I heard a rumour today...
Give me a cute hosty, a cup of tea and a faraway destination with a long layover any day 
Leady, I'm not going to argue with you. Okay, maybe a little
Your generation had an appalling safety record culminating in the 70s and 80s where it became a bonus if you even got there! Handling and CRM incidents being the most prevalent.
Try going out for stall practice in the 380! It's why we have simulators and why we have aircraft that don't let you get close, or the other guy who will save you from yourself (hopefully!). We have learnt and have moved on from the days of wrestling your machine in all flight regimes, weather conditions along with proving that you can.
If you want to go be a hero, be a hero in an aircraft that is designed to do it and do it properly under professional guidance.
Leady, I'm not going to argue with you. Okay, maybe a little
Your generation had an appalling safety record culminating in the 70s and 80s where it became a bonus if you even got there! Handling and CRM incidents being the most prevalent.
Try going out for stall practice in the 380! It's why we have simulators and why we have aircraft that don't let you get close, or the other guy who will save you from yourself (hopefully!). We have learnt and have moved on from the days of wrestling your machine in all flight regimes, weather conditions along with proving that you can.
If you want to go be a hero, be a hero in an aircraft that is designed to do it and do it properly under professional guidance.
Last edited by The Green Goblin; 27th Jan 2013 at 11:18.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm...
I'm certain Air France will be grateful for your insight 
Playing the man instead of the ball again? Is that Really necessary??? I have to wonder who it is that thinks himself "superior"...
Which leads to...
Hardly helpful IMO. I too have flown (in the US) with an instructor with in excess of 10k hrs who had never stalled any airframe, always recovering at the incipient stall. He quite literally packed himself when the is thing I did with the airframe he was demonstrating me was stall it! Those that know how their aircraft will behave throughout the whole stall and recovery process will always be better prepared than those that know only what to do in the incipient stages and for whom everything after the buffet is a deep, dark mystery.
Righto.
Personally I am eternally grateful to those instructors who, like leadsled, cared enough to thoroughly teach the airframe, demonstrating exactly what could be expected in every flight regime and preparing their candidates appropriately for their future.
I don't reckon I would want to fly with a pilot that thought otherwise.
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
For instance there is a very small chance you will stall an Airbus with its protections.
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
...It sounds like you think you are a superior aviator...
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
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.
Originally Posted by Jack Ranga
I have flown recently with a Grade 1 instructor who was petrified of stalls & refused to do those lessons with her students
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
I am glad you were never my CFI.
Personally I am eternally grateful to those instructors who, like leadsled, cared enough to thoroughly teach the airframe, demonstrating exactly what could be expected in every flight regime and preparing their candidates appropriately for their future.
I don't reckon I would want to fly with a pilot that thought otherwise.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the past I seem to recall CASA delegated authority for experienced aerobatic pilots holding PPL to issue low level waivers. The rules changed so these delegates upgraded their licences to CPLs.
Guess this is a case of back to the future.
I can't imagine there would be that many cases where this would apply, because if the pilot had the experience and expertise to be a CASA delegate you'd think they'd would have a CPL anyway.
Guess this is a case of back to the future.
I can't imagine there would be that many cases where this would apply, because if the pilot had the experience and expertise to be a CASA delegate you'd think they'd would have a CPL anyway.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DJ can probably answer definitively however I suspect there were only a vey small number of PPL's that could issue waivers and I can think of a couple in particular. They (CASA) have done a good job cleaning up low level waivers in recent times and it would seem on the face of it that the statistics have proven this.
Regarding stalls, all my students see a stall NOT recovered for some time.
The aircraft flutters down with full back stick and you try to keep it straight.
Whenever you wish to recover you apply down elevator and lower the angle of attack.
Try it sometime (with suitable altitude)
The aircraft flutters down with full back stick and you try to keep it straight.
Whenever you wish to recover you apply down elevator and lower the angle of attack.
Try it sometime (with suitable altitude)
I am also a long time follower of the drafts of parts 61 and 91. I was at the CASA FLOT 2003 conference with many others when this subject was debated. I don't think that parts 61 and 91 will be implemented in my lifetime so I have lost interest.
The current rules provide for a person to teach aerobatics (but not spinning) without an instructor rating - I am aware of one person who does this, with a CPL.
I am not aware of any PPLs who could issue low level aerobatic approvals. Some could conduct the test and recommend that CASA issue an approval.
I did my CPL and instructor rating late in life, after nearly 30 years of private flying. The effort I put into getting the CPL contributed not one iota to my ability to get through the instructor course or teach the PPL syllabus, aerobatics, spinning, tailwheel etc.
The current rules provide for a person to teach aerobatics (but not spinning) without an instructor rating - I am aware of one person who does this, with a CPL.
