Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 20th Mar 2011, 15:56
  #581 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by The Kelpie
Assuming those are similar requirements to the CASA beta test how did they get around the requirement to have 240 hours of Aeronautical Experience prior to taking the flight test. Not total time, not sim time but Aeronautical Experience.

Aeronautical Experience is a CASA defined term and does not include sim time but only flight time and in that co-pilot time to be factored by a half.

Can someone explain this? Can CASA explain? Or is this just a big stuff up?
Aeronautical experience is not a constant definition, it changes for aircraft, helicopters, airships, gyroplane, and types of licence (PPL, CPL, ATPL, Flight Engineer). One needs to refer to the recent experience applicable to the type of licence being sought.

The requirements for a MPL(A)L are defined in CAR 1988 5.214

"(1) For paragraph 5.207 (2) (g), a person’s aeronautical experience must consist of at least 240 hours of training as a pilot during an approved course of training.
(2) The 240 hours must include:
(a) at least 40 hours of flight time as pilot of a registered aeroplane; and
(b) at least 10 hours of solo flight time in a registered aeroplane; and
(c) at least 5 hours of cross‑country flight time as pilot in command in a registered aeroplane; and
(d) at least 12 take‑offs and 12 landings in the type of aeroplane mentioned in paragraph 5.207 (2) (f).
(3) For subregulation (2), the same flight time may be counted towards the time required by as many of paragraphs (2) (a), (b) and (c) as describe the flight time.
(4) The balance of the 240 hours of training may be in an approved synthetic flight trainer."

These requirements stem from ICAO Annex 1 Personal Licensing

"2.5.3 Experience

2.5.3.1 The applicant shall have completed in an approved training course not less than 240 hours as pilot flying and pilot not flying of actual and simulated flight.

2.5.3.2 Flight experience in actual flight shall include at least the experience requirements at 2.3.3.1, upset recovery training, night flying and flight by reference solely to instruments.

2.5.3.3 In addition to meeting the provisions of 2.5.3.2, the applicant shall have gained, in a turbine-powered aeroplane certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or in a flight simulation training device approved for that purpose by the Licensing Authority in accordance with Appendix 3, paragraph 4, the experience necessary to achieve the advanced level of competency defined in Appendix 3."

'4. Simulated flight

4.1 The flight simulation training devices used to gain the experience specified in Chapter 2, 2.5.3.3, shall have been approved by the Licensing Authority."

CASAs requirements actually exceeds ICAOs.
swh is online now  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 19:38
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
SWH

Thanks for that, I see where you are coming from however there is still something troubling me.

The CASA wide definitions are included as follows on the CASA website:

Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer Time Practice in an approved simulator or trainer may be recorded in the section provided at the rear of the log book. The instrument flight element of the simulator time may be transferred to the 'Ground' column of the Instrument Flight section of the flight record.
If a Flight Simulator or Synthetic Trainer Practice section is not available in the log book, the details may be entered chronologically in the flight record, and the Instrument flight element transferred to a suitably titled column.
In older log books, the 'Ground Training' or 'Simulator' column of the Instrument section of the flight record may be used for 'Ground' entries.
and

Total Aeronautical Experience Total aeronautical experience is calculated by adding the totals of flight times recorded in each column but in such a way that that any flight time is not included more than once in the grand total hours.
Note also that only 50% of the time logged as a co-pilot may be included in the total.
given that

Flight Time means, in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft, the total time from when the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing. This is synonymous with 'chock to chock', 'block to block' or 'push back to block' time.
In the case of a helicopter, whenever helicopter rotors are engaged for the purpose of a flight, the time will be included in the flight time.
On the basis of your suggestion that 'Aeronautical Experience' is not a constant CASA definition, How would you log you MPL training in the Australian Standard Logbook and how would you total up the columns at the end of each page??

Given that nowhere in the Order is there an alternative definition offerred, I would suggest that there is a problem with the drafting of the CAO in that the use of the terms 'aeronautical experience' has been used inappropriately should the CASA wide definition not have been intended and that there is a world of difference between this term and a possible alternative '240 hours of training' which I believe CAO 40.1.8 should have adopted within Appendix 3.

Can I suggest also that the wording of CAR regulation 5.214 is also a little ambiguous, and whilst offerring a little further clarity on the matter it does nothing more than require that a pilot's overall aeronautical experience must comprise (read 'include') 'at least 240 hours of training as a pilot during an approved course of training' for which the remainder of the regulation offers confirmation of the content of the 240 hours.

