CASA's New Regulations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Newcastle Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA's New Regulations.
Watch out, training to become a professional pilot will become extremely expensive in the future.
According to the new rules you MUST have a recommendation from either a LICENCED theory instructor (and not all will be licenced, they have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a licence) or by the holder of the licence on the level of your exam (CPL for a CPL exam and an ATPL for the ATP theory exams).
You will be deprived of your right to be assessd by the authority as to your competence. Before that assessment you will have to pass the assessment of a licenced person before you obtain your recommendation to sit a CASA exam. In fact, you will have to do two exams (and carry the costs).
Licenced persons will all conduct theory courses. They will not recommend you unless you attend their course (and why should they test and recommend anyone who did not attend his/her course? It's a good way to force people to attend the course and pay for it).
Should there be anyone who is prepared to recommend you he will test you possibly by exams; obviously he or she will do that for a fee which is expexted to be high enough so that you could have attended his course).
You will be deprived of your right to study on your own account or by E-learning on the Internet.
If you are not living in one of the major population centres youi will need to pay big money for accommodation during your course.
Many Australians won't be able to become pilots any longer. The airlines don't worry about it, they recruit pilots overseas anyway. The skill "experienced jet pilot" is considered to be of a high ranking shgortly in the slills list for immigration, a request moved by CASA.
Why?
CASA claims it will improve standards. Bull... It will severely reduce the competition and we all know what that means to the costs.
However, it will have a most beneficial effect for CASA. If only the big schools are able to train professional pilots (and BAE in Adelaidse is loving it) CASA can take over a more "policing" role rather than doing her job (as per Civil Aviationb Act) that is supposed to be quality control. Since the qualitry control is done by people in the industry CASA does not need to make a lot of efforts any longer making their operation cheaper and allowing them to get rid of their responsibilities.
No, CASA fees will not get cheaper.... In any case, airways charges are levied by Airservices Australia.
You might be intersted to note that the proposed CASR 141 and CASR 61 are almost a carbon copy of the US FAA FAR 141 and FAR 61 with the additional twist of making self study or E-learning basically impossible.
Many smaller flying schools will have to close because they would not be able to provide professional training. That will make even private flying more expensive (reduced competition).
No, CASA did not outlay self study or E-learning (that would be in conflict with the general legislation and political suicide for the Minister) but they formulated the laws in such a way that it will become impossible.
Don't complain to CASA, they received complaints and ignore it. You only get anywhere on the political level.
If you want to be a professional pilot start now whilst you can still afford it.
According to the new rules you MUST have a recommendation from either a LICENCED theory instructor (and not all will be licenced, they have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a licence) or by the holder of the licence on the level of your exam (CPL for a CPL exam and an ATPL for the ATP theory exams).
You will be deprived of your right to be assessd by the authority as to your competence. Before that assessment you will have to pass the assessment of a licenced person before you obtain your recommendation to sit a CASA exam. In fact, you will have to do two exams (and carry the costs).
Licenced persons will all conduct theory courses. They will not recommend you unless you attend their course (and why should they test and recommend anyone who did not attend his/her course? It's a good way to force people to attend the course and pay for it).
Should there be anyone who is prepared to recommend you he will test you possibly by exams; obviously he or she will do that for a fee which is expexted to be high enough so that you could have attended his course).
You will be deprived of your right to study on your own account or by E-learning on the Internet.
If you are not living in one of the major population centres youi will need to pay big money for accommodation during your course.
Many Australians won't be able to become pilots any longer. The airlines don't worry about it, they recruit pilots overseas anyway. The skill "experienced jet pilot" is considered to be of a high ranking shgortly in the slills list for immigration, a request moved by CASA.
Why?
CASA claims it will improve standards. Bull... It will severely reduce the competition and we all know what that means to the costs.
However, it will have a most beneficial effect for CASA. If only the big schools are able to train professional pilots (and BAE in Adelaidse is loving it) CASA can take over a more "policing" role rather than doing her job (as per Civil Aviationb Act) that is supposed to be quality control. Since the qualitry control is done by people in the industry CASA does not need to make a lot of efforts any longer making their operation cheaper and allowing them to get rid of their responsibilities.
No, CASA fees will not get cheaper.... In any case, airways charges are levied by Airservices Australia.
