Military Licencing vs Civilian Licencing
P&B
From your response I get the impression you are living in a different GA world than I and my colleagues have experienced.
I can assure you that my comments were not about a select few.
Referring to MR entries (or lack of) you state that the majority of civilian operators do not discourage defect reporting but that the operators "Do like to keep a tight rein on most things for many good reasons".
I would suggest that it is indiscrete of you to admit such a thing particularly as CASA have been known to peruse Pprune pages in order to pick up gems such as your statement and follow it through with an unexpected audit. Your manager will not thank you.
If "keeping a tight rein on things" means that pilots should always seek approval from the boss to write up or not write up defects in the maintenance release (after all it is not good for business to lose a charter because of a silly old fuel leak) - then this would suggest that pilots are not only being coerced into breaking the regulations, but are apprehensive of their job security. It happens everywhere in GA because pilots will do anything to build precious hours in their log book. And why? Because they long to get out of GA to fly in the airlines.
Military pilots are fortunate not to face such insidious pressures.
The example you offer for "keeping a tight rein on things" can only mean that you have some sympathy with those operators who lack the financial resources to maintain their aircraft in an airworthy condition - especially if a pilot decides to meets his legal obligations of recording a defect on the maintenance release. Clearly the operator should not be in business if he cannot afford to be legal and safe to CASA standards. This is more common than you think.
Your reference to "10 engineers running out and towing the aircraft away and replacing it.....at no cost" is undeserving of intelligent comment.
At a recent industry/CASA conference, Mick Toller made critical comment to the audience, of a culture of non-reporting of defects among GA pilots, that in his own words, was disturbing and extremely widespread. He went to say that the situation in this area was beyond CASA's limited resources to police particularly in the more remote area of GA operations.
This would seem to indicate that my post was not confined to "a select few" as your reply intimated.
Finally your obvious distaste of military pilots as qualified flying instructors could be construed by some as professional jealousy.
Could it be that you failed to gain entry into the RAAF at some time?
From your response I get the impression you are living in a different GA world than I and my colleagues have experienced.
I can assure you that my comments were not about a select few.
Referring to MR entries (or lack of) you state that the majority of civilian operators do not discourage defect reporting but that the operators "Do like to keep a tight rein on most things for many good reasons".
I would suggest that it is indiscrete of you to admit such a thing particularly as CASA have been known to peruse Pprune pages in order to pick up gems such as your statement and follow it through with an unexpected audit. Your manager will not thank you.
If "keeping a tight rein on things" means that pilots should always seek approval from the boss to write up or not write up defects in the maintenance release (after all it is not good for business to lose a charter because of a silly old fuel leak) - then this would suggest that pilots are not only being coerced into breaking the regulations, but are apprehensive of their job security. It happens everywhere in GA because pilots will do anything to build precious hours in their log book. And why? Because they long to get out of GA to fly in the airlines.
Military pilots are fortunate not to face such insidious pressures.
The example you offer for "keeping a tight rein on things" can only mean that you have some sympathy with those operators who lack the financial resources to maintain their aircraft in an airworthy condition - especially if a pilot decides to meets his legal obligations of recording a defect on the maintenance release. Clearly the operator should not be in business if he cannot afford to be legal and safe to CASA standards. This is more common than you think.
Your reference to "10 engineers running out and towing the aircraft away and replacing it.....at no cost" is undeserving of intelligent comment.
At a recent industry/CASA conference, Mick Toller made critical comment to the audience, of a culture of non-reporting of defects among GA pilots, that in his own words, was disturbing and extremely widespread. He went to say that the situation in this area was beyond CASA's limited resources to police particularly in the more remote area of GA operations.
This would seem to indicate that my post was not confined to "a select few" as your reply intimated.
Finally your obvious distaste of military pilots as qualified flying instructors could be construed by some as professional jealousy.
Could it be that you failed to gain entry into the RAAF at some time?
Last edited by Centaurus; 17th May 2002 at 11:49.
Centaurus,
A little inflammatory mate; won't do anything to ease the Military v's Civvy rubbish will it?
Gibbo
Could it be that you failed to gain entry into the RAAF at some time?
Gibbo
Let's reverse the situation:
How about an experienced civvy instructor being given a mil. QFI? Or even 'wings' for experienced pilots?
I'm not referring to civvy pilots teaching mil. pilots at a civvy school under a contractual arrangement.
