Decline in Flying Training
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scurvy.D.Dog
Thankyou for taking the time to talk to me personally, its fair that I take this time to let others know that our conversation cured a thousand misconceptions on both sides. I think we managed to come across some mutual respect on many of the issues and knowing you now as I do, perhaps my coments were a little harsh towards you at least.
As we discussed this kind of forum with hidden names can breed this kind of attitude and in real terms we are actually on the same side.
Ron B
As we discussed this kind of forum with hidden names can breed this kind of attitude and in real terms we are actually on the same side.
Ron B
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou...
Ron,
Agreed, our respective positions, and understanding of the other, is now much clearer.
I appreciate your candor, and yes we are “barking” at the same problems from similar points of view.
I think it is fair to say we are both in a difficult position.
That said, one thing is certain, we are both passionate about this industry and bloody heart broken by its death by a thousand cuts.
So what can we do within the constraints placed upon us: -
The single biggest hurdle we face is the fracture of interests within the various sectors of the wider aviation industry. In the context of GA, you and I both know that the punters will part with their “hard earned” when they see an activity as acceptably safe and valuable from a “future” point of view. From here there are two main issues, as I see them:-
1. As I tried to indicate previously, uncertainty from a safety viewpoint is a simple equation to remedy. If VFR broadcasting in E is to be the norm, then the issue of using a radio is mute. Clearances and separation in what will again be C, can be supported as a positive from a safety aspect. The VFR and IFR industry will be receiving a large increase in terminal area safety for no additional cost and arguably less stressful operations to VFR and IFR pilots. They will not have the uncomfortable need to become self appointed Air Traffic Separators with Mark One eyeballs in the back of their heads whilst navigating and flying. Nor having to take the decision to deviate off track and pay more to go around terminal areas to avoid the IFR terminal traffic. Real, tangible, cost effective safety. As discussed, there are other relevant operational benefits, suffice to say they will improve the utility and efficiency of terminal area operations. Sell VFR GA safety proactively in such a way that that it is tangible and unequivocal. Then we cannot and will not run in to the clash of cultures we now experience with NAS (We all played right into the hands of the Eco-rationalist’s on this, and for what?!).
2. The Commercial sector has undergone substantial change, the glut of commercial pilots is coming to an end. Is that enough?, I would like to hear the opinions of those in this area. The anecdotal indications are that things are starting to move. Does this mean an ongoing stream of new commercials to fill the void, perhaps. Will the recreational pilots attracted to the less regulated Ultralight’s need to come back to “VH” if they aspire to commercial operations?, probably!. This is where GA has lost the most. The recreational pilots need to be “sold” on difference of the safety and professionalism of “VH” flying, sell the value added bonus of where it can take you should you decide to progress to a professional flying career. Carve out a discernible difference between “P” and “VH” flying. Sell the advantages. The difference between regulated (VH) and self-regulated (P) is a safety and professionalism positive for “VH”. Those nervous Mums and Dads are going to be more inclined to support their youngun’s in the pursuit of “VH” aviation if this is a widely known fact. I do agree that CASA can be onerous on “VH” flying and the problems (battles) in this area are many and need to be pursued. In the meantime, build the bridges, consolidate positions and garner the support of the disaffected GA and wider commercial industry. Strength in numbers will make your other fights easier to win (NAS would be a good first start).
That said, there is a lot to do if the problems are to be overcome. I do not profess to have the answers or wish to preach that which I am sure most already know. I sincerely hope that the fractures in our industry can be mended. The opportunity is there if we can defeat difference and draw common ground. The Commercial and ATS sectors will work with GA for the mutual betterment of the entire industry when each can see the tangible benefits of doing so. GA will win as an inevitable consequence. If we cannot work towards achieving this end, the future looks bleak for us all!.
Over to U’s
Agreed, our respective positions, and understanding of the other, is now much clearer.
I appreciate your candor, and yes we are “barking” at the same problems from similar points of view.
I think it is fair to say we are both in a difficult position.
That said, one thing is certain, we are both passionate about this industry and bloody heart broken by its death by a thousand cuts.
