Newbie & Flying Training Advice (Merged)
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 176
Likes: 36
From: Melbourne
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 431
From: Cab of a Freight Train
They're a small and close-knit team will likely give you a far more personalised training approach than any of the sausage factories and it'll likely end up cheaper overall as you aren't wasting valuable time taxiing or flying to the training area. Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 176
Likes: 36
From: Melbourne
It is rather integrated vs. non-integrated
https://www.casa.gov.au/rules/regula...aining-courses
Part 141 of CASR Recreational, private and commercial pilot flight training, other than certain integrated training courses
Part 142 of CASR Integrated and multi-crew pilot flight training, contracted recurrent training and contracted checking
https://www.casa.gov.au/rules/regula...aining-courses
Part 141 of CASR Recreational, private and commercial pilot flight training, other than certain integrated training courses
Part 142 of CASR Integrated and multi-crew pilot flight training, contracted recurrent training and contracted checking
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 40
From: Abeam Alice Springs
Pity that you can't go back in time! As one that learnt in the '60's it is my view that training standards are not as good as they used to be, with perhaps some exceptions. A statement made by an experienced instructor some 25 years ago went like this: "someone passing a private today, would not have passed a commercial a decade ago". And I don't believe it has got any better since!
In days gone by there were many country flying schools and aero clubs, some with only one instructor and the standards were excellent. Many have now vanished due to various reasons, including changes in regulations etc. Flight tests were done by DCA (CASA) and there was no cutting corners. Where are the experienced CFI's now? Even in the '80's and '90's there was not more than a dozen in the country with over a decade of experience in the job! It would be even less now I expect? It would seem that some of the recent accidents may relate to training standards (or lack thereof?).
I would be interested to know where 'airmanship' fits into the current training syllabus. If you apply the 'iceberg rule' of what you can see, I suggest it is either not taught or the culture of students these days does not understand it.
The bottom line is that the standards have dropped over the past 20 plus years. My suggestion if you are considering learning now is to find a school with a very experience CFI that supervises his instructors and their products closely. And look outside the major cities. Sure you can train with a Gr3, but it is the senior instructor/CFI that will check you for solo and conduct your PPL test.
In days gone by there were many country flying schools and aero clubs, some with only one instructor and the standards were excellent. Many have now vanished due to various reasons, including changes in regulations etc. Flight tests were done by DCA (CASA) and there was no cutting corners. Where are the experienced CFI's now? Even in the '80's and '90's there was not more than a dozen in the country with over a decade of experience in the job! It would be even less now I expect? It would seem that some of the recent accidents may relate to training standards (or lack thereof?).
I would be interested to know where 'airmanship' fits into the current training syllabus. If you apply the 'iceberg rule' of what you can see, I suggest it is either not taught or the culture of students these days does not understand it.
The bottom line is that the standards have dropped over the past 20 plus years. My suggestion if you are considering learning now is to find a school with a very experience CFI that supervises his instructors and their products closely. And look outside the major cities. Sure you can train with a Gr3, but it is the senior instructor/CFI that will check you for solo and conduct your PPL test.
Joined: Mar 2021
Posts: 61
Likes: 61
From: HKG
Where are the experienced CFI's now? Even in the '80's and '90's there was not more than a dozen in the country with over a decade of experience in the job! It would be even less now I expect? It would seem that some of the recent accidents may relate to training standards (or lack thereof?).
I would be interested to know where 'airmanship' fits into the current training syllabus. If you apply the 'iceberg rule' of what you can see, I suggest it is either not taught or the culture of students these days does not understand it.
The bottom line is that the standards have dropped over the past 20 plus years. My suggestion if you are considering learning now is to find a school with a very experience CFI that supervises his instructors and their products closely. And look outside the major cities. Sure you can train with a Gr3, but it is the senior instructor/CFI that will check you for solo and conduct your PPL test.
I would be interested to know where 'airmanship' fits into the current training syllabus. If you apply the 'iceberg rule' of what you can see, I suggest it is either not taught or the culture of students these days does not understand it.
