A warning message to flying instructors

[Clare Prop]

Originally Posted by 43Inches

A lot of mess for everyone. That's one risk of hiring to unknowns. You can take deposits, debit pre-approvals, but generally not enough to cover large loss, especially airplane losses. Sell the debt to an agency and they can hound the individual for the next 20 years. Luckily I've never had to deal with that situation, however I know a good mate who is that guy with nothing to his name, was able to get fines/loans/debts he didn't pay, and just kept false addresses so the agencies never caught up with them. If you have nothing they don't put much effort into the chase. For the majority of us that have assets and don't want to be declared bankrupt it's easier to negotiate something in the middle.

Normally the insurance company will pay out the owner less the excess, then use their considerable resources to go after the person who did the damage.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by Clare Prop

Normally the insurance company will pay out the owner less the excess, then use their considerable resources to go after the person who did the damage.

So that would be the insurance company who issued the insurance policy you paid for, right?

And that insurance company will use their "considerable resources" to find out that the pilot who turned the aircraft into a smoking ball of metal at Upper Kumbucta West is worth only $1, right?

At which point you'll work out that all that fine print in the hire agreement between you and the private hirer is practically pointless, right?

(Grown up advice: If you own something valuable, get it insured properly and assume that the people who could damage or destroy that property have zero assets.)

[Clare Prop]

I've been hiring my aeroplanes out for over 30 years as well as cross hiring and leasing others. One of my four simultaneous job while working my way through my CPL was as a hire car representative. I know how it works. My hire agreements are simple and have served me well in the few claims I have had to make in the past, I have never even had to pay the excess, the hirer is fully aware of what they are responsible for.

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by Clare Prop

Normally the insurance company will pay out the owner less the excess, then use their considerable resources to go after the person who did the damage.

That is the situation if that is what you have paid for in the PDS. What I was referring to in general was the coverage for the hirer, which is very dependent on what they signed for in the hire agreement. I worked for a few larger schools that had large fleets, I had to deal with the insurance companies more than a few times. Our stricter sign out procedures and 'quality control' of pilots meant we paid about half the rate other schools paid, and we helped private owners get that rate when they placed aircraft on line, saving them thousands in premiums. Our ab initio trainers for instance were insured for not much more than the average % of hull value that a private pilot would get for their personal machine not involved in training. So yes you can get insurance that will cover the owner for all damages within reason, but depending on who you let fly and the risk the amount you pay in premium will vary greatly, and to the point an insurer may refuse to cover an owner if their claims get too prolific.

I remember sitting at an aeroclub bar having a drink, when suddenly the fire trucks arrived. A Navajo had reported a gear malfunction and was looking at a tricky landing sans one leg. After a while it was apparent the aircraft was circling for an unusual amount of time. I heard from an associate of the aircraft owner that he hadn't renewed the insurance and was negotiating a deal for coverage before it landed... I later found out the insurance company had agreed to a deal around 50/50 costs with the owner due to them being a long term customer in the past. It would have been interesting if nothing had been sorted out, the pilot had hired the aircraft and was not the owner, so who knows what would have happened had he damaged the aircraft along the way and it wasn't an unforeseen mechanical issue. The Navajo ended up flopping onto one wing as the gear collapsed, with as little damage as could be expected, made for an entertaining watch while enjoying an ale.

Back then self insurance was common for some owners, that is no insurance. Floatplanes were particularly hard to get reasonable premiums for cover.

So again it's important to know when you sign a hire contract that it also covers you as the hirer, that is it states somewhere that you are covered by the owners insurance if you comply with the contract.

but what he seemed to say was that a flying instructor would carry liability for "signing out" a licensed pilot for a private hire, rather than the licensed pilot doing the signing as per a hire car.

