RFDS Instrument hours requirement
I Fly, I think you have answered your own question.
Centaurus
No way CASA can detect it? Impossible to Police?
If CASA actually got out of the office occasionally and conducted the safety audits they they are in existence to perform they would discover all sorts of things about GA. You cannot find if you don't look.
There are more and more GA types entering CASA as FOI's. Some friends of mine for example. When I chat to them about why they don't look at issues that they are personally well aware of they tell me that they have no resources. Read time and money. Why is this? FOI's are well paid by GA standards, how do they fill their days.
Back to the issue of logged IF. It is a simple matter to choose an entry from a candidates log book, request a report from the Bureau of Met for forecast and actual on that day, request tower logs for the time in question. Then put the whole lot together. If it was a charter flight the FPL should be on record with the operator.
So all of these items can be checked. On flights originating or terminating at airports with open towers it is quite simple. As I look out my window today, all I see is blue, so anyone logging IF in my neck of the woods would be easy to catch out.
The point is CASA may have told you Centaurus that it is "impossible to police". Clearly that is not true but there has to be a will, then they will find the way.
Centaurus
It can be open slather to the unscrupulous to fake instrument flight time because there is no way CASA can detect it. From talking to CASA personnel there is no knowledge of anyone ever been caught logging false instrument flight time. Not because it does not happen - but because it is impossible to police.
If CASA actually got out of the office occasionally and conducted the safety audits they they are in existence to perform they would discover all sorts of things about GA. You cannot find if you don't look.
There are more and more GA types entering CASA as FOI's. Some friends of mine for example. When I chat to them about why they don't look at issues that they are personally well aware of they tell me that they have no resources. Read time and money. Why is this? FOI's are well paid by GA standards, how do they fill their days.
Back to the issue of logged IF. It is a simple matter to choose an entry from a candidates log book, request a report from the Bureau of Met for forecast and actual on that day, request tower logs for the time in question. Then put the whole lot together. If it was a charter flight the FPL should be on record with the operator.
So all of these items can be checked. On flights originating or terminating at airports with open towers it is quite simple. As I look out my window today, all I see is blue, so anyone logging IF in my neck of the woods would be easy to catch out.
The point is CASA may have told you Centaurus that it is "impossible to police". Clearly that is not true but there has to be a will, then they will find the way.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: ozland
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even with the change to "autopilot input" 
I still only log hand flying - just short of 600 IF for just short of 9000 TT, so I guess I fit that "5-10%" nicely. Quite frankly, I reckon the logbook is for me first, employers second, so I want it to be a real reflection of what I've done....
In another life a long time ago I didn't even log IF for NGT/IMC auto TFR... knew some who did. They might claim manual flying(using FD and TF scope), but if it was more than the tiniest fraction to coax your way thru XXH precip, you'd have to question their sense of mortality and hence suitability to be in command of any kind of aircraft.
Suggest that the hybrid human/horse relax about it all - as ex-C&T aeromed I can assure you that if they're telling porky pies about the IF experience it tends to show during the line training. To the correspondants proclaiming the difficulty of the aeromed task I say:
"Thou art not wrong, sport!"
Stay cool.
I still only log hand flying - just short of 600 IF for just short of 9000 TT, so I guess I fit that "5-10%" nicely. Quite frankly, I reckon the logbook is for me first, employers second, so I want it to be a real reflection of what I've done....In another life a long time ago I didn't even log IF for NGT/IMC auto TFR... knew some who did. They might claim manual flying(using FD and TF scope), but if it was more than the tiniest fraction to coax your way thru XXH precip, you'd have to question their sense of mortality and hence suitability to be in command of any kind of aircraft.
Suggest that the hybrid human/horse relax about it all - as ex-C&T aeromed I can assure you that if they're telling porky pies about the IF experience it tends to show during the line training. To the correspondants proclaiming the difficulty of the aeromed task I say:
"Thou art not wrong, sport!"