The bottom line is that the standards have dropped over the past 20 plus years. My suggestion if you are considering learning now is to find a school with a very experience CFI that supervises his instructors and their products closely. And look outside the major cities. Sure you can train with a Gr3, but it is the senior instructor/CFI that will check you for solo and conduct your PPL test.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 40
From: Abeam Alice Springs
The answer to this question is always the same. Pay experienced people appropriately to remain instructors, and you shall see experienced and senior instructors. Otherwise your suggestion of instructors with a decade of experience means staying on an instructor's salary for a decade. In this economy, hard sell.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,599
Likes: 602
From: Australia
Pity that you can't go back in time! As one that learnt in the '60's it is my view that training standards are not as good as they used to be, with perhaps some exceptions. A statement made by an experienced instructor some 25 years ago went like this: "someone passing a private today, would not have passed a commercial a decade ago". And I don't believe it has got any better since!
In days gone by there were many country flying schools and aero clubs, some with only one instructor and the standards were excellent. Many have now vanished due to various reasons, including changes in regulations etc. Flight tests were done by DCA (CASA) and there was no cutting corners. Where are the experienced CFI's now? Even in the '80's and '90's there was not more than a dozen in the country with over a decade of experience in the job! It would be even less now I expect? It would seem that some of the recent accidents may relate to training standards (or lack thereof?).
I would be interested to know where 'airmanship' fits into the current training syllabus. If you apply the 'iceberg rule' of what you can see, I suggest it is either not taught or the culture of students these days does not understand it.
The bottom line is that the standards have dropped over the past 20 plus years. My suggestion if you are considering learning now is to find a school with a very experience CFI that supervises his instructors and their products closely. And look outside the major cities. Sure you can train with a Gr3, but it is the senior instructor/CFI that will check you for solo and conduct your PPL test.
In days gone by there were many country flying schools and aero clubs, some with only one instructor and the standards were excellent. Many have now vanished due to various reasons, including changes in regulations etc. Flight tests were done by DCA (CASA) and there was no cutting corners. Where are the experienced CFI's now? Even in the '80's and '90's there was not more than a dozen in the country with over a decade of experience in the job! It would be even less now I expect? It would seem that some of the recent accidents may relate to training standards (or lack thereof?).
I would be interested to know where 'airmanship' fits into the current training syllabus. If you apply the 'iceberg rule' of what you can see, I suggest it is either not taught or the culture of students these days does not understand it.
The bottom line is that the standards have dropped over the past 20 plus years. My suggestion if you are considering learning now is to find a school with a very experience CFI that supervises his instructors and their products closely. And look outside the major cities. Sure you can train with a Gr3, but it is the senior instructor/CFI that will check you for solo and conduct your PPL test.
If they abolished in-house testing, with its inevitable biases, standards would surely improve.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,628
Likes: 1,183
From: Aus
Testing is only the tip of the iceberg, and any tester is just looking at a snap shot of what product the flying school manufactures. The issue solely lies with the schools standards, which trickles down from the top. Firstly pay enough to retain talent, pay for a good CP/CFI (or whatever they are called now) who sets the tone and leads by example, have a proper standard of training that all instructors aspire to, have a proper syllabus of training that focuses on basics and builds from there.
You can train a pilot to pass test requirements without that candidate being competent. Or you can train a competent pilot who will easily pass the test as a formality. Unfortunately as of late a lot of schools are more grouped in the first box.
You can train a pilot to pass test requirements without that candidate being competent. Or you can train a competent pilot who will easily pass the test as a formality. Unfortunately as of late a lot of schools are more grouped in the first box.
Joined: Feb 2017
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 545
Likes: 190
From: Sydney
I agree, wouldn't it be great to pay good wages to make instructing an better choice for career instructors.
(I certainly would not complain)
Any responsibly operated GA school is battling small margins already. How do they afford to pay instructors an attractive wage without putting the costs up for students?
