I heard a rumour today...
With the stall, GA is still teaching the minimum loss of height thing, with full power and nose back up to the horizon. (works well in a light aeroplane).
... perhaps you didn't mean "GA" - you meant "the guys I did my rating with" ...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: cloud9
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A PPL can hold an instructor rating in nz but must pass all CPL exams and hr requirements. Surly a 1000hr ppl holder will have a bit more experience to pass on than a newly minted Instructor fresh from CPL training. I believe there are plenty of ex commercial guys out there with PPL licenses as they can no longer get of be bothered getting a class one medical
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stall recovery height loss fascination in GA goes back to a specific reason. The majority of inadvertent stalls are entered low to the ground, specifically in approach configuration turning from base to final.
In airliners the majority of upsets are at altitude, hence the different focus for each.
In airliners the majority of upsets are at altitude, hence the different focus for each.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Teaching each element of the PPL syllabus is a pretty specific job - and NOTHING like tooling about in an airliner. Would you seriously want to see "retired" airline pilots with no training attempting a PPL stall lesson??
GGis correct. Base-to-final stalls,departure stalls, stalls following a low level strip inspection, stalls in marginal wx steep turns at low level are the more likely scenarios.
I seem to remember seeing in the Regs an allowance for a current (Class 1 med), instructor who now can only pass a Class 2 med - to continue instructing all after 1st solo? At least a step in the right direction.
I can't see any need for a PPL to do all the instructor theory and practice if they were to be giving a type endorsement, or aeros, formation, low level training. You could throw in PPL navs as well. What counts is their type or flying experience in that category. I'm convinced that such PPL's would do a more convincing job of passing on skills and risk avoidance than a newly minted G3.
happy days,
I seem to remember seeing in the Regs an allowance for a current (Class 1 med), instructor who now can only pass a Class 2 med - to continue instructing all after 1st solo? At least a step in the right direction.
I can't see any need for a PPL to do all the instructor theory and practice if they were to be giving a type endorsement, or aeros, formation, low level training. You could throw in PPL navs as well. What counts is their type or flying experience in that category. I'm convinced that such PPL's would do a more convincing job of passing on skills and risk avoidance than a newly minted G3.
happy days,
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George,
Aint that the truth! then again why be surprised.
Our regulator learns nothing from other countries
positive safety outcomes, nor does it consult in any meaningful
way with the true experts from the industry, rather recruiting
industry rejects and letting them loose with no training, no operational
experience to "Enforce" regulations that nobody understands, no wonder
Australia's safety record leaves much to be desired.
The so called "Industry" is no better, we let them do this because we didn't learn from other countries how to tame an incompetent regulator.
Our apathy has been our downfall, and will continue, to be until there is
a so called "Smoking Hole". Its us that have allowed CASA to become corrupt so its a little late to winge about it.
Aint that the truth! then again why be surprised.
Our regulator learns nothing from other countries
positive safety outcomes, nor does it consult in any meaningful
way with the true experts from the industry, rather recruiting
industry rejects and letting them loose with no training, no operational
experience to "Enforce" regulations that nobody understands, no wonder
Australia's safety record leaves much to be desired.
The so called "Industry" is no better, we let them do this because we didn't learn from other countries how to tame an incompetent regulator.
Our apathy has been our downfall, and will continue, to be until there is
a so called "Smoking Hole". Its us that have allowed CASA to become corrupt so its a little late to winge about it.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without knowing any of the details, I think some people may be getting their knickers in a twist here with the PPL suggestion. I would be willing to wager a few stubbies that the instructor will still have to have an instructor rating, he just won't have to hold a CPL. In other words, they're not suggesting a plain PPL with X hours be allowed to instruct, just a CPL will no longer be required.
As others have mentioned, this used to happen in the UK and a PPL holder used to be able to earn money from being an Assistant Flying Instructor. When the whole JAA stuff came along they decided PPL + flying for hire or reward didn't really fit with earning money as an AFI, so along came the requirement for a CPL (they did have a dumbed-down CPL for use by instructors who only ever wanted to do that job but I can't remember what that particular licence was called and that disappeared after the 'bedding in' time).
How CASA will resolve the contradiction of PPL and earning money from it I don't know but I think it's a not unreasonable step. Requiring someone to have a CPL to earn a crust, when all they want to do is teach to a PPL level, seems a bit over-the-top to me. The AFIs only used to be able to teach PPL and couldn't do certain things, such as send a chap solo or conduct any sort of tests; these had to be done by 'proper' instructors and not assistants. Just to reiterate, an AFI had done the instructors course, he just didn't have a CPL.
