it would be helpful if CASA spelled it out more clearly than they do, and removed room for dispute. The UK CAA makes it very clear. Clare Prop gave the link in an earlier post, but I am too lazy to scroll back and find it. There, the CAA list almost every conceivable RAF qualification, and the conditions required for the equivalent civil accreditation. Some stuff gets automatic recognition, but a lot requires examination and testing. The bit I really liked though (being an advocate for benevolent dictatorship and tough love) was the preamble, in which CAA state that nothing is up for dispute, appeal or negotiation (my paraphrasing)..At least it keeps down legal costs.

[43Inches]

I deleted an earlier post, written late while under the influence of too much good malt. Here is the polite version.
Not having ever done basic instruction, and never having held a Grade 3, it may be some people's view that I am unqualified to comment on the relative merits of recognition of military qualifications for civil instructor ratings. However, I have been on the receiving end of many a graduate from various sources and don't have issue with 250 hour cadets or 5000 hour fast jet jocks. Also GA pilots who have done some instructing work at G 3 level usually do very well when transitioning to airline flying. By the time they get their commands , regardless of where they came from, most will be on a par. The others? Well, that was my job to weed them out, and I never shirked that responsibility (despite 43" insulting aspersions...).
Whether CASA should do as the FAA do, and have a "one size fits all" approach to the issue of instructor certificates and acceptance of miltary instructor time is moot. CASA will NEVER adopt FAA.
To remove all doubt, it would be helpful if CASA spelled it out in a similar tabular format to the UK CAA. Clare Prop gave the link in an earlier post, but I am too lazy to scroll back and find it. There, the CAA show almost every conceivable RAF qualification, and the conditions required for the equivalent civil accreditation. Some stuff gets automatic recognition, but a lot requires examination and testing. The bit I really liked though was the pre-amble, in which CAA state that nothing is up for dispute, appeal or negotiation (my paraphrasing).. At least it keeps down legal costs.

I do agree with that, the RPL system is very subjective. The FAA system is much the same as the CAA in that it has clear guidance on what a military pilot can convert to. Anything that is not clearly written down then becomes a matter of somebodies opinion, and this thread really shows how many angles you can approach this. I touched on the situation of getting into the RAAF and it is full of 'traffic light' personnel who, even with absolute fact staring them in the face will stick to their guns and say 'no', no matter what. Unless of course you fit within the tight descriptors in the book in front of them. At least in the civilian world there are procedures to get around such individuals, from what I've seen in the RAAF, you go round in a big circle and end back up at the same persons desk who says 'no' anyway.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Rarely do accidents have anything to do with training.

Well that's relatively easy to disprove.

American Airlines 587

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0404.pdf

Air France 447

https://bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/f-cp090601.en.pdf

[Mr Mossberg]

The biggest whiners on here are people who have never been military QFIs.

No, the biggest 'whiners' on this thread know and understand the system they work under, 'Clarkey' clearly doesn't. To spend 3 years fighting a legal battle rather than get in the system, understand the competencies and qualifications that haven't been met yet, meet them then upgrade in a relatively short time is a bit strange, and dare I say, arrogant.

Whatever you reckon about your best mate, he does not meet the quals to waltz straight onto G1 with the instructor privileges he was seeking. Simple. All he needed was to seek out a suitable mentor to guide him through the process. head down and arse up and he probably would have been there in a year.

[Lead Balloon]

I think you'll find that the applicant wasn't on his lonesome in wanting to test CASA's application of CASR 61.285. And I anticipate the result will provide some increased impetus to change the recognition rules. (It would be fascinating to hear the CASA Chairman's personal views on the substance...)

[dr dre]

DRE - . DRE keeps banging on about arrogance etc. Unfortunately for you mate, it makes not a shred of difference whether or not, legally, Clarkey should be given his grade 1 based his DRE Arrogance rating, but rather it is to be based on his past instructional military expertise experiences. Leave your baseless emotions out of this discussion.