My opinion is that techniques of instruction, controlling an a/c, knowledge of aerodynamics etc etc are common BUT there are major differences in the operational environment.
I'd rather see specific conversion courses for mil. to civvy licences/ratings, rather than making a mil. pilot do the whole 50 hr instructor rating etc.
How about an experienced civvy instructor being given a mil. QFI? Or even 'wings' for experienced pilots?
I'm not referring to civvy pilots teaching mil. pilots at a civvy school under a contractual arrangement.
My opinion is that techniques of instruction, controlling an a/c, knowledge of aerodynamics etc etc are common BUT there are major differences in the operational environment.
I'd rather see specific conversion courses for mil. to civvy licences/ratings, rather than making a mil. pilot do the whole 50 hr instructor rating etc.
I understand your misgivings, Pitch and Break, but I think we may be just arguing about semantics.
I assert that a military instructors course prepares you at least adequately for instructional duties, given a good knowledge of the type you are to instruct on. That's the key; an instructor rating isn't tied to any type, it's something that is supposed to recognise your capability to pass on knowledge and skills, as well as being a test of your ability to fly and teach at the same time.
Someone who has instructed in a military flying school for a couple of years has, I believe, proven themselves in the field, and should have that experience recognised.
I'm not objecting to the cost of the civvy rating, it's the principle of it. In my view, it's pretty p155 poor that someone who's been teaching people to fly for years leaves the military and then has to prove that they can teach people to fly all over again.
Type specific stuff, yeah, but the whole rating... I don't understand that policy.
Tinstaafl, you must have been typing just as I was - for reference, the requirement to convert mil to civil instructor rating is a flight test, plus ground school type stuff to the satisfaction of the testing officer; the course of training is waived. All I'm saying is that the rating should be awarded on the basis of a pass in the CFS or equivalent course.
Agreed, time on appropriate types is needed; that will be an issue for a lot of ex-military people. What I'm asking is why isn't that initial instructor rating recognised?
I assert that a military instructors course prepares you at least adequately for instructional duties, given a good knowledge of the type you are to instruct on. That's the key; an instructor rating isn't tied to any type, it's something that is supposed to recognise your capability to pass on knowledge and skills, as well as being a test of your ability to fly and teach at the same time.
Someone who has instructed in a military flying school for a couple of years has, I believe, proven themselves in the field, and should have that experience recognised.
I'm not objecting to the cost of the civvy rating, it's the principle of it. In my view, it's pretty p155 poor that someone who's been teaching people to fly for years leaves the military and then has to prove that they can teach people to fly all over again.
Type specific stuff, yeah, but the whole rating... I don't understand that policy.
Tinstaafl, you must have been typing just as I was - for reference, the requirement to convert mil to civil instructor rating is a flight test, plus ground school type stuff to the satisfaction of the testing officer; the course of training is waived. All I'm saying is that the rating should be awarded on the basis of a pass in the CFS or equivalent course.
Agreed, time on appropriate types is needed; that will be an issue for a lot of ex-military people. What I'm asking is why isn't that initial instructor rating recognised?
Last edited by Arm out the window; 17th May 2002 at 14:15.
Maybe they should, if in their course of training they have demonstrated competence to teach formation, aerobatics and low tac nav, and have IFR training approval and are rated on the military type...
Last edited by Arm out the window; 18th May 2002 at 00:01.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I really despair at the way our industry polarises itself. There are many good professional aviation people trained in the civilian area and likewise in the RAAF/Military.
I would suggest the critics of the military consider the envelopes to which the military pilots need to operate, but not beyond, and the training they receive before commencing, and then completing, a QFI course.
What would you pay for a 6-month live in, 5 day-a-week live-and-breath aviation course at the RAAF CFS? .....and then go and teach it all.
What would you give to be qualified at the end of the course, albeit at the base RAAF QFI level, in instrument, formation, aerobatic, night ratings etc..
Then when you instruct for while under close supervision and are then checked for an upgrade.
Methinks that is not only good training but also very, very good training.
When I listen to the techniques espoused by those "strutters" (as I describe them) I shudder at the product they push to graduation, only to have the same dreadful attitudes reconstituted as gospel by the next generation.
You might consider the phrase "you don’t know what you don’t know" and ask yourself how much have you have learned in the last five years and ponder how much you can learn (not strut) in the next five years.
Of course there are good civilian trained instructors but many seem to be born of intolerance, "screaming skulls" who seem to use their temporary power as an instructor as a means to strut, not teach, not to set the example not.…………I guess it’s boring!