If I was going to put those stubbies on the line I think I would bet on the course and requirements panning out just as VH-XXX has written, so don't expect to be seeing a PPL with 200 hours and no instructors rating sitting next to you soon....unless he's along for the ride to learn something
As others have mentioned, this used to happen in the UK and a PPL holder used to be able to earn money from being an Assistant Flying Instructor. When the whole JAA stuff came along they decided PPL + flying for hire or reward didn't really fit with earning money as an AFI, so along came the requirement for a CPL (they did have a dumbed-down CPL for use by instructors who only ever wanted to do that job but I can't remember what that particular licence was called and that disappeared after the 'bedding in' time).
How CASA will resolve the contradiction of PPL and earning money from it I don't know but I think it's a not unreasonable step. Requiring someone to have a CPL to earn a crust, when all they want to do is teach to a PPL level, seems a bit over-the-top to me. The AFIs only used to be able to teach PPL and couldn't do certain things, such as send a chap solo or conduct any sort of tests; these had to be done by 'proper' instructors and not assistants. Just to reiterate, an AFI had done the instructors course, he just didn't have a CPL.
If I was going to put those stubbies on the line I think I would bet on the course and requirements panning out just as VH-XXX has written, so don't expect to be seeing a PPL with 200 hours and no instructors rating sitting next to you soon....unless he's along for the ride to learn something
PS: The British system has always had 'assistant flying instructors', it was sometimes the only way to achieve the 700 hours they required for CPL issue.
Not quite cause and effect.
The "700 hours" was nothing to do with the Assistant Instructor program, now long gone.
In the mid-60s (from memory) the UK Authority of the time decided that you could only get a CPL by doing an "approved" course.
The loophole was that you could go straight to SCPL without an "approved" course, and it didn't take long for somebody to figure out they could accumulate 700h flying as an Assistant Instructor, much cheaper than flying a Druine Turbulent up and down the A23 all weekend.
By the time ICAO abolished the SCPL, the route was so well established that the (now) CAA had to allow the 700h as an alternate to the "approved school".
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Jan 2013 at 02:17.
The stall recovery height loss fascination in GA goes back to a specific reason. The majority of inadvertent stalls are entered low to the ground, specifically in approach configuration turning from base to final.
In airliners the majority of upsets are at altitude, hence the different focus for each.
In airliners the majority of upsets are at altitude, hence the different focus for each.
I hope this is not a real indication of the present state of airline training. I suspect it is typical of current GA.
As an ex-GA instructor/CFI, all the stall training I received during type endorsements mirrored GA, plus the high level (above 20,000) specifics of potential loss of control, not only low speed upsets in cruise, but dutch roll recover, all in the actual aeroplane, until simulators got good enough.
Last large aeroplane I stalled in the air, clean, in the approach configuration and in the landing configuration was a B747-200.
Just as in GA, the recovery method to be used was the one appropriate to the circumstances, including minimum loss of height without a secondary stall when terrain clearance was an issue. There is no shortage of low speed loss of control at low level airline accidents in the database--- remember the Turkish B737 at Amsterdam.
With the advent of wind-shear recovery training, flying an attitude that was on the edge of Stick shaker/low speed buffet was added to the mix.
Fundamentally, there should be little difference between GA and larger aircraft low speed flight training ---- they are all bleeding aeroplanes.
What I now observe in GA is completely inadequate training in the low speed flight/stalling sequences, with "approach to the stall" being the limit.
When I quizzed a GA Grade 1, who was looking for a job, you should have seen the look of horror on his face when I queried him about the characteristics of a particular type on which he has logged many hours, in a stall off a steep climbing turn on full power. Nor did he know much about the characteristics of said aircraft at aft CofG, as opposed to typical training sequence loading --- close to the forward limit.
He didn't get past that interview.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Jan 2013 at 02:47.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Shire
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all based on risk and return.
For instance there is a very small chance you will stall an Airbus with its protections.
There is a possibility of a complete cock up entering the high speed/ low speed protections envelopes.
C&T departments look at incidences on the line, along with world wide events and build them into the cyclic program.
If you want to explore advanced aircraft handling, you do an aerobatic check. It's great fun and I enjoyed every minute of it.
It sounds like you think you are a superior aviatior leadsled. I am glad you were never my CFI.
Most fatal accidents in GA aeroplanes are from guys like you demonstrating advanced handling characterises of aeroplanes that a competent driver would never get anywhere near to on the line. Training now is recognising the symptoms of loss of control and avoiding it, rather than waiting until you're in it before doing something about it.
Hey, watch this!
