NAVEX for BFR??
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say PPLs because it is rare for an active commercial pilot to require a BFR; we're kept busy with IR renewals, proficiency checks and the like, which cover the requirement for a BFR. Because we practice our skills on a daily basis, we are certainly at an advantage in that respect.
I have certainly heard IFR pilots say that navigation is easier IFR than VFR.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL350
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am serious. Sure, PPL-level navigation isn't super-hard, or else very few people would pass. However there no question GPS navigation is much, much easier. How much time and money could be saved during training if GPS navigation was used to radically cut down the navigation syllabus?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey why not just have mandatory autopilots which autoland and do everything except take off. You could cut down flying training to just taking off...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pleeze can forktail and doma and others do something a bit more original than just selectively quote others (and usually out of context to the original point) and add meaninfull input?
Jandakot-Rottnest or Essendon-Avalon could be considered to be navex's so I don't imagine it will be much of a test unless they lay down a minimum length. Shock-horror!
Dr
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes;
Pilot: I guess we'll do a 15 minute NAVEX to Rotto and back.
Flying school owner: My interpretation of a NAVEX is 5 hours in the Boneanza. As its a V35A-TCVHZOT. This will of course include a full aerobatic review. You will appreciate the cost is justified to make you a "safe pilot".
Oh, and CASA always get it right.
Pilot: I guess we'll do a 15 minute NAVEX to Rotto and back.
Flying school owner: My interpretation of a NAVEX is 5 hours in the Boneanza. As its a V35A-TCVHZOT. This will of course include a full aerobatic review. You will appreciate the cost is justified to make you a "safe pilot".
Oh, and CASA always get it right.
You can tell from the profile that I don't post things often, but I've had a gutful of this particular topic.
Okay Frank - here's a get rich quick scheme for you....
You could go out and spend $50K+ on a CPL, then another $12K or so on an instructor rating to gain the required professional qualifications (plus a bit more if you want IFR, ME etc.), then work for a few years as a Grade 3 and 2 on barely enough pay to make ends meet. Then buy a couple of aircraft, and some facilities, pay CASA enough in fees to underwrite a small nation, and go into business as a flying school owner.
Every time some barely current (or completely uncurrent) PPL holder wanders in to jump through the BFR/AFR hoop, you get to fly with them for an hour or two, spend 3 or 4 hours briefing and debriefing, try to work out how to tell him/her that they are not really quite as thoroughly competent as they think, attempt to give them some direction and improve skill/attitude/knowledge somehow, then put your signature to a logbook statement that, in a court of law, will essentially be read as an assessment that said pilot meets the appropriate licensing standards. Dare suggest that they should fly other than the cheapest aircraft available, or that they should do something more than a trip to the training area and some circuits, and you're being unreasonable. Then you can visit Pprune and read how you should be doing all this for somewhere in the region of $100, otherwise you're just out to rip people off!
On the other hand, occasionally you might encounter a pilot who understands that holding a pilot's licence comes with the obligation to maintain a level of competency appropriate to one's activities. These people often build an ongoing relationship with a flying school or instructor, and through flying / chatting / interaction keep current on a regular basis. They sometimes even fly with an instructor more frequently than the law requires, maybe just for a couple of circuits, maybe more. When the dreaded 2 years comes around they accept that the AFR is a regular cost associated with holding a licence, and they approach it as an opportunity for a check up and to learn something.
I am not a flying school owner, but I've been a CFI and a Grade 1 for many years. I will go out of my way to assist the second group - the first group are welcome to take their business elsewhere!
Okay Frank - here's a get rich quick scheme for you....
You could go out and spend $50K+ on a CPL, then another $12K or so on an instructor rating to gain the required professional qualifications (plus a bit more if you want IFR, ME etc.), then work for a few years as a Grade 3 and 2 on barely enough pay to make ends meet. Then buy a couple of aircraft, and some facilities, pay CASA enough in fees to underwrite a small nation, and go into business as a flying school owner.
Every time some barely current (or completely uncurrent) PPL holder wanders in to jump through the BFR/AFR hoop, you get to fly with them for an hour or two, spend 3 or 4 hours briefing and debriefing, try to work out how to tell him/her that they are not really quite as thoroughly competent as they think, attempt to give them some direction and improve skill/attitude/knowledge somehow, then put your signature to a logbook statement that, in a court of law, will essentially be read as an assessment that said pilot meets the appropriate licensing standards. Dare suggest that they should fly other than the cheapest aircraft available, or that they should do something more than a trip to the training area and some circuits, and you're being unreasonable. Then you can visit Pprune and read how you should be doing all this for somewhere in the region of $100, otherwise you're just out to rip people off!