So what can we do within the constraints placed upon us: -
The single biggest hurdle we face is the fracture of interests within the various sectors of the wider aviation industry. In the context of GA, you and I both know that the punters will part with their “hard earned” when they see an activity as acceptably safe and valuable from a “future” point of view. From here there are two main issues, as I see them:-
1. As I tried to indicate previously, uncertainty from a safety viewpoint is a simple equation to remedy. If VFR broadcasting in E is to be the norm, then the issue of using a radio is mute. Clearances and separation in what will again be C, can be supported as a positive from a safety aspect. The VFR and IFR industry will be receiving a large increase in terminal area safety for no additional cost and arguably less stressful operations to VFR and IFR pilots. They will not have the uncomfortable need to become self appointed Air Traffic Separators with Mark One eyeballs in the back of their heads whilst navigating and flying. Nor having to take the decision to deviate off track and pay more to go around terminal areas to avoid the IFR terminal traffic. Real, tangible, cost effective safety. As discussed, there are other relevant operational benefits, suffice to say they will improve the utility and efficiency of terminal area operations. Sell VFR GA safety proactively in such a way that that it is tangible and unequivocal. Then we cannot and will not run in to the clash of cultures we now experience with NAS (We all played right into the hands of the Eco-rationalist’s on this, and for what?!).
2. The Commercial sector has undergone substantial change, the glut of commercial pilots is coming to an end. Is that enough?, I would like to hear the opinions of those in this area. The anecdotal indications are that things are starting to move. Does this mean an ongoing stream of new commercials to fill the void, perhaps. Will the recreational pilots attracted to the less regulated Ultralight’s need to come back to “VH” if they aspire to commercial operations?, probably!. This is where GA has lost the most. The recreational pilots need to be “sold” on difference of the safety and professionalism of “VH” flying, sell the value added bonus of where it can take you should you decide to progress to a professional flying career. Carve out a discernible difference between “P” and “VH” flying. Sell the advantages. The difference between regulated (VH) and self-regulated (P) is a safety and professionalism positive for “VH”. Those nervous Mums and Dads are going to be more inclined to support their youngun’s in the pursuit of “VH” aviation if this is a widely known fact. I do agree that CASA can be onerous on “VH” flying and the problems (battles) in this area are many and need to be pursued. In the meantime, build the bridges, consolidate positions and garner the support of the disaffected GA and wider commercial industry. Strength in numbers will make your other fights easier to win (NAS would be a good first start).
That said, there is a lot to do if the problems are to be overcome. I do not profess to have the answers or wish to preach that which I am sure most already know. I sincerely hope that the fractures in our industry can be mended. The opportunity is there if we can defeat difference and draw common ground. The Commercial and ATS sectors will work with GA for the mutual betterment of the entire industry when each can see the tangible benefits of doing so. GA will win as an inevitable consequence. If we cannot work towards achieving this end, the future looks bleak for us all!.
Over to U’s
On a different note, good to see that two professional aviators can sit down and talk like gentlemen and listen to each others point of view. Too often I see the usual bitching and ranting on that goes on pprune and you two have to be commended to have put your pride aside and talk it out like men and not like the usual school girl antics on here. Well done guys 
PPRuNe Co-Pilot
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Sky
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gidday,
Yes, i agree that the majority of "young" pilots do want to start flying Airbuses or Boeing's straight out of training.
My personal opinion is that a pilot's career should be a progressive one.
Yes im a PPL student, Yes "one day" i intend to fly for an airliner, but before that there is much to aviation that i want to try and get experience on, flying instructing, GA charter work, sightseeing ( And yes i want to do a few years of GA flying around OZ ) etc... This is where the real aviation is. Money? No! If i wanted money i wouldnt get into aviation. Is Aviation a glamour job? No! those days are long gone, but still i want to fly...
I just hope that things improve in a near future.
Yes, i agree that the majority of "young" pilots do want to start flying Airbuses or Boeing's straight out of training.
My personal opinion is that a pilot's career should be a progressive one.
Yes im a PPL student, Yes "one day" i intend to fly for an airliner, but before that there is much to aviation that i want to try and get experience on, flying instructing, GA charter work, sightseeing ( And yes i want to do a few years of GA flying around OZ ) etc... This is where the real aviation is. Money? No! If i wanted money i wouldnt get into aviation. Is Aviation a glamour job? No! those days are long gone, but still i want to fly...
I just hope that things improve in a near future.
Scurvy Dog You make some interesting points. Let me preface my comments by stating that both of my feet are fimly in GA so I am arguing from the other side.