For instance there is a very small chance you will stall an Airbus with its protections.
There is a possibility of a complete cock up entering the high speed/ low speed protections envelopes.
C&T departments look at incidences on the line, along with world wide events and build them into the cyclic program.
If you want to explore advanced aircraft handling, you do an aerobatic check. It's great fun and I enjoyed every minute of it.
It sounds like you think you are a superior aviatior leadsled. I am glad you were never my CFI.
Most fatal accidents in GA aeroplanes are from guys like you demonstrating advanced handling characterises of aeroplanes that a competent driver would never get anywhere near to on the line. Training now is recognising the symptoms of loss of control and avoiding it, rather than waiting until you're in it before doing something about it.
Hey, watch this!
Been hearing about this coming for years too and in my humble opinion it is long overdue. I have always been concerned that in aviation we tend to let the low experienced loose to teach the no experienced . Much better to go with someone who has years and many hours flying to do the teaching and who is generally keen to pass on their knowledge rather than someone just building hours to get to the airlines.
After all you wouldn't let 1st year tradesmen take over the training of apprentices would you.
What I believe is proposed is a PPL who wants to instruct will still have to do an instructor course,have a certain minimum hours ie. 500,and only instruct up to their experience level.ie private,single engine, and so forth.
This will suit aero clubs, flying groups etc in the main as they generally exist for the love of private aviation and try and pass on any cost benefit to their members.
The gliding fraternity has been doing it for decades.
I can't help think that any opposition to it is more to do with job opportunities for CPL's starting out ( unfounded in my view as flying schools teaching up to airline standard will need to stay as is) than anything else.
After all you wouldn't let 1st year tradesmen take over the training of apprentices would you.
What I believe is proposed is a PPL who wants to instruct will still have to do an instructor course,have a certain minimum hours ie. 500,and only instruct up to their experience level.ie private,single engine, and so forth.
This will suit aero clubs, flying groups etc in the main as they generally exist for the love of private aviation and try and pass on any cost benefit to their members.
The gliding fraternity has been doing it for decades.
I can't help think that any opposition to it is more to do with job opportunities for CPL's starting out ( unfounded in my view as flying schools teaching up to airline standard will need to stay as is) than anything else.
Last edited by mostlytossas; 27th Jan 2013 at 04:03.
Teaching....and learning
Isnt the whole deal about learning to handle and control an aircraft a process whereby you experience various attitudes and events?.
With sailplanes one is taught..and shown.. stalls/spins off steep turns...not just "nose-nodding" straight and level...because having gone through those experiences...if it does happen, like when tight thermaling in rough conditions, our PILOT has been there before. Been there, experienced that.
And becomes very aware not to haul up and around steeply on finals turn where there is very lttle altitude left, to deal with a nasty surprise.
In MY PPL syllabus, I would make a forced/precautionary landing on a narrow road a 'must do' experience, because there is a great deal of diffence after doing all your learning on a huge, wide airstrip.
You never know, caught out by dud weather*..you might just have to do one. And if you've done it before, you have prior knowledge.
*been there, done that ...and its mightily educational !
As Leadie said... and I am sure he could teach me many things.. the prime example he gave was a death note to a very low twin time pilot, who I bettcha had never done it before. Vale a fine young man. He just didnt have the prior experience of that situation.
Best thing I find is to learn from everybody....could help keep yr ar$e intact..which is the object of the exercise.
With sailplanes one is taught..and shown.. stalls/spins off steep turns...not just "nose-nodding" straight and level...because having gone through those experiences...if it does happen, like when tight thermaling in rough conditions, our PILOT has been there before. Been there, experienced that.
And becomes very aware not to haul up and around steeply on finals turn where there is very lttle altitude left, to deal with a nasty surprise.
In MY PPL syllabus, I would make a forced/precautionary landing on a narrow road a 'must do' experience, because there is a great deal of diffence after doing all your learning on a huge, wide airstrip.
You never know, caught out by dud weather*..you might just have to do one. And if you've done it before, you have prior knowledge.
*been there, done that ...and its mightily educational !
As Leadie said... and I am sure he could teach me many things.. the prime example he gave was a death note to a very low twin time pilot, who I bettcha had never done it before. Vale a fine young man. He just didnt have the prior experience of that situation.
Best thing I find is to learn from everybody....could help keep yr ar$e intact..which is the object of the exercise.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This rumour sounds counter-productive towards CASA's plan of 'raising the standard' of Australian Instructors. CASA have been taking the option of conducting a large majority of initial GR3 tests for this very reason...
