to C&T or not to C&T
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to C&T or not to C&T
Anyone (other than the Casa
) shed any light as to why CASA are mandating that Check & Training be put in place for the new Cessna Mustang? Well under the 5700 kg level, this aircraft was designed and built by Cessna to be one of the easiest, single pilot aircraft ever built to fly (and it is)! The requirement for 4 proficiency checks per year for each C&T man, each of a 3 hour duration, plus check rides with CASA, has virtually excluded the Mustang from Charter operations through prohibitive costs. All at the direction of the ""CB Policy Maker". The CASA foi's, well at least one of them, is pleading with the industry "not to shoot the messenger". For a small Charter operation the C&T manual replicates that required for large RPT operations. Completely unrealistic and totally impractical.
Observations, anyone?
Before, that is, the aircraft is returned to Cessna as being economicaly unviable in Oz.
) shed any light as to why CASA are mandating that Check & Training be put in place for the new Cessna Mustang? Well under the 5700 kg level, this aircraft was designed and built by Cessna to be one of the easiest, single pilot aircraft ever built to fly (and it is)! The requirement for 4 proficiency checks per year for each C&T man, each of a 3 hour duration, plus check rides with CASA, has virtually excluded the Mustang from Charter operations through prohibitive costs. All at the direction of the ""CB Policy Maker". The CASA foi's, well at least one of them, is pleading with the industry "not to shoot the messenger". For a small Charter operation the C&T manual replicates that required for large RPT operations. Completely unrealistic and totally impractical.Observations, anyone?
Before, that is, the aircraft is returned to Cessna as being economicaly unviable in Oz.
These VLJs pose some concerns to manufacturers, insurers and rulemakers alike. Any fat-cat can go trade in his Bonanza on one of these things. But at least processes are being put into place to ensure that said fat-cat reaches some minimal standard.
The 5700 kg thing is just typical of arbitrary points so prevalent in aviation. It may not be just CASA looking at the revising requirements regardless of 5700 kg. ICAO perhaps?
It really needs to be a function of the complexity of the operation, when viewed overall. The aeroplane may be dead easy to drive for as long as it all works well, but speed, high level weather, airspace etc. can be quite unforgiving at times, and when all the pretty glass displays go blank and the autopilot goes on strike, how easy will it be for some people then? I for one don't want these fat-cats tooling around with no proper training and checking. Ergo, those that set themselves up to do said training and checking need to reach a bit more than the basic standard needed to fly, say, a Seminole below 10,000 feet on 200nm sectors. This is not to denigrate those that do fly light twins - such flying has its own demands but does NOT prepare one for a depressurization problem at FL370 on a dark and stormy night 500 miles from nowhere.
The 5700 kg thing is just typical of arbitrary points so prevalent in aviation. It may not be just CASA looking at the revising requirements regardless of 5700 kg. ICAO perhaps?
It really needs to be a function of the complexity of the operation, when viewed overall. The aeroplane may be dead easy to drive for as long as it all works well, but speed, high level weather, airspace etc. can be quite unforgiving at times, and when all the pretty glass displays go blank and the autopilot goes on strike, how easy will it be for some people then? I for one don't want these fat-cats tooling around with no proper training and checking. Ergo, those that set themselves up to do said training and checking need to reach a bit more than the basic standard needed to fly, say, a Seminole below 10,000 feet on 200nm sectors. This is not to denigrate those that do fly light twins - such flying has its own demands but does NOT prepare one for a depressurization problem at FL370 on a dark and stormy night 500 miles from nowhere.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would actually prefer to have a problem in the Citation I fly on occasion than the C310 I own. it is a far easier aircraft to fly and handle with a problem than the cabin class twins. I will take an EFATO in the Citation over the 310 on any day. No fancy glass panel in the old gal I get to drive and hand flying isnt all that difficult, even at FL350. The depressurization problem isnt a biggy if your trained for it and certainly doesnt require quarterly checks in my opinion...... but hey, what would I know.
How cool is that. If you type EFATO you get what appears in the brackets automatically.......... tekolijy is an amazing fing.
How cool is that. If you type EFATO you get what appears in the brackets automatically.......... tekolijy is an amazing fing.
Everyone seems to judge the difficulty of flying multi engine aircraft based on EFATO handling. In fact the likelihood of losing an engine between lift-off and blue line on a light twin, or right at V1 on a 'heavy' is really quite remote. If the failure occurs before blue line in the twin, how hard can it be to make the choice to land ahead? If it happens at blue line, how hard can it be to fly that speed and feather an engine? We practice for the unlikely, and become quite proficient at it. What I am banging on about is flight MANAGEMENT of more complex problems which bugsmasher pilots (sorry) may not have training for. Electrical failures, icing, pressurization, high altitude upset etc etc.