You might be intersted to note that the proposed CASR 141 and CASR 61 are almost a carbon copy of the US FAA FAR 141 and FAR 61 with the additional twist of making self study or E-learning basically impossible.
Many smaller flying schools will have to close because they would not be able to provide professional training. That will make even private flying more expensive (reduced competition).
No, CASA did not outlay self study or E-learning (that would be in conflict with the general legislation and political suicide for the Minister) but they formulated the laws in such a way that it will become impossible.
Don't complain to CASA, they received complaints and ignore it. You only get anywhere on the political level.
If you want to be a professional pilot start now whilst you can still afford it.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's rather unfortunate that flying training has become already very expensive (particularly post-GST), and it will get even more so.
Based on the bolded part of the text above, I guess one way around the expense is to form a group, one will get the theory course by correspondence and get recommended by a licensed theory instructor, get the CPL, give his mates the books, his mates will get the now CPL holder to recommend them for the exam, and the group share the cost of the correspondence course. Will this work?
Having said this, I am very much against the lack of competition. I am all for improving standards, but will it? Isn't an exam pass enough to prove that the standards are being met? If the authority believes that the exams pass is not sufficient to ensure a high enough standard, then one can conclude that there is something wrong with the exam itself, and not with the training system - after all, an exam pass should represent that the person met or exceeded the standard set. Besides, MCQs are not marked subjectively, so the human judgement issue does not really come into it (as long as the "right" answer is deemed to be the right answer, that is). So, I would really like to know what the problem with the current system is.
The initial poster has already addressed the economic problem posed by the new approach, so I won't really go into it. However, I would like to say something about the quality of learning.
Personally, I see the point in undertaking the theory courses and I concede that it is suitable for some people, however I am a very keen supporter of the self-study method, because it shows that the person has the self-discipline to study, and it can lead to MORE thorough knowledge, not just the "passing exam" technique, mainly because a lot of self-studiers do not know (or suspect they may not know) what the exams may ask (even if they buy lots of trial exams, they are often left with niggling doubts as to the contents of the exam). Whereas those following the courses are often taught how to pass the exams and told what they don't need to know. Then, which is better, someone who throughly studies the books, even if that is out of ignorance of exam 'techniques' or contents, or someone who just knows the minimum to pass the exam?
GA is already dying, and I am against anything that will hasten its death.
And if obtaining a professional licence becomes more horrendously expensive (which it already is), who will fly the GA aircraft? They may not be able to afford to stay on the small salary they will get, after spending countless thousands on training - or they may decide that they simply do not wish to or cannot afford to get a licence in the first place.
Aviation is an important part of the regional Australia, and while it is, I guess, not CASA's duty to maintain its affordability and viability, I strongly believe that it is the government's responsibility to do so, and unfortunately from what I have seen so far, they have done nothing but to adversely affect the general aviation (or perhaps, aviation as a whole, because GA is normally where the talents are 'grown').
According to the new rules you MUST have a recommendation from either a LICENCED theory instructor (and not all will be licenced, they have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a licence) or by the holder of the licence on the level of your exam (CPL for a CPL exam and an ATPL for the ATP theory exams).
Having said this, I am very much against the lack of competition. I am all for improving standards, but will it? Isn't an exam pass enough to prove that the standards are being met? If the authority believes that the exams pass is not sufficient to ensure a high enough standard, then one can conclude that there is something wrong with the exam itself, and not with the training system - after all, an exam pass should represent that the person met or exceeded the standard set. Besides, MCQs are not marked subjectively, so the human judgement issue does not really come into it (as long as the "right" answer is deemed to be the right answer, that is). So, I would really like to know what the problem with the current system is.
The initial poster has already addressed the economic problem posed by the new approach, so I won't really go into it. However, I would like to say something about the quality of learning.
Personally, I see the point in undertaking the theory courses and I concede that it is suitable for some people, however I am a very keen supporter of the self-study method, because it shows that the person has the self-discipline to study, and it can lead to MORE thorough knowledge, not just the "passing exam" technique, mainly because a lot of self-studiers do not know (or suspect they may not know) what the exams may ask (even if they buy lots of trial exams, they are often left with niggling doubts as to the contents of the exam). Whereas those following the courses are often taught how to pass the exams and told what they don't need to know. Then, which is better, someone who throughly studies the books, even if that is out of ignorance of exam 'techniques' or contents, or someone who just knows the minimum to pass the exam?
