Flight Standards GA Ready Course

[777xpilot]

Hi all,

Whats everyones thoughts on the GA ready course offered by Flight Standards? Is it really worth the 5k price tag for 5 hours on a 210 and maybe being offered a job at the end? Or is a brand new pilot better off to save that money and do some 210 time else where?

Cheers!

[172heavy]

Here we go... let me get my popcorn ready.

[Prattnwho]

Personally haven't done this course or any similar and I don't know anyone who has.

There's definitely merit in the course if your CPL training didn't get you in a 200-series or didn't leave you feeling confident with charter realities up north.

It might show you a thing or two skills/knowledge wise... but the best thing it might get you is networking which is arguably just as valuable as experience when getting a job in GA!!

Sorry, more questions than answers but no wrong answer here. Best of luck, it's tough starting out!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Lemme see now......

$5K for 5 hours on a '210'.......that would include some 'ground time' / 'office work duties' I would imagine.....

I wonder just what I could get for my $5K if I 'looked around'........

Just sayin'.......

[Hollywood1]

You'd like to think thar after completing a CPL course and license test, that you would already be ready to work in GA, like thousands of pilots have done in the past.

[lilAussieBatla]

I'm not sure but I've heard they make no guarantee for employment afterwards.
I'm currently in Darwin now (watching the dry season kick in) if anyone wants to catch up at Shags for a drink and chat about a first flying gig (still trying to get a gig).

[172heavy]

Not sure what the freight ICUS program costs in Sydney with Macquarie Air costs these days or if it's still running but it use be around 10K for 50 hours IFR in a C208 or Cheiftain with a job at the end of it if you make the cut.

[Roy Nolland]

I think that well known military term sums it up nicely - WOFTAM

[Double_Clutch]

Typical of CM … only he would come up with such course

[dr dre]

The course in question (https://www.flightstandards.com.au/courses-we-offer/ga-ready/):

The course is conducted full-time over 7 days (with a weekend in between) and includes the following training, presented in a commercial aviation context:
Cessna 210 Type Familiarisation – with minimum of 5 hours on type achieved during the course (plus there are no additional charges if more hours are achieved in the course!!);
Remote / Unsealed Airfield operations – including an “overnight” on a simulated charter operation;
Land & Hold Short Operations (LAHSO) training – a qualification necessary for efficient operations at Darwin International Airport and attractive to prospective employers;
Darwin airspace familiarisation training – including a visit to Darwin ATC;

General Emergency Training (formerly CAO 20.11) including Wet Drills (life jacket training); and

Customer Service Training delivered in the context of GA operations.

In addition to the specific training above, pilots on this course will also receive guidance on other useful skills such as drum refueling and how to best present for potential employers when seeking that elusive first job (how to prepare a resume, how to present for interview and likely interview topics).

Candidates are also offered opportunity to visit the local CASA office to meet with local Flight Operations Inspectors (FOIs), Airworthiness Inspectors (AWIs) and educational officers to gain better awareness of the role of the regulator in the local aviation environment.


So essentially it’s 5hrs in a C210, a few briefings and site visits. Isn’t this the operational training a charter company should being performing and paying for themselves after they’ve employed a fresh CPL grad? It looks as if they’re just transferring the cost of such training to the pilot with no guarantee of employment.

[boigu_bitch]

Here we go... let me get my popcorn ready.
***A wild Flying_Bear appears***

[nomess]

You could do the same 210 work elsewhere and probably get an extra 3/4 hours in for the same cost. Likely more one on one also.

It would be wise to probably do any 200 series work as part of your hour building also. Then it’s not so much a ‘added expense’ once you have your ticket and do it afterwards. Also shows the initiative one takes during hour building.

You might get a small insight into SOPs but they vary across the industry so I don’t know if it’s worth it on that front, as above, any employer will be re briefing you on their processes regardless, not what you learnt at a GA ready course. You could do a couple hours briefing on GA Commercial ops and so on, with any experienced seasoned instructor, many who have worked in GA charter ops.