Bring on mandatory checking of the training/checkers....and bring on mandatory annual or bi-annual full simulator refresher programs for all who fly the flight levels at 6 miles a minute. Anyone with the brass for a VLJ can afford this. It's patent BS to say that the imposition of some extra mandatory training will destroy the viability of a 3 or 4 million dollar 'toy'. If it's that financially marginal, stay with that old Cessna 310.
Bring on mandatory checking of the training/checkers....and bring on mandatory annual or bi-annual full simulator refresher programs for all who fly the flight levels at 6 miles a minute. Anyone with the brass for a VLJ can afford this. It's patent BS to say that the imposition of some extra mandatory training will destroy the viability of a 3 or 4 million dollar 'toy'. If it's that financially marginal, stay with that old Cessna 310.
What a load of complete drivel!
Joe Bloggs can fly his TBM 850 at FL280 and 320 kts on a PPL, PIFR and a Biennial Flight Review but you need C&T four times a year to pedal a VLJ ???
Someone really thought that through!
Dr
Joe Bloggs can fly his TBM 850 at FL280 and 320 kts on a PPL, PIFR and a Biennial Flight Review but you need C&T four times a year to pedal a VLJ ???
Someone really thought that through!
Dr
I don't think the issue here is some fat-cat getting a VLJ and blasting off in to the sunset the minute the cheque he presented for the puchase has cleared, we are talking about a charter operator, who no doubt will have properly qualified pilots flying the thing, having to meet onerous C & T standards equal to or better than the requirements for an RPT operator who operates equipment over 5700kg.
I've not heard of such requirements on this side if the ditch or anywhere else. It wouild seem that "someone" has decided they know more than the rest of the world including the maufacturer. Now that is a very Australian way to do things.
Before any of you Aussie get upset by that comment, we do it here too, just we're not as good at it as you guys are.
I've not heard of such requirements on this side if the ditch or anywhere else. It wouild seem that "someone" has decided they know more than the rest of the world including the maufacturer. Now that is a very Australian way to do things.
Before any of you Aussie get upset by that comment, we do it here too, just we're not as good at it as you guys are.
One other thing, while I agree that anyone who has the cash to buy one of these can probably afford to pay to C & T, however very often these types of machine are not owned by the charter operator.
When that operator then has to fork out the hourly lease rate at 12 hours per year per pilot plus other CASA check rides, you have to be making serious money or be doing serious hours to make the aircraft pay it's way. Probably simpler and cheaper to use a 30 year old pistion twin instead.
When that operator then has to fork out the hourly lease rate at 12 hours per year per pilot plus other CASA check rides, you have to be making serious money or be doing serious hours to make the aircraft pay it's way. Probably simpler and cheaper to use a 30 year old pistion twin instead.
Have a look at what casa requires for a PC12, same thing, full 217.
1 pilot / 1 aircraft. A nightmare for the Owner.
Its all about power / extra endorsements for the FOI.
Its not about safety.
Nothing to do with safety.
1 pilot / 1 aircraft. A nightmare for the Owner.
Its all about power / extra endorsements for the FOI.
Its not about safety.
Nothing to do with safety.
Airlines have C & T with about 4 checks a year (2 sim and 2 on-line) why should passenger charter be any different (whatever the aircraft size). You are either carrying people for hire or reward or not. I have never understood the difference in the value of a human life between buying a seat (RPT) or renting the whole aircraft (Charter).
As far as private owners are concerned the youtube video of the citation swimming around a river on one engine is proof they need some sort of supervision.
So you are saying that 4 non-revenue flights on this aircraft a year will make it too expensive to operate?
If this is the case it was never competetive anyway.
As far as private owners are concerned the youtube video of the citation swimming around a river on one engine is proof they need some sort of supervision.
has virtually excluded the Mustang from Charter operations through prohibitive costs.
If this is the case it was never competetive anyway.
43 - your correct but thats not getting to the issue.
Its 4 flights for the pilot plus the same for each of the other 217 checkers plus a play pilots by the FOI.
The point is all these new safer aircraft are jumped on by the casa wizards with all their rule interpretations and perfect world requirements.
Meanwhile the old clunkers which don't attract the casa FOI's desire or attention just continue on.
The new aircraft are never going to make money in charter and the Owner can live with that.
The problem is the aircraft gets hamstrung with training, crewing and over attention by casa. Eventually the owners get jack of it and gives charter a miss. The punters are then left with the old 20 - 35 year old aircraft again.
And this is after the frustrations of a 1 or 2 year delay in the issue of the AOC.
Its 4 flights for the pilot plus the same for each of the other 217 checkers plus a play pilots by the FOI.
The point is all these new safer aircraft are jumped on by the casa wizards with all their rule interpretations and perfect world requirements.
