I wonder...?

[Ixixly]

I agree with the sentiments expressed in regards to instructors, if you truly want to improve aviation in general you need to start from the ground up, as other have said, by instilling the right ways of doing things and the right ways of thinking from the beginning.

Of course pay is one side of the coin for retaining experienced pilots as instructors, but the other side of course would be requiring minimums. I've always wondered why it is that Heli Instructors require 400hrs (pretty sure it was...can't remember exactly as i'm Fixed Wing with not Heli!) to become an Instructor and why there is no such rule for Fixed Wing, can anyone in the know explain why that is? Maybe when the rule for Heli Instructors came in?

[mjbow2]

FAA ramp check;

May I see your log book?
NO

May I see inside your aircraft to see that the AFM is accessible to the pilot?
NO

Did you file a flight plan?
Thats none of your concern

Did you use a current chart to navigate here?
Thats none of your concern

How much fuel did you arrive with?
Thats none of your concern

There are only 6 pieces of information you legally have to supply for an FAA inspector under Part 91.

1. License
2. Medical
3. Airworthiness certificate
4. Radio station license
5. Aircraft Registration certificate
6. Aircraft Flight Manual.

Note an FAA inspector cannot board your aircraft without your permission. You are not required to give that permission either.

If an inspector wishes to view your log book they will have to get a court order to view it, unless you have it with you and are foolish enough to let them view it...

In short, you are not required to answer any question an FAA inspector may ask. Your only requirement is to supply those six items for inspection. Anything more than that is an inspector on a fishing expedition.

[Jack Ranga]

God bless Ameeeeericahhhhhh

My favourite amendment you ask? The right to bear arms

[Sunfish]

When I was doing my cross country work, the school always asked you to fill up at your destination and present the fuel receipt to your instructor on your return.


......and being a mature age pilot learning for the fun of it, it never even crossed my mind why they would stipulate this.

[BreakNeckSpeed]

MakeItHappenCaptain:

If the correct habits are introduced at the early stage, there is no need for a jet operator to have to remove them, and to that end, the industry needs to provide better incentive to retain experienced pilots as instructors.

Hear Hear!

The notion of a fresh CPL holder obtaining an instructors rating to "get hours up" needs to be quashed! Boost the minimum requirements (not just hours, but time in industry, varied experience - not just scenic flights within the comfort of the Sydney basin), maybe that in turn will increase the amount schools need to pay to entice appropriately qualified people to mentor the next generation of pilots!

I have to laugh when I see an instructor who has never flown outside of a flying school environment giving guidance to a newbie on how to fly "commercially"!!

[Jack Ranga]

BNS,

Will NEVER happen mate, NEVER! Great idea but

[outnabout]

FGD135;

I'm not sure that I am naive - it seems to be that if there is a deterioration of skills at the top end (ie in the pointy end of shiny jets), then it seems to me to be only logical that a responsible Regulator will attempt to discover the cause. And that a truly responsible Regulator will seek to improve the situation.

If I see a (for example) 2000 hr pilot, I have a higher expectation of their skills and levels of knowledge & understanding than I do a 200hr pilot. And if those skills & levels of knowledge are not there (in the 2000 hour pilot) then I think I am allowed to consider why.

Some of the stories that have come up in this thread, frankly, frighten the bejasus out of me. Having an aircraft running on chocks to clock up time - how in God's sweet name does that help a pilot develop skills & procedures?

And what kind of pilot accepts this, and logs the time?

And BNS - I agree, 100%.

[baswell]

If new pilots are less skilled than in the past, as it is alleged, then why is HCRPT safer than it has ever been and getting safer all the time?

[Creampuff]

Some of the stories that have come up in this thread, frankly, frighten the bejasus out of me. Having an aircraft running on chocks to clock up time - how in God's sweet name does that help a pilot develop skills & procedures?

And what kind of pilot accepts this, and logs the time?

Hear! Hear!

What flabbergasts me are the people who criticise the regulator for taking tough action against these shonks.

Let’s instead turn it into a ‘learning experience’.

FOI: You know you’re not learning much while you’re sitting here drinking coffee and surfing the net, while the aircraft is idling away unoccupied?

Bloggs: Really? Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll make a note of that.

FOI: Good for you. And do you also realise that if you put hours in command in your log book for time you weren’t in command, people will think you have that experience when you don’t.

Bloggs: But why's that a problem?

FOI: Well it's like this: The number only means something if it’s true. The point of the hours is to give you actual experience, so that your skills actually meet or exceed the required standard.