GA is already dying, and I am against anything that will hasten its death.
And if obtaining a professional licence becomes more horrendously expensive (which it already is), who will fly the GA aircraft? They may not be able to afford to stay on the small salary they will get, after spending countless thousands on training - or they may decide that they simply do not wish to or cannot afford to get a licence in the first place.
Aviation is an important part of the regional Australia, and while it is, I guess, not CASA's duty to maintain its affordability and viability, I strongly believe that it is the government's responsibility to do so, and unfortunately from what I have seen so far, they have done nothing but to adversely affect the general aviation (or perhaps, aviation as a whole, because GA is normally where the talents are 'grown').
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Newcastle Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA's New Regulations.
Thanks, Non Normal, for these terrific thoughts. Firstly let me say that I doubt that the idea with a "group" would work. It all depends how the legislation will be worded in the end. I know someone at CASA and, as far as I know, the licenced pilot will have to be employed as an instructor in a licenced school. In fact, I am sure the gap will be closed becasue CASA does monitor this forum.
You are correct by saying that the current Mickey Mouse exams will not assure quality. CASA is aware of that and try to shift the responsibility for standards onto someone else, in this case the industry. They do not have the staff and probably not the people with the expertise to produce exams that assure the standards. They do not have the resources to police training by more frequent surveillance visits. They are charged by the Civil Aviation Act with assuring standards but they can't and since the act does not specify how they are supposed to do it they do it by "passing the buck".
Will the standards improve? Unlikely! There will be a few licenced ground instructors and larger flight training organisations offering the theory as it is done now. They will still just teach people what is examined and help them to pass exams. There will still be shortcuts for, as some said to me, "economical reality" meaning that we can't afford to bog down our resources for too long for theory.
Theory if often taught by junior flight instructors to keep them occupied; a case of "the blind leading the blind". A major school gets junior flight instructors to teach the ATP theory since they need to pay those fellows only $ 29,500 per year. However, their Chief Instructor holds and ATPL.
Other theory providers will simply merge up with a flying school and get their CFI to recommend students hence just prepare people for exams. Nothing will change. Standards will probably worsen due to the lack of competition. On the ATPL level there are only the large "saussage machines" where the Chief Instructor of Chief Flying Instructor has an ATPL. What do you think they will charge for a course?
I know someone who teaches ATP Meteorology. He is not a pilot but a Dipl. Meteorologist. I know another fellow who teaches ATPL Systems, Aerodynamic and Propulsion Plants. He is not a pilot but an experienced aeronautical engineer. Both of them will have to pass their subject's CASA exams to be able to teach. Not a problem. However, they are not allowed to sit the exam unless they have passed all CPL exams! They have now dropped out of teaching and took other positions (one with QANTAS). I know another two retired QANTAS pilots who used to teach ATP. They said they will not jump through the hoops, they rather go fishing.
You see, many of those who assured high standards and who do have the expertise will be lost.
CASA does not have the duty to assure the industry's viability but they have the duty to assure quality and standards. In fact, they are to protect the students from irresponsible operators supplying low quality instruction. However, they don't do it.
Australia has only 20 Mil people and, for this small population, there are a lot of flying schools making the business "cut-throat". We need an independent quality assurer. However, CASA gives the job to those they are supposed toi regulate and check.
It is the same as if Woolworth is charged with consumer protection.
CPL training will be possible only for the big very expensive fellows and they love it.
May be I should mention that I was surprised to learn that the ex Chief Ground Instructor of BAE Adelaide temporarily worked in the CASA Flight Crew Licencing section.....
Cheers
You are correct by saying that the current Mickey Mouse exams will not assure quality. CASA is aware of that and try to shift the responsibility for standards onto someone else, in this case the industry. They do not have the staff and probably not the people with the expertise to produce exams that assure the standards. They do not have the resources to police training by more frequent surveillance visits. They are charged by the Civil Aviation Act with assuring standards but they can't and since the act does not specify how they are supposed to do it they do it by "passing the buck".
