NAVEX for BFR??
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
NAVEX for BFR??
Amended CAAP 5.81-1(1) - Flight Crew Licensing Flight Review has been posted onto the CASA Website.
Civil Aviation Regulations require a pilot to successfully complete a flight review in the 2 years prior to conducting a flight. A flight review provides an opportunity for pilots to refresh their skills and knowledge to maintain a level of proficiency appropriate to the level of licence they hold. CAAP 5.81-1(1) has been amended to reflect CASA's recommendation to include of a navigation exercise as part of a flight review as a result of investigation of recent accidents and incidents by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).
Civil Aviation Regulations require a pilot to successfully complete a flight review in the 2 years prior to conducting a flight. A flight review provides an opportunity for pilots to refresh their skills and knowledge to maintain a level of proficiency appropriate to the level of licence they hold. CAAP 5.81-1(1) has been amended to reflect CASA's recommendation to include of a navigation exercise as part of a flight review as a result of investigation of recent accidents and incidents by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Good to see, more is better in the case. It ought to be a check of ones complete abilities to aviate & that includes navigating, a huge part of flying. Any fool can fly the machine (I'm a good Eg of that!
) it's whether they can do it safely in an environment that many others operate, VFR & IFR.
So the more in depth checking the better I reckon.
Wmk2
) it's whether they can do it safely in an environment that many others operate, VFR & IFR.So the more in depth checking the better I reckon.
Wmk2
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 I would assume, the NAVEX would be additional to, and not in lieu of the minimum 1 hour BFR. I can see some cashing in on this especially as few would even remember how to do a 1;60 since the advent of GPS.
Another "hoop" to jump through and some more cash to part with.
Another "hoop" to jump through and some more cash to part with.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere that looks a lot better when I close my eyes
Age: 37
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A long overdue amendment
Frank,
sorry but I have to disagree with your apparent discontent with the amended CAAP. I don't wish to hijack the thread or make any unjust assumptions, but there are a few reasons I feel this amendment is long overdue. I don't know your licence type or level of experience, so please accept my apologies if I say anything that offends, this is not my intention.
I have worked at a couple of different flying schools. First one was as a student working the desk, second one was a recreational (GA) school attached to the charter company I flew for. Something I noticed on a regular basis (but not 100% of the time, mind) was complaints from (generally) PPL pilots about the need for a navigation component to the BFR. Oft-uttered phrases were along the lines of 'but I only fly aerobatics', 'I only visit the training area', 'I haven't done a nav in 6 years' and so on.
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 don't wish to make this a professional vs. recreational debate, but I feel that if commercial pilots are required to demonstrate proficiency in all aspects of our flying, including things rarely practiced (emergencies, full NDB/VOR approaches, unusual manoeuvring etc) on a six-monthly basis, as well as the nav techniques that are our bread and butter, then other pilots should be held maybe not to the same standards of accuracy but definitely to the same broad areas of proficiency.
As pilots of all ilks we can surely agree that the one certainty in aviation is that nothing is ever certain. Who could ever say with 100% certainty that their navigation skills will not be called into play at some point in the 2 years between BFRs. I will acknowledge that GPS has made things easier, but in the 18 months I spent recently in the NT, I had the 'reliable' GPS fail on me five times, twice in close proximity to the ground and in poor vis in the vicinity of an active cyclone (later it was found to be that a well meaning but not particularly bright spanner had painted over the GPS dome antenna that was clearly marked 'do not paint', but I didn't know that at the time).
My ultimate point here is that it is frankly ludicrous that we have gone so long in this country not testing parts of a pilot's overall skillset simply based on his/her assurances that such skills are not part of their normal operations, and I'm pleased to see this amendment made (unfortunately still only a recommendation, but any Instructor worth their salt would read it as mandatory).
Finally, I acknowledge that certain less scrupulous individuals will no doubt take advantage of the change in the rules to make some extra nosh - as has always been the case in our industry, has it not?
Apologies for the long-winded reply. I'd be interested to know your further thoughts, if any.
Cheers
Aero
sorry but I have to disagree with your apparent discontent with the amended CAAP. I don't wish to hijack the thread or make any unjust assumptions, but there are a few reasons I feel this amendment is long overdue. I don't know your licence type or level of experience, so please accept my apologies if I say anything that offends, this is not my intention.