If you want to explore advanced aircraft handling, you do an aerobatic check. It's great fun and I enjoyed every minute of it.
No, just competent and capable of meeting the standards required of the then regulator, whether at a GA or HCRPT level.
With all due respect, absolute rubbish, go have a look at the statistics. Then have a look at other threads about what I have had to say about observing AFM limits --- and my objections very unsafe twin training in Australia, where we kill a small but steady stream of pilots.
Gee, I must have worked for a really dumb airline, including as a Check and Training Captain, we always trained (just like GA used to) to thoroughly demonstrate the aircraft behavior --- as a major aspect of recognizing the areas to stay away from, and to demonstrate you competence in recovery, if the very unlikely but not impossible circumstances presented themselves -- as they did from time to time.
You are probably ones of those types that believes , quite incorrectly, that more people die in spin training, than in spins or incipient spins/spiral in the field, it sound like it.
You wouldn't do well as an instructor in the FAA system, funny thing, they have the worlds best air safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!
It sounds like you think you are a superior aviatior leadsled. I am glad you were never my CFI.
Most fatal accidents in GA aeroplanes are from guys like you demonstrating advanced handling characterises of aeroplanes that a competent driver would never get anywhere near to on the line.
Training now is recognising the symptoms of loss of control and avoiding it, rather than waiting until you're in it before doing something about it.
You are probably ones of those types that believes , quite incorrectly, that more people die in spin training, than in spins or incipient spins/spiral in the field, it sound like it.
You wouldn't do well as an instructor in the FAA system, funny thing, they have the worlds best air safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown recently with a Grade 1 instructor who was petrified of stalls & refused to do those lessons with her students 
I worked for one school recently, the CFI would run through the school when he saw rain approaching the field yelling: 'Get em out there flying (students), wet runway ops experience' he was a good bloke, great boss & produced bloody good pilots & instructors. Interestingly, every plane in the circuit when the rain approached would be sh!tting themselves in the rush to get on the ground
I'm working for a bloke now who's an aerobatic gun, we teach wing overs, steep turns @ 60 degrees AoB (not pussy 45 degrees) we encourage GFPT's into tailwheel acft ASAP.
GA training now is politically correct, red taped crap. Unless...........you can find a boss like some of the recents I've had/got.
I worked for one school recently, the CFI would run through the school when he saw rain approaching the field yelling: 'Get em out there flying (students), wet runway ops experience' he was a good bloke, great boss & produced bloody good pilots & instructors. Interestingly, every plane in the circuit when the rain approached would be sh!tting themselves in the rush to get on the ground
I'm working for a bloke now who's an aerobatic gun, we teach wing overs, steep turns @ 60 degrees AoB (not pussy 45 degrees) we encourage GFPT's into tailwheel acft ASAP.
GA training now is politically correct, red taped crap. Unless...........you can find a boss like some of the recents I've had/got.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a humble PPL with 25 years experience, I'd make two observations. First, I felt that a good, varied training course which exposed me to full stalls and spins was the minimum I would have contemplated at the time (even though the spins were optional even then). Not every aircraft I've flown since then then can be spun, but I would not consider myself to have had a sufficient type check in an aircraft unless the check comprised stall demonstrations in a variety of configurations.
Following my basic training, I did do some aerobatic endorsements which, I think, added greatly to my ability as a pilot and my confidence in e.g. the low-speed regime. It concerns me greatly when I fly with more recently qualified pilots who habitually use approach speeds which are far too high and who really lack confidence in short or soft field operations.
These days, I also have an RA Aus licence and I observe that the variability in the ability of pilots trained in the RA Aus system can be quite high. Some are very good, and some are very poor indeed. Whatever dispensations are made to allow PPL holders to act as instructors, it's important to verify the quality of the instructor and his/her products. However this is done, it needs to be more effective than the RA Aus model.
Setting aside any commercial implications, one of the the most valuable things I can see is for experienced PPLs to be able to act as 'tutors' for students at reasonably advanced stages of ab initio instruction. I often take the opportunity to take a newbie flying and a model which allowed them credit for some quality hours in the air may be a good thing.
Following my basic training, I did do some aerobatic endorsements which, I think, added greatly to my ability as a pilot and my confidence in e.g. the low-speed regime. It concerns me greatly when I fly with more recently qualified pilots who habitually use approach speeds which are far too high and who really lack confidence in short or soft field operations.
These days, I also have an RA Aus licence and I observe that the variability in the ability of pilots trained in the RA Aus system can be quite high. Some are very good, and some are very poor indeed. Whatever dispensations are made to allow PPL holders to act as instructors, it's important to verify the quality of the instructor and his/her products. However this is done, it needs to be more effective than the RA Aus model.