[Slippery_Pete]

Imagine paying $ to visit your local CASA office 😝

[lucille]

After reading the course content, I think it’s worth doing. But 10 full days would be better. Being an effective and confident bush charter pilot is much more than taking a 210 from A to B. I’d go as far to say that some sort of meaningful internship should be part of any CPL course,

Whats the difference between a freshly minted 200 hour CPL and a 80 hour PPL? 120 hours. But nothing substantive in the ability to actually do the job.

[dr dre]

After reading the course content, I think it’s worth doing. But 10 full days would be better. Being an effective and confident bush charter pilot is much more than taking a 210 from A to B. I’d go as far to say that some sort of meaningful internship should be part of any CPL course

That’s the operational training the employer should be conducting themselves. Give the new hire pilot training in the specific type you own, brief them on local knowledge and have them accompany another pilot on some charters.

Why not pay for that themselves?

[Mach E Avelli]

That’s the operational training the employer should be conducting themselves. Give the new hire pilot training in the specific type you own, brief them on local knowledge and have them accompany another pilot on some charters.

Why not pay for that themselves?
In fact any employer not prepared to do a proper induction is negligent, and probably not in compliance with the fluffy exposition that they had cooked up by some consultant to hold an AOC.

[lucille]

In fact any employer not prepared to do a proper induction is negligent, and probably not in compliance with the fluffy exposition that they had cooked up by some consultant to hold an AOC.

I totally agree with both of you. In the perfect world, the employer should provide this level of training.

But, the reality is they’re not and in all probability never will. Which is why, on the basis of the syllabus, I think this course is worth doing. Assuming it will be delivered by someone with more than 2 weeks GA experience.

[dr dre]

I totally agree with both of you. In the perfect world, the employer should provide this level of training.

But, the reality is they’re not and in all probability never will. Which is why, on the basis of the syllabus, I think this course is worth doing. Assuming it will be delivered by someone with more than 2 weeks GA experience.

Funny as “back in my day” I don’t remember these “GA ready” courses existing? They seem to be an invention of the last few years. Operators seemed to cope without needing their pilots to do one prior to employment, as they trained them after giving them a job.

[Global Aviator]

It does make the mind boggle, where I worked ‘back in the day’ we employed newbies with bare min CPL. Yes it meant a bit of aircraft washing, a bit of hanging around ops, then low and behold into the mighty 210.

Now I can’t remember how many hours we did but it was ICUS until the check pilots were happy.

What does ICUS cost an operator if it’s not a full load? Absolutely nothing.

Yeah it takes time but sometimes I think people forget where they started or how they got a start. Look at that disgraceful pay for a checkride at AF in years gone bye.

[Clare Prop]

Back in the day people learned on types that weren't much of a jump to a 210. But going from a plastic aeroplane with a glass cockpit to a 210 is a big difference. Would be good if the pilot could get some of that time up before the CPL, because the CPL should mean that you ARE job ready.

What does ICUS cost an operator if it’s not a full load? Absolutely nothing.
Absolutely nothing if the pilot has agreed to work for free ... surely those days are gone?

[Global Aviator]

What does ICUS cost an operator if it’s not a full load? Absolutely nothing.
Absolutely nothing if the pilot has agreed to work for free ... surely those days are gone?

Check flight for suitability, surely you don’t pay an interviewing candidate?

Said candidate passes check flight, employed and give them the ICUS needed, ok so what is the cost? Ok yes a second pilots wage and time. No different to an airline, ya join ya fly with training Captains, ya get let loose. The cost of business.