Where would the money come from otherwise? Look at what the hourly dual rate is for ab-initio traing these days at a responsibly operated school. It makes me wince. The operators of these schools are not screwing their customers, they would be financially better off running a newsagency than a flying school.
I have no answers to that conundrum. Other than in civil aviation it has always been like this (even in the olden days when things like airmanship and flying standards were better)
And on that golden age and as far as the loss of airmanship and poorer training standards these days I admit I have made lamentations about this in recent times (and probably will again) however when I recall many of the articles in the old ASD Digests from that golden age when pilots exhibited high standards of airmanship and hand skills... I start to wonder how much actually has changed...
(I certainly would not complain)
Any responsibly operated GA school is battling small margins already. How do they afford to pay instructors an attractive wage without putting the costs up for students?
Where would the money come from otherwise? Look at what the hourly dual rate is for ab-initio traing these days at a responsibly operated school. It makes me wince. The operators of these schools are not screwing their customers, they would be financially better off running a newsagency than a flying school.
I have no answers to that conundrum. Other than in civil aviation it has always been like this (even in the olden days when things like airmanship and flying standards were better)
And on that golden age and as far as the loss of airmanship and poorer training standards these days I admit I have made lamentations about this in recent times (and probably will again) however when I recall many of the articles in the old ASD Digests from that golden age when pilots exhibited high standards of airmanship and hand skills... I start to wonder how much actually has changed...
Joined: Mar 2021
Posts: 61
Likes: 61
From: HKG
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,628
Likes: 1,183
From: Aus
The regulator has put in place a lot of 'self regulation' rules. Which sound great, but without direct external monitoring there is no one to say whether the self regulation is working until something bad happens and points a finger at it. The road is a good example, how many of us can be trusted to always stay below the speed limit, without fear of being caught 'speeding'. Fact is highways would have at least half the drivers doing up to double the speed limit if they had no fear of being caught, flying is no different. So it comes back to without direct monitoring of what standard is being delivered by flying schools, that is CASA periodically sitting in on various parts of a students training, the standards will decline over time to a point where safety is questionable, and the driver becomes a fear of the student having an accident (absolute minimum standard), not whether they are competent in all areas. This means a student will get enough training to pass a test, and possibly carry through some fundamental flaw in their training that just needs the right circumstance to uncover. Then you do get an accident at some point in the future, maybe not directly out of training, and could be a thousand hours later, but it just needs the right conditions to expose it.
If all schools have to do better, that then forces them to compete for competent instructors, not just chaff to fill the seats. That in turn will lead to better pay and conditions. Another method would be to make schools legally responsible for a pilots training, and if at some point a pilot crashes due to a flawed technique that can be traced back to the school then the school can be taken to the cleaners. That will then put a legal, and punitive reason for the schools to pay more.
Joined: Dec 2024
Posts: 4
Likes: 1
From: Paris
Thanks for your reply man, I really appreciate it. I really enjoy flying and I have always been recognised for passively sharing my thrill for something I enjoy to others. Anyways I am still thinking about the way to go in order to become a pilot, but I am pretty confident that becoming a flight instructor is the right path for me. Cheers
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 11th January 2025 at 05:57. Reason: Quote
Joined: Feb 2017
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 545
Likes: 190
From: Sydney
So let's bash flying schools - they clearly are the problem...
[rant on]
Seriously, who would want to run a flying school?
Look at how many schools have disappeared in the last 10 years. How many smaller schools are there today compared to 20-30 years ago? How many aero clubs are left compared to then?
Most smaller (typically non FEE help) schools are struggling to make a sustainable buck as it is.
I regularly hear comments about the high cost of instruction as it is.
You increase wages to rates comparable in the (even slightly) more glamorous parts of the industry and you will have to increase dual rates to cover it or you go backwards.
How is increasing the cost of instruction going to increase business in an industry that is already struggling?
The only schools that would benefit would be the big training factories that get money up front from the government from FEE help and already charge way above the pay as you go schools (only their student's don't notice that until they have long left - including many who drop out).
