CASA lowering the standard for CPL training... AGAIN!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA lowering the standard for CPL training... AGAIN!!!
From the CASA newsletter from BB:
Can someone explain to me the "Commercial Pilot" skills that you have after 250 hours?
...and how relevant that is for your unsuspecting, premium-paying victims?
... and the consequences when these (even more) clueless fools are set loose upon the industry?
This at a time when BB and his drones are giving lip service to the notion that Flight Training standards need to be lifted and G3 Flight Instructor candidates will be tested by CASA
Chief Engineer I know is retiring this year and e said to me today "Thank god... because I have put up with it (CASA) for 40 years and it's only getting WORSE"
CASA has responded to aviation industry concerns about an inconsistency in the experience requirements for chief flying instructors. At issue was the number of hours a flying instructor needed to qualify as a chief flying instructor to oversee commercial pilot licence training. This had been set at 500 hours of commercial experience other than flying training, but has now been amended to 250 hours. It brings the requirement into line with both instrument flight rules and instructor rating training, which require 250 hours. The previous requirement had caused a number of flying schools difficulties and representations were made to CASA asking for a review.
The amendment to the hours of experience is an interim move to assist the flying training industry while CASA carries out a full review of chief flying instructor requirements.(my bolding)
The amendment to the hours of experience is an interim move to assist the flying training industry while CASA carries out a full review of chief flying instructor requirements.(my bolding)
...and how relevant that is for your unsuspecting, premium-paying victims?
... and the consequences when these (even more) clueless fools are set loose upon the industry?
This at a time when BB and his drones are giving lip service to the notion that Flight Training standards need to be lifted and G3 Flight Instructor candidates will be tested by CASA
Chief Engineer I know is retiring this year and e said to me today "Thank god... because I have put up with it (CASA) for 40 years and it's only getting WORSE"
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you are correct. I was doing PPL training more than 15 years ago and I don't think it was easier or equal to todays CPL.
Express your disappointment with a change in standards but let's not be silly stating things like "A PPL 15 years ago was more difficult than a CPL".
Regardless, wasn't the post about CFI's?
You do realise that student's have choice? If they don't like the qual's when they are looking to learn they can move on. If they don't like the "CFI" after a lesson they can move on.
Freedom of choice. Did you just turn up to the first place with "Flying Lesson's here" in the window? I'm guessing you did a bit of looking around / asking around first.
Express your disappointment with a change in standards but let's not be silly stating things like "A PPL 15 years ago was more difficult than a CPL".
Regardless, wasn't the post about CFI's?
You do realise that student's have choice? If they don't like the qual's when they are looking to learn they can move on. If they don't like the "CFI" after a lesson they can move on.
Freedom of choice. Did you just turn up to the first place with "Flying Lesson's here" in the window? I'm guessing you did a bit of looking around / asking around first.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
El Perro
You are correct, this is about the level of knowledge and leadership at the top of the organisation.
However, I would suggest that your notion of a student's insight into the issues is flawed. I know that I asked around and got all the advice I could get before I commenced training - but with some 17 years experience (has it really been that long?) and hindsight I can see things differently.
At a time when experienced members of the industry are ALREADY lamenting the decline in graduate standards and B1 himself has identified instuctor standards as a contributing factor, is this REALLY anything but a move to placate the flying training industry?
The headline in Bruce's Bulletin says it all: "A win for the flying training industry"
However, I would suggest that your notion of a student's insight into the issues is flawed. I know that I asked around and got all the advice I could get before I commenced training - but with some 17 years experience (has it really been that long?) and hindsight I can see things differently.
At a time when experienced members of the industry are ALREADY lamenting the decline in graduate standards and B1 himself has identified instuctor standards as a contributing factor, is this REALLY anything but a move to placate the flying training industry?
The headline in Bruce's Bulletin says it all: "A win for the flying training industry"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not necessarily a bad thing?
I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad sign! 
Hear me out!