Also Appendix 3 of CAO 40.1.8 states that the 240 hours of aeronautical experience is a pre-requisite for sitting the flight test, whereas regulation 5.207 (2) g considers this to be the level of aeronautical experience to hold the licence. There is a discrepency here between the two documents as if the CAO is correct then the minimum aeronautical experience to hold the licence must be 240 hours plus the time of the flight test.

Sorry for the thread drift but I thought it was worth a look at as it is relevent to the possibility there is a problem within CASA given that if my suggestion is correct they may have issued 5 MPL licences illegally that are currently being held by pilots flying the line in China.

Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 22:35
  #583 (permalink)  
SW3
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Icarus like it or not being a pilot is all about decision making. And in reality this is the issue with cadet programs, you can't put every decision to make into a book!
How about this, next time I go to work and don't make any decisions, then I will let you know. Otherwise we will pre program the FMS, engineer us out of the cockpit and put us out of work.
It's also as much about judgment as decisions. How many accidents boils down to an error in judgement? Judgement comes down to, shock horror, experience!
SW3 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 22:43
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Kelpie,

Check your PMs regarding MPL info. Petteford has had nothing to do with it in Australia. The contact I've given to you will be able to explain how Alteon and AAA worked with CASA on the trial.
ThePaperBoy is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2011, 23:06
  #585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Paperboy

Thanks for the info. Yes I know Petteford had nothing to do with it but my research lead me to come across the information that raised questions. I suppose CASA are on my scope now.

Does anyone have a copy of the Conditions CASA put on the approval to Jetstar's Cadet programme?

During the Inquiry I could not work out whether CASA has audited the initial cadets and satisfied itself that Jetstar had complied in all respects. I think McCormick said they did.

Cheers

Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 01:53
  #586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Kelpie:

McCormick said they were satisfied with the process

which does of course afford him with a very slim out in respect of the specific application of the process.

The CARE factor (acronym) is no doubt at the top of his list of things to do.


AT
airtags is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 01:59
  #587 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by The Kelpie
How would you log you MPL training in the Australian Standard Logbook and how would you total up the columns at the end of each page??
For the flight time same as normal. For the ground FTD/FFS time, same as normal. For the totals, same as normal.

I do not understand the problem you have with this.

Originally Posted by The Kelpie
There is a discrepency here between the two documents as if the CAO is correct then the minimum aeronautical experience to hold the licence must be 240 hours plus the time of the flight test.
No discrepancy at all, CAR 1988 207
(d) has completed an approved course of training;
(e) has been awarded a pass in an appropriate flight test; and
(g) has the aeronautical experience set out in regulation 5.214.

Para (d) means at the approved course (i.e. minimum is 240 hours), (e) means the addition of a flight test pass (as that is not part of the course of training), and (g) means 240 hours of training which must include 40 hours in an aircraft, 10 hours solo, 5 hours cross country command.
swh is online now  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 03:07
  #588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
SWH

So you add up all your sim time do you and add it to your Aeronautical Experience total do you??

You are only entitled to log sim time in the instrument columns and these are not used in the Aeronautical Experience calculation.

On the other matter. The CAO says that 240 hours in the minimum before you can even apply for a test. whereas the regs say 240 for the licence (ie including test).

Don't worry about it SWH it is a question for Crosthwaite at CASA to answer!!

Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 03:44
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Aust
Posts: 41
Kelpie

Has the senate proposed the next hearing date?
Low and Fast is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 03:58
  #590 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by The Kelpie
So you add up all your sim time do you and add it to your Aeronautical Experience total do you??
The FTD/FSS time is logged and counted the same as it does for a non-MP(A)L holder. It is one consistent standard. The MP(A)L course allows the applicant to use more FTD/FSS time to count towards the issue of a licence.

FTD/FDD can be counted towards the issue of other licences, i.e. for a CP(A)L 10 hours in accordance with CAR 5.112 (1). In this case a CP(A)L holder may attempt a test with 140 hours flight time, and 10 hours in an approved synthetic flight trainer.

Originally Posted by The Kelpie
The CAO says that 240 hours in the minimum before you can even apply for a test. whereas the regs say 240 for the licence (ie including test).
CAR 1988 207 "(d) has completed an approved course of training;", i.e. completed at least 240 hours. That is also on the MP(A)L test form.

It does not include the test, you are misrepresenting what is clear in black and white.

Originally Posted by The Kelpie
Don't worry about it SWH it is a question for Crosthwaite at CASA to answer!!
You are wrong on this one, and clearly do not understand the MP(A)L process. It was introduced by ICAO as an international standard, not CASA, it is being used worldwide very successfully.