Oh and we didn’t expect a perfect performance in a 210 check flight for a 150 hour pilot. It was more about attitude, preparation and ability to listen and learn, again pretty similar to an airline sim interview ride. If check pilot said yes then we would invest the time, funnily pilots rarely left unless it was for bigger better higher faster, ie the airlines.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Like all things in life, it is not all good and not all bad. Personally I think there are green-as-grass graduate CPLs who will benefit from doing the course. I know when I graduated from my CPL course I had experience on a PA28 and a Duchess and not much else - totally useless for a first job up North unless I was some sort of gun (and I wasn't). Despite training in a regional area I don't think I had ever landed on grass or dirt until I moved north.

The reality is that flight schools are churning out CPLs of wildly varying quality and the old concept that "holding a CPL meant you are competent to do the job" just doesn't hold now (and to be honest i am not sure it was that true in the 1990s either).

Having a CPL doesn't mean you have the skills or aptitude for GA Charter work. Some have obvious ability and drive and they walk into a job. They probably don't need the course.

Some have intelligence and ability but really haven't been prepared by their flight school for the realities of a GA transition to an airline career. With some exposure to bush conditions and competence in a C210, the GA Ready course will probably give them the confidence to have a decent crack. Some might decide to instruct instead.

...then there are the others, many of whom might never have any aptitude for a flying job of any sort despit e the $200,000 hole in their future. They might make OK instructors in a sausage factory during a pilot shortage until they have enough hours for airlines. The GA ready course won't help them much.

Mach E Avelli and dr dre suggest that an induction and appropriate ICUS is far beyond the scope of the GA Ready course and would be additional to.

[Clare Prop]

Check flight for suitability, surely you don’t pay an interviewing candidate?

Said candidate passes check flight, employed and give them the ICUS needed, ok so what is the cost? Ok yes a second pilots wage and time. No different to an airline, ya join ya fly with training Captains, ya get let loose. The cost of business.

Oh and we didn’t expect a perfect performance in a 210 check flight for a 150 hour pilot. It was more about attitude, preparation and ability to listen and learn, again pretty similar to an airline sim interview ride. If check pilot said yes then we would invest the time, funnily pilots rarely left unless it was for bigger better higher faster, ie the airlines.

You'd put someone ICUS on a check flight with paying passengers as part of an interview?? Surely at the very least a check flight would include some emergency procedures...in which case there would be a cost associated with that.
What I meant was are there really still pilots who are stupid enough to do unpaid ICUS?
So there is a cost, the cost of two pilots on a single pilot operation. Airlines are a two crew operation and they would practice emergency procedures on the sim, so not sure how they can be compared.

[nomess]

The ATSB has raised these points in numerous fatal accidents in previous years.

The ‘build-up’ period to the wet season in Darwin is known for weather conditions hazardous to flying activities. Pilots in tropical areas need to recognise and respond to these conditions to avoid the hazards including turbulence, windshear and reduced visibility. However, this is more challenging when a pilot has not experienced these conditions, and therefore may not accurately assess the situation or perceive the risks. Ball (2008) states that the lack of hazardous weather flying experience plays ‘a role in the pilot’s ability to make timely and safe decisions about flying in and around hazardous weather’. Many of the pilots that the ATSB spoke with indicated that they only learned how to handle the weather during the wet season through their own exposure to the conditions, particularly the distance to keep from rapidly-developing cells.

There were differences in the perception of how much distance to keep from them, ranging from 10 to 40 NM.

In this case, neither pilot had flown during a previous wet season in Darwin. Whilst the ATSB could not determine whether the pilots had ever experienced conditions similar to wet season conditions ever before, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that there were limited opportunities to have done so.

The risk mitigation provided by pairing a supervisory pilot with a pilot new to the company did not adequately address the weather-related risks because neither pilot had experience flying in the region during the wet season.

[dr dre]

So there is a cost, the cost of two pilots on a single pilot operation. Airlines are a two crew operation and they would practice emergency procedures on the sim, so not sure how they can be compared.