For once, a lot of very experienced CFI's I have encountered have turned out to be grumpy old f
ts who weren't happy with their place in the world and let everyone around them know! Not a lot your average student could benefit from such bottled up experience..
Secondly, this is obviously a result of schools not finding senior instructors with enough commercial experience to move into CFI positions. Good for pilots, as it means the shortage is continueing, and salaries will continue to rise!
Finally, this may be an opportunity for motivated pilots who want to move up in the training industry, to make their mark, and may bring some new enthusiasm into schools whose alternative otherwise would have been the grumpy sort. Not a bad thing. How much will the grumpy old fella who's tired of the industry care about operation manuals, syllabi and all the rest of the tedious tasks that make a training school stand out?
Ah yes, I hear you say, but the "lost" experience. Well, training organisations are there to teach syllabi, right? I've had experienced and not so experienced instrument and other teachers, and I must say the good teachers got me there, not the war stories
Ducking for cover now
Hear me out!For once, a lot of very experienced CFI's I have encountered have turned out to be grumpy old f
ts who weren't happy with their place in the world and let everyone around them know! Not a lot your average student could benefit from such bottled up experience..Secondly, this is obviously a result of schools not finding senior instructors with enough commercial experience to move into CFI positions. Good for pilots, as it means the shortage is continueing, and salaries will continue to rise!
Finally, this may be an opportunity for motivated pilots who want to move up in the training industry, to make their mark, and may bring some new enthusiasm into schools whose alternative otherwise would have been the grumpy sort. Not a bad thing. How much will the grumpy old fella who's tired of the industry care about operation manuals, syllabi and all the rest of the tedious tasks that make a training school stand out?
Ah yes, I hear you say, but the "lost" experience. Well, training organisations are there to teach syllabi, right? I've had experienced and not so experienced instrument and other teachers, and I must say the good teachers got me there, not the war stories
Ducking for cover now
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plankbender
You are right about the value of excellent instructors and I think we all remember our favourite teachers from School, too.
There is a difference between School and Flight training, especially Commercial flight training - although both are taught to a syllabus, CPL training is VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
I can't remember quadratic equations and the products of a reaction between a metal and a base are lost in the mists of time.
Rules for descent below MSA, the workings of a density controller, the paperwork required for a flight and the most efficient way of planning etc are things I need to do my job and to STAY ALIVE.
The Syllabus needs to be taught but it needs to be put into a real-world context. On another thread someone made the point that the CFI or standards manager at a school should have extensive experience at the level they are teaching to - and if a school claims to teach Airline pilots, then the experience level at the top should be relevant.
When I left Commercial school I could pole it about OK but I had crap checklist skills, crap flight planning skills, and after an instructor rating at the same school I had crap instructor notes that meant my first students had a crap instructor, too.
Fortunately I left instructing for many years before coming back to it with a bit more of a clue.
It is bad enough that commercial students get lumbered with a seat-warming hour-counting skypig junior Grade 3 - Now we lower the bar for the bloke who keeps the seat-warmers in line.
The great W.R. Evans once said to me (and has said it many times to many others) "Most students learn to fly..... despite their instructors."
Now more true than ever...
You are right about the value of excellent instructors and I think we all remember our favourite teachers from School, too.
There is a difference between School and Flight training, especially Commercial flight training - although both are taught to a syllabus, CPL training is VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
I can't remember quadratic equations and the products of a reaction between a metal and a base are lost in the mists of time.
Rules for descent below MSA, the workings of a density controller, the paperwork required for a flight and the most efficient way of planning etc are things I need to do my job and to STAY ALIVE.
The Syllabus needs to be taught but it needs to be put into a real-world context. On another thread someone made the point that the CFI or standards manager at a school should have extensive experience at the level they are teaching to - and if a school claims to teach Airline pilots, then the experience level at the top should be relevant.
When I left Commercial school I could pole it about OK but I had crap checklist skills, crap flight planning skills, and after an instructor rating at the same school I had crap instructor notes that meant my first students had a crap instructor, too.