Will the standards improve? Unlikely! There will be a few licenced ground instructors and larger flight training organisations offering the theory as it is done now. They will still just teach people what is examined and help them to pass exams. There will still be shortcuts for, as some said to me, "economical reality" meaning that we can't afford to bog down our resources for too long for theory.
Theory if often taught by junior flight instructors to keep them occupied; a case of "the blind leading the blind". A major school gets junior flight instructors to teach the ATP theory since they need to pay those fellows only $ 29,500 per year. However, their Chief Instructor holds and ATPL.
Other theory providers will simply merge up with a flying school and get their CFI to recommend students hence just prepare people for exams. Nothing will change. Standards will probably worsen due to the lack of competition. On the ATPL level there are only the large "saussage machines" where the Chief Instructor of Chief Flying Instructor has an ATPL. What do you think they will charge for a course?
I know someone who teaches ATP Meteorology. He is not a pilot but a Dipl. Meteorologist. I know another fellow who teaches ATPL Systems, Aerodynamic and Propulsion Plants. He is not a pilot but an experienced aeronautical engineer. Both of them will have to pass their subject's CASA exams to be able to teach. Not a problem. However, they are not allowed to sit the exam unless they have passed all CPL exams! They have now dropped out of teaching and took other positions (one with QANTAS). I know another two retired QANTAS pilots who used to teach ATP. They said they will not jump through the hoops, they rather go fishing.
You see, many of those who assured high standards and who do have the expertise will be lost.
CASA does not have the duty to assure the industry's viability but they have the duty to assure quality and standards. In fact, they are to protect the students from irresponsible operators supplying low quality instruction. However, they don't do it.
Australia has only 20 Mil people and, for this small population, there are a lot of flying schools making the business "cut-throat". We need an independent quality assurer. However, CASA gives the job to those they are supposed toi regulate and check.
It is the same as if Woolworth is charged with consumer protection.
CPL training will be possible only for the big very expensive fellows and they love it.
May be I should mention that I was surprised to learn that the ex Chief Ground Instructor of BAE Adelaide temporarily worked in the CASA Flight Crew Licencing section.....
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theres a good reason why the RAA is growing at a massive rate! though sadly i am finding i am having to actually book in advance to hire a RAA aircraft instead of just rocking up and going for a fly.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If you need the recommendation, give me call, I have an ATPL!!
There may be a small fee involved though, but I bet it's not as high as the theory providers!!
Cheers, HH.
There may be a small fee involved though, but I bet it's not as high as the theory providers!!
Cheers, HH.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And will CASA be happy when we all turn to the RAA?
I'm certainly making sure my drivers licence is kept well dusted off! (Is it true that's all you need to get started in RAA?)
It is all really getting very silly when one can fly exactly the same aircaft with an RAA rego with your RAA 'licence' without CASA giving a hoot. Meanwhile CASA are regulating those scruffy clapped out old VH registered heaps of crap and their pilots up to the hilt.
Good on yer RAA - your are probably our only future in a very dismal (VH registered) industry.
Anyone tried to sell a VH registered aircraft lately? The only thing that is harder is finding students to learn to fly them!
I'm certainly making sure my drivers licence is kept well dusted off! (Is it true that's all you need to get started in RAA?)
It is all really getting very silly when one can fly exactly the same aircaft with an RAA rego with your RAA 'licence' without CASA giving a hoot. Meanwhile CASA are regulating those scruffy clapped out old VH registered heaps of crap and their pilots up to the hilt.
Good on yer RAA - your are probably our only future in a very dismal (VH registered) industry.
Anyone tried to sell a VH registered aircraft lately? The only thing that is harder is finding students to learn to fly them!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Newcastle Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA's New Regulations.
Howard Hughes has a good idea - a new industry is born, a new job is created. The Independent Quality Controller (Aviation Theory).
That is actually the way it should be! The quality control should be independent.
In any case, Howard Hughes proves the point. He will have to levy a charge to test people (and so he should to compensate him for the work). In the end it WILL increase the costs for the exams.
In any case, Howard Hughes' suggestion stuffs up CASA's desire to force people into BAE and such organisation. I bet you that there will be a clause that Howard works with a flight training organisation.
In any case, as to the current draft Howard Hughes can become someone recommending candidates to sit examinations only provided he applies for a Ground Instructor's licence and use his ATPL as proof that he is competent if he is not the Chief Instructor of a licenced organisation providing integrated courses.