Pay as you go smaller schools struggle to compete as it is. I do not see replacing the smaller operations with FEE help sausage factories is a win for Aviation.
And yes, I also have seen some seriously poor standards of flying training and airmanship in recent years but go and look at the old ASDs from back in the 60s and tell me that pilot standards and airmanship were that brilliant back then. Every issue seemed to have some twit going VFR into IMC or running out of fuel or doing other dumb stuff. The accident rate is not that much different today.
Perhaps we look back on those days with rose coloured Raybans...
I would love some of the people who give their blanket disparagement of flying training to set up a school themselves and show us all how it should be done.
[rant off]
blood pressure coming down...
[rant on]
Seriously, who would want to run a flying school?
Look at how many schools have disappeared in the last 10 years. How many smaller schools are there today compared to 20-30 years ago? How many aero clubs are left compared to then?
Most smaller (typically non FEE help) schools are struggling to make a sustainable buck as it is.
I regularly hear comments about the high cost of instruction as it is.
You increase wages to rates comparable in the (even slightly) more glamorous parts of the industry and you will have to increase dual rates to cover it or you go backwards.
How is increasing the cost of instruction going to increase business in an industry that is already struggling?
The only schools that would benefit would be the big training factories that get money up front from the government from FEE help and already charge way above the pay as you go schools (only their student's don't notice that until they have long left - including many who drop out).
Pay as you go smaller schools struggle to compete as it is. I do not see replacing the smaller operations with FEE help sausage factories is a win for Aviation.
And yes, I also have seen some seriously poor standards of flying training and airmanship in recent years but go and look at the old ASDs from back in the 60s and tell me that pilot standards and airmanship were that brilliant back then. Every issue seemed to have some twit going VFR into IMC or running out of fuel or doing other dumb stuff. The accident rate is not that much different today.
Perhaps we look back on those days with rose coloured Raybans...
I would love some of the people who give their blanket disparagement of flying training to set up a school themselves and show us all how it should be done.
[rant off]
blood pressure coming down...
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,628
Likes: 1,183
From: Aus
The safest point for GA was around the late 80s and 90s, then since the 2000s the rate of accidents has climbed significantly. That considering the busiest ever time for GA was around the late 80s and 90s, with record numbers of movements at the main airports which we are still well below now, but we have an increase in accidents. As I've said before during this time the focus was on whether a pilot was 'safe', using assessment methods like 'would you let someone you love fly with them' as a mark of whether they were ready for solo or a PPL test. Since 2000 a drain on experience combined with a woeful introduction of a complicated box ticking culture moved the training outcomes away from 'are they safe' to 'have all the boxes been ticked'. Which in theory should have a positive effect, but unfortunately having too many competencies has most likely taken weight away from the most important fundamental things that a pilot must remember.
And this has nothing to do with being Oztranauts, as Australia might have a heap of pilots that think they know what they are doing, however the accident rate (in light aircraft) now is no different to places like the US, maybe worse.
The sad part is that the aircraft have had all sorts of gizmos over the last 20 years that should have reduced the accident rate further. Things like GPS to avoid getting lost, and better awareness of terrain, and better avionics that should help a competent pilot if they do get into IMC while VFR, as well as greater ATS coverage on RADAR using ADSB. Now we are seeing a big increase in stall spin accidents, and mid air collisions, which shows the basics of flight are just not being pushed hard enough.
And this has nothing to do with being Oztranauts, as Australia might have a heap of pilots that think they know what they are doing, however the accident rate (in light aircraft) now is no different to places like the US, maybe worse.