Bloggs: Really? Now that I think about it, I realise that you’re right. Again, thanks for that!

FOI: No worries – I’ll go and have a chat with your flying school as well.

Do we really want Bloggs to make it to the pointy end of an aircraft full of fare paying pax?

[Trent 972]

Wouldn't it be a bit more true to our system of procedural fairness in law, if the 'shonks' were proven to be such, in an appropriate court of law, before the 'regulator' took "tough action"?
Surely the time for 'toughness' is when to penalise the guilty.

What flabbergasts me are the people who criticise the regulator for taking tough action against these shonks.

What flabbergasts me are people who support the regulator for taking tough action against people/companies that have not been found guilty of any crimes!
'Someone' told me Creamy was in to illegal gambling, runs a string of whores and kicks tired old dogs while they lay in the shade.
The 'big stick' will be used to bash Creamy and send him to the poor house, 'just in case' the allegation is true.
edit (thread relevancy)
Any C&T department that cannot demand/enforce standards on their co-pilots, whether 200 hours or 2,000 hours isn't doing their job.
GA and Airline ops are totally different, except in my experience, when the going gets tough, the ex experienced GA pilots are far more reliable when under strain.

[Creampuff]

No Trent

I’d prefer that Australia have an unaccountable regulator which can unilaterally cancel licences and certificates on the basis of malicious rumours. Plus I’m hoping it will issue $8,500 fines to private pilots who hire aircraft with an unoccupied pax seatbelt one shade of grey too light.

(Give us a hint: what were you busted for?)

Anyway, back to the thread. Are you advocating that one of the criteria for the issue of an ATPL be some amount of experience in ‘GA’? What are your thoughts on how that would be described? (Serious questions)

[Stan van de Wiel]

TRUST - Lack of!

C.P.

Don’t know about you, but I’d prefer that those schools and instructors be removed from the industry (through administrative action initially) then put in goal (through dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers), so that my loved ones aren't put at greater risk than they should be.

Who put them there in the first place? Maybe we should look at the system that allows this to happen. A bloated regulatory system which (like the tax code) requires more training than all the theory subjects put together and then there is still the matter of interpretation. Complex systems are great for the lawyers but achieve little in terms of that much quoted "safety".

Like our schooling system and the Gonski report, we have the teachers, but not the informed talent. It would cost no more to educate (new) teachers to the required higher standard in order that they can teach our kids to the required levels. It's not that Australians are less capable, we just follow the "she'll be right mate" credo.

Our training standards are poor, yet we have the most (quantity) prescriptive documentation of any country on the planet! There are some great aids to teaching nowadays, but why did we manage such high standards in "old" aircraft without all this. Just a minute, our aircraft are still the same but for a glass cockpit and a modern paint scheme. Maybe our instructors were taught the basics from ab initio.

Now this may be controversial, but Gen X (to a certain extent), Y and Z have had their ab initio life training totally transformed by P.C., hands on is on a keyboard or a joy stick. All very well in an electronic world, but Flight Training is still an ANALOG world despite FBW, computors and Electronic displays. When things go wrong (AF 744) they go wrong in the Analog sense. I 'd be the first to admit that earlier generations (like me) have our ab initio problems with the programming/operating, despite our generation having designed most of it.

We now have the situation with Recreational Flying that the training standards have dropped even further, due to the low entry levels (no offence to the medically unfit ex G.A. instructors who are trying to do a good job) I have observed some atrocious standards. a Sport Pilot Licence should be acceptable as the first Module towards a PPL etc. The fact that this is affordable flying shouldn't take away from "safety" My early training and instructing was mostly in an LSA qualifying type aircraft!

CP.

Of course, that won’t happen, because the regulator’s job is, apparently, to ‘promote’ and ‘partner’ with the industry, so that fare paying passengers are free to put their lives in the hands of dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers.

there is a great difference between "promoting" the G.A. Industry as a whole or promoting a specific company. CASA bonuses (if any) should be based on industry growth! An opposite to promote is destroy! In cases like "alligator" whether justified or not. The destruction of the company is almost instant. there is no regard for jobs et al. In the company sense an "administrator"can be appointed. But in the operating sense the AOC is immediately lost, no CP available and even if, appointment is through the same CASA operative who closed them down. The answer in such cases an independent CP is immediately made available. Oh No, a CP is not a rating in this country as CASA want total control, so CASA should at their own expense appoint one of their own. Unfortunately in many cases this would further degrade the operation? so we settle for destroying, the one thing CASA are good at!