In that case you could say that on behalf of the company the instructor is accepting in their belief that the hirer is fit to conduct the intended operation. Licence and medical sighted, aircraft appropriate to qualifications, complies with insurance requirements, tick, signed. I would not say they carry any liability other than signing over the keys to the pilot in a formal manner, time and place. If it's solo training mission with restrictions such as weather and planning considerations, that the instructor must ensure the student adheres to, that is a different matter. The only thing that the instructor may get in trouble for is if they continually sign out private hirers that end up damaging and costing insurance pay outs, then the premiums will start to jump costing the company and then questions will be asked of who they let fly.

[Clare Prop]

Exactly, we have drifted from the thread in that it was regarding instructors in flight, rather than representing the company as someone who does paperwork checks on private hirers, where they cannot be held responsible for what happens on the flight. IN our paperwork the pilot agrees that they are responsible for everything that happens while the aircraft is "in their care" ie from when they take the keys to when they bring them back. This is exactly the same as the contracts when I was working on the hire cars.

I have seen in one organisation instructors signing Part 3 of maintenance releases for solo pilots when they haven't even left their briefing room, let alone conducted the inspection they are signing for; now that is a time when they could find themselves in a big fat world of hurt. When I questioned this practice I was told "that signature is me authorising the student for the solo flight".. err....ok, good luck with that.

For further thread drift, all power to instructors who are going through Fair Work. I recently found out that one major operator is paying Grade Ones approx 1/3 of the award rate. In fact,what they are paying them now is only up 16% on what I was being paid over 30 years ago, and it was below the award rate then!

[43Inches]

I have seen in one organisation instructors signing Part 3 of maintenance releases for solo pilots when they haven't even left their briefing room, let alone conducted the inspection they are signing for; now that is a time when they could find themselves in a big fat world of hurt. When I questioned this practice I was told "that signature is me authorising the student for the solo flight".. err....ok, good luck with that.

Not surprised at all, as with the other thread where a pilot who showed significant lack of knowledge of aerodynamics, especially around the stall somehow gained instructor approvals.

​​​​​​​Wait...he had 40 hours and still not solo or able to maintain centreline??

1. By 17 December 2017, Mr Ripper had completed almost 40 flight hours and was able to conduct take-offs, handle flying an aircraft and was ready for solo flight.

(d) during the take-off roll, the aircraft drifted slightly, and no more than a couple of metres, to the left of the centre line of the runway

Always hard to blame the student with such limited information. I've seen students fail to progress because of poor instruction, poor personality match ups, and a few other things unrelated to the students actual potential, which is where proper supervision of instructors and student progress is required. However, if they indeed did have issues that led to such high hours then disciplined instruction is what is needed. And feeding in controls without verbal comment is definitely not what is required. Which unfortunately for the instructor/company leans to favor the student even more as they have less reason to react appropriately if already proven to have deficiencies, placing more onus on the instructor to be wary and ensure the safety of the operation.

[Lead Balloon]

I have seen in one organisation instructors signing Part 3 of maintenance releases for solo pilots when they haven't even left their briefing room, let alone conducted the inspection they are signing for; now that is a time when they could find themselves in a big fat world of hurt. When I questioned this practice I was told "that signature is me authorising the student for the solo flight".. err....ok, good luck with that.

That's a rather damning indictment on the standards of training, testing and supervision of those instructors.

[Centaurus]

I remember decades ago working for Security Express based at Essendon with their Aero Commanders. GAM did the maintenance in those days. One aircraft I flew was notorious for its ADF which had a range of only five miles. The other pilots that flew that aircaft accepted the crook ADF as a fact of GA life and never wrote up the snag. I snagged it in the maintenance release which aroused the ire of the owner for dirtying his otherwise spotless maintenance release. . An LAME then signed it off as serviceable. I flew it next day - same range problem just 5 miles. I wrote it up again.

This time I saw the same LAME.. He said the owner had told him to write it up as ground tested serviceable and he would get the LAME to fix it at the next 100 hourly to save maintenance costs. The next 100 hourly was 80 flight hours ahead and so that Aero Commander kept flying for the next few weeks racking up the hours to the next 100 hourly still with a crook ADF with its 5 mile range.