No “Clarkey’s” suitability for a Grade 1 rating isn’t based on his past military “expertise”, it’s his ability to meet the CASA (the CIVIL-ASA) competencies in the civilian arena.

You have a real s...t attittude against military pilots - that's plain for all to see.

I have no problems with military pilots who display a good attitude, accept the rulings of the umpire and accept if they’re transitioning into the civilian arena they do things the civilian way.

Can you imagine the reverse, if an experienced GA Pilot joined the RAAF and then started demanding his prior civilian experience get him accelerated qualifications and went to an adjudicator if he didn’t get his way?! He’d be laughed off the base. I’ve known some pilots with years of GA or other civilian flying experience to have subsequently joined the military as a pilot. All of them were told very clearly that their previous civilian experience would not grant them a single favour and they were to now do things 100% the military way, any claims of “but this is how we did it in GA” and they would be kicked out. All off them accepted this new environment and adapted to it.

I am privy to Clarkey's story on LinkedIn, I can assure you, that there is not an IOATA of arrogance displayed on that thread.

Linkedin is the ultimate back scratching site. I’m more going off the comments of his lawyer in the original article. The “pearls of wisdom”.

Now if he had just done the minimum time instructing, got his Grade 1 and then with the full understanding of what being a civilian flying instructor takes then he could have submitted a proposal to simplify the system from within for future RAAF pilots attempting to transition into an instructor role, as a Grade 1 instructor now himself.

Instead he’s spent years and plenty of money to achieve no outcome.

I’ll give you an example. Up until recently Type 1 diabetics were prohibited from holding a Class 1 medical. One former airline pilot who lost his career because of this decided he wanted to change the system, but CASA initially said no. He didn’t cry foul and run to some tribunal. He studied a medical degree, became a GP and then a DAME, and spent several years writing Type 1 diabetes protocols to submit to CASA Avmed for review. It took time and effort but eventually he succeeded because he worked within the system rather than attempting to force a change from the outside.

[Lead Balloon]

Isn't that a great example of someone who did force change from the outside?

And what is the AAT for, if not to seek review of administrative decisions of bureaucrats? Sometimes the AAT finds that CASA made the correct and preferable decision. Sometimes the AAT finds otherwise.

Isn't going to the AAT working within the system? The right to go to and the process for going to the AAT was all explained to Clarke in the letter CASA sent to him, explaining its refusal decision.

[dr dre]

Isn't that a great example of someone who did force change from the outside?


No I see it as completely different. The diabetes change happened because someone took a lot of study and effort and then worked constructively with the regulator to change it.

In this case the applicant wanted the rules changed to grant him a position with less than the minimum requirements, if he followed the diabetes example he would’ve worked legally to achieve his G2 then G1, and then having more understanding of the civilian instructor world and the full knowledge of what it takes to be a G1 he could’ve worked constructively with CASA to change the system.

[43Inches]

Nobody should just 'accept' rules, especially if the rule is unjust. At least our legal system allows us to challenge rules that may be unjust or unfair. Even things as straight forward as road rules can be challenged if they are applied in the wrong sense. That is you can beat simple fines by knowing not only the rules but the reasoning and standards by which they are set.

[megan]

Some of you chaps need to get a grip, military or civil, who cares, you'll find good, questionable and bad in both arenas, have been on both sides of the divide. For those deriding the military I can recall landing a civil helo at Mascot and hovering to the QF hangar for loading aboard a QF 747 Combi, the route took us past the TAA finger and a DC-9 crew went bananas about a GA aircraft operating on THEIR AIRPORT delaying THEIR pushback. Guess Ansett must have been ahead on the race to the threshold. :eek:

[junior.VH-LFA]

I think you'll find that the applicant wasn't on his lonesome in wanting to test CASA's application of CASR 61.285. And I anticipate the result will provide some increased impetus to change the recognition rules. (It would be fascinating to hear the CASA Chairman's personal views on the substance...)

