The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

to C&T or not to C&T

Old 13th Aug 2010, 00:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 223
Thumbs down 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.
kimwestt is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 03:21
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not Syderknee
Posts: 1,004
Link or reference? Does this apply to similar size jets?
rmcdonal is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 03:49
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,706
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.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 04:38
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Age: 42
Posts: 367
All VLJ's are now requiring a C & T not just the mustang.

I looked at a Eclipse and was told good luck with the C & T from CASA
bizzybody is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 04:49
  #5 (permalink)  
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,857
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.
the wizard of auz is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 06:10
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,282
Because they will be the new 'Dr Killers'

I wouldn't have a problem with it if the same rules were to apply to the the C310's (as mentioned by Wiz) PA31's etc
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 06:19
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 313
EFATO

Couldn't resist...



Nothing happened
Ando1Bar is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 06:27
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,706
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.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 07:02
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,471
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
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 09:40
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,216
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.
27/09 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 09:48
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,216
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.
27/09 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 09:59
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 852
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.
megle2 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 10:08
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 588
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.

has virtually excluded the Mustang from Charter operations through prohibitive costs.
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.
43Inches is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 11:10
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 852
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.
megle2 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 11:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 588
The new aircraft are never going to make money in charter and the Owner can live with that.
This has been the problem with GA for many years, even when the C310 and PA31 were brand new machines. GA has for a long time been a hobby farm which has capped its own potential more than any over-bearing regulator. If you look where the new aircraft are going its in the well run areas of GA like the many new large budget flying colleges, aeromedical services etc...

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.
What punters are we talking about here?

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 12:11.
43Inches is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 12:21
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 25
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.
wombat_keeper is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 12:24
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
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.
F111 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 12:50
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,383
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.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 13:03
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,706
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???
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2010, 14:03
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,439
Its all about power / extra endorsements for the FOI.
Its not about safety.

Nothing to do with safety.
Well, as a matter of fact...
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!
Capt Fathom is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.