Meanwhile the old clunkers which don't attract the casa FOI's desire or attention just continue on.
The new aircraft are never going to make money in charter and the Owner can live with that.
The problem is the aircraft gets hamstrung with training, crewing and over attention by casa. Eventually the owners get jack of it and gives charter a miss. The punters are then left with the old 20 - 35 year old aircraft again.
And this is after the frustrations of a 1 or 2 year delay in the issue of the AOC.
The new aircraft are never going to make money in charter and the Owner can live with that.
Charter companies in GA are generally very poorly managed small operators with the wrong equipment. How many successful bus and taxi companies operate one vehicle, not many because to offer reasonable fares with reduced overheads you need a number for satisfactory income. Aviation is no different, you need a number of aircraft and pilots with constant utilisation to make it work whether its a school, charter or RPT.
In the US they have the jet share programs for private operators and so on.
The problem is the aircraft gets hamstrung with training, crewing and over attention by casa. Eventually the owners get jack of it and gives charter a miss. The punters are then left with the old 20 - 35 year old aircraft again.
Those that can afford a jet can charter them from the established jet operators, there are a number around each major city. Unfortunately a new jet is not going to compete on a cost basis with an old piston aircraft, even if you mandated the same T & C schedule. However most "punters" that can afford regular charters will stipulate turbine only and will pay the premium.
As Mach E Avelli stated earlier once you get over the lack of performance in an engine failure generally if the older aircraft are operated and maintained to the rules they are easier to keep current on.
The jet however is hurtling around in the flight levels with all sorts of other considerations other than engine failure to contend with.
Last edited by 43Inches; 13th Aug 2010 at 11:11.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MACH A EVELLI
I don't like your tone,
Im sure if you had your way you wouldn't have any " fat cats" tooling around
in your happy flight levels regardless of aircraft performance.
You strike me as the type that knows everything about aviation except how to make it to the big time yourself, or even get by on a GA wage without crying to the regulator to make things harder ,dearer and more time consuming for those who effectively feed you.
MEGLE2 is quite correct in saying that you can throw all the official intervention at the operator/ pilot with no guarantee of an improvement in safety. however the FOI , " instructors " and various other white collar thugs are guaranteed their cut.
I don't like your tone,
Im sure if you had your way you wouldn't have any " fat cats" tooling around
in your happy flight levels regardless of aircraft performance.
You strike me as the type that knows everything about aviation except how to make it to the big time yourself, or even get by on a GA wage without crying to the regulator to make things harder ,dearer and more time consuming for those who effectively feed you.
MEGLE2 is quite correct in saying that you can throw all the official intervention at the operator/ pilot with no guarantee of an improvement in safety. however the FOI , " instructors " and various other white collar thugs are guaranteed their cut.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many moons ago the charter company I was working for wanted to set up a check and training system based on CAR 217, but CASA said no. They were more than happy for our pilots to only do their instrument rating, which were done outside of the company using any ATO they could find. This company was operating C310s, PA31s and 3 turboprops.
So it shows the way CASA think at times.
So it shows the way CASA think at times.
If CASA were to legislate that light jets have to go under a CAR 217 program then so will the Cheyenne IV and the Piaggio Avanti as they both fly single pilot as high and fast as any light jet. And if those turboprops are in then so are every similar class turboprop. Just make all IFR charter companies operate under a 217 program.
In reality how many 'small charter operators' are going to have the funds and resources to operate a small jet anyway?
F111's post shows where the real heart of the problem lies, CASA are not consistent in their application of the law. West Coast FOI's say one thing East Coast FOI's say another.
In reality how many 'small charter operators' are going to have the funds and resources to operate a small jet anyway?
F111's post shows where the real heart of the problem lies, CASA are not consistent in their application of the law. West Coast FOI's say one thing East Coast FOI's say another.
Wombat & Forkie, I am quite happy to share the sky with properly trained pilots. I do object to those who want to take softcock options in aviation. Just as I am sure that you are happy to share the roads with competent drivers, but get a tad cross with the idiots out there who (in your view) got their licence off a Weetie packet.
And I am tired of hearing people who play with aeroplanes moan about training costs. Fuel, yes, licensing yes, compliance perhaps, maintenance maybe, but training???
And I am tired of hearing people who play with aeroplanes moan about training costs. Fuel, yes, licensing yes, compliance perhaps, maintenance maybe, but training???
Its all about power / extra endorsements for the FOI.
Its not about safety.
Nothing to do with safety.
Its not about safety.
Nothing to do with safety.
It's all about safety!
I don't want to be sharing the FL's with someone who has no training or experience in the FL's. And nor does ATC!
Just have a read through some of the US incident/accident reports regarding high level piston/turboprop singles. Most ending in fatalities!