CASA initial grade 3 FIR

[das Uber Soldat]

This 'if you don't have 32,000 hours experience you're a junk instructor thing' is starting to irritate me. After 3 years of it, I've seen just as many experienced GA and Arline people come into the job for the first time and be just as absolutely garbage at it as freshly printed Grade 3's.

Its down to the individual, how much drive and commitment they have to excellence, hand eye coordination to fly the plane bang on the numbers and the desire to learn and further themselves. Just because you flew 15,000 hours in a 747 or even RFDS Kingair doesn't mean you can teach a half decent circuit in the venerable C152. I've seen some shockers from these blokes.

Experience is invaluable, but its not paramount. Some of these kids coming out with new ratings are actually pretty switched on. The skillset required to teach straight and level is, as mentioned, bugger all.

That said I admit , the current standard of instructors is not what it was 5 years ago, but the pilot shortage will do that.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Not saying that low time pilot's can't instruct, but if you are teaching commercial pilots, it would be beneficial to actually have some experience in commercial operations, rather than teaching from a textbook.

300-
Evidently I don't know anything about flight and duty times. Are you saying I was wrong with the given example?
No, I just need to watch typos so that I don't give nitpickers ammo.
CAO 48.1 is what is taught in the CPL syllabus. If people don't understand it they are potentially breaching their limits. This stuff should be covered properly during training. If the company has a dispensation all well and good. I wasn't flaming anyone, just illustrating my point.
Someone needs to find something more solid to rebutt on than a keystroke.

[ReverseFlight]

You may be a good pilot but a bad teacher - the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Back on topic, I never really understood why a FW G3 can qualify as FI on a CPL + NVFR/IR with no experience while a Heli G2 FI must have a minimum of 400 hrs to qualify (no NVFR/IR required).

What's more, it is well known in the industry that heli instructors are unlikely to get instructor jobs unless they have at least 1000 to 1500 hrs - so why did CASA pick 400 hrs ?

[OhForSure]

Anyone done their G3 initial lately? A fair while has passed since this thread was updated and I was hoping that somebody might have some insight into how things are done by these CASA guys (especially the 2 in Sydney). As there are 101 million things to study in a finite period of time, and every testing officer has their own set of favourite areas, any input would be greatly appreciated.

(And yes, I have the ATOM, Day VFR Syllabus, Kermode etc)... there are only so many hours in the day!!!

Cheers in advance guys; and of coarse, PMs are appropriate in this case.

[A37575]

Get some more advanced aerody books. Ask questions of senior instructors.

Just because they are "senior" instructors does not always mean they are the experts. Often the reverse is true. There is a lot of personal opinion around which are presented as facts. Never trust completely all that another pilot tells you when it comes to procedures, engine handling and so on. Check for facts. One thing you must know, however and that is a thorough knowledge of the manufacturer's POH that goes with the aircraft type. This includes the go-around procedure. Many instructors make the error of teaching a generic go-around procedure rather than the correct one from the POH. Pilots have come to grief using a non-standard go-around procedure for the aircraft type.

[OhForSure]

Thanks guys. That's a good start. One thing I do keep hearing is that CASA will test if they can, but sometimes they're booked or just don't have testing officers available on a given day, so a standard ATO is chosen to do the test. Apparently the standards are VASTLY different though...

I've heard of guys being failed for the most absurd reasons, and also heard of half-wits passing!

So it begs the question... why did CASA introduce this new testing system if the standards aren't remotely consistent???

[Tinstaafl]

Who can do tests varies from year to year, and decade to decade. 25 years ago my RPPL & PPL were with the CFI. A year later both NVFR & CPL was with DoA/CAA/CASA/whatever, '87 my CIR was the CFI, in '89 my Gr.3 was with the Dept. again but a little over 18 months later my Gr.1 was a CFI. Numerous CIR renewals & instructor renewals have been Dept or other.

I found no difference in what was expected between Dept. examiners & ATOs. Some seemed a bit easier than others in their manner, others a little more stern - but none of them ever seemed to expect anything other than what the test form required. Sure, each examiner had his or her pet topic or favourite subject but that applied across the board.

About the only difference was my own psychological comfort in that it seemed subjectively less stressful if I knew the examiner (or had previously done an exam with him/her). But when I reflect upon what I was asked to do? It was all much of a muchness w.r.t. the test form.

----------
Later:

I should add that I've always found it easier to do a renewal compared to an initial issue test. Probably an 'I've done this before so I can do it again' sort of thing.

That applied to all my Oz tests and also my UK & USA ATPLs + renewals or equivalents while working in those countries.