Why not listen to a few old heads – I certainly did for hours – and still I learn things today things that I had never heard of.
And by the way, single pilot IFR in a fighter, at night, tracking with missiles with an ILS-like recovery at the end is (sort of) a high work load.
Be kind to your brethren, you might, if you are lucky, end up working for one of them……..And I bet you’ll be nice then …….and you will have a happier and enlightening aviation life.
I know I did…..And still do!
PS. You must write unservicabilities without fear in the MR. To do otherwise is to lower the bar for your aviation mate and that is not the Australian way………..or is it the GA way?????????? "
I would suggest the critics of the military consider the envelopes to which the military pilots need to operate, but not beyond, and the training they receive before commencing, and then completing, a QFI course.
What would you pay for a 6-month live in, 5 day-a-week live-and-breath aviation course at the RAAF CFS? .....and then go and teach it all.
What would you give to be qualified at the end of the course, albeit at the base RAAF QFI level, in instrument, formation, aerobatic, night ratings etc..
Then when you instruct for while under close supervision and are then checked for an upgrade.
Methinks that is not only good training but also very, very good training.
When I listen to the techniques espoused by those "strutters" (as I describe them) I shudder at the product they push to graduation, only to have the same dreadful attitudes reconstituted as gospel by the next generation.
You might consider the phrase "you don’t know what you don’t know" and ask yourself how much have you have learned in the last five years and ponder how much you can learn (not strut) in the next five years.
Of course there are good civilian trained instructors but many seem to be born of intolerance, "screaming skulls" who seem to use their temporary power as an instructor as a means to strut, not teach, not to set the example not.…………I guess it’s boring!
Why not listen to a few old heads – I certainly did for hours – and still I learn things today things that I had never heard of.
And by the way, single pilot IFR in a fighter, at night, tracking with missiles with an ILS-like recovery at the end is (sort of) a high work load.
Be kind to your brethren, you might, if you are lucky, end up working for one of them……..And I bet you’ll be nice then …….and you will have a happier and enlightening aviation life.
I know I did…..And still do!
PS. You must write unservicabilities without fear in the MR. To do otherwise is to lower the bar for your aviation mate and that is not the Australian way………..or is it the GA way?????????? "
The point you make about the differences in mil. flying for a civvy. instructor has exactly the same application for mil. to civvy.
I could equally point out that mil. ops isn't necessarily like operating commercially (AND legally!!! I have NO tolerance for shonks).
One can't claim that on one hand mil. flying is close enough to civil for complete dispensation, but then turn around & say mil. is too different from civil flying for the reverse.
As I said earlier, I see no need for full course requirements for a military pilot to convert. A real WOFTAM, that would be. But I certainly feel that there needs to be some form of familiarisation with the civil world & demonstration of this knowledge.
There most certainly are equivalent or even equal techniques, requirements & methods etc. It's the differences that should be addressed - in either direction.
As slight change of topic, what differences & similarities do people see between the two spheres of operation?
I could equally point out that mil. ops isn't necessarily like operating commercially (AND legally!!! I have NO tolerance for shonks).
One can't claim that on one hand mil. flying is close enough to civil for complete dispensation, but then turn around & say mil. is too different from civil flying for the reverse.
As I said earlier, I see no need for full course requirements for a military pilot to convert. A real WOFTAM, that would be. But I certainly feel that there needs to be some form of familiarisation with the civil world & demonstration of this knowledge.
There most certainly are equivalent or even equal techniques, requirements & methods etc. It's the differences that should be addressed - in either direction.
As slight change of topic, what differences & similarities do people see between the two spheres of operation?
Familiarisation and demonstration of knowledge should certainly be a requirement, Tinstaafl.
I don't think that a military instructor could or should leap straight into a GA operation and pretend to know it all.
However, what is there that a civil instructor does that the military one hasn't already been doing for a living for some time?
Looking at the flight instructor rating outline of training from the CAOs, I'd say it's not unreasonable to say that the military person has shown that he or she can teach pretty much anything in there. Going the other way is a different story though, with the emphasis on formation, aerobatics and so on.
I'm not saying a civil instructor couldn't do that stuff, but it's not part of the basic instructor rating. When you consider that the night and IFR work is built in to the CFS course as well, I still think that if CASA can grant a military pilot a CPL on the basis of work already done in the services, what's the difference with the instructor rating?