After sim training a new airline pilot would usually fly the first handful of sectors with a third pilot onboard, if the training Captain became incapacitated at least there’s one fully operational type rated pilot onboard. And then beyond that stage they’d fly with a training captain for a month or so, who is payed a higher wage than an ordinary line Captain. Along with the cost of sim training and induction paid for by the company, so a new trainee is quite a cost to the company, but they (at least not with majors now in Australia) demand the trainee pay up front to cover that, especially with no guaranteed job. That’s just the cost of doing business.

I never remembered these $5k courses in past times. Operators interviewed new pilots, selected those suitable and gave them the C210 training and local experience they needed til they were ready to do the job alone. So why is it a necessity now? It’s just exploitation of young pilots. What next? Pay for 50/100hrs of C200 series “line experience” to be “employable”? Pay $5k for a “C208 ready course”?

[Global Aviator]

My reference to check flight means, let’s go for a couple of circuits to see how you perform/ learn. Then we got into the real stuff if suitable.

Just like an airline interview sim, out of GA and into a 737/747/A320 Sim check ride, ya not expected to nail it, but you are expected to learn.

If a fresh CPL has the right attitude and willingness to learn then why would t you as a company invest time and money?

So blowing 5k on a GA ready course… As I said it’s as bad as that company charging for check flight/ interview flights!

[Clare Prop]

I agree with the two above, that a one-size-fits-all course is the reason that a lot of pilots DON'T have all the skills they need. They don't go beyond a smallish distance from base, they have probably never pushed any boundaries, they have probably never had a bit of a fright in an aircraft, something you don''t want for the first time with a load of passengers on board in unfamiliar weather and terrain. They aren't prepared for any of that in the very sheltered and strictly controlled integrated courses. Someone who has hired an aeroplane and gone out hour building under their own steam is more likely to have varied experience. BUt these days the few schools that provide this training are being swamped by the sausage factories, who are also swamping the very limited ATC resources.

So is a one-size fits-all GA ready course any better? Probably not. But it should't all fall on the shoulders of the operator either...especially as those pilots will be gone like a rat out of an aquaduct as soon as they can.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I never remembered these $5k courses in past times. Operators interviewed new pilots, selected those suitable and gave them the C210 training and local experience they needed til they were ready to do the job alone. So why is it a necessity now?

It's not necessary. For some people, it will be a help especially if they have no C206/C210 time and they don't stand out from the other DA40 trained cleanskins.

It's a different world mate.

[Xeptu]

In my experience it's like observing a driver in a car and you just know it won't be long before that vehicle has panel damage. You don't know the driver or how long he or she has been driving, but you just know. Pilots are no different.

Common sense and risk management is something you have or don't have. You can provide guidance but it cannot be learnt. You can observe a bunch of guys wading through an obstacle course an pick the ones less likely to emerge unscathed.

[Prattnwho]

Common sense and risk management is something you have or don't have. You can provide guidance but it cannot be learnt. You can observe a bunch of guys wading through an obstacle course an pick the ones less likely to emerge unscathed.

Hazardous attitudes are one thing but risk management is a separate entity on its own and is absolutely a piloting skillset we all develop with experience, ideally under good mentors. People don't just finish high school or even a CPL as ideal "risk managers" ... we all learn how to make safe decisions and manage evolving risks to flight throughout our careers. Risk management is not some kind of innate "ya born with feathers or ya not" trait. Sure there might be personal attitudes that impact your risk management abilities but you can't pigeon hole CPLs into "risk managers" or not.

I totally agree though that a motivation to learn, be a team player and respond well to critical feedback are far less teachable traits and things an employer would want to see in a new pilot. These GA ready courses might not teach these skills or any "common sense" but they might just make your "5 hours minimum on 200 series" much more valuable with mentorship and exposure to airfields or weather they haven't had prior or wouldn't otherwise do if they hired the machine on their own. It doesn't sound like this course exists to replace a company ICUS or line training program but rather to give some real world context to the plastic-fantastic trained CPLs. Worth it? For some maybe for others maybe not!

[Climb150]

I remember not long ago doing some ICUS with a new person in Cairns. Tower asked us to follow the dash 8. I was then asked "which one is a dash 8?".