There are a bunch of things that should be recognised by CASA for military aircrew that are not at present - instrument ratings being the big ones. It defies common sense that a military pilot can fly an ILS PRM into Sydney in a military 737 and the next day be confined to VFR flight in the GA world unless they have done IREX and a flight test. CASA will happily hand out NVFR ratings to military pilots who have been trained as IFR from the start, but not a MECIR. Note - I am not arguing against a flight review or IPC for utiliising the rating, the same as you have to do before using any other class rating. It defies all logic. I'll also point out that the first line in the instructions about instrument ratings in the ADF is that they are Part 61 MOS compliant - which makes it even more strange.

I'm not an instructor so do not feel qualified to make comments on that aspect.

[Rataxes]

I recall a former RAAF CFI (or similar executive position) entering civvy-street to run a small country aero club. He tried to run it like an air force school and the place ended up collapsing but not before everyone from engineers to the refueller had been alienated. Just an aside.

Maybe the applicant should've requested at own expense a test for RPL. If he could adapt to the "rigours" of teaching civilians to fly then give him the qualification. I don't know how it works exactly but recognition of prior learning is "a thing."

[Lead Balloon]

No I see it as completely different. The diabetes change happened because someone took a lot of study and effort and then worked constructively with the regulator to change it.

In this case the applicant wanted the rules changed to grant him a position with less than the minimum requirements, if he followed the diabetes example he would’ve worked legally to achieve his G2 then G1, and then having more understanding of the civilian instructor world and the full knowledge of what it takes to be a G1 he could’ve worked constructively with CASA to change the system.You're labouring under the misconception that Clarke "wanted the rules changed". The AAT doesn't change rules. Clarke's application to the AAT was on the basis that he had equivalent qualifications in terms of the current rules.

CASA decided Clarke does not hold the relevant equivalent qualifications under the current rules. Clarke went through the process established for the very purpose of providing external review of that decision, and now all the Monday morning quarterbacks are providing life coaching to Clarke for free. If the AAT had agreed with Clarke, one wonders what those Monday morning quarterbacks would be saying.

I think you'll find that the efforts towards changing the rules will now begin, because Clarke isn't Robinson Crusoe.

[Mr Mossberg]

Monday morning quarterbacks are providing life coaching to Clarke for free. If the AAT had agreed with Clarke, one wonders what those Monday morning quarterbacks would be saying.

But the AAT didn't agree did they? So this Monday morning quarterback doesn't have to be a Monday morning quarterback.

​​​​​​​And as far as the life coaching is concerned, what's wrong with it? Wish I'd taken a bit more notice of some of the advice I've been given over the years. Would have saved me a lot of time, money and angst.

[neville_nobody]

There are a bunch of things that should be recognised by CASA for military aircrew that are not at present - instrument ratings being the big ones. .

I don't know how it works exactly but recognition of prior learning is "a thing."

I would hazard a guess that behind the scenes senior military brass and/or the government bureaucracy want it as difficult as possible for RAAF pilots to transfer out. It all starts at the beginning if you wash out of the RAAF during training all your experience there counts for nothing. The RAAF certainly don't want to become a revolving door given the cost of training everyone so to help with this they make it as difficult/expensive as possible to transfer your experience. I guess the lesson learnt here would be to get your ratings etc whilst employed at the RAAF and I presume are tax deductible.

[Xeptu]

Rarely does accidents have anything to do with training.
Pilots particularly the most experienced ones "HAVE THE TRAINING" every pilot can recognize a stall and know what to do So why didn't the pilots of AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training. Attitude, Respect and Situational Awareness, cannot be trained, you either have it or you don't.

[Lead Balloon]

But the AAT didn't agree did they? So this Monday morning quarterback doesn't have to be a Monday morning quarterback.That’s Monday morning quarterbacking.

​​​​And as far as the life coaching is concerned, what's wrong with it? Wish I'd taken a bit more notice of some of the advice I've been given over the years. Would have saved me a lot of time, money and angst.I agree.