I am not aware of any PPLs who could issue low level aerobatic approvals. Some could conduct the test and recommend that CASA issue an approval.
I did my CPL and instructor rating late in life, after nearly 30 years of private flying. The effort I put into getting the CPL contributed not one iota to my ability to get through the instructor course or teach the PPL syllabus, aerobatics, spinning, tailwheel etc.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
It would be onerous to expect prospective tug pilots to find someone who has a CPL + IR to issue a towing rating. The expertise for such a rating already exists at you local neighbourhood gliding club and the instruction would be sufficiently comprehensible and practical to train a competant tug pilot in-house.
The Gliding Federation of Australia has been running its own show without too much interference from the government regulator for decades. The GFA sets standards and develops training programs for glider flight training and maintenance/repair to a very high standard. You don't hear of many gliding accidents, so they are obviously doing something right.
My personal experience with gliding instruction was that the instructors (who did a 50 hr GFA course= same as a Grade 3), were mostly excellent trainers. I can't say the same for some of the disinterested G3 and G2s I had who simply wanted to log hours for a Qantas interview.
It was a GFA requirement in the 1970s that glider pilots be able to enter and a recover from a fully developed spin - with 1 complete turn- prior to first solo. The nature of gliding is that thermaling and wave soaring is mostly done at slow speed, in a turn in gusty conditions. Whilst GA light aircraft are not often operated in this way, I think that the confidence that comes from being able to effect recovery from a stall/spin is of benefit. A G1 instructor who is afraid of a stall probably shouldn't be in their position!
As has been said before, the UK experience with Assistant Flight Instructors has been statisfactory. In a club enviornment to PPL would probably work ok. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise?
Thread Starter
As part of my RA conversion from PPL, I went through two stalling lessons - Stalls and Advanced Stalls. In the Stalls lesson, I was taught the basic stalling characteristics of the aircraft in clean and approach configuration, how to induce a stall, and recovery without power. In the Advanced Stalls lesson, I was taught to recover from full power/full flap stalls, which induced a rather large wing-drop, and stalls from steep turns.
When I did my RA instructor rating, part of the test was for the testing officer to stall the aircraft in different configurations (while I had my eyes closed so I didn't know what he was doing), then recover from the stall (I was allowed to open my eyes for this part..).
As part of my S&P checks, I am required to induce stalls in all configurations and demonstrate the appropriate recovery.
I think it is essential that students develop the skills to enter and recover from more than just the basic stalls......also it's a heap of fun!
When I did my RA instructor rating, part of the test was for the testing officer to stall the aircraft in different configurations (while I had my eyes closed so I didn't know what he was doing), then recover from the stall (I was allowed to open my eyes for this part..).
As part of my S&P checks, I am required to induce stalls in all configurations and demonstrate the appropriate recovery.
I think it is essential that students develop the skills to enter and recover from more than just the basic stalls......also it's a heap of fun!
Last edited by Stikman; 27th Jan 2013 at 23:10.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not aware of any PPLs who could issue low level aerobatic approvals. Some could conduct the test and recommend that CASA issue an approval.
Lowdown,
You have it right, all the shibboleths about the dangers of stall and spin training that abound in modern GA training are just that, shibboleths ---- and completely unknown in the gliding fraternity.
Modern GA training in Australia could learn a lot from the GFA.
Remember the "Gimli Glider" the successful engine out landing of a B767 in Canada. The pilot was also a glider pilot.
Jack R,
For once I find we are on common ground.
djpil,
Spot on!!
GG,
You talk/write like you think I have experienced nothing/learned nothing in a shade over 50 years of flying, nothing you have said with your "modern objectives" is new, many training people disagree with that approach. If you bothered to actually read what I said in one post , I nominated when in-air stalls were dropped -- when we judged that simulators were good enough that we could achieve the training objectives on the ground.
Likewise, two engine out( 4 engine aircraft, of course, although we do practice two engine out approaches in twins -- in the simulator, before you ask) in the air was dropped when the simulators became good enough. Finally the simulators became good enough that I was one of first batch of blokes/blokesses to do zero flight time endorsements on a big aircraft, in this country.
Your comments about the 70s/80s are complete rubbish, in my opinion, and the statistics for my airline are most interesting.
A perfect safety record in terms of hull losses, but not incident/accident free - no airline is --- and there were several significant "saves" because of the raw handling ability of the pilot.
I recommend you read:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ng-errors.html
But, hey, what would the FAA know?? The FAA record has improved steadily over the years, in all categories.
The Australian record shows no such improvement, could that possibly be that we do not train adequately for the circumstances that actually kill people.
