Accident rate prompts CASA to target pilot training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident rate prompts CASA to target pilot training
Fri "The Australian"
Accident rate prompts CASA to target pilot training
By Geoffrey Thomas
April 02, 2004
AUSTRALIA'S Civil Aviation Safety Authority has declared a new focus on general aviation safety to try to arrest the alarming accident rate.
CASA will work with leaders in flying training to develop new plans to try to deliver the best possible flying instruction to students, from beginners to experienced pilots refreshing or upgrading their skills.
The commitment follows a study by CASA of fatal accidents in general aviation over a 10-year period. The study found that 43 per cent of accidents resulted from uncontrolled flights into terrain, while 32 per cent involved controlled flight into terrain.
Further analysis showed poor flight planning, aircraft handling problems and fuel starvation and exhaustion were the main causes of these general aviation accidents.
One or more of these factors contributed to nearly two-thirds of the 196 fatal general aviation accidents between 1991 and 2000.
CASA chief executive Bruce Byron said work needed to begin to find ways of addressing the causes of these accidents.
"A deficiency in flight planning was a factor in 38 per cent of these accidents, so we need to look for steps that can be taken to better equip pilots to get flight planning right," Mr Byron said. "Aircraft handling errors were evident in 30 per cent of the crashes, while fuel starvation and exhaustion were involved in 10 per cent of the fatal accidents.
"These are areas where pilot training can be used as a preventive weapon and CASA needs to find better methods of helping the industry deliver the most effective information and skills."
==========================================
Accident rate prompts CASA to target pilot training
By Geoffrey Thomas
April 02, 2004
AUSTRALIA'S Civil Aviation Safety Authority has declared a new focus on general aviation safety to try to arrest the alarming accident rate.
CASA will work with leaders in flying training to develop new plans to try to deliver the best possible flying instruction to students, from beginners to experienced pilots refreshing or upgrading their skills.
The commitment follows a study by CASA of fatal accidents in general aviation over a 10-year period. The study found that 43 per cent of accidents resulted from uncontrolled flights into terrain, while 32 per cent involved controlled flight into terrain.
Further analysis showed poor flight planning, aircraft handling problems and fuel starvation and exhaustion were the main causes of these general aviation accidents.
One or more of these factors contributed to nearly two-thirds of the 196 fatal general aviation accidents between 1991 and 2000.
CASA chief executive Bruce Byron said work needed to begin to find ways of addressing the causes of these accidents.
"A deficiency in flight planning was a factor in 38 per cent of these accidents, so we need to look for steps that can be taken to better equip pilots to get flight planning right," Mr Byron said. "Aircraft handling errors were evident in 30 per cent of the crashes, while fuel starvation and exhaustion were involved in 10 per cent of the fatal accidents.
"These are areas where pilot training can be used as a preventive weapon and CASA needs to find better methods of helping the industry deliver the most effective information and skills."
==========================================
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps, if one wished to travel more than say 50nm, he/she would would be required to submit a flight plan.
Perhaps if one was on a flight plan it would be incumbent to calculate sector times and apply fuel calculation plus a fixed reserve to give a safety margin and variable reserve to cover contingencies.
Perhaps having worked out and submitted a flight plan, one would be required to follow it and keep a responsible body informed of his/her progess, say +/- 2 minutes.
And perhaps we had an authority with the will and the balls to enfore such policy.
Maybe, just maybe, the little more care and attention forced on the unwilling, might just prevent a few accidents.
Sleep easy dick and boyd.
Perhaps if one was on a flight plan it would be incumbent to calculate sector times and apply fuel calculation plus a fixed reserve to give a safety margin and variable reserve to cover contingencies.
Perhaps having worked out and submitted a flight plan, one would be required to follow it and keep a responsible body informed of his/her progess, say +/- 2 minutes.
And perhaps we had an authority with the will and the balls to enfore such policy.
Maybe, just maybe, the little more care and attention forced on the unwilling, might just prevent a few accidents.
Sleep easy dick and boyd.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: The Coast of Sunshine, Australia
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what the Barons post is all about, I thought basic flying training was done to the CASA Day VFR Syllabus.
Perhaps that and pimply faced hour building "instructors" might have something to do with the diminishing level of aviation understanding, skill and application seen at most airports in this country.