Have a look at the GA/VH registered training aircraft on offer, then have a look at the shiny new AUF registered training aircraft. Often with all modern systems eg altitude compensating carby or FCU. So mum & dad see a thirty year old Cessna 150 or 152 and a new Jabiru or similar and then someone trys to convince them the Cessna is SAFER. I know the difference, I think you do too and probably many readers on this forum but mum & dad do not, so they put their 16 year old child in the AUF registered machine.
Now before my AUF colleagues jump on me. I make no value judgement about realtive safety of GA vs AUF. That would make for an interesting study elsewhere. I am alluding only to the perception of each aircraft by the future pilots of this country.
On a seperate issue there do seem to be less Commercial pilots "floating around" lately. Sure there are hot spots around the country where they congregate but overall my impression is that there are fewer than two/three years ago. The real "shortage" is for experienced Instructors ie Grade 1 with META and perhaps some ATO priveleges. The big colleges eg Singapore, China Southern, are having trouble finding Instructors so I am told.
Have a look at the GA/VH registered training aircraft on offer, then have a look at the shiny new AUF registered training aircraft. Often with all modern systems eg altitude compensating carby or FCU. So mum & dad see a thirty year old Cessna 150 or 152 and a new Jabiru or similar and then someone trys to convince them the Cessna is SAFER. I know the difference, I think you do too and probably many readers on this forum but mum & dad do not, so they put their 16 year old child in the AUF registered machine.
Now before my AUF colleagues jump on me. I make no value judgement about realtive safety of GA vs AUF. That would make for an interesting study elsewhere. I am alluding only to the perception of each aircraft by the future pilots of this country.
On a seperate issue there do seem to be less Commercial pilots "floating around" lately. Sure there are hot spots around the country where they congregate but overall my impression is that there are fewer than two/three years ago. The real "shortage" is for experienced Instructors ie Grade 1 with META and perhaps some ATO priveleges. The big colleges eg Singapore, China Southern, are having trouble finding Instructors so I am told.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, that is a biggy!
G’day Icarus,
That a big one isn’t it. Older equipment perhaps has that stigma attached, it does however prove the general safety of VH GA in so far as the number of safe hours flown. None the less it is a problem.
How transportable are modern lighties that fit into both VH and P categories. I know the registration and other cost are greater to have the VH on the fuselage, but does that mean VH schools have a legitimate ability to claim greater safety oversight and pilot training standards. AUF, no disrespect intended, but there is a difference!
Perhaps the ability to base at a towered city airport is another, ATC services whilst a cost, should bring a marketable safety and competency benefit to VH.
This raises the very real issue of the anti-competitiveness between the 2 groups. CASA and the government must not ignore the difference. I am not saying one or the other is better or worse, just that if the disparity is allowed to continue then P will in the end replace VH to a large extent.
The government and the regulator will inevitably intervene when the safety stat’s become intolerable. Perhaps it is already starting to happen?
I do not know what might be done to address this. Competing interests will make this very very difficult to fix.
Is there any ground for VH to cooperate with P i.e. VH competencies (AOC, staff skills etc) in exchange for access to P technologies.
Perhaps something along the lines of training sharing agreements where initial flight training between organisations might be handled by AUF up to a point (Basic flying certificate or similar), then on to VH for optional additional training competencies i.e.
CTA flying, VH conversion, NVFR, Inst, Twin and so on.
You must each have things that can complement (Value add to each other’s operations) therefore improving the saleability of both groups. Defined Partnerships!.
AOPA, VH GA, AUF and GFA etc would make a formidable and credible training suite and dare I say it, complement and support each others aims, objectives and value of service.
Is it possible? Any ideas/criticisms.?
That a big one isn’t it. Older equipment perhaps has that stigma attached, it does however prove the general safety of VH GA in so far as the number of safe hours flown. None the less it is a problem.
How transportable are modern lighties that fit into both VH and P categories. I know the registration and other cost are greater to have the VH on the fuselage, but does that mean VH schools have a legitimate ability to claim greater safety oversight and pilot training standards. AUF, no disrespect intended, but there is a difference!
Perhaps the ability to base at a towered city airport is another, ATC services whilst a cost, should bring a marketable safety and competency benefit to VH.
This raises the very real issue of the anti-competitiveness between the 2 groups. CASA and the government must not ignore the difference. I am not saying one or the other is better or worse, just that if the disparity is allowed to continue then P will in the end replace VH to a large extent.
The government and the regulator will inevitably intervene when the safety stat’s become intolerable. Perhaps it is already starting to happen?
