Does CASA Have Serious Problems?
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chronic Snoozer
Yes, there will be some reactions.
However, let's look look at the simpler statistics.
Firstly the entry source for CASA.
Anecdotal evidence and careful scrutiny suggests there are two main streams into CASA.
One is from the industry.
Two is from the Australian Defence Force.
No problems so far.
It is generally accepted that a high proportion of the industry source will a have a demonstrated record of failure in that sector of the industry.
The ADF source can be further broken down into the three services, Air Force, Army and Navy.
Of the three services,
the Navy sourced FOI's appear to be both very professional and very fair, with high skill levels.
( Carrier pilot quote "Flaring to land is like squatting to pee !)
The Air Force is the most represented in CASA and there is a reasonable spread of professionalism and ethics, with slightly lower skill levels.
The Army, the only service that has a similar flying scenario to GA,
(Single pilot, operates primarily below the flight levels and lacks the logistical and tactical mission support of the other services.)
seems to have average skill levels and lowered standards of ethics.
Combining all three ADF streams, it will be found that, like the GA stream, there will be cases of personal failure in the ADF.
Both GA sources and ADF sources also have committed aviators who were not failures and who wish to make a positive contribution.
There are obvious cultural differences between GA and ADF streams.
The ADF stream will have been accustomed to being saluted and not being questioned. "Do as I say", "When I say jump" etc.
There is a cultural change required to readapt to civilian life, for some this is easy, for others, nearly impossible.
The failed sector of the GA stream will have an axe to grind and an opportunity to punish the industry in which they failed to achieve.
OK so we have established that there is the possibility of balance in the characteristics of the two streams.
Now comes the reality.
The ADF stream is disproportionally represented in CASA, some would suggest a figure as high as 80%.
Given that proportion, we see the spread of the capable and of the dysfunctional and not surprisingly, we notice the dysfunctional more readily.
We seldom notice the professionalism because they get on with the job fairly and impartially.
I too had an ADF background (Army) and had to make the cultural leap back to civilian life and behaviour.
(you would not question that entering the ADF required a significant cultural change, and that some fail to adapt to the ADF ethos)
It took me years to fully achieve, even now a trained observer would pick up on traits that would identify my earlier life,
yet I would like to think that I have made the transition successfully.
OK, so here is the cruncher.
you are more likely to be dealing with an ADF sourced FOI than a GA sourced FOI.
Would you prefer to deal with a GA failure or an as yet unadapted ADF recruit?
Psychological screening of all CASA recruits would identify positive traits as well as negative traits.
CASA could profile the desired FOI traits into an entry assessment and reduce the possibility of misfits entering it's ranks.
Yes, there will be some reactions.
However, let's look look at the simpler statistics.
Firstly the entry source for CASA.
Anecdotal evidence and careful scrutiny suggests there are two main streams into CASA.
One is from the industry.
Two is from the Australian Defence Force.
No problems so far.
It is generally accepted that a high proportion of the industry source will a have a demonstrated record of failure in that sector of the industry.
The ADF source can be further broken down into the three services, Air Force, Army and Navy.
Of the three services,
the Navy sourced FOI's appear to be both very professional and very fair, with high skill levels.
( Carrier pilot quote "Flaring to land is like squatting to pee !)
The Air Force is the most represented in CASA and there is a reasonable spread of professionalism and ethics, with slightly lower skill levels.
The Army, the only service that has a similar flying scenario to GA,
(Single pilot, operates primarily below the flight levels and lacks the logistical and tactical mission support of the other services.)
seems to have average skill levels and lowered standards of ethics.
Combining all three ADF streams, it will be found that, like the GA stream, there will be cases of personal failure in the ADF.
Both GA sources and ADF sources also have committed aviators who were not failures and who wish to make a positive contribution.
There are obvious cultural differences between GA and ADF streams.
The ADF stream will have been accustomed to being saluted and not being questioned. "Do as I say", "When I say jump" etc.
There is a cultural change required to readapt to civilian life, for some this is easy, for others, nearly impossible.
The failed sector of the GA stream will have an axe to grind and an opportunity to punish the industry in which they failed to achieve.
OK so we have established that there is the possibility of balance in the characteristics of the two streams.
Now comes the reality.
The ADF stream is disproportionally represented in CASA, some would suggest a figure as high as 80%.