[Clare Prop]

If he was drifting off the centreline then he wasn't "able to conduct take offs" to the standard required in the Part 61 MOS. OK I know they were using RAAus rules and I'm not familiar with those, but if they can't correct the yaw you get from application of power, which is something they should learn in Effects of Controls, then they are not "ready for solo flight"...

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by Clare Prop

If he was drifting off the centreline then he wasn't "able to conduct take offs" to the standard required in the Part 61 MOS. OK I know they were using RAAus rules and I'm not familiar with those, but if they can't correct the yaw you get from application of power, which is something they should learn in Effects of Controls, then they are not "ready for solo flight"...

It does sound like it was crosswind related, not necessarily related to power application. That being said the pilot does not need to decide what is causing an aircraft to yaw left or right, they need to just apply controls to achieve the desired path. If the deviation appears excessive, abort the take-off and consider why. I've seen students do their head in before take-off trying to decide which rudder they should use, right rudder to stop power related yaw, but the crosswinds from the right so I'll need left rudder... fark, empty that head and just apply power slowly, look down the runway and apply corrections as needed. This comes to a head especially when they fly multis and have to react to an engine failure.

Things like the MOS completely over complicate the endeavor for students, instructors need to keep it as simple as possible for actual training. Which is why IMO standards have declined, flying is simple, with dire consequences when it goes wrong. Simple techniques and simple rules make for safe aviating, complicate everything and the simple safety rules get lost in the mush of tolerances and theory. The instructor needs to be skilled, knowledgeable and know what is needed from a standards point of view, however they should be teaching simple techniques that achieve this and the student need only know the basics of when an instructor will interject. Numbers and rules mean nothing, just basics. Keep to the center of the runway on take-off and landing, land in a safe area at the start of the runway, maintain heading and altitude as accurately as possible, maintain speed as accurately as possible, be cautious at low speeds, use lower bank angles at low speeds. No numbers, no ifs, buts or complications. If the student has the right technique they will fall within the tolerance required.

I hear the story of this student and the drifting left of center and see an individual overloaded, not able to see the big picture, fixated or lost in their own mind and not able to see the deviation, until it is quite large. Which is more evident when they randomly over reacted to the sudden movement. That means the last thing they need is to be thinking more about numbers, tolerances and so on, that will just result in more mental lock. Probably told to look at the far end of the runway, not the path in front as with driving a car where you look at a position relative to the speed you are travelling. Look too far ahead and you will not notice small deviations up close, made more complicated when you are thinking about how much rudder is needed rather than just applying until the deviation is held and corrected.

[Lead Balloon]

The ATSB report of the Gippsland tragedy says:

A review of the pilot’s examination history revealed several errors about aerodynamic stalling in exams conducted during 2024 and it was concluded that the pilot likely had inadequate knowledge of the relationship between angle of bank, load factor and stall speed. Additionally, the investigation found several instances of irregular practices in training and exams at the Adventure Flight Training (AFT) school, which included the pilot’s exams, and concluded that those management practices likely contributed to the pilot’s inadequate knowledge.

If a training, testing and flight review system cannot detect and correct, or weed out, pilots who have "inadequate knowledge of the relationship between angle of bank, load factor and stall speed", it's a sham.

[43Inches]

CASA was so busy tilting at the windmills of ageing aircraft and pilot medicals that they forgot that the most deadly thing a pilot has to deal with is their own skill. Now we are seeing an accident rate almost triple what it was in the early 2000s, why? because the regulator decided that old aircraft, CVD or ADHD were going to cause mass casualties, when in reality good old lack of knowledge keeps on doing it at an increasing rate. So far we're averaging 22 fatal prangs a year, with none of them down to CVD or ADHD, or even much to do with medicals or wings falling off. Most are age old problems that are defeated with proper training, stall awareness, weather awareness, not doing stupid things like practicing engine failures in multis in dangerous situations.