Next flight was told to follow the 717. Didn't know what that looked like either.

During this persons training they had never, done a fuel drain, put oil in the engine, signed the MR or fueled the plane by themselves. Apparently only instructors were allowed to do these things.

Some people need a lot more than a few hours in a 210.

[dr dre]

My reference to check flight means, let’s go for a couple of circuits to see how you perform/ learn. Then we got into the real stuff if suitable.

Just like an airline interview sim, out of GA and into a 737/747/A320 Sim check ride, ya not expected to nail it, but you are expected to learn.

If a fresh CPL has the right attitude and willingness to learn then why would t you as a company invest time and money?

So blowing 5k on a GA ready course… As I said it’s as bad as that company charging for check flight/ interview flights!

Exactly. I’m not opposed to new hire pilots being taught the type of things this “GA Ready” course teaches, just that the cost should be covered by the employer, not the new hire pilot (especially with no employment guarantee).

It’s always been hard for a young fresh CPL grad to scrounge up enough money for anything so slapping more financial burden on them isn’t going to do any favours, especially given the current cost of living which disproportionately affects the asset poor youth.

[lucille]

I remember not long ago doing some ICUS with a new person in Cairns. Tower asked us to follow the dash 8. I was then asked "which one is a dash 8?".

Next flight was told to follow the 717. Didn't know what that looked like either.

During this persons training they had never, done a fuel drain, put oil in the engine, signed the MR or fueled the plane by themselves. Apparently only instructors were allowed to do these things.

Some people need a lot more than a few hours in a 210.

Beggars belief that any aspiring commercial pilot not know what every other aircraft looks like. Weren’t we all avid plane spotters to some degree at some point in our careers?

“During this persons training they had never, done a fuel drain, put oil in the engine, signed the MR or fueled the plane by themselves. Apparently only instructors were allowed to do these things.”

Flight school probably sick and tired of this generation of entitled, honey badger clientele finds it easier to get an accountable employee to do the dirty work to make sure it’s done correctly. Cant say I blame them. And being unable to recognize a Dash 8 or a 717 pretty much puts them in that category. Ahh well, he or she is probably a gun hand at selfies and social media.

[megan]

Beggars belief that any aspiring commercial pilot not know what every other aircraft looks likeDepends on the exposure a person has had. Was doing instrument training with the company C&T and joining the 26 circuit downwind at Essendon for a visual and were told to follow the red Aztec, had him visual but the C&T had no idea what an Aztec was and fretted that I knew what I was talking about, he had come from a military background, P-51 and Meteor in the Korean war, Huey in Vietnam, later C-130, then our very cloistered company which didn't mix with the broader aviation comunity. Went on to CASA as an FOI.

[Duck Pilot]

If the CASA Part 61 MOS syllabus of training was correct for the current industry demands, the additional training wouldn’t be required.

Unless the trainee pilots have been trained by competent instructors with industry experience in legacy/vintage aeroplanes, the green horn freshly minted CPL holders will have absolutely no idea how to handle a full load of passengers and a Cessna 207 on a 35 degree afternoon out of Kununurra, or the Rock doing a scenic, let alone dealing with a bunch of drunks trying to smuggle grog to Port Keats hidden in baby diapers 🤣

[lucille]

Unless the trainee pilots have been trained by competent instructors with industry experience in legacy/vintage aeroplanes, …..

I’m sure you can dig up one or two cases of the existence of such instructors, but the reality has always been the opposite. Instructing has always been the play ground of hour builders too “refined” to get their hands dirty with a charter job up north.

[megan]

Instructing has always been the play ground of hour builders too “refined” to get their hands dirty with a charter job up northDecades ago was visiting Tamworth when QF cadets were going through. Two Sydney lads had been given their two year GA assignment to an operator in Darwin, both refused to go, excuse being it was a %&^$ hole with no off duty pursuits available. Always wondered how their QF career turned out.