Disco Stu
Perhaps that and pimply faced hour building "instructors" might have something to do with the diminishing level of aviation understanding, skill and application seen at most airports in this country.
Disco Stu
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't agree more DS. And, as there seems to be a bit of emphasis on the American airspace system these days, I'd be really interested in THEIR accident statistics in GA... I'm sure they have the same sort of 'pimply faced hour building "instructors"' too?
Here, a flight plan is needed for ANY flight outside the immediate area of the particular aerodrome. Exceptions are few, like from AYPY to the local training area and back - those require notification but usually don't involve any of the problems that form the prang stats. Despite the requirement for flight planning and the old Oz "full Sar" thingey, we still get the occasional CFIT.
But, o' course, there's usually other factors that contribute to that outcome.
IMHO, it was good to have that second pair of eyes going over yer flight plan, at the Briefing Office, in "the good ol' days"! Yeh, maybe I'm an old f@rt, but that system undoubtedly helped me to reach this age!
Here, a flight plan is needed for ANY flight outside the immediate area of the particular aerodrome. Exceptions are few, like from AYPY to the local training area and back - those require notification but usually don't involve any of the problems that form the prang stats. Despite the requirement for flight planning and the old Oz "full Sar" thingey, we still get the occasional CFIT.
But, o' course, there's usually other factors that contribute to that outcome.
IMHO, it was good to have that second pair of eyes going over yer flight plan, at the Briefing Office, in "the good ol' days"! Yeh, maybe I'm an old f@rt, but that system undoubtedly helped me to reach this age!
The generally poor standard of flight training is the single largest hazard to safety standards over the past decade and it is pleasing to see CASA under it's new boss waking up to that fact. New CPL holders these days are not as good as PPLs of twenty years ago.
Clearly there are some flight schools that should not be there
Too many old aircraft (perhaps there should be an age limit on training aircraft?)
Instructors that are poorly trained and not well supervised (if at all). Junior instructors with no career path. Senior instructors bogged down with paperwork
Poor salary
Auditing of instructing standards not carried out
CFI's that are not trained or experienced in supervision
Extreme commercial pressure to produce a product, regardless of the standard (so long as they pay)
An ATO system that does not work and is open to abuse
FOIs that spend more time in the office and dealing with emails than out in the field. The whole system went downhill when they stopped testing.
BFR (AFR's) are a joke - a good instructor does not get the work because he is too "hard" - if he is an ATO he does not get the work. $$ again! "Just a circuit or two will do"
The list goes on and on. It is up to CASA to raise the bar well above it present level. But lets not see it go the way of the 1995 review of insturctors/training which died because of commercial pressure and conflict within the industry.
So what if some schools go by the wayside? If the standard rises along with the safety levels (accident rate) then we should accept that gladly. Yes it will cost more, but can we afford not to go down that path?
Clearly there are some flight schools that should not be there
Too many old aircraft (perhaps there should be an age limit on training aircraft?)
Instructors that are poorly trained and not well supervised (if at all). Junior instructors with no career path. Senior instructors bogged down with paperwork
Poor salary
Auditing of instructing standards not carried out
CFI's that are not trained or experienced in supervision
Extreme commercial pressure to produce a product, regardless of the standard (so long as they pay)
An ATO system that does not work and is open to abuse
FOIs that spend more time in the office and dealing with emails than out in the field. The whole system went downhill when they stopped testing.
BFR (AFR's) are a joke - a good instructor does not get the work because he is too "hard" - if he is an ATO he does not get the work. $$ again! "Just a circuit or two will do"
The list goes on and on. It is up to CASA to raise the bar well above it present level. But lets not see it go the way of the 1995 review of insturctors/training which died because of commercial pressure and conflict within the industry.
So what if some schools go by the wayside? If the standard rises along with the safety levels (accident rate) then we should accept that gladly. Yes it will cost more, but can we afford not to go down that path?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"GA Fatalities down 49 percent"
From Flight Safety Australia magazine, November-December 2003; p.11.
"Figures released by the ATSB show that Australia's already good overall aviation accident rate droppped significantly in the 10 years between 1993 and 2002, led by improvements in General Aviation Safety."
While I am not doubting the importance of ongoing improvement in standards, it is interesting that we have gone from "good and getting better" in December to "alarming" in a scant 4 months.