Given that proportion, we see the spread of the capable and of the dysfunctional and not surprisingly, we notice the dysfunctional more readily.
We seldom notice the professionalism because they get on with the job fairly and impartially.
I too had an ADF background (Army) and had to make the cultural leap back to civilian life and behaviour.
(you would not question that entering the ADF required a significant cultural change, and that some fail to adapt to the ADF ethos)
It took me years to fully achieve, even now a trained observer would pick up on traits that would identify my earlier life,
yet I would like to think that I have made the transition successfully.
OK, so here is the cruncher.
you are more likely to be dealing with an ADF sourced FOI than a GA sourced FOI.
Would you prefer to deal with a GA failure or an as yet unadapted ADF recruit?
Psychological screening of all CASA recruits would identify positive traits as well as negative traits.
CASA could profile the desired FOI traits into an entry assessment and reduce the possibility of misfits entering it's ranks.
Last edited by Mainframe; 6th Jan 2005 at 21:10.
Mainframe, I fully agree that the cultural leap back into civilian life is one that is harder for some than others; as you say, for some, nearly impossible.
Those that tend to cling to ingrained habits in new situations distinguish themselves by inappropriate behaviour, which then tends to tar everyone from a similar background with the same brush, unfortunately.
I know that when you operate to one set of rules for a long time and switch to a new one there is a tendency to feel displaced and uncertain, and this leads some personality types to act defensively.
This isn't to say that a lot of the military operational flying rules are greatly different to the civil. The AIP is a major reference for many military pilots, but there are significant legal and operational differences that a long-time military operators are likely to take a while to get a handle on.
My gut feeling is that this lack of familiarity is the source of a lot of the kinds of problems that are being spoken of here. It's one thing to read orders, and quite another to be familiar and comfortable operating under them after years of experience.
Perhaps minimum civil commercial operating experience requirements in hours or years terms would go some way towards a solution. I notice that most of the CASA ads you see asking for FOIs quote certain civil requirements or 'equivalent military experience'.
Those that tend to cling to ingrained habits in new situations distinguish themselves by inappropriate behaviour, which then tends to tar everyone from a similar background with the same brush, unfortunately.
I know that when you operate to one set of rules for a long time and switch to a new one there is a tendency to feel displaced and uncertain, and this leads some personality types to act defensively.
This isn't to say that a lot of the military operational flying rules are greatly different to the civil. The AIP is a major reference for many military pilots, but there are significant legal and operational differences that a long-time military operators are likely to take a while to get a handle on.
My gut feeling is that this lack of familiarity is the source of a lot of the kinds of problems that are being spoken of here. It's one thing to read orders, and quite another to be familiar and comfortable operating under them after years of experience.
Perhaps minimum civil commercial operating experience requirements in hours or years terms would go some way towards a solution. I notice that most of the CASA ads you see asking for FOIs quote certain civil requirements or 'equivalent military experience'.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm out the window
Yes we are getting to the core of the problem.
I have long subscribed to the belief that any recruit (including ADF aspirants) have a minimum exposure to the industry they will oversee.
My personall feeling, I would like to see a verifiable 500hrs or 12 months in the industry as a prerequisite.
I am always amused at "equivalent military experience".
Can someone explain to me the military equivalent to a CFI or CP of a civilian GA operation ?
This waiver clause is merely an indication of nepotism being available.
The operating environment is as different as chalk and cheese.
The civilian has to meld commercial reality and operational safety.
The benefit of an imposed verifiable GA / civil aviation background would mean that some balance in the ADF / GA streams may be achieved.
It also means that ALL applicants have an industry background, some then will also have, in addition, an ADF background as well.
The recruitment process is where the problem starts and is also where the problem may be fixed.
Yes we are getting to the core of the problem.
I have long subscribed to the belief that any recruit (including ADF aspirants) have a minimum exposure to the industry they will oversee.
My personall feeling, I would like to see a verifiable 500hrs or 12 months in the industry as a prerequisite.
I am always amused at "equivalent military experience".
Can someone explain to me the military equivalent to a CFI or CP of a civilian GA operation ?
This waiver clause is merely an indication of nepotism being available.
The operating environment is as different as chalk and cheese.
The civilian has to meld commercial reality and operational safety.
The benefit of an imposed verifiable GA / civil aviation background would mean that some balance in the ADF / GA streams may be achieved.
It also means that ALL applicants have an industry background, some then will also have, in addition, an ADF background as well.