On the other hand, occasionally you might encounter a pilot who understands that holding a pilot's licence comes with the obligation to maintain a level of competency appropriate to one's activities. These people often build an ongoing relationship with a flying school or instructor, and through flying / chatting / interaction keep current on a regular basis. They sometimes even fly with an instructor more frequently than the law requires, maybe just for a couple of circuits, maybe more. When the dreaded 2 years comes around they accept that the AFR is a regular cost associated with holding a licence, and they approach it as an opportunity for a check up and to learn something.
I am not a flying school owner, but I've been a CFI and a Grade 1 for many years. I will go out of my way to assist the second group - the first group are welcome to take their business elsewhere!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth
Age: 41
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jandakot - Rottnest is not a navex. You can see the destination at 500 ft after takeoff!! And what navigational skill is an instructor supposed to assess?
Simply put a 1 hour flight can be a navex, depending on the aircraft type depends on where you can get to.
In the C152 or similar you could go to Pinjarra then Murrayfield for circuits. In a C172 you could go up to Northam for some circuits and back through CTA (that is if they let you in!)
It really comes down to common sense people. Im sure there are those of you that have had a bad experience with a flying school and some are out to get your money but I feel that its a minority of schools out there.
Flying is a privilage not a right and in my experience, the pilots who need the extra work to make the skies safe for us all, are the ones that have the most excuses.
I make no assuptions about any of the people who have posted on this thread but I personally have no problem paying for an IFR renewal each year and an instructor rating renewal every 2 years to keep up to date and current and it costs a lot more than a simple AFR.
Simply put a 1 hour flight can be a navex, depending on the aircraft type depends on where you can get to.
In the C152 or similar you could go to Pinjarra then Murrayfield for circuits. In a C172 you could go up to Northam for some circuits and back through CTA (that is if they let you in!)
It really comes down to common sense people. Im sure there are those of you that have had a bad experience with a flying school and some are out to get your money but I feel that its a minority of schools out there.
Flying is a privilage not a right and in my experience, the pilots who need the extra work to make the skies safe for us all, are the ones that have the most excuses.
I make no assuptions about any of the people who have posted on this thread but I personally have no problem paying for an IFR renewal each year and an instructor rating renewal every 2 years to keep up to date and current and it costs a lot more than a simple AFR.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
occasionally you might encounter a pilot who understands that holding a pilot's licence comes with the obligation to maintain a level of competency appropriate to one's activities.
If a pilot in his normal day to day activity flies a 300nm round trip in a 210, why should he be classed as anything but having an appropriate level of competency?
If he, as one is required to do with a NVFR, hasn't flown at night in the preceeding 90 days, he is required to do so supervised before he is eligible to carry passengers, and if he has not done so in the preceeding two years he would obviously be required to demonstrate that competency before he flew again.
It is easy to gauge the level of competency of a pilot by looking at his log book. So why does big brother need to mandate every bloody thing unless he believes everyone is a brain dead moron.
Unless that mandate is clear enough to make allowances for, and decide on, a criteria that sorts the incompetent from the competent. Good luck on that.
Every instructor or flying school operator I have known since 1965 would see this as a milch cow. A lot of operators insist on 90 day checks before you can fly their on line aircraft anyway.
The concept addresses what problem exactly? Where are the stats that back up the assertion there is a danger to safety that would justify this on any cost benefit basis.
Flying is a privilage not a right
Once you have the level of competency to fly an aeroplane and make operational decisions, you are granted a privelege to do so. It's called a licence.
When you have that privelege you have a right to exercise it.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 26th Sep 2010 at 03:20.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Frank. You have said it all very eloquently. I maintain navigation competence simply by doing it regularly without getting lost. So I don't need this x-country add-on BS and if forced to do it, will be doing 1.5 hours at 45 knots to make the point. But if someone wants to assess whether I can recover from a spin or do a forced landing every coupla years I have no problem with that concept. These are not things I go out and do every day so my money would be spent on useful survival skills.
But map reading skills... yes can do already thank you.
10 years from now they won't even publish paper charts. If you don't have it in your GPS data-base you will be fresh outta luck. In 20 years Big Brother will figure a way to microchip the ignition to the nav data-base and your licence and medical records so anything not kosher the engine won't start.
But map reading skills... yes can do already thank you.
10 years from now they won't even publish paper charts. If you don't have it in your GPS data-base you will be fresh outta luck. In 20 years Big Brother will figure a way to microchip the ignition to the nav data-base and your licence and medical records so anything not kosher the engine won't start.
Every instructor or flying school operator I have known since 1965 would see this as a milch cow.
- Trying to convince the applicant what they needed, and
- Living with the stress of signing off someone barely competent in a specific exercise.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then I'll rephrase that to include "most" instructors looking for hours to get that job with the airlines and "all" flying school operators.
Once again, what is the factual problem that this concept is the solution to?
Once again, what is the factual problem that this concept is the solution to?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth
Age: 41
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
I'm not going to get into a slugging match with you as there seems little point. However having a pilot licence, just like any licence IS a privelege granted to you. Yes you are correct have the "right" to exercise the "privelege" of your licence but be fully aware that that may be taken away from you by CASA if they deem you unfit to hold the licence or your medical lapses.