"Figures released by the ATSB show that Australia's already good overall aviation accident rate droppped significantly in the 10 years between 1993 and 2002, led by improvements in General Aviation Safety."
While I am not doubting the importance of ongoing improvement in standards, it is interesting that we have gone from "good and getting better" in December to "alarming" in a scant 4 months.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheeler
For some years now, a flight plan has been unecessary. Leave a flight note under a rock and tell the milkman to check if you don't return in a couple of days.
Fuel required! adequate for the flight. (if the fans turning at the end, you obviously had adequte)
And by the way, don't talk to anyone, you'll clog up the frequencies.
This is the legacy of the DICK heahds.
The point is that, woeful as the instruction may be, its the lack of system, that allows (encourages) this sort of carry on that is at fault.
For CASA to target training, is missing the point. (IMHO)
TO
For some years now, a flight plan has been unecessary. Leave a flight note under a rock and tell the milkman to check if you don't return in a couple of days.
Fuel required! adequate for the flight. (if the fans turning at the end, you obviously had adequte)
And by the way, don't talk to anyone, you'll clog up the frequencies.
This is the legacy of the DICK heahds.
The point is that, woeful as the instruction may be, its the lack of system, that allows (encourages) this sort of carry on that is at fault.
For CASA to target training, is missing the point. (IMHO)
TO
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tac On ,
With respect, don't fall into the trap!!!!
The is a gross distinction between a FLIGHTPLAN and an ATS Plan/advice!
ALL flights should be planned and cross-countries planned as
Wheeler says. You simply no longer have to tell ATS about it if you're VFR. The discipline of correctly planning a flight vs submitting a flightplan {ATS Plan in this day and age} is one of the things which has been lost........or has it?
G'day
With respect, don't fall into the trap!!!!
The is a gross distinction between a FLIGHTPLAN and an ATS Plan/advice!
ALL flights should be planned and cross-countries planned as
Wheeler says. You simply no longer have to tell ATS about it if you're VFR. The discipline of correctly planning a flight vs submitting a flightplan {ATS Plan in this day and age} is one of the things which has been lost........or has it?
G'day
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would of thought that all pilots "know" the rules, but is is situational as to the reasons they are not followed. If CASA "enforced" pay, hours and working conditions in general then I reckon this would help stop this.
Answering the questions correctly/passing the flight review on the day is completely different to applying those practices day to day. What about the poor low timer that has just been threatened with the sack because they wouldn't take of with 30% reserve instead of 45% reserve. The problem as I see it is that the rules are not enforced, and that includes industrial relations as well as those that CASA are in charge of.
Answering the questions correctly/passing the flight review on the day is completely different to applying those practices day to day. What about the poor low timer that has just been threatened with the sack because they wouldn't take of with 30% reserve instead of 45% reserve. The problem as I see it is that the rules are not enforced, and that includes industrial relations as well as those that CASA are in charge of.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather#3.
In theory correct. In practice wrong.
If you think that, that which I described does not go on, it is time for you to get out and about a bit.
The nature of the beast is that when not forced to do something, there are a significant number that will not.
These are those that end up in the statistics.
And thanks for the "respect". BTW I always operate on a properly calculated and submitted plan.
TO
In theory correct. In practice wrong.
If you think that, that which I described does not go on, it is time for you to get out and about a bit.
The nature of the beast is that when not forced to do something, there are a significant number that will not.
These are those that end up in the statistics.
And thanks for the "respect". BTW I always operate on a properly calculated and submitted plan.
TO
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DownDraft, I hesitate to say this but on the basis of your thus far unedited post Iam thinking you may be part of the problem.
Please explain your fuel reserve policy or retract. Or look it up and 'know the rules'.
Please explain your fuel reserve policy or retract. Or look it up and 'know the rules'.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,980
Received 109 Likes
on
62 Posts
I agree with Ozexpat, In the 'good old days' it was good to be able to submit face to face the properly worked out flight plan, and woe betide you if there was an error!!
And back then, to fly anywhere 'No SAR no details' was considered poor airmanship! Nowadays.........
And even the ''weekend warrior'' went full reporting.
And so, now they're worried about the accident rate???? And BTW, I wonder how the flying stats ie hours flown by x number pilots etc match up from 'way back then' compared to now??
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
And back then, to fly anywhere 'No SAR no details' was considered poor airmanship! Nowadays.........
And even the ''weekend warrior'' went full reporting.