Naturally the military person starting afresh in the world of GA will have a lot of learning to do to get to know the ropes, and may not have much idea of how things run in, say, a charter operation, but that's a different subject.
As far as differences between operations go, interesting question.
Probably the main difference, I'd say, is the structured nature of a lot of military flying - each flying school or squadron has very standardised ways of doing things (although these can be sources of heated argument or interminable 'points of order' at standardisation meetings!), which can be a bit of a double-edged sword at times, but generally works fairly well.
Also, depending what type you fly, there can be lots of people working in different ways to get you airborne, so some people probably miss out on an overall appreciation of what happens from go to whoa to keep that aircraft flying, maintained, etc, that could be expected in a smallish GA operation, say.
Sorry, just noticed you're posting from the UK, my references above are to Aussie documents. I wonder how the situations compare between countries?
I don't think that a military instructor could or should leap straight into a GA operation and pretend to know it all.
However, what is there that a civil instructor does that the military one hasn't already been doing for a living for some time?
Looking at the flight instructor rating outline of training from the CAOs, I'd say it's not unreasonable to say that the military person has shown that he or she can teach pretty much anything in there. Going the other way is a different story though, with the emphasis on formation, aerobatics and so on.
I'm not saying a civil instructor couldn't do that stuff, but it's not part of the basic instructor rating. When you consider that the night and IFR work is built in to the CFS course as well, I still think that if CASA can grant a military pilot a CPL on the basis of work already done in the services, what's the difference with the instructor rating?
Naturally the military person starting afresh in the world of GA will have a lot of learning to do to get to know the ropes, and may not have much idea of how things run in, say, a charter operation, but that's a different subject.
As far as differences between operations go, interesting question.
Probably the main difference, I'd say, is the structured nature of a lot of military flying - each flying school or squadron has very standardised ways of doing things (although these can be sources of heated argument or interminable 'points of order' at standardisation meetings!), which can be a bit of a double-edged sword at times, but generally works fairly well.
Also, depending what type you fly, there can be lots of people working in different ways to get you airborne, so some people probably miss out on an overall appreciation of what happens from go to whoa to keep that aircraft flying, maintained, etc, that could be expected in a smallish GA operation, say.
Sorry, just noticed you're posting from the UK, my references above are to Aussie documents. I wonder how the situations compare between countries?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Formation Endorsement
Guys, slightly off topic, going back to original q's, can anyone tell me about getting a civvy form endorsement? Any mil guys done it and can tell me comparisons please?
Cougar,
From memory I was written up for a fromation endorsement when I first presented my logbook to a CASA chap for a night VFR rating. It was a few years ago, so the situation may have changed, however he was satisfied upon presentation of my mil logbook that the qualification was valid and gave me the civvy tick. Same went for external load, hoist (winch) water landing gear (floats), and low flying.
For night VFR a written exam was required to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the regs, which in my mind was appropriate as you find little to no reason to touch the CAO/CAR whilst in the mil.
Gibbo
From memory I was written up for a fromation endorsement when I first presented my logbook to a CASA chap for a night VFR rating. It was a few years ago, so the situation may have changed, however he was satisfied upon presentation of my mil logbook that the qualification was valid and gave me the civvy tick. Same went for external load, hoist (winch) water landing gear (floats), and low flying.
For night VFR a written exam was required to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the regs, which in my mind was appropriate as you find little to no reason to touch the CAO/CAR whilst in the mil.
Gibbo
Depends who you contact at which office, I think.
They gave me the stuff you mentioned, Gibbo, except wouldn't go for formation, low flying or aerobatics, the logic (?) being that if I needed to do that stuff it should be for a specific operation under someone's AOC (to teach it, for example), not as a blanket auth to do it wherever I wanted to.
Seemed strange, but it's a bit hard to argue with city hall, as they say. They did give me rappelling when I asked for it though.
Seems there is a lack of consistency in the system.
Anyway, if you do need to be written up for form, Cougar, and they won't give it to you on your log book proof (I'd try that first) you need to find an ATO somewhere who's got approval to train people in form and prove to his or her satisfaction that you are competent, which would probably involve a flight check (unless they were willing to give it to you on the basis of your log book).
They gave me the stuff you mentioned, Gibbo, except wouldn't go for formation, low flying or aerobatics, the logic (?) being that if I needed to do that stuff it should be for a specific operation under someone's AOC (to teach it, for example), not as a blanket auth to do it wherever I wanted to.