The recruitment process is where the problem starts and is also where the problem may be fixed.
It is generally accepted that a high proportion of the industry source will a have a demonstrated record of failure in that sector of the industry.
Given that GA pilots need either CP, CFI or ATO experience to get a job with CASA are you saying that being a CP, CFI or ATO represents a "failure" level occupation in GA? If so then does that mean that the only "above failure" level occupation that a young commercial pilot can aspire to is an airline job flying heavy metal?
For what it is worth I find that the FOIs I deal with are reasonable people who are trying to make a difficult and flawed system work. Their hands are often tied by "the system' that they operate under and no doubt they have to cover their @rse, so that if a serious accident happens they are squeaky clean. My frustration is more that the shonky operators seem to continue to operate and CASA does nothing to stop them. When they do get operators to court their success rate is not very encouraging. That said our local guys seem to prefer the coffee and a chat approach.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus2001
There was no implication that CP / CFI / ATO is a failure level in GA.
That some FOI's were CP's, CFI's or ATO's and consistently being sacked in the industry is an indicator of failure.
There are some FOI's who have exhausted all possibility of employment by their repetitive sackings in the industry such that CASA is the only aviation career left to them.
It is great that you have FOI's that can have a chat and a cup of tea. That's exactly what BB wants.
Townsville had three such FOI's who could and did have a chat, a cup of tea and also had a mentoring role.
They were all bastardised.
Coincidence ? no, just a clash of cultures.
Because of their record, the Townsville office now only has one or two FOI's trusted or respected enough to be welcome for a chat and a cup of tea.
That Bruce Byron's new culture will be instilled in that office is a given.
It is now 2005. Watch for changes early this year, They can and will happen.
This dysfunctional office will again have staff that will be welcome for a chat and a cup of tea.
It will be reformed.
There is commitment.
There was no implication that CP / CFI / ATO is a failure level in GA.
That some FOI's were CP's, CFI's or ATO's and consistently being sacked in the industry is an indicator of failure.
There are some FOI's who have exhausted all possibility of employment by their repetitive sackings in the industry such that CASA is the only aviation career left to them.
It is great that you have FOI's that can have a chat and a cup of tea. That's exactly what BB wants.
Townsville had three such FOI's who could and did have a chat, a cup of tea and also had a mentoring role.
They were all bastardised.
Coincidence ? no, just a clash of cultures.
Because of their record, the Townsville office now only has one or two FOI's trusted or respected enough to be welcome for a chat and a cup of tea.
That Bruce Byron's new culture will be instilled in that office is a given.
It is now 2005. Watch for changes early this year, They can and will happen.
This dysfunctional office will again have staff that will be welcome for a chat and a cup of tea.
It will be reformed.
There is commitment.
Sunfish,
the characterisations you've given do not lead me to believe they are unique to the RAAF or the military. The two ex-engineering officers could be anyone. How often are people described as 'ex-RAAF' as a form of pigeon-holing their experience? If the guy is a spanker then his previous experience is of little interest. If the guy is a good operator, then likewise. Its a slippery slope when everyone in industry gets characterised as ex-GA/RAAF etc. Of course its common, don't make it right though.
Mainframe et al
Good posts, been wondering about the employment climate in CASA for a while now.
Cheers,
CS
the characterisations you've given do not lead me to believe they are unique to the RAAF or the military. The two ex-engineering officers could be anyone. How often are people described as 'ex-RAAF' as a form of pigeon-holing their experience? If the guy is a spanker then his previous experience is of little interest. If the guy is a good operator, then likewise. Its a slippery slope when everyone in industry gets characterised as ex-GA/RAAF etc. Of course its common, don't make it right though.
Mainframe et al
Good posts, been wondering about the employment climate in CASA for a while now.
Cheers,
CS
Grandpa Aerotart
As described to me by an ex RAAF FJ pilot (1950s/60s vintage) and ex DCA examiner/current ATO, CASA is required by law to employ ex ADF people. It's like a super scheme...or work for the dole for those who can't/won't/didn't go straight from the ADF to the airlines....for whatever reason.
I've only known three ex Army pilots...two I wouldn't feed...they were both mates and one was the most aggressive, dishonest, devisive and incompetent individual it has been my great missfortune to work with in 25 years in this industry...the other wasn't a favorite of many either. Most of the ex airforce guys I have flown with have been excellent..one out of 10-12 was a complete C**T. Ditto for the ex Navy guys..all top units in my experience.