Oh but we threw tons of pages of MOS and regulations at training, oh well, I guess making things so complicated you spend half your time trying to understand what is required to do anything you forget how to actually fly....

PS, Just because CASA is not officially responsible for RAA is not an excuse. Whats the point of having an aviation regulator that somehow doesn't regulate a massive amount of aircraft that are bigger than drones (CASA regulated) and smaller than a Cessna (CASA regulated). CASA is responsible for it because they allowed it to happen, as a means of deflecting responsibility they didn't want.

[Lead Balloon]

Spot on!

(CASA does bear regulatory responsibility for RAAus. The main reason RAAus may lawfully do what it has been doing and continues to do is exemptions and authorisations issued by CASA. What CASA giveth CASA can taketh away, and the safety of air navigation is supposed to be CASA's most important consideration in making both of those decisions.)

[Clare Prop]

Whatever standard you are using, if the pilot can't maintain the centreline then they are not ready for solo in those conditions. It's not complicated.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by 43Inches

CASA was so busy tilting at the windmills of ageing aircraft and pilot medicals that they forgot that the most deadly thing a pilot has to deal with is their own skill. Now we are seeing an accident rate almost triple what it was in the early 2000s, why? because the regulator decided that old aircraft, CVD or ADHD were going to cause mass casualties, when in reality good old lack of knowledge keeps on doing it at an increasing rate. So far we're averaging 22 fatal prangs a year, with none of them down to CVD or ADHD, or even much to do with medicals or wings falling off. Most are age old problems that are defeated with proper training, stall awareness, weather awareness, not doing stupid things like practicing engine failures in multis in dangerous situations.

or simply doing maintenance when it's required.....

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2023-053

[Staffypilot]

That reminds me of an incident I investigated where a dual instructional flight ran off the side of the runway. The investigation basically highlighted that the instructor kept making vague comments like “what are you doing?” and “where are you going?” instead of giving clear corrective instruction. Not once did they actually say something simple and actionable like “right rudder” or “go around. That’s a really poor instructional standard. She didn't even try to take over In a developing situation, especially with a student, the instructor’s job is not to critique but it’s to intervene early, clearly, and decisively. Hesitation or passive commentary can turn a recoverable deviation into an accident.

I saw a video recently of an instructor talking a student female asian student through a take-off at Moorabbin and honestly the patter was some of the worst I’ve heard that was overly wordy, no substance in the patter -- full of slang, unclear and no real command presence. If I’d pattered like that back in my instructing days I doubt I would’ve passed. It genuinely makes me wonder how some people are getting signed off for instructor ratings these days. CASA has really lost the plot IMO It does feel like standards have slipped a lot, especially with the number of GA accidents in Australia lately, probably compounded by rapid hour building, fewer genuinely passionate instructors, and training turning into a box-ticking exercise instead of producing confident, decisive pilots. The VET-fee pipeline hasn’t helped either. The social media influence is another issue, I’ve seen female instructors posting about students like it’s content or personal branding, the whole “ohh look at me" "I'm a Grade 1 instructor" "look at my journey to the airlines” thing. Old school or not, instructing carries real responsibility; it’s about being a role model not building an image or advertising a pathway to the airlines.

[Centaurus]

Originally Posted by Staffypilot

That reminds me of an incident I investigated where a dual instructional flight ran off the side of the runway. The investigation basically highlighted that the instructor kept making vague comments like “what are you doing?” and “where are you going?” instead of giving clear corrective instruction. Not once did they actually say something simple and actionable like “right rudder” or “go around. That’s a really poor instructional standard. She didn't even try to take over In a developing situation, especially with a student, the instructor’s job is not to critique but it’s to intervene early, clearly, and decisively. Hesitation or passive commentary can turn a recoverable deviation into an accident.