I have worked at a couple of different flying schools. First one was as a student working the desk, second one was a recreational (GA) school attached to the charter company I flew for. Something I noticed on a regular basis (but not 100% of the time, mind) was complaints from (generally) PPL pilots about the need for a navigation component to the BFR. Oft-uttered phrases were along the lines of 'but I only fly aerobatics', 'I only visit the training area', 'I haven't done a nav in 6 years' and so on.
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 don't wish to make this a professional vs. recreational debate, but I feel that if commercial pilots are required to demonstrate proficiency in all aspects of our flying, including things rarely practiced (emergencies, full NDB/VOR approaches, unusual manoeuvring etc) on a six-monthly basis, as well as the nav techniques that are our bread and butter, then other pilots should be held maybe not to the same standards of accuracy but definitely to the same broad areas of proficiency.
As pilots of all ilks we can surely agree that the one certainty in aviation is that nothing is ever certain. Who could ever say with 100% certainty that their navigation skills will not be called into play at some point in the 2 years between BFRs. I will acknowledge that GPS has made things easier, but in the 18 months I spent recently in the NT, I had the 'reliable' GPS fail on me five times, twice in close proximity to the ground and in poor vis in the vicinity of an active cyclone (later it was found to be that a well meaning but not particularly bright spanner had painted over the GPS dome antenna that was clearly marked 'do not paint', but I didn't know that at the time).
My ultimate point here is that it is frankly ludicrous that we have gone so long in this country not testing parts of a pilot's overall skillset simply based on his/her assurances that such skills are not part of their normal operations, and I'm pleased to see this amendment made (unfortunately still only a recommendation, but any Instructor worth their salt would read it as mandatory).
Finally, I acknowledge that certain less scrupulous individuals will no doubt take advantage of the change in the rules to make some extra nosh - as has always been the case in our industry, has it not?
Apologies for the long-winded reply. I'd be interested to know your further thoughts, if any.
Cheers
Aero
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not offer 2 options in this country:
1) A traditional PPL, complete with WW2-style navigation. Those that enjoy using horribly obsolete methods and get a thrill out of decoding NOTAMS designed for teletype machines will love it.
2) A 'GPS Navigation' PPL. GPS navigation is encouraged with the condition that 2 GPSs are carried at all times (one can be a cheap car unit with a different power supply). Students are taught how to land the plane safely if both GPSs fail at once. A single GPS failing is grounds for aborting the flight.
1) A traditional PPL, complete with WW2-style navigation. Those that enjoy using horribly obsolete methods and get a thrill out of decoding NOTAMS designed for teletype machines will love it.
2) A 'GPS Navigation' PPL. GPS navigation is encouraged with the condition that 2 GPSs are carried at all times (one can be a cheap car unit with a different power supply). Students are taught how to land the plane safely if both GPSs fail at once. A single GPS failing is grounds for aborting the flight.
CAAP 5.81-1(1) has been amended to reflect CASA's recommendation to include of a navigation exercise as part of a flight review as a result of investigation of recent accidents and incidents by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).
I don't know the details but I suspect that the incidents that have prompted this amemdment occurred well away from the pilots home base - in an area with which they were not familiar. How many people actually get lost in their home patch?
So how do you fix this? Have pilots fly 1 hr away from home to another aerodrome, give them a diversion to somewhere else, and then return to home base? In a C172/PA28 they would never be more than 100 nm from home. Chances are they can look out the window and think, "Oh, there is Aunt Nancy's place over there"!
I recall when validating my NZ CPL on a test with a DCA examiner, out near Dalby, on top of scattered cloud, I was asked, "Show me on the map where we are".
Me: "There"!
Examiner: "How do you know that"?
Me: "Cause that's where we are"!
Examiner: "If we were 5 nm left of track (which we weren't), what correction would you make to have us arrive over the top of your destination"?
Me: "Ohhh, you want me to do that 1:60 thing. Why didn't you just say so"?
Examiner: "Yes, you Kiwi pilots can't navigate for nuts"!
Never did tell the prick that I had 500+ hrs of flying around that area, and he never looked far enough back in my log book to see that I learnt to fly at Archerfield.
I am not knocking the need for some to do a navex, but I don't see the need to mandate. Should be worked out with the instructor doing the BFR, as to what is required.