Stay cool.
Thread Starter
Although in my career I have had my fair share of black night IMC, I tips me lid to the RFDS pilots who have surely the most demanding flying job in the industry. The Police Air Wing helicopter pilots do a similar job and magnificently at that.
What has always concerned me, particularly after the RFDS crash at Mt Gambier, is why the RFDS management continue to crew their aircraft as single pilot when, as some of the respondents to this thread have shown, the RFDS fly into some terrifying conditions at night to help the community.
The aircraft they fly may well be single pilot certified, but the environment in which they operate would surely dictate that they be crewed by two pilots for safety reasons.
The corporations and mining companies that charter turbo-props to carry their staff, usually insist ccontractually on a two pilot crew because accident statistics indicate that a two pilot crew is safer than single pilot under IFR. Perhaps that is why the RFDS set 250 hours I/F as a starting point for new pilots into the job.
If, as some have suggested here, that regardless of claimed hours, the simulator check will sort out the faked I/F hours from the real I/F hours, then what is the point of setting 250 hours instrument time as a recruitment requirement?
Some fine pilots may be missing out on a job with the RFDS because of this arbitary 250 hours requirement. Drop it if you like to (say) a 100 hours I/F and open up the field. The sim check will still sort the men from the boys, regardless of claimed I/F hours.
What has always concerned me, particularly after the RFDS crash at Mt Gambier, is why the RFDS management continue to crew their aircraft as single pilot when, as some of the respondents to this thread have shown, the RFDS fly into some terrifying conditions at night to help the community.
The aircraft they fly may well be single pilot certified, but the environment in which they operate would surely dictate that they be crewed by two pilots for safety reasons.
The corporations and mining companies that charter turbo-props to carry their staff, usually insist ccontractually on a two pilot crew because accident statistics indicate that a two pilot crew is safer than single pilot under IFR. Perhaps that is why the RFDS set 250 hours I/F as a starting point for new pilots into the job.
If, as some have suggested here, that regardless of claimed hours, the simulator check will sort out the faked I/F hours from the real I/F hours, then what is the point of setting 250 hours instrument time as a recruitment requirement?
Some fine pilots may be missing out on a job with the RFDS because of this arbitary 250 hours requirement. Drop it if you like to (say) a 100 hours I/F and open up the field. The sim check will still sort the men from the boys, regardless of claimed I/F hours.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: vic
Age: 23
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus,
Apart from FNQ and Western Ops, the RFDS is in a bidding war for the right to fly the contracts. The good days of the RFDS and the great job the did and Dr Flynn blah blah are gone. IF the bids for the NSW contract are near what I am told, a couple of companies will be lucky to have school kids flying let alone two pilots.
Leave the air amboze to the pros, RFDS for me.
Apart from FNQ and Western Ops, the RFDS is in a bidding war for the right to fly the contracts. The good days of the RFDS and the great job the did and Dr Flynn blah blah are gone. IF the bids for the NSW contract are near what I am told, a couple of companies will be lucky to have school kids flying let alone two pilots.
Leave the air amboze to the pros, RFDS for me.
Thread Starter
BIK-116.8.
Very erudite description of night flying over the outback. You have obviously been there - done that.
You are quite right that CASA could nail people that do not log autopilot instrument flight. The chances of that happening is zilch. I recall that the autopilot logging came about when it was not possible to keep up currency at hand flown I/F due to some operators actively banning their crews from hand flying.
With the advent of LNAV - VNAV and all that stuff, automatic pilots came into their own and providing the right buttons were pressed they flew very nicely, thank you very much.
I recall reading an Air New Zealand submission to their CAA on the difficulty of maintaining hands on I/F skills because of autopilot policy and the CAA then allowed automatic pilot I/F logging just to avoid controversy.
From before the 1939-45 war civilian pilots log books had a column for instrument flight sub headed "In Flight" and "Ground". The in-flight part was either under-the-hood or actual instrument flight conditions.