As to "partner" with GA. Where there is a total lack of trust between two parties this becomes difficult, yet there are a few cases where individual CASA operatives get on extra well with operators. Makes you wonder!$!

CP

dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers

With all the protracted entry requirements how do these "criminals" get there in the first place. Yes I agree there are some out there, but they generally have their contacts in the right places. Hempel?

CP

dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers

Maybe the same "processes" should be applied to several CASA operatives who would qualify under that definition. This would garner a bit of trust from industry.

The above may seem an attack on CP, but it is the material he puts forward which appears so one sided. a lot of lateral thought might help here.

"Empty skies are Safe skies"

[Trent 972]

Creamy, I'm finding it difficult to work out if you are now or always have been playing the 'devils advocate' or advocating the devil.
Answered in order as asked.
1. ..busted for? Me nothing. I am the best of the best, too good to be true and yet, I am.
2. I don't advocate any amount of GA (or Mil) experience to hold an ATPL. However I think the yanks have got it right by mandating a min. of 1,500 hours to sit in the front seat of an airliner.

I have many thousands of hours experience with co-pilots with a couple of hundred hours in their logbook, and I find GA & Mil pilots with a lot of previous experience to be far better performers, especially when 'under the pump'.
Of course there are always exceptions either way, but generally it holds true.
I don't get to decide who I fly with, but I know who I prefer.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Trent...

Re standards...

Hear hear...

To those who take offence to these sentiments,

Even the best airline captains started at the bottom. I wouldn't have wanted me in the right hand seat of a scarebus when I had 300 hours either.

[PookeyMaster]

Originally Posted by MakeItHappenCaptain

With regard to cadet schemes, personally, I would much rather the FO up the front of the burner my wife and kids were on came with 1500 hours worth of experience than 300. What did happen to Xenephon's questions about the industry anyhoo?

I've been around these forums for a couple of years just reading, but this is my first proper post.

I've looked at both GA and Cadet Schemes and there seem to be a lot of people on here with these opinions. For Virgin and Qantas, in both cases, the Cadet's will still have at least 1500 hours before stepping in to a 737 as a FO and they're training is from day one targeted specifically at the few aircraft models that make up that airlines fleet.

It's like saying I'd rather a Jack of All Trades who can do plumbing, electrical work and carpentry instead of a master electrician to carry out the cabling in my new house. What advantages do GA pilots offer over a Cadet who's been trained specifically for that role in the airline? The Cadets still end up flying a variety of planes before they get to a 737, it's just on a fast tracked schedule.

As for Cadet schemes like the one at Rex, if you're a good enough Pilot, you can get in to a FO position with only 500 hours, a similar amount to what a Cadet would have after their Cadetship and training (plus any prior flying they had).

I feel that a lot of this negative attitude comes from existing pilots who feel that their positions are under threat from these new Cadet schemes (I would agree with this). I believe some of them also feel jealous (I can't think of a better word to use at the moment) that these Cadets are able to skip over all the hard years they spent flying half dead planes in rural areas.

For the record, I'm neither a Cadet or GA ( I started flying while at school but dropped off until very recently). But I do think the attitude to Cadets is unfair. In most cases, they are the cream of the crop who would have ended up in airlines anyway.

I believe in the military, you get sent solo really early ( far earlier than you would at any flying school). It's a high pressure, high performance environment where only the very best are chosen and thrive on this atmosphere. I suspect the same applies to airline Cadetships, most of them will thrive on the pressure to learn quickly and perform well.

[Trent 972]

...they're *[sic] training is from day one targeted specifically at the few aircraft models that make up that airlines fleet.

What makes you think a pilot who came through GA can't learn new tricks?
When the day comes for the airline to get a different type, then by your reasoning, it would be best for those pilots to be discarded irrespective of what they have learned in the interim and be replaced by cadets trained on the new type?????
"Sorry Pooky, you were only trained as a B737 F/O, but now we need A350 F/O's.... Goodbye".
Not to be read as a cadet bash, because if they can make the standard then good on 'em, but to come on here and think that being spoon fed through a cadet course makes you a "Master Electrician" shows you might believe in fairies.
By the time cadet/GA/Mil pilots have a couple of thousand hours in an airline, you shouldn't be able to tell them apart.

edit
"cream of the crop", is the quote that got up my nose.
Take your hand off it, you can't even use the correct there/their/they're, that one would expect of the "cream of the crop", FFS.*
signed
Trent, cranky old b@st@rd.