Instead of shooting this down as something bad, we should be embracing it. That is the way airlines want their pilots trained, far better for them to get a new pilot with 200 hours (i.e. around 50 simulator sessions) with a type rating and instrument rating on the type they will be flying, trained to their SOPs in an airline environment rather than a 150 hr CPL with no multi crew exposure and no idea on how to operate the aircraft they are supposed to be flying.

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification. The required standard is a lot more diverse an applicable to a multi-crew aircraft than what the CP(A)L syllabus is aimed at a entry level GA operator.
swh is online now  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 04:02
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Not yet as far as I am aware.
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 04:57
  #592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 191
Instead of shooting this down as something bad, we should be embracing it. That is the way airlines want their pilots trained, far better for them to get a new pilot with 200 hours (i.e. around 50 simulator sessions) with a type rating and instrument rating on the type they will be flying, trained to their SOPs in an airline environment rather than a 150 hr CPL with no multi crew exposure and no idea on how to operate the aircraft they are supposed to be flying.

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification. The required standard is a lot more diverse an applicable to a multi-crew aircraft than what the CP(A)L syllabus is aimed at a entry level GA operator.
RUBBISH! A bigger load of tripe I have not heard in quite some time. The MP(A)L is only endorsed by airlines because they think there will be a shortage of pilots in the future and they need a mechanism to get more through the pipeline. Not because it is a better way of doing things but because it is more expedient. A CPL holder that gets into an airline also has to do an endorsement on type. I also didn't think too many MP licensees had been issued worldwide.
Capt_SNAFU is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 05:00
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
....and that is why Easyjet are apprehensive, however have agreed to a trial of 30 cadets trained by this method with the king of cadetships Petteford.

The poor suckers that sign up are in for a rough ride unless they focus on the bigger picture!!
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 06:29
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
That is the way airlines want their pilots trained, far better for them to get a new pilot with 200 hours (i.e. around 50 simulator sessions) with a type rating and instrument rating on the type they will be flying, trained to their SOPs in an airline environment rather than a 150 hr CPL with no multi crew exposure and no idea on how to operate the aircraft they are supposed to be flying.
Good point, except we're all talking about getting your 150 hr CPL, plus a few thousand hours in GA and then joining an airline. Which airlines are hiring bare 150 hr CPLs?

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification.
As opposed to what they do at the moment, which is .... ?
'holic is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 08:55
  #595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,121
'holic:

It is competency based training, meaning, if you do not meet the standard, applicants do not get the qualification.
I'm "competency based" qualified and on a good day I'm competent, on a bad day, not so much.

You think I don't know this? You think cadets don't know this?

The fact that I can do something when I'm on my best behaviour proves nothing.

In the military we staged "tests" when we deliberately made sure that things did not go according to plan. We made those things happen in ways that the candidate was unaware of. We deliberately set guys up to fail, starting with getting them pissed the night before, then feeding them bullsh1te, then telling them to work with troops who were in on the joke.

"Competency based" ???? Compared to what?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 10:00
  #596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
G'day Sunfish,
Sorry, I should have been a little clearer. The point I was trying to make was that you often hear the phrase "competency based training" used as if it was some kind of revolutionary new training method. swh uses it justify "embracing" the MPL, AJ uses it in the senate inquiry to justify the cadet scheme.

But in reality, what is the difference? Under the traditional training system, you still had to be assessed as competent at various stages of the training. The way the phrase is being used on occasion might leave a person with limited knowledge flight training with the impression that under the old system you just did your 150 hrs and got handed a CPL.

When Qantas decided to change to competency based training, the only difference I noticed was that the forms they fill out at the end of a sim session changed. Everything else was business as usual.
'holic is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 11:31
  #597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 371
In the military we staged "tests" when we deliberately made sure that things did not go according to plan. We made those things happen in ways that the candidate was unaware of. We deliberately set guys up to fail, starting with getting them pissed the night before, then feeding them bullsh1te, then telling them to work with troops who were in on the joke.
There is so much wrong with that kind of mindset, it is not even worth bothering starting to debate it.
The The is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 15:53
  #598 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Capt_SNAFU
A CPL holder that gets into an airline also has to do an endorsement on type.
MP(A)L holders are not trained for single pilot operations, they are trained as part of a total airline apprenticeship. Part of the process of getting a MP(A)L training organisation approval, the organisation has to demonstrate that they MP(A)L holders have continuing post course education. It is not like a CP(A)L where pilots can effectively be thrown into a GA charter operation without getting any ongoing professional development ever.