Similarly of the ex 'GA' FOIs I personally know in CASA 2/3rds would qualify as unemployable hence in CASA...if they were CPs/trainers in GA it's because they backstabbed their way to the top....and when they ended up on the street for whatever reason were unable to get another job...they'd **** on too many people.
So many of these guys go into CASA with the avowed intention of doing the old CASA two step...get an endorsement on a jet of some discription and issue a bunch of dispos to an operator and then when a slot opens (opened by a 'mate' generally) they go straight in as a DEC/management...as a reward for services rendered while in CASA. It's very common...I guess the ones who have no mates left in industry stay in CASA long term and get bitter...so make the lives of those who genuinely want to help the industry miserable.
There are some very good people in CASA from all the above backgrounds...but the unemployable have them beat for the most part....it has been thus for a VERY long time.
I've only known three ex Army pilots...two I wouldn't feed...they were both mates and one was the most aggressive, dishonest, devisive and incompetent individual it has been my great missfortune to work with in 25 years in this industry...the other wasn't a favorite of many either. Most of the ex airforce guys I have flown with have been excellent..one out of 10-12 was a complete C**T. Ditto for the ex Navy guys..all top units in my experience.
Similarly of the ex 'GA' FOIs I personally know in CASA 2/3rds would qualify as unemployable hence in CASA...if they were CPs/trainers in GA it's because they backstabbed their way to the top....and when they ended up on the street for whatever reason were unable to get another job...they'd **** on too many people.
So many of these guys go into CASA with the avowed intention of doing the old CASA two step...get an endorsement on a jet of some discription and issue a bunch of dispos to an operator and then when a slot opens (opened by a 'mate' generally) they go straight in as a DEC/management...as a reward for services rendered while in CASA. It's very common...I guess the ones who have no mates left in industry stay in CASA long term and get bitter...so make the lives of those who genuinely want to help the industry miserable.
There are some very good people in CASA from all the above backgrounds...but the unemployable have them beat for the most part....it has been thus for a VERY long time.
Don't know about the legal requirement to employ ex-ADF people, Chuckles, but there is certainly an incentive to try to get into a government job post military service - the super scheme can be continued on directly, which is (or was on the older super scheme that many people were on, and some still are) quite financially advantageous.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stink Finger
Top score ! 4 out of 4 ! You must be in Townsville or Cairns to be able to pick the winning numbers.
Chimbu Chuckles
You must have been in GA for a while.
You've hit the nail on the head in so many areas it's uncanny.
Chronic Snoozer
Wait a year or two until the misfits are all weeded out or under close scrutiny and control.
I too would have enjoyed a career in CASA but kept wondering why so many
six figure salaried CASA guys pulled the pin or were perpetually on stress leave.
The club within takes it's toll, your background or experience count for nothing.
It's conform to the culture, wrong or right, or else!
One would assume that a six figure salary would compensate for the culture,
obviously it doesn't.
Arm out the Window
There are numerous incentives to the suggestion of ADF nepotism,
the most obvious has been the steady rewrite of CAR's and CAO's to accommodate the ADF entrant.
Nothing is more glaringly obvious than granting an instructor rating to an ADF instructor, on the basis of ADF qualifications.
A civilian instructor must perservere and eventually bring out the best in a student.
An ADF instructor merely scrubs a slow learner from the intake and proceeds with the next candidate.
If the candidate has above average ability and doesn't need coaching to make it then all is ok.
The ADF instructor is not normally culturally capable of ab initio instructing per se,
the ADF doesn't need to persevere with a candidate and doesn't have to
while the supply of candidates exceeds the ADF requirements.
Now put him in the civilian training world and watch the training school lose students,
faster than they can be recruited with expensive advertising.
Mainframe
Let's hope your information on reform is correct.
I'm sceptical and will need to view the corpses before I believe it.
Top score ! 4 out of 4 ! You must be in Townsville or Cairns to be able to pick the winning numbers.
Chimbu Chuckles
You must have been in GA for a while.
You've hit the nail on the head in so many areas it's uncanny.
Chronic Snoozer
Wait a year or two until the misfits are all weeded out or under close scrutiny and control.
I too would have enjoyed a career in CASA but kept wondering why so many
six figure salaried CASA guys pulled the pin or were perpetually on stress leave.