Seemed strange, but it's a bit hard to argue with city hall, as they say. They did give me rappelling when I asked for it though.
Seems there is a lack of consistency in the system.
Anyway, if you do need to be written up for form, Cougar, and they won't give it to you on your log book proof (I'd try that first) you need to find an ATO somewhere who's got approval to train people in form and prove to his or her satisfaction that you are competent, which would probably involve a flight check (unless they were willing to give it to you on the basis of your log book).
AOTW,
Lack of consistency is dead right. Everything appeaars to be at the discretion of the local inspector.
Drop me an email at [email protected] Tim.
Doesn't look like private messaging is working.
Gibbo
Lack of consistency is dead right. Everything appeaars to be at the discretion of the local inspector.
Drop me an email at [email protected] Tim.
Doesn't look like private messaging is working.
Gibbo
Self and a colleague (both ex RAAF instructors) dropped our log books into Melbourne CASA office recently and were given endorsements for aerobatics, low flying and formation flying. This was based upon our being qualified at the RAAF CFS to instruct on these sequences.
Another colleague - a retired former RAAF CFS instructor, was given an instant grade one rating despite not having previously held a civilian instructor rating. He proved a real asset at the flying school that employed him and his advice was eagerly sought by the junior instructors at the flying school.
Many years ago the RAAF awarded flying scholarships to PPL standard to selected Air Training Corps cadets around Australia. Forty scholarships per year were allotted. In each state a RAAF QFI was given the task of administering these scholarships with overall responsibility taken by the Command Aero Club Liaison Officer - a RAAF QFI based in Melbourne. He was required to hold a civilian instructors grading and carried out proficiency and resticted PPL tests on the cadets. The civilian instructors grading was given to him after a DCA flight test.
So really, when all is said and done, RAAF QFI's are perfectly capable to instruct civilian pilots to a competent standard
Having said that it does seem in present times that CASA FOI's lack consistency from region to region when it comes to awarding various civilian qualifications to RAAF QFI's.
In the early Sixties, RAAF CFS instructors from East Sale received invitations from the Royal Victorian Aero Club to visit Moorabbin and exchange instructor talk. This was very successful and the audience included civilian instructors of all grades from the other schools at Moorabbin. The idea was carried over to other states and a good time was had by all. It is a pity that such exchange of views has fallen by the wayside over the years.
Another colleague - a retired former RAAF CFS instructor, was given an instant grade one rating despite not having previously held a civilian instructor rating. He proved a real asset at the flying school that employed him and his advice was eagerly sought by the junior instructors at the flying school.
Many years ago the RAAF awarded flying scholarships to PPL standard to selected Air Training Corps cadets around Australia. Forty scholarships per year were allotted. In each state a RAAF QFI was given the task of administering these scholarships with overall responsibility taken by the Command Aero Club Liaison Officer - a RAAF QFI based in Melbourne. He was required to hold a civilian instructors grading and carried out proficiency and resticted PPL tests on the cadets. The civilian instructors grading was given to him after a DCA flight test.
So really, when all is said and done, RAAF QFI's are perfectly capable to instruct civilian pilots to a competent standard
Having said that it does seem in present times that CASA FOI's lack consistency from region to region when it comes to awarding various civilian qualifications to RAAF QFI's.
In the early Sixties, RAAF CFS instructors from East Sale received invitations from the Royal Victorian Aero Club to visit Moorabbin and exchange instructor talk. This was very successful and the audience included civilian instructors of all grades from the other schools at Moorabbin. The idea was carried over to other states and a good time was had by all. It is a pity that such exchange of views has fallen by the wayside over the years.
G'day IHD,
Still in Greece, one week to go before a couple at home. Drop me an email, address above. Private messaging has not worked for me.
All these nicknames do make it hard to guess who is who?
Gibbo
Still in Greece, one week to go before a couple at home. Drop me an email, address above. Private messaging has not worked for me.
All these nicknames do make it hard to guess who is who?
Gibbo
Last edited by Gibbo; 18th May 2002 at 14:00.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that ex-military instructors have a lot to offer in the civillian world.Once they understand commercial realities and realise they are not being shot at,they adapt well,in most cases,to the very protected airline environments.
However,General Aviation may be ill suited to their attitudes and training.Is this why Army has the battlefield helicopters?Not comparing army flying to GA of course,but flexibility and adaptability with limited resources may be the similarities.