And so, now they're worried about the accident rate???? And BTW, I wonder how the flying stats ie hours flown by x number pilots etc match up from 'way back then' compared to now??
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Up North somewhere
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no denying that in some instances the level of instruction is below satisfactory, for any number of reasons. For example having instructing seen as a way of gaining early hours rather than a career. Right or wrong instructors (as well as our other brothers and sisters in GA) aren't always rewarded appropriately for the efforts they put in and often the opportunities for progression are limited. Therefore in some cases people want out when possible to try and obtain more stable employment.
Now while we could sit here for hours coming up with reasons why instructor standards are "slipping" blaming bad bossess,pay lack of supervision etc,etc my question is if the pilots being produced are of such a poor standard,then how do they pass the set theoretical and practical assessment?? The high majority of these people must have had alarm bells ringing at some stage to get into CFIT situations as a VFR pilot that said "I shouldn't be doing this" If I had have done this in my flight test I would have failed. Press onitis and she'll be right mate are very hard attitudes for an instructor to curb in their students. People will be people, and some will always have less respect for the rules than others.
88b
Now while we could sit here for hours coming up with reasons why instructor standards are "slipping" blaming bad bossess,pay lack of supervision etc,etc my question is if the pilots being produced are of such a poor standard,then how do they pass the set theoretical and practical assessment?? The high majority of these people must have had alarm bells ringing at some stage to get into CFIT situations as a VFR pilot that said "I shouldn't be doing this" If I had have done this in my flight test I would have failed. Press onitis and she'll be right mate are very hard attitudes for an instructor to curb in their students. People will be people, and some will always have less respect for the rules than others.
88b
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As each level of the safety net tier is removed the likelihood of an increase in accidents occurs.
There is no teacher for experience. Inexperience unfortunately leads to capabilities being confused with abilities.
I still see nothing wrong with flight planning face to face (or over the phone) and always loved to have a chat to the pilot that I'd be talking to somewhere over the gaffa ..
particularly after he'd recovered from a drama .. always a good thing to hear the dulcet tones of a survivor ..
There is no teacher for experience. Inexperience unfortunately leads to capabilities being confused with abilities.
I still see nothing wrong with flight planning face to face (or over the phone) and always loved to have a chat to the pilot that I'd be talking to somewhere over the gaffa ..
particularly after he'd recovered from a drama .. always a good thing to hear the dulcet tones of a survivor ..
Skills or Procedures?
What CASA is interpreting as a 'deficiency in training' is more likely the product of todays' rush-rush mentality. Despite safer cars, larger fuel tanks, and closer gas stations.....people still run out of fuel. They still do stupid things like doze off at the wheel - and runoff into the scenery - (CFIT).
I did hear on the proverbial grapevine that there are plans afoot to beef-up the BFR/AFR. If that's the case, lets' hope that it is based on data and standards that are measurable, and within reasonable limits.
happy days,
What CASA is interpreting as a 'deficiency in training' is more likely the product of todays' rush-rush mentality. Despite safer cars, larger fuel tanks, and closer gas stations.....people still run out of fuel. They still do stupid things like doze off at the wheel - and runoff into the scenery - (CFIT).
I did hear on the proverbial grapevine that there are plans afoot to beef-up the BFR/AFR. If that's the case, lets' hope that it is based on data and standards that are measurable, and within reasonable limits.
happy days,
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cogwheel
New CPL holders these days are not as good as PPLs of twenty years ago.
This is your expert opinion? Based on what facts are you currently an ATO for CPL students?
Too many old aircraft (perhaps there should be an age limit on training aircraft?)
Perhaps we should retire as many 747's this age, this statement is of course based from your vast knowledge as a structural examiner?
Instructors that are poorly trained and not well supervised (if at all). Junior instructors with no career path. Senior instructors bogged down with paperwork
I wonder when it was that you last visited a busy flying school and actually looked at what was involved basically I don't think you have a clue, please come and visit my training facilities I beg you.
BFR (AFR's) are a joke - a good instructor does not get the work because he is too "hard" - if he is an ATO he does not get the work. $$ again! "Just a circuit or two will do"
I am ashamed of you for making this statement when was the last time you gave someone a BFR? Perhaps you are judging others by the standard you kept I don't know.
