Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Proof that DAS Skidmore is a new broom

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.
Poll: Vote of confidence in DAS Skidmore:
Poll Options
Vote of confidence in DAS Skidmore:


Proof that DAS Skidmore is a new broom

Old 29th Aug 2015, 00:48
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,865
As with just about every curriculum in any course you'll find nowadays, for every skill or sequence that's taught there's a breakdown of small and smaller building blocks or 'units and elements of competency' in the jargon they use.

The MOS sets out which of these bits are mandatory training for pretty much all the things that are covered by licences, ratings or endorsements.
Whether they are accurate, exhaustive and sensible is a different story, but they're not too bad in the main I think, from what I've seen so far, apart from some dodgy wording here and there.

To address your question directly, the MOS is there to specify in detail what should be taught and tested. Good training is good training no matter how you get there, and what I suppose you're referring to is what we talk about as what happened in the old days, where good instructors used their brains, skill and common sense to teach people how to fly properly and safely.

Now, not just in aviation but in pretty much anything you want to name that has official courses of training, you get this sometimes seemingly ridiculous level of specification of what has to be done. You can't just point out where the toilet is these days, you have to specify how they should unzip their fly, where to point it so they don't splash their boots and how to wash their hands afterwards, it seems.

I think there are pros and cons to this kind of thing - it can get to a silly level of specificity, but it should also help with standardisation and to prop up inexperienced instructors as well as refresh and educate more experienced ones. It makes you analyse what you do against the defined standards, at least.
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 02:00
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,927
Arm,

With the very greatest of respect, absolute bollox.
That is all just post facto edu-babble justification for a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ignored --- meantime Australia's demonstrated flying standards continuum to deteriorate.
Our accident rate climbs, and the whole GA sector continues to sink under an unmanageable load of complex, contradictory and confusing and extremely costly regulatory micro-management by CASA.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 03:33
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 491
That's all good and fine AOTW, but what makes Australian aviation so unique compared to other countries with a similar mix of airline/business/private aviation (but on different scales) that requires us to have such prescriptive and detailed regulations?? It's hardly worlds best practice.
wishiwasupthere is online now  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 04:54
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,865
Ease off a bit there with the call of bollox, LeadSled - I'm not defending it particularly, just saying that's how all training courses have gone these days. I'd rather not have to include all the micro-descriptions of how to tie up your shoelaces in a training course either.

Look at any kind of organisation, they're all drowing in bullshit - talking to a mate who does contract work at a refinery, you can't start work until at least an hour of mandatory safety briefings and induction, not just once but every day.

Regarding why Australia has to have such prescriptive regs, it's all legal arse covering as far as I can see, and if that's the way it is I would be a bit stupid to be the one who didn't sign off all the sub elements of competency on someone's training record. I hate the writer's cramp from that crap, make no mistake!
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 07:20
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Putting ticks in boxes never made anyone competent at anything.

Same, same putting ticks in boxes does not ensure proper maintenance.

The inescapable truth is the expertise and competence at doing these things lies within the industry, NOT within CAsA, it equates to a kindergarten student dictating the standards required for a university graduate.

As it stands the alleged "reforms" we must embrace are completely unsustainable, what's to come just an evil joke.

I cannot accept that the intelligence level within CAsA is so feeble that they don't understand this, therefore there is only one conclusion any sensible person could come to, the alleged "Reform" project is a malicious, deliberate, concerted, attempt to destroy an industry, and if the Minister had the courage of his convictions he'd stand up and admit that is the fact, and Why it is Australia's interest to not have a GA industry.

AOTW I'm sorry, but I cannot accept any other hypothesis, CAsA and their bulls..t is to blame, take a trip across the Tasman sometime to see what proper regulation can do.


Oh! and they are just as safe as we are, and their reg's only cost a few million...Not half a BILLION! and counting! That I believe is fraudulent waste of taxpayers money.

One thing I'd love to know is just how much CAsA crap adds to every airline ticket.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 07:47
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,162
I have an old "Flight Instructors Handbook" published by the DCA.

I have have a copy of the new MOS.