Now, back to the thread: If a pilot can meet ALL the standards for a particular grade of instructor, there is no reason why they shouldn't be one. Again, the current UK CAA and the FAA approach are worth consideration. The FAA approach as to what you can do, as an instructor, depending on your medical status, is well worth a look.
In fact, in early days, I held a UK Assistant Instructor rating on a PPL, all testing was done by GAPAN, nobody complained about inadequate instruction standards.
Good teaching is all about good training, particularly training to teach, good supervision and proper testing by examiners who actually know what they are testing.
Finally, GG, despite your rather silly assumptions, not one of my ab nitio student, or one of the students I tested for a PPL or CPL has ever died or been seriously injured in an aircraft accident ---- How could that possible be. Why is that so,( with apologies to Professor Julius Sumner Miller) I wonder??
Tootle pip!!
You have it right, all the shibboleths about the dangers of stall and spin training that abound in modern GA training are just that, shibboleths ---- and completely unknown in the gliding fraternity.
Modern GA training in Australia could learn a lot from the GFA.
Remember the "Gimli Glider" the successful engine out landing of a B767 in Canada. The pilot was also a glider pilot.
Jack R,
For once I find we are on common ground.
djpil,
Spot on!!
GG,
You talk/write like you think I have experienced nothing/learned nothing in a shade over 50 years of flying, nothing you have said with your "modern objectives" is new, many training people disagree with that approach. If you bothered to actually read what I said in one post , I nominated when in-air stalls were dropped -- when we judged that simulators were good enough that we could achieve the training objectives on the ground.
Likewise, two engine out( 4 engine aircraft, of course, although we do practice two engine out approaches in twins -- in the simulator, before you ask) in the air was dropped when the simulators became good enough. Finally the simulators became good enough that I was one of first batch of blokes/blokesses to do zero flight time endorsements on a big aircraft, in this country.
Your comments about the 70s/80s are complete rubbish, in my opinion, and the statistics for my airline are most interesting.
A perfect safety record in terms of hull losses, but not incident/accident free - no airline is --- and there were several significant "saves" because of the raw handling ability of the pilot.
I recommend you read:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ng-errors.html
But, hey, what would the FAA know?? The FAA record has improved steadily over the years, in all categories.
The Australian record shows no such improvement, could that possibly be that we do not train adequately for the circumstances that actually kill people.
Now, back to the thread: If a pilot can meet ALL the standards for a particular grade of instructor, there is no reason why they shouldn't be one. Again, the current UK CAA and the FAA approach are worth consideration. The FAA approach as to what you can do, as an instructor, depending on your medical status, is well worth a look.
In fact, in early days, I held a UK Assistant Instructor rating on a PPL, all testing was done by GAPAN, nobody complained about inadequate instruction standards.
Good teaching is all about good training, particularly training to teach, good supervision and proper testing by examiners who actually know what they are testing.
Finally, GG, despite your rather silly assumptions, not one of my ab nitio student, or one of the students I tested for a PPL or CPL has ever died or been seriously injured in an aircraft accident ---- How could that possible be. Why is that so,( with apologies to Professor Julius Sumner Miller) I wonder??
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 28th Jan 2013 at 04:36.
Out of the mouth of...?
Geeez GG..."your generation had an appalling safety record culminating in the 70s and 80s..." What a foundation-less statement !!!
Say that in front of a CASA nob or the Minister though and you'll be arrested and led away to the funny farm!! pronto..
Dont YOU know that this country is a world leader in aviation "safety" and we have one of the worlds best records for NOT crashing planes. This is the endless beat of the bureaucrats drum...so listen up GG
Experience is the key,is it not?. And that includes having tried and tested yourself with spins and whatever. Steep climbing turns with full power in a twin might have saved a life or two, too.
So CASA is saying PPLs can do aerotow endorsements...how futuristic.!!
Even tho its all been run by GFA for yonks, CASA tried to stick their bib in about 15- 20? yrs ago. Iwas told it was an employment thing for drones that had nothing to do. Lets get them to Benalla to look at a glider and a Pawnee and send them around the country checking aerotow folk. Ah, the expertise !!
My conversation to the plonker who rang advising that my endorsement was cancelled pending an aerotow "checkout"..which he was going to do by watching from the ground..at a renewal fee of $100.!
So not only the sky is "blue", but strangely I never heard from him again !
Must have been something I said. AFAIK Permit # *** remains valid.
What does the Auster handling notes say again.."Aerotow- Fly as normal"
Tres difficile !
Say that in front of a CASA nob or the Minister though and you'll be arrested and led away to the funny farm!! pronto..
Dont YOU know that this country is a world leader in aviation "safety" and we have one of the worlds best records for NOT crashing planes. This is the endless beat of the bureaucrats drum...so listen up GG
Experience is the key,is it not?. And that includes having tried and tested yourself with spins and whatever. Steep climbing turns with full power in a twin might have saved a life or two, too.