I saw a video recently of an instructor talking a student female asian student through a take-off at Moorabbin and honestly the patter was some of the worst I’ve heard that was overly wordy, no substance in the patter -- full of slang, unclear and no real command presence. If I’d pattered like that back in my instructing days I doubt I would’ve passed. It genuinely makes me wonder how some people are getting signed off for instructor ratings these days. CASA has really lost the plot IMO It does feel like standards have slipped a lot, especially with the number of GA accidents in Australia lately, probably compounded by rapid hour building, fewer genuinely passionate instructors, and training turning into a box-ticking exercise instead of producing confident, decisive pilots. The VET-fee pipeline hasn’t helped either. The social media influence is another issue, I’ve seen female instructors posting about students like it’s content or personal branding, the whole “ohh look at me" "I'm a Grade 1 instructor" "look at my journey to the airlines” thing. Old school or not, instructing carries real responsibility; it’s about being a role model not building an image or advertising a pathway to the airlines.

\

In a similar vein I recall taking over a new Cessna 152 student at a Victorian country flying school. The student had already flown ten hours of dual. His normal instructor was away on holiday.
We arrived at our Cessna 152 and got seated. He then apologised and said he had left his checklist in his car. I said no problem just do a left to right checks . He had never heard of that as he had been taught to read and do everyhing from a written checklist.

After starting the engine he did not know what to do next without his written checklist. We finally got airborne for circuits and he rattled off the BUMPF mnemonics during the downwind leg including confirming the wheels were down and locked and the magnetos were on BOTH. . I said the C152 had fixed landing gear and the gear check did not apply. Similarly if the magnetos were not ON there would be no engine power. His landing were safe but I was reluctant to send him solo because of his total reliance on a written checklist.

We finished the session and taxied to the parking area but he was embarrassed when I asked him to shut down the engine. He said he had never shut down ithe engine without reading from his checklist in all his previous flights with his grade 3 instructor. I had to talk him through the shut down checks. It seemed to me that the instructor's CFI clearly was unaware of the deficiences in the grade 3 instructor's teaching technique.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by Centaurus

\

In a similar vein I recall taking over a new Cessna 152 student at a Victorian country flying school. The student had already flown ten hours of dual. His normal instructor was away on holiday.
We arrived at our Cessna 152 and got seated. He then apologised and said he had left his checklist in his car. I said no problem just do a left to right checks . He had never heard of that as he had been taught to read and do everyhing from a written checklist.

After starting the engine he did not know what to do next without his written checklist. We finally got airborne for circuits and he rattled off the BUMPF mnemonics during the downwind leg including confirming the wheels were down and locked and the magnetos were on BOTH. . I said the C152 had fixed landing gear and the gear check did not apply. Similarly if the magnetos were not ON there would be no engine power. His landing were safe but I was reluctant to send him solo because of his total reliance on a written checklist.

We finished the session and taxied to the parking area but he was embarrassed when I asked him to shut down the engine. He said he had never shut down ithe engine without reading from his checklist in all his previous flights with his grade 3 instructor. I had to talk him through the shut down checks. It seemed to me that the instructor's CFI clearly was unaware of the deficiences in the grade 3 instructor's teaching technique.

It's funny how different instructors perceive the implications of, and therefore teach different approaches to, the same set of circumstances. And CASA either knows and approves of the different approaches, or ... I can't be bothered typing out the numerous permutations of the safety/competence/safety variables.

I was taught to run through the checklist items including undercarriage position selection and indication, even if flying a fixed gear aircraft, and propellor pitch setting, even if flying a fixed pitch propellor aircraft. Not ab initio, but shortly after getting a UPPL (google it) numerous decades ago.

Still do it, today. My understanding is that following this kind of 'standard' checklist will deal with 'most' situations that could arise when flying different aircraft. Doesn't remove the need for aircraft-specific knowledge, but should help prevent a lot of common mistakes.

Maybe my instructors and I were off with the fairies, but CASA should have done something about that a long time ago.