Centaurus,regarding the IFR bomb,very true.Commercial pressures are real however.Grounding an aircraft,by pen,with regimental efficiency would be disasterous for a young GA pilot`s career and company.Many adapt(attrition rates are high in civy street too,in terms of who finally makes airlines) learning how careful liasons with your engineers is neccessary to balance commercial reality and safety(without paperwork in some circumstances).I don`t expect you to subscibe to or understand this culture,but it does explain a few of the problems Kendalls had with ex-military personnel on the CRJ operation.Unnecessary groundings etc.
Finally,tongue in cheek of course,those shiny fighter planes would be IFR bombs too,in sustained war operations and with our ,no doubt,limited spare stockpiles and American reliance.
In the last 30 years is that why Army always goes to war for this country?
However,General Aviation may be ill suited to their attitudes and training.Is this why Army has the battlefield helicopters?Not comparing army flying to GA of course,but flexibility and adaptability with limited resources may be the similarities.
Centaurus,regarding the IFR bomb,very true.Commercial pressures are real however.Grounding an aircraft,by pen,with regimental efficiency would be disasterous for a young GA pilot`s career and company.Many adapt(attrition rates are high in civy street too,in terms of who finally makes airlines) learning how careful liasons with your engineers is neccessary to balance commercial reality and safety(without paperwork in some circumstances).I don`t expect you to subscibe to or understand this culture,but it does explain a few of the problems Kendalls had with ex-military personnel on the CRJ operation.Unnecessary groundings etc.
Finally,tongue in cheek of course,those shiny fighter planes would be IFR bombs too,in sustained war operations and with our ,no doubt,limited spare stockpiles and American reliance.
In the last 30 years is that why Army always goes to war for this country?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some protest too loud. Assuming it is a superior, or even equivalent rating, they should have NO PROBLEM passing the flight test. If I went to another country to fly the same bugshmasher (let alone a different machine in a different environment), I would not be so presumptuous to expect them to give me a rating. I would expect to do their test. Perhaps some might be a little worried they might find something additional to learn in the new environment. I'm also sure some might come across without problems and we would be the richer for it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never assume anything!
For ARM OUT THE WINDOW and CENTAURUS in particular,
Firstly, I am ex-military with over 20 years time in service (and DFRDB to prove it) and have owned and operated my own operation for the past 12 years acting as both CP and CFI so I think I have sufficient grounding in both fields to pass on and express an informed comment? To assume I am a failed Ronnie RAAF applicant is just cheapening your arguments and showing your own insecurities.
MR Endorsements - on this issue, I was referring to the unnecessary and totoally unacceptable entries sometimes placed on MR's. The CP has a right to vet these entires purely to make sure they are valid and relevant - it is not to stop people making proper endorsements and this would never be discouraged. Example: A Sunday pilot wrote up the MR with "Large fuel leaks directly under engine and battery flat" The a/c was effectively grounded. Monday we arrived and had to call in an engineer (40 minutes travel) and effectively lost the first 2 hours of work. Root cause - incorrect starting technique; flooded engine and battery flat due to excessive cranking. A jump start Monday would have sufficed. Cost $180 for engineer and 2 hours lost revenue. These are the reasons we check all entries BEFORE they are endorsed.
Firstly, I am ex-military with over 20 years time in service (and DFRDB to prove it) and have owned and operated my own operation for the past 12 years acting as both CP and CFI so I think I have sufficient grounding in both fields to pass on and express an informed comment? To assume I am a failed Ronnie RAAF applicant is just cheapening your arguments and showing your own insecurities.
MR Endorsements - on this issue, I was referring to the unnecessary and totoally unacceptable entries sometimes placed on MR's. The CP has a right to vet these entires purely to make sure they are valid and relevant - it is not to stop people making proper endorsements and this would never be discouraged. Example: A Sunday pilot wrote up the MR with "Large fuel leaks directly under engine and battery flat" The a/c was effectively grounded. Monday we arrived and had to call in an engineer (40 minutes travel) and effectively lost the first 2 hours of work. Root cause - incorrect starting technique; flooded engine and battery flat due to excessive cranking. A jump start Monday would have sufficed. Cost $180 for engineer and 2 hours lost revenue. These are the reasons we check all entries BEFORE they are endorsed.
Pitch and Break, if you read back over my posts you'll see that I haven't said or even tried to infer anything at all about your background.
You seem to be doing a bit of assuming yourself here!
You seem to be doing a bit of assuming yourself here!