So CASA is saying PPLs can do aerotow endorsements...how futuristic.!!
Even tho its all been run by GFA for yonks, CASA tried to stick their bib in about 15- 20? yrs ago. Iwas told it was an employment thing for drones that had nothing to do. Lets get them to Benalla to look at a glider and a Pawnee and send them around the country checking aerotow folk. Ah, the expertise !!
My conversation to the plonker who rang advising that my endorsement was cancelled pending an aerotow "checkout"..which he was going to do by watching from the ground..at a renewal fee of $100.!
So not only the sky is "blue", but strangely I never heard from him again !
Must have been something I said. AFAIK Permit # *** remains valid.
What does the Auster handling notes say again.."Aerotow- Fly as normal"
Tres difficile !
" Check and Training Captain"
That's how it was described in the company Administration Manual, it was a job title, not a description of an activity.
I certainly will not be ignoring the normal rules of written English (or should that be english) to satisfy your prejudices.
Tootle pip!!
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
Your generation had an appalling safety record culminating in the 70s and 80s where it became a bonus if you even got there
My flying began in the 60's and I am still alive.
Indeed, althought I am only an average pilot, (having as many take off's as landings), I take offence to some upstart misrepresenting imagined staticics to make a point that is discriminatory to those of us in a certain age bracket.
Why don't you make the accustation to include Catholics, Muslims, Blacks, Lesbians, Left handers, gun owners, fishermen, farmers, greenies, Prime Ministerial Consorts, people with bad teeth and dyslexics.
Thank dog I got that off my chest.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is method in your madness Jack.
Approximately 10-13% of the population are left handed.
Approximately 68% of Victorian prisoners are left handed.
You do the numbers!
I'm looking forward to it. Might give me something to do in my spare time that I don't have to have to keep a CPL current for. Even if it's something simple like taking a mate into CTA to boost his confidence, or banging around for a few circuits, it will be a good thing. We should all be fans of any kind of pilot training and further education. If it stops someone flying into cloud and not coming home it can only benefit.
Approximately 10-13% of the population are left handed.
Approximately 68% of Victorian prisoners are left handed.
You do the numbers!
I'm looking forward to it. Might give me something to do in my spare time that I don't have to have to keep a CPL current for. Even if it's something simple like taking a mate into CTA to boost his confidence, or banging around for a few circuits, it will be a good thing. We should all be fans of any kind of pilot training and further education. If it stops someone flying into cloud and not coming home it can only benefit.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, Back in 'on topic' land...
From the draft document - p213-214
Endorsement - Item 6 - Type rating training endorsement (type specific)
Activities authorised - Conduct flight training for the pilot type rating or cruise relief co-pilot type rating for aircraft of the specified type in an aircraft or approved flight simulation training device
Requirements -
Pilot type rating for the specified aircraft type
Flight test
Endorsement - Item 7 - Multi-engine aeroplane training endorsement
Activities authorised - Conduct flight training for a multi-engine aeroplane class rating
Requirements -
Commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence with aeroplane category rating
Flight test
Ok, so that raises a few questions!
Can a PPL Train someone for a specific type (wait a minute... >5700kgs S/E covers a lot of types!) including training for M/E providing they already have an initial M/E after doing a "flight test"? Each M/E is it's own "type" but an initial is a "class"... What about an AOC for this kind of training? Will they be required to conduct it under the watchful gaze of someone with a school/aoc set up?
Am I just reading that wrong?
Endorsement - Item 6 - Type rating training endorsement (type specific)
Activities authorised - Conduct flight training for the pilot type rating or cruise relief co-pilot type rating for aircraft of the specified type in an aircraft or approved flight simulation training device
Requirements -
Pilot type rating for the specified aircraft type
Flight test
Endorsement - Item 7 - Multi-engine aeroplane training endorsement
Activities authorised - Conduct flight training for a multi-engine aeroplane class rating
Requirements -
Commercial pilot licence or air transport pilot licence with aeroplane category rating
Flight test
Ok, so that raises a few questions!
Can a PPL Train someone for a specific type (wait a minute... >5700kgs S/E covers a lot of types!) including training for M/E providing they already have an initial M/E after doing a "flight test"? Each M/E is it's own "type" but an initial is a "class"... What about an AOC for this kind of training? Will they be required to conduct it under the watchful gaze of someone with a school/aoc set up?
Am I just reading that wrong?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The most sensible pilot I ever came across was the guy that I had just delivered his uprated C150 to. He was a current 747 captain with umpteen hours under his belt. When I handed him the keys to the aircraft he rocked me by asking if I would kindly go on a circuit with him to 'show him the ropes'. And me, a lowly PPL.