If you got two flying schools and gave the instructors from "School A" the former and the instructors from "School B" the latter, then looked at the students from each, say one year down the track, my guess would be that the school with the Flight Instructors Handbook would have better trained pilots.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 07:54
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Aussie, have the same book, and I agree completely, CAsA are attemting to fix a problem that didn't exist, and making criminals out of everyone who commits aviation in the process.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 08:07
  #168 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,346
Aussie, have the same book, and I agree completely, CAsA are attemting to fix a problem that didn't exist, and making criminals out of everyone who commits aviation in the process.
Aussie, Thorn Bird,

Guys you're not listening.

Look at the whole education and training sector - it's stuffed!

It is so full of paperwork and bullshit that we are turning out tradies at a lower rate, and of a lower quality, than ever before.

I had a meeting with a RTO recently (supposedly about pilot training) and they spent the whole meeting talking about funding and policitcs between various elements of the Higher Education/Vocational Education sector.

THIS COUNTRY IS ROOTED, BOYS.

Where is Torres?
Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 08:34
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,162
Guys you're not listening.
I guess we are reminiscing then
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 08:51
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Horatio,

cant help but agree, I have offspring in the medical field, same, same buried in Box ticking and bullsh..t.

Just look where the $90 million the fuel levee minister Albosleezy bought in was allocated, new managers..Coal face staff??..Zilch!!...Levee??..still there and its ripped nearly $400 million from the industry so far.

That's $400 million of profits the Industry must make just to get square.


CAsA's workforce has almost doubled in the past ten years to supervise an Industry that is dying.

I have no idea what you have calculated, but for my company it now costs around $10 grand just to give a kid a job on our smallest aircraft, up the $50 grand for our biggest..$200 grand and two years wait for an AOC compared with NZ eight weeks and $20 grand.
$100 grand to add an aircraft to your AOC.

Part 61 has added more than %25 to our overheads. What will 91 and 135 add?

I am desperate to get out of this job, not because I hate it, I gain great satisfaction from mentoring the young guys coming along, trying to keep them safe, the blizzard of boxes to tick will not have the slightest affect on safety. I am a pilot, not a lawyer, I have no idea what the new regulations mean and I have really, really tried to figure them out.
The liabilities are just too great. Having to accept direction for things I don't understand, from people with no experience qualification or competence, which my experience tells me are unsafe, I must accept liability for, they accept none. This is unacceptable.

Last edited by thorn bird; 29th Aug 2015 at 09:19.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 12:35
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,865
I have an old "Flight Instructors Handbook" published by the DCA.
DCA in the Sixties employed a significant number of former RAAF pilots as Examiners of Airmen. The DCA Flight Instructors Handbook was largely based upon RAAF Central Flying School teachings. Rather like Mac Job's Aviation Safety Digest magazine, the DCA Flight Instructors Handbook was concise and eminently readable. The authors of the Bible length Part 61 please note.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2015, 14:14
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 942
I have an old "Flight Instructors Handbook" published by the DCA.
Known then as "Pub 45" and it is still the bible...
triadic is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 04:16
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FG central
Age: 48
Posts: 139
Yes, legislation is ruining lots of industries.
I "had to" obtain a forklift licence a couple of years ago. It was supposed to be competency based, so I asked if I could just do the written exam and practical test, as I have been driving forklifts for 25 years. Nope, you MUST sit there and waste two days.
And then there was the self storage facility I worked at until very recently. They had to pay a consulting firm tens of thousands of dollars to come up with evacuation diagrams, fire safety plans etc. The funniest/ saddest thing was, this storage facility was all ground level buildings with plenty of space to get away from anything burning and already extremely obvious exit locations.
We also had to compile and fill out a dangerous goods register, you know, for the massive 5 litre fuel container we had for the power equipment, the 1 litre bottle of mineral turpentine and the regular, small quantities of household cleaners anywhere with a kitchen and toilet has. Don't even start on the quarterly fire drills they introduced, which were pointless as no customers would do anything when advised it was a drill.
The company responsible for the "safety audits" for the above nonsense just wanted to come in and pick anything irrelevant to justify their inspections, even down to benchtop kitchen appliances not be test tagged.
It was at the stage they had to employ a store manager full time to oversee OH & S requirements and they didn't have a clue where to start, so just buried the stores with it. One of the reasons I left that job was because I was the OH & S officer for the store and head office just started dumping all the compliance and regulation duties onto the individual stores, with no training or resources on what exactly to do about it. If I had stayed there, it would've consumed half my working week I suspect.
The real problem with training and competency in industry is the rampant privatisation and with it, driving requirements for needless courses and licences. OH & S legislation has grown at a ridiculous rate since it was privatised and this new industry started lobbying heavily for tickets for anything and everything.
I have a trades background and I've NEVER seen a workplace accident that resulted in someone leaving work. It's all political ass covering for insurance companies and for the new private regulation industries.
If an employee is so stupid they need to be told to stay clear of dangerous equipment, not to spray bottles of chemicals in their face etc, you probably shouldn't employ them for the job!
Typhoon650 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 07:58
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Typhoon,
on the money, common sense completely thrown out the window.
OH&S will be the downfall of this country.
Did you know the unions get a percentage of every fine for non compliance?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 08:21
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,927
small quantities of household cleaners anywhere with a kitchen and toilet has
Folks,
I won't mention the organisation, but had a wonderful session with the "auditors" of our fire and evacuation procedures.