Usually I don't believe in conspiracies but, when I remember words spoken by people who were employed with the old Department of Aviation/Transport, then were retained when it became CAA and who are still here such as "Only resources rich Integrated Commercial Schools should be permitted to train professional pilots", "There should be not more than four organisations training professional pilots" and a saying I haven't heard any more "If it were up to us the only people who fly in Australia is the military and the airlines), I start to wonder....
QANTAS was a major contributor in the consultation process for the new regulations and we all know that, for them, GA is a pain in the arse! Charters take away business for both QANTAS and JETSTAR and, in any case, operations would be much easier and cheaper if there would be no need to share the airspace, particularly controlled airspace, with GA aircraft incl. private pilots.
It is amazing to see who was invited to contribute to the so called "consultation process". Most GA organisations were not invited and individual GA pilots were invited either; most did not even know the consultation process was on. In any case, when someone found out his or her submission was ignored anyway.
Another interesting factor: Years ago the CAR actually stipulated that an Australian licence will be issued upon presentation of an overseas licence provided the applicant has flown for at least two years with a recognized overseas carriet. That has disappeared. Now the holder of an overseas licence will be issued with an Australian licence upon passing a conversion exam (air legislation) and a small flight test.
It's a long shot or I might be too suspicious; we have this new trade agreement with the save proclaimed gurus of world aviation - the USA. May be in the big scheme of things our politicianbs agree that flight training should be done by the USA and in the USA? I heard (from the USA) that the US Embry-Riddle Aviation University is interested to set up here provided the competition is reduced?
May be the aviation infrastructure is too expensive for our political leaders and, instead of increasing the capacity of the airspace management systems and other infrastructure the might think about getting rid of GA to avoid having to update. As someone higgh up said years ago "GA doesn't pay its way".
Let's see whats going to happen.
That is actually the way it should be! The quality control should be independent.
In any case, Howard Hughes proves the point. He will have to levy a charge to test people (and so he should to compensate him for the work). In the end it WILL increase the costs for the exams.
In any case, Howard Hughes' suggestion stuffs up CASA's desire to force people into BAE and such organisation. I bet you that there will be a clause that Howard works with a flight training organisation.
In any case, as to the current draft Howard Hughes can become someone recommending candidates to sit examinations only provided he applies for a Ground Instructor's licence and use his ATPL as proof that he is competent if he is not the Chief Instructor of a licenced organisation providing integrated courses.
Usually I don't believe in conspiracies but, when I remember words spoken by people who were employed with the old Department of Aviation/Transport, then were retained when it became CAA and who are still here such as "Only resources rich Integrated Commercial Schools should be permitted to train professional pilots", "There should be not more than four organisations training professional pilots" and a saying I haven't heard any more "If it were up to us the only people who fly in Australia is the military and the airlines), I start to wonder....
QANTAS was a major contributor in the consultation process for the new regulations and we all know that, for them, GA is a pain in the arse! Charters take away business for both QANTAS and JETSTAR and, in any case, operations would be much easier and cheaper if there would be no need to share the airspace, particularly controlled airspace, with GA aircraft incl. private pilots.
It is amazing to see who was invited to contribute to the so called "consultation process". Most GA organisations were not invited and individual GA pilots were invited either; most did not even know the consultation process was on. In any case, when someone found out his or her submission was ignored anyway.
Another interesting factor: Years ago the CAR actually stipulated that an Australian licence will be issued upon presentation of an overseas licence provided the applicant has flown for at least two years with a recognized overseas carriet. That has disappeared. Now the holder of an overseas licence will be issued with an Australian licence upon passing a conversion exam (air legislation) and a small flight test.
It's a long shot or I might be too suspicious; we have this new trade agreement with the save proclaimed gurus of world aviation - the USA. May be in the big scheme of things our politicianbs agree that flight training should be done by the USA and in the USA? I heard (from the USA) that the US Embry-Riddle Aviation University is interested to set up here provided the competition is reduced?
May be the aviation infrastructure is too expensive for our political leaders and, instead of increasing the capacity of the airspace management systems and other infrastructure the might think about getting rid of GA to avoid having to update. As someone higgh up said years ago "GA doesn't pay its way".