The club within takes it's toll, your background or experience count for nothing.
It's conform to the culture, wrong or right, or else!
One would assume that a six figure salary would compensate for the culture,
obviously it doesn't.
Arm out the Window
There are numerous incentives to the suggestion of ADF nepotism,
the most obvious has been the steady rewrite of CAR's and CAO's to accommodate the ADF entrant.
Nothing is more glaringly obvious than granting an instructor rating to an ADF instructor, on the basis of ADF qualifications.
A civilian instructor must perservere and eventually bring out the best in a student.
An ADF instructor merely scrubs a slow learner from the intake and proceeds with the next candidate.
If the candidate has above average ability and doesn't need coaching to make it then all is ok.
The ADF instructor is not normally culturally capable of ab initio instructing per se,
the ADF doesn't need to persevere with a candidate and doesn't have to
while the supply of candidates exceeds the ADF requirements.
Now put him in the civilian training world and watch the training school lose students,
faster than they can be recruited with expensive advertising.
Mainframe
Let's hope your information on reform is correct.
I'm sceptical and will need to view the corpses before I believe it.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gotta love FNQ
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Starlight - ADF instructors gain civilian quals (and certainly not as readily as times past) because the level of their training and qualifications far exceeds what is required in the civilian world. Are you comparing a CFS course to 40 hours in the BK training area with a mate on dubious "mutual" rides? Instructing in the ADF world is a respected professional skill. For most in the GA world it is an hours building exercise.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst we are scrutinising Mil/Civil backgrounds and I know many from both "schools". One in particular that I know (used to work for infact) is ex Caribou (SVN) and ex CFS QFI. He also happens to be one of the most lucid and committed safety managers I know (remember I worked for him), He has also spent quite some time since his mil days in professional jet GA as a trainer and ATO.
I know a few civvy people that carry similar qualifications, experience and skills but then they aren't the CEO of CASA.
tipsy
disclosure: I proudly wore the green 30+ years ago
I know a few civvy people that carry similar qualifications, experience and skills but then they aren't the CEO of CASA.
tipsy
disclosure: I proudly wore the green 30+ years ago
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My PPL instructor decades ago was RAAF/DCA(2nd div) AFAIK his instructor exprience was v. old, history books said he had instructional 30+ years before that. Much younger wifes instructor was chosen on the basis of being RAAF CFI type.
EX RAAF have ther place and CASA is one of them.
EX RAAF have ther place and CASA is one of them.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeta_OK
Do you disagree that the ADF scrubs candidates at regular intervals in training?
The candidates that an ADF instructor works with have passed an initial screening that seeks certain attributes.
That screening continues throughout the intake period.
The cream rises to the top, the residue is discarded.
From basic training onwards the ADF instructor is working with above average candidates.
Do you disagree with any of the above?
I was not comparing CFS to BK.
The ADF is all about survival of the fittest, none of us would have it any other way.
The civilian training organisation does not conduct screening of applicants.
Providing they can pass a medical and have the money, they meet the criteria.
Training of the candidate starts and will continue as long as the candidate can pay.
The civilian instructor will use various methods to circumvent learning difficulties.
The end product is more likely a result of the instructor's ability rather than the candidate's ability
A civilian student pilot pays to learn and may forego income to learn.
This is why they are not discarded, they are the source of revenue for the school.
The ADF student pilot does not pay to learn, he is paid while learning.
This is why they can be discarded if they don't measure up, they are an expense.
The ADF does not need to perservere with a slow learner, nor is it required to.
So, if you're instructing at CFS, you are working with candidates that are specially selected and further screened,
they are above average in ability and IQ, and the Government sincerely hopes they are the cream of the crop.
They are usually naturals or quick learners, and they are being paid to be there, not paying to be there.
So how does this compare to accepting and training any one who wanders in off the street with enough money to pay for what he wants?
There are two different worlds out there, they have different cultures and different requirements.
The instructors in those different worlds are professional in the particular environment that they operate in,
one fails slow learners, the other instructs and develops slow learners.
A civilian instructor would most likely be much out of his depth at CFS teaching fast jet fighter survival skills.
A CFS instructor would similarly be out of his comfort zone trying to conduct ab initio training at a civilian flying school
with some cashed up nerd who walked in and wants to learn to fly.