[Ascend Charlie]

AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training.

If so, why did the non-captain keep pulling back on the sidestick, over-riding any other input? "Every pilot can recognise a stall." Those pilots didn't.

[Mr Mossberg]

That’s Monday morning quarterbacking.

Yeah, it sort of is right :}​​​​​​​

[43Inches]

Rarely does accidents have anything to do with training.
Pilots particularly the most experienced ones "HAVE THE TRAINING" every pilot can recognize a stall and know what to do So why didn't the pilots of AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training. Attitude, Respect and Situational Awareness, cannot be trained, you either have it or you don't.

I hope you are just baiting and do not really think this. Situational awareness is a function of having excess capacity. Most times a pilot loses situational awareness is because either they allowed the workload to get too high or their techniques such as instrument scans were taught incorrectly. Both technique finesse and knowing the threats to your flight can be taught which both will greatly increase a pilots situational awareness. Its also a key part of training to consider workload management.

So yes SA can be taught.

As per AF447 they were lacking traing in high altitude aerodynamics and the differences in stall identification and recovery at high altitude. Again a direct failure of their training department.

[Gnadenburg]

Some of you chaps need to get a grip, military or civil, who cares, you'll find good, questionable and bad in both arenas, have been on both sides of the divide.

I agree a silly, pointless comparison due so many variables and the danger is a culture of cronyism and lack of self-analysis. The Boys’ Club. I did some Upset training with Delta recently which was excellent with a lot of ex-mil input. Yet they were scathing of the warrior culture at another airline whose rudder orientated Upset program was well-suited to Century-series fighters but ended in a fatal accident for an airline category jet. You don’t know what you don’t know.

[PiperCameron]

As per AF447 they were lacking traing in high altitude aerodynamics and the differences in stall identification and recovery at high altitude. Again a direct failure of their training department.

Although, to be fair, I believe it would have been, at the time, a failure in MOST airline training departments, not just AF's - but that's one of the key reasons accidents like these are investigated in the first place: so those still alive can learn.

[compressor stall]

Yes, I wouldn't single out AF on that one.

That's why EASA, FAA, ICAO and all the other alphabets have implemented UPRT across the heavy end of the industry. It was clearly lacking, just AF were the highest profile (there were others).

[menekse]

Rarely does accidents have anything to do with training.
Pilots particularly the most experienced ones "HAVE THE TRAINING" every pilot can recognize a stall and know what to do So why didn't the pilots of AF 447 (or any other accident) on this occasion, because there was a different reason/circumstances. Nothing to do with training. Attitude, Respect and Situational Awareness, cannot be trained, you either have it or you don't.
Have to do with training even pilot selection
Is quite characteristic this final report of Latvian CAA that blames pilot selection and training


During the investigation the pilot training records were scrutinized to reveal potential gaps in the pilot training and checking process. The available information about the training process of the pilot involved in the serious incident reveals that the pilot had the Type Rating Training Course (Initial training) for the aircraft type BD-500 (A220) from September 1 till November 26, 2020. The course training records reveal some deficiencies of the pilot’s flight skills: incorrect manipulation with the sidestick, pumping of the rudder for the directional control, untimely and inadequate rudder pedals input to ensure directional control, unnecessary application of brakes, etc. In the first Latvian CAA Skill test and proficiency check after the Rating Training Course the pilot failed due to “Insufficient skills. Lack of time.” After the additional training the test was passed. In 2021, the pilot had further Flight Trainings. The Flight Training Records contain remarks of the flight instructors, namely, periodical uncertainty in command of the aircraft and crew and lack of exchange of flight information with the pilot-monitoring [FO] when flying manually. The investigation has analysed the all available (provided) information about the training process of the pilot involved in the serious incident and suggests that there are potential gaps in the company pilots’ selection, training and checking programs, as well as in the information exchange and analysis by the airline's training department. The investigation has no access to the information on how the operator collects and analyses the information gathered during the training process.
There is a possibility that the pilot with obvious deficiencies during the training and checking period was authorized for line operations without having additional training or another means of mitigation to minimize potential risks. A similar situation with incorrect pilot actions during the landing in crosswind and gusty conditions occurred on June 21, 2018 at the Riga International airport with the airBaltic aircraft A200-300, registration number YL-CSC [Final Report No 4-02/1-18(4-19)]. The FDR data of the involved aircraft showed the application of the right rudder pedal with a simultaneous increase of the left brake pedal application. The higher brake force application on the left-hand side main gear wheels caused the aircraft deviation to the left with a subsequent aircraft side skid. The investigation of this serious incident concluded, that the Root cause of the incident [21/06/2018] was related with uncoordinated asymmetric actions of the flight crew in controlling of the aircraft during the landing. Analysing the actions of the airline pilots in both situations, the investigators can assume that the repeated cause of the incidents was the improper handling of the aircraft by the crews to counteract crosswind conditions. It is likely possible that the airline pilot training program has not been updated considering possible deficiencies and the previous incident.