Fortunately I left instructing for many years before coming back to it with a bit more of a clue.
It is bad enough that commercial students get lumbered with a seat-warming hour-counting skypig junior Grade 3 - Now we lower the bar for the bloke who keeps the seat-warmers in line.
The great W.R. Evans once said to me (and has said it many times to many others) "Most students learn to fly..... despite their instructors."
Now more true than ever...
I agree that CFIs etc. should have extensive commercial experience but I think you are being harsh on Grade 3s.
The only grade three i have ever flown with has been one of the better instructors, he was thorough, had good teaching skills and was good fun.
Admittedly I am only doing Pre-GFPT stuff though!
The only grade three i have ever flown with has been one of the better instructors, he was thorough, had good teaching skills and was good fun.
Admittedly I am only doing Pre-GFPT stuff though!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX wrote:
When I did my CPL exams in 1991, there were 6 exams on individual subjects, then a final exam.
I see there is 7 exams still now, but all on individual subjects...
15 years ago there was probably one single exam for CPL. How is the standard lower now Mr. Cogwheel?
I see there is 7 exams still now, but all on individual subjects...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's completely missing the point but...
... a theory pass,whether in one exam or seven, does not reflect the quality of the pilot produced.
When I did the CPL in 1994 it was one exam, I might add
When I was approved as a CFI by CASA they emphasised that the CFI of a CPL school is responsible for the standards etc etc etc and that there will be no such thing as a partial pass wah wah wah and then they beat it into me with a big stick, just to make sur the message got through.
Might suggest BB goes to the district office for an attitude adjustment, or I might just crack a rum & coke and forget about it... 
When I did the CPL in 1994 it was one exam, I might add
When I was approved as a CFI by CASA they emphasised that the CFI of a CPL school is responsible for the standards etc etc etc and that there will be no such thing as a partial pass wah wah wah and then they beat it into me with a big stick, just to make sur the message got through.
Might suggest BB goes to the district office for an attitude adjustment, or I might just crack a rum & coke and forget about it...
Moderator
The 500 hours commercial experience requirement for CFI of a commercial school was only brought in as a schedule to the AOC after CAO 80 went by the wayside, about 7 years ago? Long after I became one anyway. The minimum requirements were to my mind arbitrary numbers (I certainly don't recall "industry" being consulted) and had they not allowed "grandfather" rights to existing CFIs, a lot of us would have had to be demoted, or, if we felt so inclined, go poling round the bungle bungles or something for a coupla years to build "coomercial not instructing" hours to get our jobs back. Clearly ridiculous.
In my experience, of the CFIs I worked for in my years before becoming one myself, the best ones who upheld the highest standards were the career instructors who had worked their way steadily up the instructing ladder, some of the worst were the ones with the "war stories" which were often about all the times they'd fooled CASA and/or got away with doing things that were illegal/stupid/unsafe, thus setting an appalling example to their staff and students.
The lowering of standards is IMHO the fact that most of the big schools can do all thier testing "in house" and with each generation, the common denominator gets lower and lower.
In my experience, of the CFIs I worked for in my years before becoming one myself, the best ones who upheld the highest standards were the career instructors who had worked their way steadily up the instructing ladder, some of the worst were the ones with the "war stories" which were often about all the times they'd fooled CASA and/or got away with doing things that were illegal/stupid/unsafe, thus setting an appalling example to their staff and students.
The lowering of standards is IMHO the fact that most of the big schools can do all thier testing "in house" and with each generation, the common denominator gets lower and lower.
Mr XXX....
My comment relates to the standard of the product produced then and now, and not in relation to the number of exams.
If you have seen the product coming out of the training sausage machine over the past 30 years you would know in general that the standard now is nowhere near as high (good) as it was back then.