Let's see whats going to happen.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
In the search for the greedy in this one we must not forget the unis/tafes etc. who want money. These are the same people who are keen on the sort of drivel which would require a degree to pull beer in a bar.
An example is in the requirement for the ground instructor to have done a course in principles of learning UNLESS they have a teaching qualification. Any logical thought about the current teaching standard would lead to the conclusion that anyone who has had a teaching qualification should be disqualified.
An example is in the requirement for the ground instructor to have done a course in principles of learning UNLESS they have a teaching qualification. Any logical thought about the current teaching standard would lead to the conclusion that anyone who has had a teaching qualification should be disqualified.
Downburst I think that you are taking a very "glass half empty" view of the proposed CASRs.
First of all some corrections...
There are no rights under the Civil Aviation Act, only priveleges granted under the CAR by meeting requirments.
No not at all. There you go again with rights. .
How is this a change? Do you think every town of 5000 people should have a flying school? Is this a good allocation of resources?
The whole philosophy behind these particular changes is to improve the standard of ground & flight training in Australia. No doubt a few marginal operators will be forced out, which I believe is a good thing.
If we believe that the profession of Commercial Pilot is indeed a profession(which we can debate another time), then at least compare the training received by other professions to what CASA is proposing. Even drag in some trade "professions" if you like. Can a doctor, barrister, dentist, physiotherapist, nurse, solicitor, electrician, plumber, teacher, radiologist, police officer, fire officer, surveyor, architect (etc) elect to exercise their right to self study to gain the qualifications to enter these occupations? The answer is of course no. So why should the occupation of Commercial Pilot be any different?
As to the costs. Flight training is cheaper now than it was thirty years ago (1975). Compare the aircraft rates to the average wage prevailling at the time and you will see that this is true. These changes will not make a huge difference to the cost but they could make a difference to the standard.
Your allusion to international trade is relevant. Why would an aspiring CPL holder not save up their dollars then head to a "cheaper" place to obtain their licence, say the US, then return home and do a simple conversion?
First of all some corrections...
You will be deprived of your right to be assessd...
You will be deprived of your right to study on your own account or by E-learning on the Internet
If you are not living in one of the major population centres you will need to pay big money for accommodation during your course.
The whole philosophy behind these particular changes is to improve the standard of ground & flight training in Australia. No doubt a few marginal operators will be forced out, which I believe is a good thing.
If we believe that the profession of Commercial Pilot is indeed a profession(which we can debate another time), then at least compare the training received by other professions to what CASA is proposing. Even drag in some trade "professions" if you like. Can a doctor, barrister, dentist, physiotherapist, nurse, solicitor, electrician, plumber, teacher, radiologist, police officer, fire officer, surveyor, architect (etc) elect to exercise their right to self study to gain the qualifications to enter these occupations? The answer is of course no. So why should the occupation of Commercial Pilot be any different?
As to the costs. Flight training is cheaper now than it was thirty years ago (1975). Compare the aircraft rates to the average wage prevailling at the time and you will see that this is true. These changes will not make a huge difference to the cost but they could make a difference to the standard.
Your allusion to international trade is relevant. Why would an aspiring CPL holder not save up their dollars then head to a "cheaper" place to obtain their licence, say the US, then return home and do a simple conversion?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can a doctor, barrister, dentist, physiotherapist, nurse, solicitor, electrician, plumber, teacher, radiologist, police officer, fire officer, surveyor, architect (etc) elect to exercise their right to self study to gain the qualifications to enter these occupations?
Besides, even if these courses do not permit self-study (I know for the fact that university level study to become a solicitor/barrister can be done by self-study and all you need to do is to be able to pass exams), does that assure quality of outcome? I don't think so. There are hell of a lot of very poor quality professionals. In fact, from observing many professionals, pilots, on average (yes, generalisation!) seem to me to have better attitude and higher level of general competency, possibly because if they mess up massively, they too become a victim of their own mess-up. Call it what you may, self-preservation instinct, shall I say.