I do not know what might be done to address this. Competing interests will make this very very difficult to fix.
Is there any ground for VH to cooperate with P i.e. VH competencies (AOC, staff skills etc) in exchange for access to P technologies.
Perhaps something along the lines of training sharing agreements where initial flight training between organisations might be handled by AUF up to a point (Basic flying certificate or similar), then on to VH for optional additional training competencies i.e.
CTA flying, VH conversion, NVFR, Inst, Twin and so on.
You must each have things that can complement (Value add to each other’s operations) therefore improving the saleability of both groups. Defined Partnerships!.
AOPA, VH GA, AUF and GFA etc would make a formidable and credible training suite and dare I say it, complement and support each others aims, objectives and value of service.
Is it possible? Any ideas/criticisms.?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: a galaxy far away (NT)
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airway...
Just wait till your first 6months in a GA job, i'm sure you will want to be flying a boeing, airbus or something flash right about then.
And hey whats the BIG deal about a decline in Flying Training???!!! Its something positive for those of us out there battling against the people that will work for free just to crack some hours. Yes a decline in competition is a good thing, not bad.
But maybe it is if your an instructor at Bk that has never been brave to venture out of the basin for a flying gig, THEN YES.
Just wait till your first 6months in a GA job, i'm sure you will want to be flying a boeing, airbus or something flash right about then.
And hey whats the BIG deal about a decline in Flying Training???!!! Its something positive for those of us out there battling against the people that will work for free just to crack some hours. Yes a decline in competition is a good thing, not bad.
But maybe it is if your an instructor at Bk that has never been brave to venture out of the basin for a flying gig, THEN YES.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boney. Partly right, partly wrong, but that is only my humble personal opinion.
Sadly, most current Australian aviation companies will not exist in twenty years time. I predict over 70% of the existing Australian GA fleet will be retired, most not replaced; Australian registered GA aircraft numbers will reduce; and the current plethora of flying schools will disappear, to be replaced by a few well capitalised flying training institutions, operating modern, cost effective training aircraft.
"...it would appear people place more importance on renovating their house than taking holidays. Business travel is not as huge these days due to video internet conferencing, there is not as much need to fly business people across the country side."
To the contrary, I think you will find more people than ever are flying now, at far lower cost and that will continue to increase in the future. The difference is, air travel is now more akin to a taxi or bus ride, relatively cheap, efficient and painless. Something one does with almost monotonous regularity.
The difference is, those "more people" are moving in larger and larger capacity, semi automated aerial people movers and whilst airline pilot numbers are possibly increasing now, eventually those more and more people will move with less and less aircrew, as aircraft capacity increases. You think a B
744 or A380 is big and fast? In the years to come your kids will see them only in the Smithsonian, alongside the Wright Flyer.
Fifty two years ago it cost five months of the average adult wage to buy a return ticket on the Sandringham flying boat between Hobart and Rose Bay. I seem to recall in the early 1970's that less than 10% of Australians had ever travelled by air and less than 5% had ever held a Passport.
I would think today that over 90% of Australians have travelled by air and a very significant percentage regularly travel on airlines. One can buy a air ticket between major cities for less than one day's average wage, and travel around the World for two to three weeks average wage.
It's all called evolution. You and I won't change it - the demands of our modern and continually evolving society will shape the future of air travel. Your challenge will be to change with that evolution.
And here's another thought to ponder. There are those who suggest the JSF fighter currently under development will be the last manned fighter ever to be developed.
Scary, aint it?
W
Sadly, most current Australian aviation companies will not exist in twenty years time. I predict over 70% of the existing Australian GA fleet will be retired, most not replaced; Australian registered GA aircraft numbers will reduce; and the current plethora of flying schools will disappear, to be replaced by a few well capitalised flying training institutions, operating modern, cost effective training aircraft.
"...it would appear people place more importance on renovating their house than taking holidays. Business travel is not as huge these days due to video internet conferencing, there is not as much need to fly business people across the country side."
To the contrary, I think you will find more people than ever are flying now, at far lower cost and that will continue to increase in the future. The difference is, air travel is now more akin to a taxi or bus ride, relatively cheap, efficient and painless. Something one does with almost monotonous regularity.