Advanced training such as aerobatics, formation flying etc do see a merger of ability from the two cultures,
but at the bottom end there is no comparison.
I do not dispute the qualifications and training of the ADF instructor,
as I have tried to illustrate, but they are poles apart from civilian ab initio training,
and I stated the equivalent of that in my earlier post.
One deals with the cream of the crop, and doesn't have to persevere,
the other deals with whatever walks in with enough cash, and needs to persevere.
Horses for courses ? Yes, I think so.
Do you disagree that the ADF scrubs candidates at regular intervals in training?
The candidates that an ADF instructor works with have passed an initial screening that seeks certain attributes.
That screening continues throughout the intake period.
The cream rises to the top, the residue is discarded.
From basic training onwards the ADF instructor is working with above average candidates.
Do you disagree with any of the above?
I was not comparing CFS to BK.
The ADF is all about survival of the fittest, none of us would have it any other way.
The civilian training organisation does not conduct screening of applicants.
Providing they can pass a medical and have the money, they meet the criteria.
Training of the candidate starts and will continue as long as the candidate can pay.
The civilian instructor will use various methods to circumvent learning difficulties.
The end product is more likely a result of the instructor's ability rather than the candidate's ability
A civilian student pilot pays to learn and may forego income to learn.
This is why they are not discarded, they are the source of revenue for the school.
The ADF student pilot does not pay to learn, he is paid while learning.
This is why they can be discarded if they don't measure up, they are an expense.
The ADF does not need to perservere with a slow learner, nor is it required to.
So, if you're instructing at CFS, you are working with candidates that are specially selected and further screened,
they are above average in ability and IQ, and the Government sincerely hopes they are the cream of the crop.
They are usually naturals or quick learners, and they are being paid to be there, not paying to be there.
So how does this compare to accepting and training any one who wanders in off the street with enough money to pay for what he wants?
There are two different worlds out there, they have different cultures and different requirements.
The instructors in those different worlds are professional in the particular environment that they operate in,
one fails slow learners, the other instructs and develops slow learners.
A civilian instructor would most likely be much out of his depth at CFS teaching fast jet fighter survival skills.
A CFS instructor would similarly be out of his comfort zone trying to conduct ab initio training at a civilian flying school
with some cashed up nerd who walked in and wants to learn to fly.
Advanced training such as aerobatics, formation flying etc do see a merger of ability from the two cultures,
but at the bottom end there is no comparison.
I do not dispute the qualifications and training of the ADF instructor,
as I have tried to illustrate, but they are poles apart from civilian ab initio training,
and I stated the equivalent of that in my earlier post.
One deals with the cream of the crop, and doesn't have to persevere,
the other deals with whatever walks in with enough cash, and needs to persevere.
Horses for courses ? Yes, I think so.
Capt Starlight,
What direct knowledge of ADF flying training are you basing your statements on?
Some of what you’re saying is reasonable; for example, candidates are screened and subjected to aptitude testing, so it’s reasonable to say that some of the really unsuited will have been weeded out by the time they hit the training schools.
However, the results of this testing are certainly not a great predictor of how someone will go when actually on the course. As yet, there is no magic way of telling beforehand how someone's going to go in training.
Also, students at civil schools can learn at the rate that is comfortable for them. For the military people, the pressure is on to get through at the pace of the course (with some extra flying and ground training for those who need it, up to a point), so even if a student has some natural ability, he or she can struggle.
Backgrounds can also vary; when I instructed at 1FTS we had guys from PNG come through who hadn’t driven a car, for example, let alone had a go at flying an aircraft, and also had language issues.
My point is that the full range of skill and adaptability is required in the ADF instructors as well. It’s wrong to say that military instructors are incapable of teaching ab-initio; effects of controls, climbing and descending and any of the other stuff are just as much a challenge for the military student as the civil one, and the same kinds of errors come out.
The idea that the ADF doesn't need to persevere with slow learners is also flawed. Even when they reach basic flying training, they represent a significant investment in time and resources and are not to be let go lightly. Extra training is given up to the extent that the system allows, and instructor diagnostic and remedial skills are often called into play.
You could even say that the military instructor needs to be more on the ball in terms of picking up basic faults because there is only a limited number of remedial flights available in which to do so - the civil guy can keep on coming back as long as he or she wants, as you say.