Anyway, I do not think introducing what is proposed will enhance safety at all. In fact, as far as I know, not so many accidents and other safety incidents are caused by the lack of technical knowledge. Then, what if they imposed a requirement to be signed off before they can sit a human factors exam, since human factors are the major cause of accidents? I don't think that will help, either. Theory exams are just that, theory exams. Theoretical knowledge is a start, but can people put that into practice? No, I don't think so, especially the "theoretical knowledge" is so shallow. Frankly, I am quite appalled by the human factors exams. They have turned them into a rote learning subject, when it is far from it. To me, human factors is a practical subject (unless you are an academic, of course), in which application is everything (of course, based on sound knowledge, but a lot of it is pretty much a basic common sense).
As these proposals stand, it seems to me to be more of a backside covering and responsibility shifting exercise than an actual serious attempt to improve the safety standard.
Please excuse my rambly writing, I am a walking human factors disaster after severe sleep deprivation (don't worry, I'm not going flying).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Newcastle Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA's New Regulations.
Allow me to answer Icarus 2001 as to his "half glass". Icarus 2001 informs all of us that the Act doen's give rights but privileges.
Right, but to qualify for a privilege is a RIGHT, a citizens' right. The The Civil Aviation Act and a lot of the aviation and other legislation worked out by bureaucrats is drafted in such way as to deprive citizens basically of every right.
Icarus 2001 appears (and I could be wrong) to belong to one of those who supports the bureaucrats and even politicians mentality of "dear citizen, shut up and do what you are told".
Obviously Icarus 2001 has never been at any University. Students cannot be forced to attend lectures, tutorial or an y other scheduled event. They have top pass their assessment items to pass a course. If they have passed enough courses to accumulate the required number of credit points they are issued a degree. If they can pass the assessment items by self study instead of attending lectures - fine.
Icarus 2001 is possibly not aware of ANTA either. The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) has prescribed for many trades and professions certain modules of competence. You can study the modules in a formal course or individually and pass them studying with an RTO (Registered Training Organisation) or you can study it by yourself and be assessed on the modules by an RTO.
Note, after you have been granted the competencies there is NO FURTHER GOVERNMENT EXAM!
Today we have ANTA competencies for commercial pilots. The CPL is now referrred to as "Cert IV in Aviation". However, Aviation will be the ONLY area where one has to be identified as competent in order to be able to sit for the regulator exams.
Icarus 2001 feel the new system will improve standards. Interesting, it is a fact that at least one organisation that will be approved automatically get's grade three flight instructors to teach the theory "the blind leading the blind" and they will be signed out by the Chief Instructor who holds and ATP. Good morning.
Icarus 2001 seems to live in Sydney and Melbourne so he'll be ok and stuff everyone else. May be he lives in Canberra?
Right, but to qualify for a privilege is a RIGHT, a citizens' right. The The Civil Aviation Act and a lot of the aviation and other legislation worked out by bureaucrats is drafted in such way as to deprive citizens basically of every right.
Icarus 2001 appears (and I could be wrong) to belong to one of those who supports the bureaucrats and even politicians mentality of "dear citizen, shut up and do what you are told".
Obviously Icarus 2001 has never been at any University. Students cannot be forced to attend lectures, tutorial or an y other scheduled event. They have top pass their assessment items to pass a course. If they have passed enough courses to accumulate the required number of credit points they are issued a degree. If they can pass the assessment items by self study instead of attending lectures - fine.
Icarus 2001 is possibly not aware of ANTA either. The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) has prescribed for many trades and professions certain modules of competence. You can study the modules in a formal course or individually and pass them studying with an RTO (Registered Training Organisation) or you can study it by yourself and be assessed on the modules by an RTO.
Note, after you have been granted the competencies there is NO FURTHER GOVERNMENT EXAM!
Today we have ANTA competencies for commercial pilots. The CPL is now referrred to as "Cert IV in Aviation". However, Aviation will be the ONLY area where one has to be identified as competent in order to be able to sit for the regulator exams.
Icarus 2001 feel the new system will improve standards. Interesting, it is a fact that at least one organisation that will be approved automatically get's grade three flight instructors to teach the theory "the blind leading the blind" and they will be signed out by the Chief Instructor who holds and ATP. Good morning.
Icarus 2001 seems to live in Sydney and Melbourne so he'll be ok and stuff everyone else. May be he lives in Canberra?
Right, but to qualify for a privilege is a RIGHT, a citizens' right. The The Civil Aviation Act and a lot of the aviation and other legislation worked out by bureaucrats is drafted in such way as to deprive citizens basically of every right.