The sad part is that the aircraft have had all sorts of gizmos over the last 20 years that should have reduced the accident rate further. Things like GPS to avoid getting lost, and better awareness of terrain, and better avionics that should help a competent pilot if they do get into IMC while VFR, as well as greater ATS coverage on RADAR using ADSB. Now we are seeing a big increase in stall spin accidents, and mid air collisions, which shows the basics of flight are just not being pushed hard enough.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,599
Likes: 602
From: Australia
Aviation businesses ie schools and small charter companies can be viable if the owner is also the chief pilot, is closely involved in everyday operations and is a good financial manager, with a handful of loyal, trusted, efficient personnel. Owners, not committees. Once you start getting so big you need an army of managers and a revolving door of staff then the brochures will get shinier, the ponzi scheme will grow but quality will suffer until the bubble bursts and the student files end up in a skip along with their careers and massive loans. The key to success is to find the sweet spot of hours flown, cashflow, staff and the right number and type of aircraft for your unique market, be adaptable, rather than try to be the biggest and trample or undercut your colleagues. Most schools don't last long enough to find the sweet spot as they are only chasing cash flow, even when it is flowing out faster than in. I've seen so many come and go and it is like groundhog day. I've had flying school owners whining that they can't afford to pay their bills, whilst driving around in a $90,000 car.
So yes, having a cohort of long term, well paid, happy instructors who get on well is a very important part of success and of course work satisfaction. Students love continuity, they don't want a new instructor every few weeks, who is champing at the bit to get out of the low paid toxic environment they have found themselves in for bigger skies. A good instructor will see it as a long term career with many benefits. Like everything, you won't get anything out of a job if you don't put anything in. Life is what you make it.
So yes, having a cohort of long term, well paid, happy instructors who get on well is a very important part of success and of course work satisfaction. Students love continuity, they don't want a new instructor every few weeks, who is champing at the bit to get out of the low paid toxic environment they have found themselves in for bigger skies. A good instructor will see it as a long term career with many benefits. Like everything, you won't get anything out of a job if you don't put anything in. Life is what you make it.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,628
Likes: 1,183
From: Aus
The key to success is to find the sweet spot of hours flown, cashflow, staff and the right number and type of aircraft for your unique market, be adaptable, rather than try to be the biggest and trample or undercut your colleagues.
The second biggest problem is that flying schools have no idea how to market themselves, how to make flying a pastime that's fun and rewarding. Mostly they do the bare minimum website, some highlighted ads in a phone book (what's that?) and maybe an odd trip to a school for careers day. This mostly leads the clientele to consist of those who have already decided to be a pilot and have made the decision to actively search for where to do it, not a lot of people do that on a daily basis.
Another big issue that kicked a lot of schools 20 years ago was allowing TAFEs to offer cheap aviation theory. Before that schools could supplement their income fairly well by running courses at regular intervals. This probably also led to instructors having a much better handle on the theory as they were also teaching it regularly.
When it comes to large flying schools you must start with a guaranteed partner airline or such that will push students through your doors. Then you need to be set up to handle such flow, which is not easy. Yes it requires management and extra staff, however it is entirely possible to run a successful large flying college without stooping to poor pay and low standards. CSWAFC was an example of a reasonably well run outfit until it was taken over by CAE who insisted on minimum pay or go away. It was killed by horrendous management that is akin to how Rex killed the golden goose by having no idea how to look after your core business.