Poor salary
I will give you that point, but if you manage to get your way and retire all the old training aircraft and make us buy new ones and then slap $6000 on us so you can or should I say the ASFA, a bunch of self proclaimed experts can in your view say that we train to a higher standard than CASA please.
how much money do you think we have?
Just for info I operate relatively newer aircraft I can't afford to pay my instructors more so what’s your point exactly, stop living in fairy world you would be the one getting a nice fat wage from ASFA when its up and running milking even more money from GA.
Auditing of instructing standards not carried out CFI's that are not trained or experienced in supervision
This proves that you do not actually know what you are talking about I will say nothing more other than when did you last have an audit?
Extreme commercial pressure to produce a product, regardless of the standard (so long as they pay)
You have not got a clue have you?
An ATO system that does not work and is open to abuse
Based on your expert opinion of course. Needless to say yet another defamatory comment for the good of aviation that Woomera allows on this site.
So what if some schools go by the wayside? If the standard rises along with the safety levels (accident rate) then we should accept that gladly. Yes it will cost more, but can we afford not to go down that path?
Yeh so what, it does not cost you anything now does it? and the only schools left will be the ones being extorted by the ASFA and giving you a nice fat salary blood money from youngsters trying to make it into airlines if you got you way the cost of a lesson would be around $250 to $300 an hour for a 152 is that what you all want?
As far as the rest of the comments from others no flight plans etc what are you all smoking. No one I repeat no one can hire an aircraft from my place without submitting a flight plan and they have always been taught to work from a board plan in flight with fuel calcs. When did not making a radio call cause someone to fly into the ground wow straight over my head?
Is this thread for real?
INSIDEOUT
Would you please explain which section of this:
Consititutes "another defamatory comment"???
Woomera
New CPL holders these days are not as good as PPLs of twenty years ago.
This is your expert opinion? Based on what facts are you currently an ATO for CPL students?
Too many old aircraft (perhaps there should be an age limit on training aircraft?)
Perhaps we should retire as many 747's this age, this statement is of course based from your vast knowledge as a structural examiner?
Instructors that are poorly trained and not well supervised (if at all). Junior instructors with no career path. Senior instructors bogged down with paperwork
I wonder when it was that you last visited a busy flying school and actually looked at what was involved basically I don't think you have a clue, please come and visit my training facilities I beg you.
BFR (AFR's) are a joke - a good instructor does not get the work because he is too "hard" - if he is an ATO he does not get the work. $$ again! "Just a circuit or two will do"
I am ashamed of you for making this statement when was the last time you gave someone a BFR? Perhaps you are judging others by the standard you kept I don't know.
Poor salary
I will give you that point, but if you manage to get your way and retire all the old training aircraft and make us buy new ones and then slap $6000 on us so you can or should I say the ASFA, a bunch of self proclaimed experts can in your view say that we train to a higher standard than CASA please.
how much money do you think we have? Just for info I operate relatively newer aircraft I can't afford to pay my instructors more so what’s your point exactly, stop living in fairy world you would be the one getting a nice fat wage from ASFA when its up and running milking even more money from GA.
Auditing of instructing standards not carried out CFI's that are not trained or experienced in supervision
This proves that you do not actually know what you are talking about I will say nothing more other than when did you last have an audit?
Extreme commercial pressure to produce a product, regardless of the standard (so long as they pay)
You have not got a clue have you?
An ATO system that does not work and is open to abuse
Based on your expert opinion of course. Needless to say yet another defamatory comment for the good of aviation that Woomera allows on this site.
So what if some schools go by the wayside? If the standard rises along with the safety levels (accident rate) then we should accept that gladly. Yes it will cost more, but can we afford not to go down that path?
Yeh so what, it does not cost you anything now does it? and the only schools left will be the ones being extorted by the ASFA and giving you a nice fat salary blood money from youngsters trying to make it into airlines if you got you way the cost of a lesson would be around $250 to $300 an hour for a 152 is that what you all want?
As far as the rest of the comments from others no flight plans etc what are you all smoking. No one I repeat no one can hire an aircraft from my place without submitting a flight plan and they have always been taught to work from a board plan in flight with fuel calcs. When did not making a radio call cause someone to fly into the ground wow straight over my head?
Is this thread for real?
INSIDEOUT
Would you please explain which section of this:
An ATO system that does not work and is open to abuse
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 13th Apr 2004 at 03:45.