Now is your chance to remove unnecessary rules and costs/VOR airspace thread merged
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
In Australia pilots must do a Night VFR rating of 10 hours dual (say, a cost of $2,000), including 2 hours of dual night circuits, 5 hours of dual night navigation training and at least one 3 hour navigation exercise of 100 miles or more. They must then pass a test at night.
Well over double, nay treble, that cost for helicopters
The 3 hour Nav is a farce, most training helicopters don't have the endurance for a 3 hour Nav, and there are some in the training industry, and in CASA, who read the requirement as non-stop 3 hours.My last pilot who did a NVFR rating cost me a a lot, not least because the night Nav had to be aborted due weather and only totalled 2.5 hours. No discussion, another night Nav had to be flown of 3 hours total, no credit at all for the 2.5hr already flown
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
I actually agree with much of what you have said on this thread, but as someone who has and does fly a lot at night, the US night flying training is way deficient of what is required for competent execution of the "near IFR" flying that is night flying in most of Australia. In comparison with the population centres of the USA, we are "blessed"(!) here with huge expanses of areas deficient in ground lighting and rural "black hole" runways with the minimum of lighting requirements - not an environment for the poorly trained or overconfident.
I actually agree with much of what you have said on this thread, but as someone who has and does fly a lot at night, the US night flying training is way deficient of what is required for competent execution of the "near IFR" flying that is night flying in most of Australia. In comparison with the population centres of the USA, we are "blessed"(!) here with huge expanses of areas deficient in ground lighting and rural "black hole" runways with the minimum of lighting requirements - not an environment for the poorly trained or overconfident.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
other support measures for GA
Dick and others
I am doing some research on this issue and would appreciate advice on other non regulatory support measures for GA eg access to finance, insurance costs, access to aircraft to replace ageing fleet, taxation relief, remote area operation support etc etc
I am doing some research on this issue and would appreciate advice on other non regulatory support measures for GA eg access to finance, insurance costs, access to aircraft to replace ageing fleet, taxation relief, remote area operation support etc etc
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick,
I really do not think our NVFR standards are too much for a training requirement, but I do think the point John Eacott raises is one needing some review.
NVFR/IFR are not things to take lightly.
J
I really do not think our NVFR standards are too much for a training requirement, but I do think the point John Eacott raises is one needing some review.
NVFR/IFR are not things to take lightly.
J
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, Australia suffers badly from the NIH syndrome.
The US night flying requirement includes a dual night navigation exercise, and it is rare to complete the requirements, and reach the standard the CFI as well as the student would accept, in the minimum of three hours. Most take more than that.
I teach in the US and I have not had a pilot go out and kill himself because he thinks he has enough training at night. If I do my job correctly he will know that 3 hours is enough to give him/her an idea about night flying, not enough to jump out with three passengers in a 172 and fly over the mountains in the dark. Nobody is stupid enough to even try.
And I know there are accidents caused by inexperienced pilots at night, I would bet that happens in Aus as well. Nothing to do with licence standards. The Aus requirement is an overkill, as is the instrument rating.
Another point is that once qualified, as by definition all private pilots are, they only need three takeoffs and landings within 90 days to remain current. If their currency is lost, three solo (or dual would be better) circuits will restore it. No need to spend vast amounts of money to be able to fly at night.
One way the standards are maintained is that most schools, FBOs and the like have their own requirements before renting, that stop the cowboys and keep the insurance companies happy. No need for FAA intervention/cost/complication.
I would wager that if the US rules were to be brought in by fiat and Aus pilots gave them a fair shot, they would become believers real quickly.
Possible exception would be the groundschool, which in the US is seriously deficient. Too easy to cheat.
The US night flying requirement includes a dual night navigation exercise, and it is rare to complete the requirements, and reach the standard the CFI as well as the student would accept, in the minimum of three hours. Most take more than that.
I teach in the US and I have not had a pilot go out and kill himself because he thinks he has enough training at night. If I do my job correctly he will know that 3 hours is enough to give him/her an idea about night flying, not enough to jump out with three passengers in a 172 and fly over the mountains in the dark. Nobody is stupid enough to even try.
And I know there are accidents caused by inexperienced pilots at night, I would bet that happens in Aus as well. Nothing to do with licence standards. The Aus requirement is an overkill, as is the instrument rating.
Another point is that once qualified, as by definition all private pilots are, they only need three takeoffs and landings within 90 days to remain current. If their currency is lost, three solo (or dual would be better) circuits will restore it. No need to spend vast amounts of money to be able to fly at night.