What's next? Mandated flight into a control zone? That's gonna make for an expensive BFR for pilots living in somewhere like Longreach!
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 22nd Sep 2010 at 06:28.
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
I can see this becoming a milch cow without some curbs put on the concept. I can't see any flying schools objecting to the idea.
If one has done 80 hours cross country's in the preceeding 2 years, of which 2 hours only were circuit time, but the last trip being within 90 days, I would be more concerned with the piloit's ability to land his aeroplane properly than to get from point A to point B.
This may seem a frivolous statement, but most all my time is cross country away from the G curve in a taildragger at non towered airports. Usually at paddock with nobody around if I go tits up.
Probably 25 total landings in that time, and about 3 of them in worrying crosswinds.
Does that make me a competent tail dragger pilot?
I thought it was a biannial "FLIGHT" review. People like me would be better pilots if we were made to do circuits.
Also what of a new endorsement which once qualified as A BFR. Should someone doing a CSU retractable aerobatic floatplane endorsement have to go on a navex?
Just more hoops and your cash to pay out if the boss isn't up to paying.
If one has done 80 hours cross country's in the preceeding 2 years, of which 2 hours only were circuit time, but the last trip being within 90 days, I would be more concerned with the piloit's ability to land his aeroplane properly than to get from point A to point B.
This may seem a frivolous statement, but most all my time is cross country away from the G curve in a taildragger at non towered airports. Usually at paddock with nobody around if I go tits up.
Probably 25 total landings in that time, and about 3 of them in worrying crosswinds.
Does that make me a competent tail dragger pilot?
I thought it was a biannial "FLIGHT" review. People like me would be better pilots if we were made to do circuits.
Also what of a new endorsement which once qualified as A BFR. Should someone doing a CSU retractable aerobatic floatplane endorsement have to go on a navex?
Just more hoops and your cash to pay out if the boss isn't up to paying.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL350
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but most all my time is cross country
People like me would be better pilots if we were made to do circuits.
Also what of a new endorsement which once qualified as A BFR. Should someone doing a CSU retractable aerobatic floatplane endorsement have to go on a navex?
For a change I think CASA have done the right thing here...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every AFR i conducted included a short navex. Gee its NOT a test but a review. Upper airwork was done enroute. FWIW the candidate ALWAYS had the sticky strip put into his log book at the end of the session.
If they goof up......show 'em where they have gone wrong. You didn't have to "hang him up there" in an aircraft, debriefing always helped to fix deficiencies.
If they goof up......show 'em where they have gone wrong. You didn't have to "hang him up there" in an aircraft, debriefing always helped to fix deficiencies.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely your kidding? How about instead grounding the pilot if he/she has forgotten how to read a map. It's not brain surgery...
Most of the arguments against relying on the GPS are "What if the GPS fails"? Answer: Mandate that if you are relying on a GPS, you must carry 2 of them. It's very unlikely that both fail at once, and if they do, it isn't going to kill you.
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
Also what of a new endorsement which once qualified as A BFR. Should someone doing a CSU retractable aerobatic floatplane endorsement have to go on a navex? Yes. If you hold a PPL part of the privileges are being allowed to fly cross country if you desire so you should have to demonstrate competancy in navigation.
Lost your credibility there old fruit.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's very unlikely that both fail at once, and if they do, it isn't going to kill you
Who can conduct the AFR?
I thought that the old standard was that the review had to be conducted by a Gde 1 instructor (or approved Gde 2) under the AOC of a flight school.
Reading the new CAAP, it seems that any Gde 1 Instructor can now conduct the review. Is this right?
Reading the new CAAP, it seems that any Gde 1 Instructor can now conduct the review. Is this right?
Superdimon you could carry 10 GPS receivers and then have a signal input loss. It does happen.
This new CASA requirement is a typical knee-jerk that won't stop those who can't plan properly or navigate from straying into controlled airspace etc for the very reasons given in other posts above. Most of us will do the BFR navex close to home where we don't need a chart anyway, and have probably memorised all the local frequencies and CTA steps etc. We will go through the motions to humour the examiner. It won't prove much but will give CASA a warm fuzzy feeling.