Setting aside any commercial implications, one of the the most valuable things I can see is for experienced PPLs to be able to act as 'tutors' for students at reasonably advanced stages of ab initio instruction. I often take the opportunity to take a newbie flying and a model which allowed them credit for some quality hours in the air may be a good thing.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
Sorry to spoil a great rumour but the truth about PPL flight instructors can be found in the Draft CASR Part 61 Sub Part 61T Pilot Instructor Rating from about page 199 at this link http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/part...-draftregs.pdf.
Put simply PPL holders will not be able to train candidates for licences or ratings, but they will be able to train Licenced pilots for some of the more esoteric endorsements, such as spinning and aerobatics, formation flying, banner and glider towing and parachute dropping. The underlying concept is that the real expertise in some of these areas does not lie with the holders of CPL or ATPL or even with Grade 1 instructors. This provision provides a way for those skills and all that experience to be handed on to others.
If Pruners want something to get upset about you all should look at the way Part 61 is written. Everything is a crime it seems.
PS: Seagull does not and has not ever worked for the Dark Side, but has been a long time student of Part 61.
Sorry to spoil a great rumour but the truth about PPL flight instructors can be found in the Draft CASR Part 61 Sub Part 61T Pilot Instructor Rating from about page 199 at this link http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/part...-draftregs.pdf.
Put simply PPL holders will not be able to train candidates for licences or ratings, but they will be able to train Licenced pilots for some of the more esoteric endorsements, such as spinning and aerobatics, formation flying, banner and glider towing and parachute dropping. The underlying concept is that the real expertise in some of these areas does not lie with the holders of CPL or ATPL or even with Grade 1 instructors. This provision provides a way for those skills and all that experience to be handed on to others.
If Pruners want something to get upset about you all should look at the way Part 61 is written. Everything is a crime it seems.
PS: Seagull does not and has not ever worked for the Dark Side, but has been a long time student of Part 61.
Last edited by Seagull V; 27th Jan 2013 at 09:37. Reason: spelling errors
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
I dont think what I'm going to recommend is thread drift but rather follow on to a couple of recent posts from Aroa and Tosser that mentioned aspects of glider training can be very useful in GA. With some personal experience in instructing in both areas I can only agree.
Gliding training offers considerable exposure to stall/spin conditions (demonstrated recovery from a full spin is a pre-requisite for first solo) which these days cant be commonly accessed in GA trainers. Thankfully there has been much greater emphasis on recognition of and recovery at stall/spin onset in the last decade or so in addition to full exposure to the fully developed versions of these. The combination of low airspeed and shallow bank while over ruddering is a much closer simulation of what often happens in reality. Too often there is insufficient height for recovery off that badly executed turn onto final.
However there is just as much value to be had for PPL holders from exposure to landings in gliders. That old adage that 'every landing in a glider is a forced landing' holds true. To be guided through the standard steps in the performing of an 'outlanding' onto a surface other than bitumen AND to actually complete that landing to the end of roll is extremely satisfying but more importantly hugely confidence building. One day the fan will stop unexpectedly. Then isn't the time to wish that you had developed some skill in emergency landings.
Most gliding clubs and organisations would be more than willing to provide PPL holders with such training and at far fewer $ than you would be used to paying.
LD
I dont think what I'm going to recommend is thread drift but rather follow on to a couple of recent posts from Aroa and Tosser that mentioned aspects of glider training can be very useful in GA. With some personal experience in instructing in both areas I can only agree.
Gliding training offers considerable exposure to stall/spin conditions (demonstrated recovery from a full spin is a pre-requisite for first solo) which these days cant be commonly accessed in GA trainers. Thankfully there has been much greater emphasis on recognition of and recovery at stall/spin onset in the last decade or so in addition to full exposure to the fully developed versions of these. The combination of low airspeed and shallow bank while over ruddering is a much closer simulation of what often happens in reality. Too often there is insufficient height for recovery off that badly executed turn onto final.
However there is just as much value to be had for PPL holders from exposure to landings in gliders. That old adage that 'every landing in a glider is a forced landing' holds true. To be guided through the standard steps in the performing of an 'outlanding' onto a surface other than bitumen AND to actually complete that landing to the end of roll is extremely satisfying but more importantly hugely confidence building. One day the fan will stop unexpectedly. Then isn't the time to wish that you had developed some skill in emergency landings.
Most gliding clubs and organisations would be more than willing to provide PPL holders with such training and at far fewer $ than you would be used to paying.
LD