One way the standards are maintained is that most schools, FBOs and the like have their own requirements before renting, that stop the cowboys and keep the insurance companies happy. No need for FAA intervention/cost/complication.
I would wager that if the US rules were to be brought in by fiat and Aus pilots gave them a fair shot, they would become believers real quickly.
Possible exception would be the groundschool, which in the US is seriously deficient. Too easy to cheat.
Thread Starter
I’ve read your responses about Night VFR training but one important point seems to have been forgotten. That is, there is no requirement for Australian private pilots to receive any night training at all. Surely this is a safety consideration.
Yes, flight on dark nights in areas away from lighting can be risky, and these risks also apply to experienced pilots. It’s a matter of airmanship.
If the PPL training in the USA is so deficient, can anyone explain why there is no measurable difference in the resultant level of safety between the USA and Australia? Their mountains are higher, their weather is more treacherous than ours, and the traffic density is considerably higher, yet the accident rate is similar.
Perhaps the lower costs in the USA enable pilots to fly regularly and build experience, while our pilots may struggle to keep current – let alone to undertake further training.
Yes, flight on dark nights in areas away from lighting can be risky, and these risks also apply to experienced pilots. It’s a matter of airmanship.
If the PPL training in the USA is so deficient, can anyone explain why there is no measurable difference in the resultant level of safety between the USA and Australia? Their mountains are higher, their weather is more treacherous than ours, and the traffic density is considerably higher, yet the accident rate is similar.
Perhaps the lower costs in the USA enable pilots to fly regularly and build experience, while our pilots may struggle to keep current – let alone to undertake further training.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick,
Please confirm that your position at CASA (on the board???).
There seems to be a great deal of discussion and not much action.
When would you expect that these suggestions might be implimented?
Regards CL
Please confirm that your position at CASA (on the board???).
There seems to be a great deal of discussion and not much action.
When would you expect that these suggestions might be implimented?
Regards CL
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Training - the Home of World Class Aviation
Hi Dick,
Your points are exceptionally valid. The cost differences here in Australia in regards to Aviation are notably different its worth getting your Visa and eloping.
The customer base in Australia is just too small to warrant competitive flying it seems. As a trike (microlight) instructor here in Oz, I am finishing off my PPL in the US since the King Schools theory is so much better than anything we have here and I have reviewed them all and studied the best one of them in great detail.
With my life on the line and flying being a global and GA being an primarily American affair I vote with my passport.
I noted the date of your original post, its been 2 years, and nothing much has changed within CASA.
Things such as night flying mandatory for PPL, deadstick / engine out landings, cost effective instrument training, they just dont seem to exist in this country, so the only players will become those who are simply using Australia as an economic currency trade agains the dollar, similar to what is happening within Australian universities.
That is a another reason that recreational flying is taking off so much here, because CASA would appear to be driving people away from GA and into old mates drinking / flying clubs...(with the resultant safety issues for passengers not to mention pilots).
The latest is just to transition recreational pilots to PPL without the same quality or depth of training, and CTA phobias. One thing I have noted is the lack of consistency in Ground Schooling in Australia, another reason I love the King Schools product.
There appears to be too many conflicting answers from separate flight schools on the same subjects, and as I recall flying is an applied science where cause and effect are considered somewhat.
I believe new CASA CEO John Mccormick is GA friendly though so who knows, with the right impetus and FAA CASA couplings, perhaps things could change?
I really feel for you after all your hard work, I hope it does change for the better in Australia over time in this sector...
Brook
Your points are exceptionally valid. The cost differences here in Australia in regards to Aviation are notably different its worth getting your Visa and eloping.
The customer base in Australia is just too small to warrant competitive flying it seems. As a trike (microlight) instructor here in Oz, I am finishing off my PPL in the US since the King Schools theory is so much better than anything we have here and I have reviewed them all and studied the best one of them in great detail.
With my life on the line and flying being a global and GA being an primarily American affair I vote with my passport.
I noted the date of your original post, its been 2 years, and nothing much has changed within CASA.
Things such as night flying mandatory for PPL, deadstick / engine out landings, cost effective instrument training, they just dont seem to exist in this country, so the only players will become those who are simply using Australia as an economic currency trade agains the dollar, similar to what is happening within Australian universities.
That is a another reason that recreational flying is taking off so much here, because CASA would appear to be driving people away from GA and into old mates drinking / flying clubs...(with the resultant safety issues for passengers not to mention pilots).
The latest is just to transition recreational pilots to PPL without the same quality or depth of training, and CTA phobias. One thing I have noted is the lack of consistency in Ground Schooling in Australia, another reason I love the King Schools product.