[PookeyMaster]

Originally Posted by Trent 972

What makes you think a pilot who came through GA can't learn new tricks?

Nothing, the guy who could do electrical, plumbing and carpentry work could learn to specialise in one if he wanted.

The problem is people alluding (like your post I quoted) to a Cadet being inferior to a GA pilot when both are on their first day as an FO at an airline. I'm pretty sure the one who spent several years in the airline cadet program is at least equivalent to the GA pilot who comes in blind to the companies operations even if they have 20 years industry experience.

When the day comes for the airline to get a different type, then by your reasoning, it would be best for those pilots to be discarded irrespective of what they have learned in the interim and be replaced by cadets trained on the new type?????
"Sorry Pooky, you were only trained as a B737 F/O, but now we need A350 F/O's.... Goodbye".
Not to be read as a cadet bash, because if they can make the standard then good on 'em, but to come on here and think that being spoon fed through a cadet course makes you a "Master Electrician" shows you might believe in fairies.

No, as I indicated above, everyone can learn new tricks.

You could turn that one in to "but to come on here and think that slogging it out as a GA pilot makes you any better than a Cadet Shows you might believe in fairies".

If Cadets were as useless pilots as plenty of people make them out to be, Qantas wouldn't have run their program for 20 years, it wouldn't have made sense.

By the time cadet/GA/Mil pilots have a couple of thousand hours in an airline, you shouldn't be able to tell them apart.

I completely agree. The issue I had was (as I said above) with this assumption that a GA pilot "with 1500" hours is superior to a Cadet. If they join at the same time, they should progress at the same rate and by the time they become Captain, there shouldn't be a noticeable difference.

edit
"cream of the crop", is the quote that got up my nose.
Take your hand off it, you can't even use the correct there/their/they're, that one would expect of the "cream of the crop", FFS.*
signed
Trent, cranky old b@st@rd.

I never claimed to be one of the cream of the crop so you don't need to take offence at me over it.

You have a Gen Y mixed with the iPad's auto correct to blame for the there/their/they're issue

As for "the cream of the crop", are you saying the Air Force simply take any old random who walks up to them? Or the 8 Cadets Virgin took last year out of 20,000 applicants were simply the 8 who smiled at them the most?

I've never applied for a Cadetship so I'm not biased in any way. I simply can't understand why there are so many people who go out of their way to put down and ostracise Cadet Pilot's from the general Pilot group.

[Trent 972]

Yes, silly me.. fell for the wind up.
If you read my post without blinkers on Pooky, you will notice I did not bag cadetships, unlike you bagging GA pilots.
All the best.

[Jack Ranga]

You can't correct the auto correct? Too hard? lol, always somebody else's fault?

So you won't 'correct' the autopilot? Too hard? lol, autopilots's fault?

[PookeyMaster]

Originally Posted by Trent 972

Yes, silly me.. fell for the wind up.
If you read my post without blinkers on Pooky, you will notice I did not bag cadetships, unlike you bagging GA pilots.
All the best.

I fail to see how I've bagged out GA pilots. You indicated that a Cadet would be inferior to a GA pilot because they would be given a FO role with only 300 hours when this isn't completely true and there certainly aren't FO with 300 hours sitting in jets at Qantas for example.

I stated in a variety of ways that GA pilots are not superior to Cadets and how there seems to be a desire to driver Cadets out of the industry. You haven't given any reasons why they are superior so my comment stands.

Enlighten me, what genuine issue is there with Cadets? From what I've read, there seems to be plenty of misinformation and it seems to be all about Cadets 'stealing' jobs from GA pilots and 'jumping the queue' and with most of them being young, it's assumed that they will be naive and sacrifice working conditions and wages. The Virgin cadet thread has plenty of posts where people are complaining that it's eight less jobs for GA pilots. The Rex cadet thread from a while back had posts saying it would result in reduced EBA outcomes.

Originally Posted by Jack Ranga

You can't correct the auto correct? Too hard? lol, always somebody else's fault?

So you won't 'correct' the autopilot? Too hard? lol, autopilots's fault?

There's no need to troll.

Attack the post, not the user. Grammar, punctuation and spelling have nothing to do with the contents of the post, unless we were discussing a spelling contest.

Yeah, I could have corrected the auto correct, I didn't proof read it. I fail to see how I blamed anyone else for it though? I'm a member of Gen Y (the 'tech' generation) and I relied on the auto correct in my iPad. My bad.