[menekse]

No, the biggest 'whiners' on this thread know and understand the system they work under, 'Clarkey' clearly doesn't. To spend 3 years fighting a legal battle rather than get in the system, understand the competencies and qualifications that haven't been met yet, meet them then upgrade in a relatively short time is a bit strange, and dare I say, arrogant.

Whatever you reckon about your best mate, he does not meet the quals to waltz straight onto G1 with the instructor privileges he was seeking. Simple. All he needed was to seek out a suitable mentor to guide him through the process. head down and arse up and he probably would have been there in a year.
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

[RichardJones]

"Can you imagine the reverse, if an experienced GA Pilot joined the RAAF and then started demanding his prior civilian experience get him accelerated qualifications and went to an adjudicator if he didn’t get his way?! He’d be laughed off the base"

Totally agree.

[menekse]

Boys and girls, there must be some reasons why astronauts are ex military pilots

[Stationair8]

In 1982 one on my instructors was an older gentleman, that worked on a casual basis at the flying school.
He was ex RAAF, flown Mustangs, Vampires and Meteors.
He did not want to fly the mahogany bomber and so went into GA.
DCA in the early 1960’s issued him with a commercial licence-no flight test and no exams, and a grade 2 instructor rating, again no flight test, he declined the instrument rating. Within two years of leaving the RAAF, he was CFI of a large country flying school with a Grade1 rating and held all the necessary approvals.
We always stayed in contact, and he told me that he never held an instructor rating in the RAAF. Off he went instructing in Chipmunks, then Cessna’s and Pipers and did his instructor renewals every two years.

[swh]

CASA decided Clarke does not hold the relevant equivalent qualifications under the current rules.

Incorrect, both CASA and the AAT said he did not have the equivalent qualifications AND experience. The RAAF does not have the equivalent qualification of a G1 instructor. Because of his postings, he never did the equivalent of ab-initial training in the RAAF, every trainee he had already had the equivalent of a CPL. In his logbook he only had 0.8 hours of instructor training. If he had different postings, and different experience whilst in the RAAF, the outcome would be different.

This is entirely consistent to what they do with people who train in airlines, they can have thousands of hours of training, they can also have a CASA delegation, however as every person they train already has a CPL, their training counts for nothing as their approvals only are valid whilst working at that airline. if they want to instruct in GA, they have to start with a Grade 3..

Personally I don’t think this individual has any intention of doing any GA instructing. Many leadership roles in aviation require the person to have previously held a Grade 1 instructor rating. That is one of the reasons why airline trainers go and do their initial instructor ratings.

[Asturias56]

Boys and girls, there must be some reasons why astronauts are ex military pilots


the original ones were but it's not the case now and hasn't been for years

[menekse]

the original ones were but it's not the case now and hasn't been for years
I am talking for the pilots and not for the rest of the crew

[Clare Prop]

Neil Armstrong spent over twice as long as a civilian test pilot than he had previously as a Navy pilot.
Project Mercury was only open to military test pilots, so he wasn't eligible.
Project Gemini was open to civilian test pilots and the rest is history.