The difference is, those "more people" are moving in larger and larger capacity, semi automated aerial people movers and whilst airline pilot numbers are possibly increasing now, eventually those more and more people will move with less and less aircrew, as aircraft capacity increases. You think a B
744 or A380 is big and fast? In the years to come your kids will see them only in the Smithsonian, alongside the Wright Flyer.
Fifty two years ago it cost five months of the average adult wage to buy a return ticket on the Sandringham flying boat between Hobart and Rose Bay. I seem to recall in the early 1970's that less than 10% of Australians had ever travelled by air and less than 5% had ever held a Passport.
I would think today that over 90% of Australians have travelled by air and a very significant percentage regularly travel on airlines. One can buy a air ticket between major cities for less than one day's average wage, and travel around the World for two to three weeks average wage.
It's all called evolution. You and I won't change it - the demands of our modern and continually evolving society will shape the future of air travel. Your challenge will be to change with that evolution.
And here's another thought to ponder. There are those who suggest the JSF fighter currently under development will be the last manned fighter ever to be developed.
Scary, aint it?
W
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scurvy Dog
I like what you are suggesting about AUF and VH complementing each other and i can tell you it is already happening.
We have a mixed school and it works very well - low costs to start with and a recreational ticket, followed (if you wish) by GA training by the same instructors in more complex aircraft.
The key is emphasising GA-style airmanship and consistency of terminology, instructional style etc from TIF through to GA PPL.
All of our trainees are "private" rather than commercial and there are two distinct types: those who will always be experimental/tinkering/Ultralight types, and those who are GA through and through.
Here's a question for you:
Our C152 is maintained by the CASA-approved workshop next door.
Our AUF Gazelle is maintained to the same schedule by an old retired guy for free... who used to be the Chief engineer next door.
Which is more strictly maintained? Which is more reliable?
We shouldn't jump to conclusions about Ultralights based on the actions of a lunatic fringe who don't believe gravity applies to them.
We have a mixed school and it works very well - low costs to start with and a recreational ticket, followed (if you wish) by GA training by the same instructors in more complex aircraft.
The key is emphasising GA-style airmanship and consistency of terminology, instructional style etc from TIF through to GA PPL.
All of our trainees are "private" rather than commercial and there are two distinct types: those who will always be experimental/tinkering/Ultralight types, and those who are GA through and through.
Here's a question for you:
Our C152 is maintained by the CASA-approved workshop next door.
Our AUF Gazelle is maintained to the same schedule by an old retired guy for free... who used to be the Chief engineer next door.
Which is more strictly maintained? Which is more reliable?
We shouldn't jump to conclusions about Ultralights based on the actions of a lunatic fringe who don't believe gravity applies to them.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evenin’ Bendo
Trail blazers you are!. Good to hear it works well!
I would suggest due to your sound decisions on maintenance as stated above, there would be little difference in reliability of the work done between these two aircraft. If every organisation made the same decisions, then no real problem practically speaking. The reality is the VH aircraft MUST conform and be “signed off” by an approved repairer. Not the same for the P registered aircraft and more than a few differences in maintenance may be apparent in other organisations who do not have the benefit of a retired VH engineer next door.
That would be the same “unregulated” lunatic fringe that damage the “safety image” of light aircraft flight for all of us? This is what I am getting at, the actions of a few idiots have big consequences for the rest including those who “do the right thing”. Remember the nervous mums and dads who have the benefit (or not) of having a TV and a media all to happy to report aviation drama!. Accidents are going to happen, but if we want the punters to “play” we have to make it clear that prangs are few, and far between!
Again, I hope you are able to reap some advantage from the fact that the services you are delivering are to a higher “VH” standard. It is a safety plus you are entitled to advertise!.
All the best!
Trail blazers you are!. Good to hear it works well!
Here's a question for you:
Our C152 is maintained by the CASA-approved workshop next door.
Our AUF Gazelle is maintained to the same schedule by an old retired guy for free... who used to be the Chief engineer next door.
Which is more strictly maintained? Which is more reliable?
Our C152 is maintained by the CASA-approved workshop next door.
Our AUF Gazelle is maintained to the same schedule by an old retired guy for free... who used to be the Chief engineer next door.
Which is more strictly maintained? Which is more reliable?
We shouldn't jump to conclusions about Ultralights based on the actions of a lunatic fringe who don't believe gravity applies to them.
Again, I hope you are able to reap some advantage from the fact that the services you are delivering are to a higher “VH” standard. It is a safety plus you are entitled to advertise!.
All the best!