I am guessing most people on this thread think that the Day VFR syllabus which is the course outline for the CP(A)L gives the required knowledge and skills required in today’s multi crew airline operation.

People have not come out and said it, however reading between the lines they think that reducing the number of hours in a GA single is somehow reducing the MP(A)L holders ability to perform as a pilot in a multi crew airline operation. I would disagree, the syllabus for the MP(A)L is geared towards the required knowledge and skill required for a multi crew airline operation.

If anything I think new MP(A)L holder would be a more capable FO than a new CP(A)L holder with a new type rating. If you get a chance have a look at the required training in ICAO Doc 9868 PANS TRG, and then compare that to the Day VFR syllabus, and make you own assessment of which pilot is given the better training for a multi-crew airline environment (i.e. IFR high performance turbine).

Originally Posted by Capt_SNAFU
I also didn't think too many MP licensees had been issued worldwide.
I do not have the exact numbers, it is in the order of thousands, the process has been around internationally for 5 years. This is how airlines like Lufthansa now train their new pilots. To quote Florian Hamm, CEO Lufthansa Flight Training, "Despite the enormous cost pressure facing the industry, Lufthansa is introducing MPL not in order to save costs but to improve the quality of training."

Those who actually do the numbers know that a Level D sim is more expensive to run than a GA piston twin or single. People who are making claims that this is a ”cheap” way of training have not costed a MP(A)L training process.

Originally Posted by 'holic
Good point, except we're all talking about getting your 150 hr CPL, plus a few thousand hours in GA and then joining an airline. Which airlines are hiring bare 150 hr CPLs?
No we are not, the MP(A)L holders were all from an overseas airline. Australia exports over 500 new 150 hour CP(A)L holders a year to airlines overseas. That is the market where industry is asking for the MP(A)L approvals.

Originally Posted by 'holic
As opposed to what they do at the moment, which is .... ?
Try and get yourself a copy of ICAO Doc 9868 PANS TRG, and you will see what a CP(A)L student does not cover in their training.

Originally Posted by 'holic
When Qantas decided to change to competency based training, the only difference I noticed was that the forms they fill out at the end of a sim session changed.
A lot of larger organisations due to the very size of them had a lot of these processes in place as part of their standardisation team.

In other organisations, a lot more should have changed, however you may have been unaware of the changes. For example when doing a V1 cut, under the old system, it was up to the checker to decide what technique is acceptable or not, under a competency based system, the checkers have to be trained how to deliver and assess competency based training, this means for a V1 cut the required outcomes that define "competent" have to be defined by the training organisation upfront. This may involve defining acceptable headings, speeds, bank angles, pitch, thrust, SOP and checklist usage. It takes away from the checker the ability to fail a student because they do not do things they way they "like" it, if a student meets the required parameters, they are deemed competent.

Originally Posted by The The
There is so much wrong with that kind of mindset, it is not even worth bothering starting to debate it.
Very true.
swh is online now  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 21:04
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 334
Doesn't the balance of the argument centre on whether the MPL can provide suitable directed training to candidates that has, in the past, been gained in terms of experience by pilots operating in GA and the military. It may not have been jet specific but it is the esoteric aspects of our craft learnt in those spheres; weather, decision making, SA etc that we are now hoping to teach candidates in x hours in a sim. It may have taken x hours of airline operation or x arrivals and departures for a pilot to have encountered a similar problem and taken appropriate action such that an incident/accident is avoided. It is unarguable that the crew of QF32 gained incredible insight (experience) from their incident yet every aspect of this non-normal cannot be taught in a sim because you literally had to be there. Most of us haven't had such an extreme situation but have had situations thousands of times in thousands of hours.
It's ironic that my son is learning to drive a car in a competency and experienced based system. He must complete 120 hours of experience before he can sit his, competency based, test. Then for a year he can only drive with one passenger to mitigate risk to others while he gains experience. Perhaps we should get the RTA to submit at the enquiry.
ernestkgann is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 04:48
  #600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Where it don't rain
Posts: 41
In the media, and in staff communications, BB repeatedly stated that he "welcomed" the senate enquiry as it would get all the facts out in the open - now these "facts" seem to be a secret - oh dear!

When is someone who can, going to call this guy's bluff and expose him for what he is?

Can/do the board member's read?, or do they just hope this will all go away and is not really happening at all?

(maybe someone with a bit more techno skills could post the media statements he made when the enquiry was announced)
rowdy trousers is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.