.

[Lead Balloon]

Incorrect, both CASA and the AAT said he did not have the equivalent qualifications AND experience. The RAAF does not have the equivalent qualification of a G1 instructor. Because of his postings, he never did the equivalent of ab-initial training in the RAAF, every trainee he had already had the equivalent of a CPL. In his logbook he only had 0.8 hours of instructor training. If he had different postings, and different experience whilst in the RAAF, the outcome would be different.

This is entirely consistent to what they do with people who train in airlines, they can have thousands of hours of training, they can also have a CASA delegation, however as every person they train already has a CPL, their training counts for nothing as their approvals only are valid whilst working at that airline. if they want to instruct in GA, they have to start with a Grade 3..

Personally I don’t think this individual has any intention of doing any GA instructing. Many leadership roles in aviation require the person to have previously held a Grade 1 instructor rating. That is one of the reasons why airline trainers go and do their initial instructor ratings.You need to read the AAT’s decision SWH. It’s at the last paragraph of the Tribunal’s decision, under the heading “DECISION”:107. In the case of each of the authorisations sought by the Applicant, for the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the ADF qualification held by the Applicant is at least equivalent to the authorisation sought as required by CASR 61.285 for the Applicant to be taken to meet the requirements for the grant of the authorisations. Accordingly, the decision made by the Respondent on 29 April 2020 insofar as it relates to the four authorisations sought, is affirmed.I note the absence of the word “experience”.

The reason for the distinction is made clear in, among other paras, the one a couple from the last: Again, while the Applicant’s experience may well mean that he could instruct instructors, that is not the test under CASR 61.285. The Applicant simply does not hold an ADF qualification that is sufficiently similar to the authorisation sought to be considered as at least equivalent to the authorisation sought.

[Clare Prop]

CASR 61.285 c

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 61.285 Australian Defence Force qualifications--recognition (austlii.edu.au) (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s61.285.html)

[menekse]

Neil Armstrong spent over twice as long as a civilian test pilot than he had previously as a Navy pilot.
Project Mercury was only open to military test pilots, so he wasn't eligible.
Project Gemini was open to civilian test pilots and the rest is history.



.
Can you name one Project Gemini pilot that wasn't a military pilot before?
Just one

[Lead Balloon]

CASR 61.285 c

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 61.285 Australian Defence Force qualifications--recognition (austlii.edu.au) (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s61.285.html) I quoted that waaaay back on page 1 of this thread. And I quoted the AAT’s decision two posts ago.

[Asturias56]

I am talking for the pilots and not for the rest of the crew

that's not what you said - you said Astronauts .

And Mercury, Gemeni, Apollo etc are well over 40 years ago............... times change, even on here

[menekse]

that's not what you said - you said Astronauts .

And Mercury, Gemeni, Apollo etc are well over 40 years ago............... times change, even on here
I clarify that I mean the pilots who fly the spaceships
I refer to Clare cause said something about Gemini project

[Mach E Avelli]

I think you'll find that the applicant wasn't on his lonesome in wanting to test CASA's application of CASR 61.285. And I anticipate the result will provide some increased impetus to change the recognition rules. (It would be fascinating to hear the CASA Chairman's personal views on the substance...)
LB , do you think CASA could be steered towards the UK CAA document for a template, with a view of course to improving on it, because flying in Australia is so much more challenging.
Maybe they could establish a team reporting to a committee reporting to legal counsel, reporting to the Minister. Committee and team each comprising of at least a dozen SMEs drawn from prior RAAF, Airline , Flying Schools etc. If they really apply themselves and don’t squabble among themselves they could probably get it done by the time my yet to be born granddaughter completes her RAAF service.