This new CASA requirement is a typical knee-jerk that won't stop those who can't plan properly or navigate from straying into controlled airspace etc for the very reasons given in other posts above. Most of us will do the BFR navex close to home where we don't need a chart anyway, and have probably memorised all the local frequencies and CTA steps etc. We will go through the motions to humour the examiner. It won't prove much but will give CASA a warm fuzzy feeling.
Superdimon you could carry 10 GPS receivers and then have a signal input loss. It does happen.
.... and I have yet to have all three drop out at the same time.
Dr
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth
Age: 41
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have conducted many AFRs as a Grade 1 instructor and while some may object to the idea of a mandatory navex I tend to have the opinion that it wont be a negative experience for the pilot on his/her AFR.
The AFR is not a flight test but a chance for pilots who may be rusty to get up to speed with the current set of rules and regs. The changing of GAAP aerodromes to Class D is a prime example where some pilots may come unstuck if they haven't flown for a while.
Depending on the flying the pilot has done or is planning to do I would talor the flight to suit their needs and we would do it in the aircraft that they had done the last 10 hours in.
There is nothing wrong with doing some circuits at an aerodrome during the navex.
As for GPS well, the idea of 2 standards of PPL (DR nav vs GPS) to me seems daft. DR nav is not out dated, less used by pilots (myself included) but if the proverbial hits the fan and the GPS dies or you have an electrical failure then at least you can still make your way to your destination, if not make a suitable diversion.
For those pilots whining about cost, aviation is expensive get used to that idea!! Its not going to change either. If you know that you have 1 dual flight to do every 2 years then buget for it. Its not as if the AFR will be news to you, your last stamp is in your logbook so you know when its due. Save 5 bucks a week over that period and that should pretty much cover the cost of it.
There are 2 things in aviation there should be no compromises on. Number 1 is safety and Number 2 is the standards at which we operate (Yes even at PPL level).
Safe landings
Muz
The AFR is not a flight test but a chance for pilots who may be rusty to get up to speed with the current set of rules and regs. The changing of GAAP aerodromes to Class D is a prime example where some pilots may come unstuck if they haven't flown for a while.
Depending on the flying the pilot has done or is planning to do I would talor the flight to suit their needs and we would do it in the aircraft that they had done the last 10 hours in.
There is nothing wrong with doing some circuits at an aerodrome during the navex.
As for GPS well, the idea of 2 standards of PPL (DR nav vs GPS) to me seems daft. DR nav is not out dated, less used by pilots (myself included) but if the proverbial hits the fan and the GPS dies or you have an electrical failure then at least you can still make your way to your destination, if not make a suitable diversion.
For those pilots whining about cost, aviation is expensive get used to that idea!! Its not going to change either. If you know that you have 1 dual flight to do every 2 years then buget for it. Its not as if the AFR will be news to you, your last stamp is in your logbook so you know when its due. Save 5 bucks a week over that period and that should pretty much cover the cost of it.
There are 2 things in aviation there should be no compromises on. Number 1 is safety and Number 2 is the standards at which we operate (Yes even at PPL level).
Safe landings
Muz
Forkie, I had two independent GPS receivers with separate antennas drop out on my boat for 20 minutes about three months ago on a night passage. 20 minutes at 5 knots means stuff-all, but at 200 knots, if you can't map-read, you could be up poo creek very quickly.
And I have had GPS drop out on ferry flights across the Pacific, where it doesn't matter much 'cos there is no map to read. But it still gets your attention if you have not been keeping the air plot going. Air plot, you say? What's that? Secret oldbugger business.
In another 20 years the GPS system (or whatever follows) will be perfect and pilot navigation will be redundant, like celestial and console and decca and loran and doppler and VLF-omega and satnav - all consigned to history. Yes, I used them all.
But GPS ain't fail-safe yet, so it is premature to think that it is the only navigation skill a pilot needs.
And I have had GPS drop out on ferry flights across the Pacific, where it doesn't matter much 'cos there is no map to read. But it still gets your attention if you have not been keeping the air plot going. Air plot, you say? What's that? Secret oldbugger business.
In another 20 years the GPS system (or whatever follows) will be perfect and pilot navigation will be redundant, like celestial and console and decca and loran and doppler and VLF-omega and satnav - all consigned to history. Yes, I used them all.
But GPS ain't fail-safe yet, so it is premature to think that it is the only navigation skill a pilot needs.