Since you have chosen to attack me and not my opinion I withdraw. Happy flying.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: messemate way to bondi icebergs
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
This is an interesting thread. I personally don't want to see the dath of any regional or non sausage factory school but there is a burning question that one does have to ask.
Are we proffesionals? hopefully yes - nb. opening myself up for crucifiction.
Well if the answer is yes, then would you like to be operated on by a doctor that has self studied or would you rather see a framed degree from a reputable university on his/her wall (not trying to enter into a uni vs non uni arguement). The answer for me personally is to see a proffesional who is a graduate from a from a reputable organisation.
This is tough because who can decide who is reputable. This sort of decision is normally left to our trusty politicians who can be readilly persuaded by the correct about of funding to belive in, or back any cause, and the only ones cable of funding this would be the large name places (Shutting up now cause I sound like a conspiracy theorist).
Interesting
Are we proffesionals? hopefully yes - nb. opening myself up for crucifiction.
Well if the answer is yes, then would you like to be operated on by a doctor that has self studied or would you rather see a framed degree from a reputable university on his/her wall (not trying to enter into a uni vs non uni arguement). The answer for me personally is to see a proffesional who is a graduate from a from a reputable organisation.
This is tough because who can decide who is reputable. This sort of decision is normally left to our trusty politicians who can be readilly persuaded by the correct about of funding to belive in, or back any cause, and the only ones cable of funding this would be the large name places (Shutting up now cause I sound like a conspiracy theorist).
Interesting
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell...where angels ride harleys
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So going to uni makes one a professional ?
All those long haired hippy art students are professionals now ?
What about TAFE ? does going there make one a professional ?
How about Beauty college ? or maybe Nail school ?
Personally, IMHO, it is not ones level of education, but ones attitude which defines professional or otherwise....
CASA just say that you have to pass their exams.
All those long haired hippy art students are professionals now ?
What about TAFE ? does going there make one a professional ?
How about Beauty college ? or maybe Nail school ?
Personally, IMHO, it is not ones level of education, but ones attitude which defines professional or otherwise....
CASA just say that you have to pass their exams.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: FNQ Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The word professional is regularly abused. When it comes down to it, all the actual word professional means is that you get paid for what you do. That’s it. So yes, being a commercial pilot (and getting paid) is a profession and as such you are a professional as you get paid for doing it.
A garbage truck driver is also a professional as is a doctor or lawyer or pro golfer. Doesn't mean they are any good, just that they get paid to do their job.
Semantics I know (as is the correct spelling of device and advice - most people here are not American...) but if we are going to call ourselves professionals in the sense we are using it, perhaps we can take 10 seconds to get these things right?
I did go to uni and I can tell you that it does not make one more mature, or more professional. In fact I believe uni does the opposite as essentially you are insulated form the woes of everyday life. And as for proving that a person can study, there are very few people who actually do all the work themselves at uni. What it does teach you, is to "network" and use your mates and acquaintances as resources so you don't have to do all the work yourself. However, you still have to do exams by yourself or at least before people text’d and bluetooth’d the answers to each other in the exam, wasn’t around when I did my degree…
This is just my experience and two cents minus GST on uni degrees and professionalism.
Cheers
Jards
Edited to correct mistake as I didn't take the ten seconds advised to check over my own post!
A garbage truck driver is also a professional as is a doctor or lawyer or pro golfer. Doesn't mean they are any good, just that they get paid to do their job.
Semantics I know (as is the correct spelling of device and advice - most people here are not American...) but if we are going to call ourselves professionals in the sense we are using it, perhaps we can take 10 seconds to get these things right?
I did go to uni and I can tell you that it does not make one more mature, or more professional. In fact I believe uni does the opposite as essentially you are insulated form the woes of everyday life. And as for proving that a person can study, there are very few people who actually do all the work themselves at uni. What it does teach you, is to "network" and use your mates and acquaintances as resources so you don't have to do all the work yourself. However, you still have to do exams by yourself or at least before people text’d and bluetooth’d the answers to each other in the exam, wasn’t around when I did my degree…
This is just my experience and two cents minus GST on uni degrees and professionalism.
Cheers
Jards
Edited to correct mistake as I didn't take the ten seconds advised to check over my own post!