[RichardJones]

Can you name one Project Gemini pilot that wasn't a military pilot before?
Just one

Arh but previous to Gemini a couple of those chaps were chimps. Or were they military chimps.
Nothing wrong with primates of course. Some of the outfits I was on contracted too, had SOP monkeys.

[Xeptu]

Quote Why do we say after these events that the pilot needed "re-training", it's because they were lacking in these areas. Unquote.

Political correctness, it's a polite way of saying "you fu####g Idiot.

[Mach E Avelli]

Quote Why do we say after these events that the pilot needed "re-training", it's because they were lacking in these areas. Unquote.

Political correctness, it's a polite way of saying "you fu####g Idiot.
Yes, some pilots can be dragged up to an adequate standard by rigorous training, but they need regular reinforcement to remain adequate.
Airlines pitch their training programs to the lowest common denominator with cyclic sim sessions, but in GA land a PPL can go two years between flight reviews which may or may not address deficiency. In the intervening two years they could fly a very few hours which means they lose whatever skills they barely had in the first place.
Pilots may shop around for an easy review, avoiding anywhere remotely resembling an academy with a reputation for high standards. Darwin Awards in the making…

[PiperCameron]

Yes, some pilots can be dragged up to an adequate standard by rigorous training, but they need regular reinforcement to remain adequate.
Airlines pitch their training programs to the lowest common denominator with cyclic sim sessions, but in GA land a PPL can go two years between flight reviews which may or may not address deficiency. In the intervening two years they could fly a very few hours which means they lose whatever skills they barely had in the first place.
Pilots may shop around for an easy review, avoiding anywhere remotely resembling an academy with a reputation for high standards. Darwin Awards in the making…

The big difference being that an airline pilot screwing up can take a lot more innocent people down with him than (under normal circumstances) a GA pilot ever could. For many decades to now it seems the GA system has relied upon the pilots own fear of dying to force them to at least take a trained someone up with them on their first flight in years, if only in the hope that said co-pilot doesn't have a death-wish either. "Your controls!!!"

In the majority of cases, that seems to work over here. Perhaps less so in the USA, where one can find answers to most any "What if I..." question simply by watching Youtube and go along for the ride from the safety of an armchair on the other side of the world.

[Lead Balloon]

Perhaps you should take you own advice, see point 3.

THE ISSUE

Having quoted CASR 61.285, the Applicant’s SFIC[6] (https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA//2023/2628.html#fn6) identified the issue for determination as being:... the definition of equivalence and the approach of the [CASA] in determining whether ADF experience is equivalent to the civilian authorisations.
CASA in its SFIC identified the issue as being “whether Mr Clarke is entitled to be granted the endorsements that he seeks pursuant to Regulation 61.285 based upon his ADF qualifications and experience”.
For reasons that will become clear below, I find that CASA’s statement of the issue for determination is correct. The issue is whether the Applicant is entitled to the authorisations that he seeks because he holds, or has held, ADF flight crew qualifications that are at least equivalent to the civilian authorisations and he meets the aeronautical experience requirements for the authorisations.
CASR 61.285 relevantly provides:61.285 Australian Defence Force qualifications—recognitionDespite anything else in this Part, a member or former member of the Australian Defence Force is taken to meet the requirements under this Part for the grant of a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement, other than an examiner rating, if the member:


(a) holds, or has held, a flight crew qualification granted by the Australian Defence Force that CASA is satisfied is at least equivalent to the licence, rating or endorsement; and(b) ...

(c) meets the aeronautical experience requirements for the licence, rating or endorsement ...