Now you don't see too many ex-military pilots out instructing in the flying schools because the pay's not good enough compared to what they could be making in the airlines (or CASA for example!). This is one reason why I'm challenging where Capt Starlight's information is coming from with respect to what kinds of capabilities are required of military instructors.
The CFS instructor training course is well able to produce people who can instruct ab-initio; however, as for any military to civil change, the instructor must know the civil regs and ways of operating. Does an ex-military instructor need to do another course of training in how to instruct? No, and that's why the CAOs exempt them from it.
Do they need to be checked in their knowledge of the regs and assessed by CASA or a representative before instructing? Yes, and that's why briefings and a flight test are required before an ex-military person can be awarded a civil instructor rating.
I didn't initially appreciate the need for this when I first got out of the RAAF, but after a few years I do now, and think it is quite appropriate.
What direct knowledge of ADF flying training are you basing your statements on?
Some of what you’re saying is reasonable; for example, candidates are screened and subjected to aptitude testing, so it’s reasonable to say that some of the really unsuited will have been weeded out by the time they hit the training schools.
However, the results of this testing are certainly not a great predictor of how someone will go when actually on the course. As yet, there is no magic way of telling beforehand how someone's going to go in training.
Also, students at civil schools can learn at the rate that is comfortable for them. For the military people, the pressure is on to get through at the pace of the course (with some extra flying and ground training for those who need it, up to a point), so even if a student has some natural ability, he or she can struggle.
Backgrounds can also vary; when I instructed at 1FTS we had guys from PNG come through who hadn’t driven a car, for example, let alone had a go at flying an aircraft, and also had language issues.
My point is that the full range of skill and adaptability is required in the ADF instructors as well. It’s wrong to say that military instructors are incapable of teaching ab-initio; effects of controls, climbing and descending and any of the other stuff are just as much a challenge for the military student as the civil one, and the same kinds of errors come out.
The idea that the ADF doesn't need to persevere with slow learners is also flawed. Even when they reach basic flying training, they represent a significant investment in time and resources and are not to be let go lightly. Extra training is given up to the extent that the system allows, and instructor diagnostic and remedial skills are often called into play.
You could even say that the military instructor needs to be more on the ball in terms of picking up basic faults because there is only a limited number of remedial flights available in which to do so - the civil guy can keep on coming back as long as he or she wants, as you say.
Now you don't see too many ex-military pilots out instructing in the flying schools because the pay's not good enough compared to what they could be making in the airlines (or CASA for example!). This is one reason why I'm challenging where Capt Starlight's information is coming from with respect to what kinds of capabilities are required of military instructors.
The CFS instructor training course is well able to produce people who can instruct ab-initio; however, as for any military to civil change, the instructor must know the civil regs and ways of operating. Does an ex-military instructor need to do another course of training in how to instruct? No, and that's why the CAOs exempt them from it.
Do they need to be checked in their knowledge of the regs and assessed by CASA or a representative before instructing? Yes, and that's why briefings and a flight test are required before an ex-military person can be awarded a civil instructor rating.
I didn't initially appreciate the need for this when I first got out of the RAAF, but after a few years I do now, and think it is quite appropriate.
Fair enough LRT, but I think there is relevance to the thread in trying to sort through the issues surrounding ex-military people, to cut out the prejudice from the real factors.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm out the Window
I have no direct knowledge, just worked with what seemed a lot of ex ADF pilots who were washed out in training.
Maybe they committed offences or something that they didn't disclose.
I apologise and thank you for shattering the myths.
All instructors are equivalent, regardless of background.
CASA is not over represented by ex ADF
CASA practises natural justice and advocates fair and impartial treatment.
There is no established pattern of CASA misconduct.
No operator has been unfairly treated.
There has been no misconduct by the Townsville office.
There is no truth in the rumour that three FOI's were bastardised.
This year will see reform initiated and achieved.
My aviation background is limited to model aircraft
I have no direct knowledge, just worked with what seemed a lot of ex ADF pilots who were washed out in training.
Maybe they committed offences or something that they didn't disclose.
I apologise and thank you for shattering the myths.
All instructors are equivalent, regardless of background.
CASA is not over represented by ex ADF
CASA practises natural justice and advocates fair and impartial treatment.
There is no established pattern of CASA misconduct.
No operator has been unfairly treated.
There has been no misconduct by the Townsville office.
There is no truth in the rumour that three FOI's were bastardised.
This year will see reform initiated and achieved.
My aviation background is limited to model aircraft