On any flight test form you will see a box that asks if the candidate is aware of the "priveleges and limitations" that the testing officer will grant you.
You are welcome to your beliefs but dont critisise others who dont share them.
Safe landings mate
Muz
I'm not going to get into a slugging match with you as there seems little point. However having a pilot licence, just like any licence IS a privelege granted to you. Yes you are correct have the "right" to exercise the "privelege" of your licence but be fully aware that that may be taken away from you by CASA if they deem you unfit to hold the licence or your medical lapses.
On any flight test form you will see a box that asks if the candidate is aware of the "priveleges and limitations" that the testing officer will grant you.
You are welcome to your beliefs but dont critisise others who dont share them.
Safe landings mate
Muz
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As is the privelege granted to a surgeon.
But the point I was attempting to make is, one doesn't need to have this reaffirmed every time that surgeon wishes to operate on a patient. He is free to exercise that right because he has already demonstrated his competency and decision making abilities. His ongoing sabbaticals "expand" his "ongoing" practicing skills, but they don't force him to go back to medical school and learn basic sterilising skills.
In an industry cursed by it's own apathy, I can't see any benefits that will come from this concept, except the prior mentioned pay rise for some.
If some within CASA get a personal set on you, they can, and do, "deem" you unfit. I can quote dozens of pilots who have suffered under this opressive system. They are guilty until they can prove their innocence. Strict liability removes the burden of proof from CASA.
More prescriptive regulation means more costs, which leads to less pilots.
I've had just as many take off's as landings, so I'm only an average pilot. But I do my best to be safe.
But the point I was attempting to make is, one doesn't need to have this reaffirmed every time that surgeon wishes to operate on a patient. He is free to exercise that right because he has already demonstrated his competency and decision making abilities. His ongoing sabbaticals "expand" his "ongoing" practicing skills, but they don't force him to go back to medical school and learn basic sterilising skills.
In an industry cursed by it's own apathy, I can't see any benefits that will come from this concept, except the prior mentioned pay rise for some.
be fully aware that that may be taken away from you by CASA if they deem you unfit to hold the licence
More prescriptive regulation means more costs, which leads to less pilots.
I've had just as many take off's as landings, so I'm only an average pilot. But I do my best to be safe.
The problem with AFR's is one model fits all according to the regs.
Common sense has to come into play somewhere. If you are a PPL with plenty of hours and years of experiance behind you and remain current (you might even own an aircraft or two) why would you need or have to do a Navex or anything like an hour and a half flight when to any instructor their flying proficiency is obvious in the first 10 minutes.
Someone who fly's rarely however would need a good workout to make sure they are still up to speed.
You can't "regulate" experiance,knowledge or skill nor can they be obtained by merely passing exams/ratings/reviews etc. These can only be gained by being out there doing it, regularly over many years.
Problem is in aviation generally it is the least experianced teaching the no experianced especially at these sausage factories.
Look at any other industry. You don't have newly qualified tradies,doctors,train drivers teaching the learners like in aviation.
While I'm getting off topic here,I make the point there are many PPL's with more experiance and better pilots to boot than many instructors.
Common sense has to come into play somewhere. If you are a PPL with plenty of hours and years of experiance behind you and remain current (you might even own an aircraft or two) why would you need or have to do a Navex or anything like an hour and a half flight when to any instructor their flying proficiency is obvious in the first 10 minutes.
Someone who fly's rarely however would need a good workout to make sure they are still up to speed.
You can't "regulate" experiance,knowledge or skill nor can they be obtained by merely passing exams/ratings/reviews etc. These can only be gained by being out there doing it, regularly over many years.
Problem is in aviation generally it is the least experianced teaching the no experianced especially at these sausage factories.
Look at any other industry. You don't have newly qualified tradies,doctors,train drivers teaching the learners like in aviation.
While I'm getting off topic here,I make the point there are many PPL's with more experiance and better pilots to boot than many instructors.
This thread reminds me of a survey done on car drivers. Almost everyone thought they were above average. Whats the harm in doing an AFR really.
My instructor rating lapsed recently, I like to think I am very current in ATC procedures, yet I happily went up and did my AFR to get the stamp in the book which makes me legal. I answered all the questions I was asked and even did a bit of study.
Once every 2 years is hardly busting the bank budget. I sort of knew it was coming 2 years ago when I did my instructor rating renewel knowing it was 50/50 whether I would renew it again.
My instructor rating lapsed recently, I like to think I am very current in ATC procedures, yet I happily went up and did my AFR to get the stamp in the book which makes me legal. I answered all the questions I was asked and even did a bit of study.
Once every 2 years is hardly busting the bank budget. I sort of knew it was coming 2 years ago when I did my instructor rating renewel knowing it was 50/50 whether I would renew it again.