Understandably, and rightly, the Applicant has sought to identify the particular ADF qualifications that reflect or approximate to each of the civil authorisations sought. In each case, however, I am not satisfied on the evidence presented, that they approximate or align sufficiently closely to the civil authorisations to be considered “at least equivalent”, the standard required by CASR 61.285.
In relation to the Flight Instructor Rating – Grade 1 (FIR-G1A) training endorsement sought by the Applicant, I agree with CASA’s submission that there is a lack of equivalence in the ADF qualification held by the Applicant and the privileges to be exercised under the FIR-G1A endorsement when it comes to instructing beginner or ab initio pilots. In that regard the Applicant is relying on his qualifications as an instructor in the ADF on the F/A-18 and the PC-9A, and his experience instructing ADF pilots at 2FTS. As noted by CASA, those ADF qualifications do not, of themselves, permit the Applicant to instruct ab initio pilots entering the ADF. Whether the Applicant would have the skills to do that is not the issue. The issue is whether he holds an ADF qualification with sufficient equivalence to entitle the Applicant to the issue of the civil endorsement.
The fact that the Applicant is an enormously experienced pilot on far more sophisticated aircraft is, firstly not to the point but, secondly in any event, is not a guarantee that the Applicant would be suited to or equipped for teaching beginner pilots. While counsel used the analogy of the Applicant’s instructor experience being akin to Peter Brock teaching Craig Lowndes to drive a lap at Bathurst, perhaps a better analogy would be a professor of mathematics teaching arithmetic to primary school children. The professor would certainly have the technical knowledge of the subject matter, mathematics, but may be lacking the training or experience in teaching those with effectively no knowledge of mathematics. While the Applicant has instructed at 2FTS, those he was instructing already had flight training. The evidence did not establish any equivalence in the Applicant’s ADF qualifications in that regard.


The bloke may have graduated at the top of his FCI course, that does not mean he is experienced and qualified to teach pilots without their wings. The RAAF never posted him to do that role.

Like I said on a previous page, the best instructors I have worked with were trained educators, they were former primary school teachers. They had the ability to convey concepts into language that even a child could understand. Maybe I should get one on them to post on here so you can understand that having the best stick and rudder skills does not equip someone with the skills to impart grassroots concepts.

The decision affirmed CASA decision , and that position was he did not have the qualifications and experience required by CASR 61.285

”The Applicant is only entitled to be granted endorsements pursuant to CASR 61.285 if CASA, and in this case, the Tribunal is satisfied both of the equivalence of the ADF qualification on which the Applicant relies and of his relevant experience.”

Each point in CASR 61.285 is joined by the word “and”, each requirement must be met.

The requirements for progressing in instructor grades apply to any Grade 3. if a Grade 3 only taught cross country navigation, NVFR, and IFR, they could never get a Grade 2, or Grade1. They would not meet the experience requirements.I did read the whole decision, swh. I know what CASR 61.285 says and know the effect of the word "and".

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. For your convenience, I'll quote, again, the way in which the AAT ultimately decided those issues, in the last paragraph under the intuitive heading "DECISION":107. In the case of each of the authorisations sought by the Applicant, for the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the ADF qualification held by the Applicant is at least equivalent to the authorisation sought as required by CASR 61.285 for the Applicant to be taken to meet the requirements for the grant of the authorisations. Accordingly, the decision made by the Respondent on 29 April 2020 insofar as it relates to the four authorisations sought, is affirmed.The reason for no mention of experience in the decision paragraph is explained in the Tribunal's semi-penultimate paragraph, which I'll quote for your convenience again:Again, while the Applicant’s experience may well mean that he could instruct instructors, that is not the test under CASR 61.285. The Applicant simply does not hold an ADF qualification that is sufficiently similar to the authorisation sought to be considered as at least equivalent to the authorisation sought.

[Lead Balloon]

LB , do you think CASA could be steered towards the UK CAA document for a template, with a view of course to improving on it, because flying in Australia is so much more challenging.
Maybe they could establish a team reporting to a committee reporting to legal counsel, reporting to the Minister. Committee and team each comprising of at least a dozen SMEs drawn from prior RAAF, Airline , Flying Schools etc. If they really apply themselves and don’t squabble among themselves they could probably get it done by the time my yet to be born granddaughter completes her RAAF service.
Yes it is possible, but as always it depends on politics.