Service log books used by the RAF and RAAF of that era also had instrument flight columns. They were headed "Instrument/Cloud Flying" and were split into Dual - which was under-the-hood, and "Pilot" which was actual cloud flying. There was no specific column for ground, so an extra column was drawn in and labelled "Link".
Logging of instrument flying was hands on only - never auto-pilot. Service pilots had their log books audited each month and signed by their flight commander somewhat similar to that of student pilot log book checks of today. Instrument flight hours were logged honestly. There were no lost job opportunities simply because one had only two instrument rating renewals or lack of I/F hours. That strange method of assessing instrument flying skills remains a quaint civilian GA peculiarity
Computer skills cannot be equated to hands-on instrument flying skills. There is no skill required to "monitor" current sophisticated autopilots nor such ancient pieces of equipment as the Century autopilots in GA aircraft.
CASA regs requiring logging of auto pilot instrument flying suggests that total instrument flying hours as a measure of a pilots skill, is a myth - especially as there is no differentation between hand flying on instruments or monitoring an automatic pilot. RFDS and other operators requiring applicants to have X number of renewals and instrument hours are kidding themselves.
I recall seeing the log book of an airline first officer who had logged 5600 hours total time of which 2800 were logged as on instruments. I wondered if his captains had also logged the same hours. He had been flying F27 and Boeing 727 aircraft within Australia since he joined one of our now extinct domestic airlines from GA. I guess he was happy with his I/F skills after that lot.
My I/F hours are sweaty hands on flying and will stay that way, too.
Very erudite description of night flying over the outback. You have obviously been there - done that.
You are quite right that CASA could nail people that do not log autopilot instrument flight. The chances of that happening is zilch. I recall that the autopilot logging came about when it was not possible to keep up currency at hand flown I/F due to some operators actively banning their crews from hand flying.
With the advent of LNAV - VNAV and all that stuff, automatic pilots came into their own and providing the right buttons were pressed they flew very nicely, thank you very much.
I recall reading an Air New Zealand submission to their CAA on the difficulty of maintaining hands on I/F skills because of autopilot policy and the CAA then allowed automatic pilot I/F logging just to avoid controversy.
From before the 1939-45 war civilian pilots log books had a column for instrument flight sub headed "In Flight" and "Ground". The in-flight part was either under-the-hood or actual instrument flight conditions.
Service log books used by the RAF and RAAF of that era also had instrument flight columns. They were headed "Instrument/Cloud Flying" and were split into Dual - which was under-the-hood, and "Pilot" which was actual cloud flying. There was no specific column for ground, so an extra column was drawn in and labelled "Link".
Logging of instrument flying was hands on only - never auto-pilot. Service pilots had their log books audited each month and signed by their flight commander somewhat similar to that of student pilot log book checks of today. Instrument flight hours were logged honestly. There were no lost job opportunities simply because one had only two instrument rating renewals or lack of I/F hours. That strange method of assessing instrument flying skills remains a quaint civilian GA peculiarity
Computer skills cannot be equated to hands-on instrument flying skills. There is no skill required to "monitor" current sophisticated autopilots nor such ancient pieces of equipment as the Century autopilots in GA aircraft.
CASA regs requiring logging of auto pilot instrument flying suggests that total instrument flying hours as a measure of a pilots skill, is a myth - especially as there is no differentation between hand flying on instruments or monitoring an automatic pilot. RFDS and other operators requiring applicants to have X number of renewals and instrument hours are kidding themselves.
I recall seeing the log book of an airline first officer who had logged 5600 hours total time of which 2800 were logged as on instruments. I wondered if his captains had also logged the same hours. He had been flying F27 and Boeing 727 aircraft within Australia since he joined one of our now extinct domestic airlines from GA. I guess he was happy with his I/F skills after that lot.
My I/F hours are sweaty hands on flying and will stay that way, too.
Last edited by Centaurus; 29th Aug 2002 at 10:58.