The role of the CFI is critical to the standard of the product of the school. One thing that did occur some years back was that CFI's would fly with students and instructors on a regular basis - not to check the student, but to check that the instructor was delivering the goods. That does not occur much now, due costs I expect, and the result is obvious. The role of the CFI is also to standardise the delivery of instruction within the school. Unless there is frequent checks of the students and appropriate de-briefing of the instructors on trends etc., then how is this important function maintained?
Airmanship is one thing that has almost been lost.
During the many changes in Airspace a few years back the question was asked as to how is this taught if it is not examined (it was not in any exam at the time). CASA's response was that it was the schools responsibility and the CFI would ensure that it was so. However CASA did not take responsibility for the standardisation of the CFIs - and still does not, on a national basis. Again cost I suspect??
During the 90's there was an unofficial survey on the relationship between the number of accidents/incidents and the schools that the pilot learnt at. You would be surprised how often the same school or aerodrome came up! That might be a function of the CFI or perhaps the local CASA FOIs... but nobody wants to go down that path for some strange reason
Instructing is an important role in aviation and I have no wish to see the standards fall, but when you have something to compare todays standards with, I know I am not alone in saying it is nowhere near as good as it was 15 or so years back. There are always exceptions of course and it is up to the student to find those schools and give them the business.
I would like to see experienced or retired pilots being involved in training, both to pass on experience and to help raise the standards. To do this, CASA would have to revisit some of the existing rules such as instruction on a PPL (or without a Class 1 medical) to approved persons etc. There is a valuable pool of pilots out there, but we don't seem to want to use them, again for some strange reason
And I don't agree with the change announced by CASA. Without a significant amount of supervision (by CASA) CFIs with limited experience just don't know what they don't know. In such schools, outside testing or testing by CASA should be mandated until such time as the school shows it is delivering the goods at the appropriate standard. Hours requirements for both Gr3 and CFIs should be higher, now lower.
My comment relates to the standard of the product produced then and now, and not in relation to the number of exams.
If you have seen the product coming out of the training sausage machine over the past 30 years you would know in general that the standard now is nowhere near as high (good) as it was back then.
The role of the CFI is critical to the standard of the product of the school. One thing that did occur some years back was that CFI's would fly with students and instructors on a regular basis - not to check the student, but to check that the instructor was delivering the goods. That does not occur much now, due costs I expect, and the result is obvious. The role of the CFI is also to standardise the delivery of instruction within the school. Unless there is frequent checks of the students and appropriate de-briefing of the instructors on trends etc., then how is this important function maintained?
Airmanship is one thing that has almost been lost.
During the many changes in Airspace a few years back the question was asked as to how is this taught if it is not examined (it was not in any exam at the time). CASA's response was that it was the schools responsibility and the CFI would ensure that it was so. However CASA did not take responsibility for the standardisation of the CFIs - and still does not, on a national basis. Again cost I suspect??
During the 90's there was an unofficial survey on the relationship between the number of accidents/incidents and the schools that the pilot learnt at. You would be surprised how often the same school or aerodrome came up! That might be a function of the CFI or perhaps the local CASA FOIs... but nobody wants to go down that path for some strange reason
Instructing is an important role in aviation and I have no wish to see the standards fall, but when you have something to compare todays standards with, I know I am not alone in saying it is nowhere near as good as it was 15 or so years back. There are always exceptions of course and it is up to the student to find those schools and give them the business.
I would like to see experienced or retired pilots being involved in training, both to pass on experience and to help raise the standards. To do this, CASA would have to revisit some of the existing rules such as instruction on a PPL (or without a Class 1 medical) to approved persons etc. There is a valuable pool of pilots out there, but we don't seem to want to use them, again for some strange reason
And I don't agree with the change announced by CASA. Without a significant amount of supervision (by CASA) CFIs with limited experience just don't know what they don't know. In such schools, outside testing or testing by CASA should be mandated until such time as the school shows it is delivering the goods at the appropriate standard. Hours requirements for both Gr3 and CFIs should be higher, now lower.