There appears to be too many conflicting answers from separate flight schools on the same subjects, and as I recall flying is an applied science where cause and effect are considered somewhat.
I believe new CASA CEO John Mccormick is GA friendly though so who knows, with the right impetus and FAA CASA couplings, perhaps things could change?
I really feel for you after all your hard work, I hope it does change for the better in Australia over time in this sector...
Brook
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I too have instructed in America and there is quite a lot of merit to your arguments regarding the deficiencies in the Australian PPL program; most notably the lack of an integrated night rating as part of the curriculum.
Making flying less expensive does not mean making flying "cheaper" which is not what the media wants to start spinning at the public. Flying has to be affordable so a standard can be met and maintained by the highest number of valued participants. Quite a different story than making it "cheaper".
I, too am deeply troubled by the number of American pilots with low academic standards and poor reasoning capacity being placed in the cockpits of sophisticated aircraft. I fear that the groundschools in Australia may have fallen into rote memorisation techniques that reward parrots with a pass too.
The academics of the Australian pilot population should not be compromised under some new "feel good" proposal that will make you popular with those that struggle to meet minimum standards.
If you make flying so easy an idiot can do it; you will find no short supply of idiots.
I too have instructed in America and there is quite a lot of merit to your arguments regarding the deficiencies in the Australian PPL program; most notably the lack of an integrated night rating as part of the curriculum.
Making flying less expensive does not mean making flying "cheaper" which is not what the media wants to start spinning at the public. Flying has to be affordable so a standard can be met and maintained by the highest number of valued participants. Quite a different story than making it "cheaper".
I, too am deeply troubled by the number of American pilots with low academic standards and poor reasoning capacity being placed in the cockpits of sophisticated aircraft. I fear that the groundschools in Australia may have fallen into rote memorisation techniques that reward parrots with a pass too.
The academics of the Australian pilot population should not be compromised under some new "feel good" proposal that will make you popular with those that struggle to meet minimum standards.
If you make flying so easy an idiot can do it; you will find no short supply of idiots.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ML
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just restarted paying my hard-earned to ASL at $1.63 a question (not including CASA fee) I got to wondering about the arrangement CASA and ASL have.
Is it locked in that ASL have the exclusive rights to the delivery of CyberExams? If CASA dont want to do it themselves, they should at least allow for competition. Why Flying schools that are permitted to do BAK and PPL Cyberexams aren't allowed to do CPLs either is totally beyond me.
"we trust you up to a certain point..."
CASA taking their cut too really annoys me, too many snouts in the trough. And why do ASL charge more for an ATPL test? Same computer, same mouse, same keyboard... Maybe 30 mins more in a freezing cold room with some dodgy Australian landscape photos really is a commodity these days.
Is it locked in that ASL have the exclusive rights to the delivery of CyberExams? If CASA dont want to do it themselves, they should at least allow for competition. Why Flying schools that are permitted to do BAK and PPL Cyberexams aren't allowed to do CPLs either is totally beyond me.
"we trust you up to a certain point..."
CASA taking their cut too really annoys me, too many snouts in the trough. And why do ASL charge more for an ATPL test? Same computer, same mouse, same keyboard... Maybe 30 mins more in a freezing cold room with some dodgy Australian landscape photos really is a commodity these days.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyPy
I don't think that we need the entire system corrupted with instructors teaching the answers from the back of the book.
Despite your apparent paranoia, the Oystralian taxpayuh deserves to know that there is some standard guaranteed by their contributions to the pool.
The more you get to know about this industry, the more you will learn that most operators simply cannot be trusted and should be nowhere near self-regulated.
I don't think that we need the entire system corrupted with instructors teaching the answers from the back of the book.
Despite your apparent paranoia, the Oystralian taxpayuh deserves to know that there is some standard guaranteed by their contributions to the pool.
The more you get to know about this industry, the more you will learn that most operators simply cannot be trusted and should be nowhere near self-regulated.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ML
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I certainly wasn't arguing for self-regulation, and I fail to see where my 'paranoia' is either...
Take the ASIC for example, at least one third party is able to provide another option to the market. As for the cost thing, sure, there are costs associated with the operation. But it only serves to strengthen the feeling that CASA, Govt et al have very little care in fostering and prospering aviation in this country.
This is not new ground though of course.
Take the ASIC for example, at least one third party is able to provide another option to the market. As for the cost thing, sure, there are costs associated with the operation. But it only serves to strengthen the feeling that CASA, Govt et al have very little care in fostering and prospering aviation in this country.
This is not new ground though of course.