This all has nothing to do with how well you pay your pilots. Paying poorly because you can't afford it means that your business model is a failure. It is just treading water until it folds at some future point, as you will either not have the cash just to run operations or you won't have the staff. Either way paying poorly completes the cycle in that you will not get the staff you need to be successful, so the business will just bumble along until the wheels finally collapse. Pay peanuts, get monkeys, monkeys **** on everything, your company and its assets, and cost you more in the long run, as well as not being smart enough to improve the business and make it more profitable. Can't afford to pay staff well enough to ensure good staff, sell up, retire or buy assets that don't require staff, as you don't have the acumen to run a people oriented business.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 40
From: Abeam Alice Springs
In the '70's to 90's the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs was a significant voice in the flying training business. Along with the then AOPA they had a good handle on most of the issues and made significant representation to Government and the regulator of the day. Today, both organisations have it seems faded away, due perhaps lack of support of poor management. There is strength in numbers as is said, but you have to have the 'numbers' and neither organisation now has the numbers..... When I was learning to fly, AOPA wrote to all students and invited them to join. I did and was a member for over 30 yrs. Post the Dick Smith era, AOPA lost members as the then following President chose to push his own agenda and lost a lot of members as a result. I recall back in the days of Peter Patroni (President until about 1993) that they sent out aprox 10,000 magazines each month and it was certainly a well-run and good representative organisation. Their letters section attracted much comment from various sectors of the industry. In later days my membership lapsed, and I did not even receive a reminder. I rejoined, but it lapsed again due no reminder. Sadly, I don't see it as a valid representative organisation any more - last I heard with only about 2000 members (if that). As for the RFACA back in the '60's they had 39 member clubs* and during the following period including the '80's they were strong and respected with their annual conference usually attracting the responsible Minister. The capital city clubs were strong and vibrant, producing a good product. Many of the country clubs and schools were similar. Now you may ask what this has to do with training standards? In days past those aero clubs and some commercial flying schools were small in terms of aircraft and instructors, but in many cases, they were excellent schools. There were two commercial schools* that I am familiar with that basically had only one instructor/manager, sometimes with a part time number 2 and maybe two or three aircraft. Some of the small aero clubs were similar. Most of these schools now gone as the key person has retired. The likes of those schools I doubt we will see again.
I made mention of the number of CFI's about that have been in the business for a decade or more. Certainly, the pay and conditions are a factor, however I am of the belief that the other major factor is the burden of regulation now imposed on such organisations. We have seen even now, schools (and larger one's at that) closed due to compliance issues. Back around 2003 there was a CASA sponsored conference on flight operations and training (FLOT) and one of the recommendations that came out of one of the working groups was that:
Of course, nothing has happened in that regard despite the then outgoing and incoming CASA CEO's sitting in the front row and applauding that comment. I believe that CASA now have failed in not standing up to the AG's dept and insisting that the rules be simple and easier to understand. The old ANO's and ANR's would fit in your briefcase, now you need a trolly! Have a look at how the US FARs are promulgated? An easy fit in the nav bag! We have a lot to learn and we certainly don't want to follow EASA example as it would kill GA as we know it - as it has in much of Europe.
There does not seem to be any magic wand to wave to fix/improve training standards and it seems that even now most of the operational CASA folk are a victim of the existing system and don't see the problem (?). I look back at my career and around 22,000 hours and believe that I was privileged to be in an industry that was at its peak. It is certainly sad to see it sinking and it is my guess that the accident rate will not improve.
I see 'airmanship' as a corner stone of our industry and it needs to be including in the training, despite the present 'culture' not understanding what it is all about. It's not ony about inserting the chocks and control lock, crossing the seat belts etc, but the use of screens, keeping a good look out and an understanding of airspace.
rant 'off'...
* I could name names, but in this discussion it is not really relevant.
I made mention of the number of CFI's about that have been in the business for a decade or more. Certainly, the pay and conditions are a factor, however I am of the belief that the other major factor is the burden of regulation now imposed on such organisations. We have seen even now, schools (and larger one's at that) closed due to compliance issues. Back around 2003 there was a CASA sponsored conference on flight operations and training (FLOT) and one of the recommendations that came out of one of the working groups was that:
that the greatest hazard to air safety was in fact the Attorney's General Department in demanding the rules fit a use all template in style and format and that Strict Liability offences be attached to many (read most) of the rules
There does not seem to be any magic wand to wave to fix/improve training standards and it seems that even now most of the operational CASA folk are a victim of the existing system and don't see the problem (?). I look back at my career and around 22,000 hours and believe that I was privileged to be in an industry that was at its peak. It is certainly sad to see it sinking and it is my guess that the accident rate will not improve.
I see 'airmanship' as a corner stone of our industry and it needs to be including in the training, despite the present 'culture' not understanding what it is all about. It's not ony about inserting the chocks and control lock, crossing the seat belts etc, but the use of screens, keeping a good look out and an understanding of airspace.
rant 'off'...
* I could name names, but in this discussion it is not really relevant.