The so called "auditor" would not accept that nitrogen was not a flammable gas, as far as he was concerned "gas was gas" and "gas burns". Save me??
Same chap had great trouble accepting the cleaners in the staff kitchen not flammable, seeing as they were all dihydrogen oxide based.

We are "inducting" a new forktruck next week, just replacing an existing one, the risk management assessment we have to go through covers 17 pages. 16 of the 17 pages, only an imbecile would need "instruction" on the "risk management" and "mitigation strategies". For example, what is the risk/hazard of driving around in the dark?? Running into something!! What is the mitigation --- turn the bleeding lights on !! Whod'a thunk it??
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 11:35
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Perth
Posts: 10
I have just retired from the mining industry and the same thing is happening there . All this " safety" training is stopping people thinking for themselves because the procedure is supposed to keep them safe. If you make a task foolproof all you do is breed smarter fools. The new procedures affect me through sids/ medical/ afr/ and part 61. I only play aviation to keep myself occupied. As an aside I went around Jandakot yesterday to have a look having not been there for two years. It has gone from being a hive of activity to something dull and not very attractive. Two businesses that I used to spend money in have closed, there appears to be only half as many private aircraft on the field as I remembered. At 3 in the afternoon in reasonable weather/flying conditions there was not one aircraft in the circuit. I stayed for 30 mins . It used to be a good place to go and watch someone else waste money on their hobby/ passion. The surrounding area has been industrialised and I would hazard a guess and say good old Jandakot will go the same way as Bankstown appears to be going. So disappointing. What has happened in the last two years? Make your own mind up. I have.
Chasco175 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 12:26
  #177 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,346
For example, what is the risk/hazard of driving around in the dark?? Running into something!! What is the mitigation --- turn the bleeding lights on !! Whod'a thunk it??
LeadSled - if that's the quality of your risk assessments, you need new safety managers or new safety consultants.

Tootle Pip.
Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 16:27
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,927
Horatio,

I have paraphrased it a bit, but it does come from one of Sydney's leading "experts" in the field, complies with the AS/NZS standard, and fits the nanny state requirements of the OH&S mob in NSW. After all, a lot of the inspectors are from a very difficult union.
What gets me is the dumbing down of the whole thing. If any of my drivers actually needed this nonsense to drive safely, they wouldn't be driving for us.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2015, 18:03
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 507
OH&S? There's money to be made there!
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2015, 09:21
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Well guys, we can look forward to this:

CASA set to increase Recreational Oversight

Another empire building effort by the folks in CASA Sport Aviation Office.
The Recreational aviation organisations have worked under the assumption that they can keep CASA at bay to some extent and by having the Australian system of self administering organisations the crocodile will eat them last. Well the crocodile is hungry and coming for them now.

Frankly it is pretty obnoxious that people wanting to fly gliders or ultralights are forced to join a private body that has had some of the coercive powers of the State given to it on a monopoly basis.
The outcomes are pathetic also as RAAus members kill themselves regularly and GFA gliding instructors kill and injure their students.
Time to adopt the US rules. The EAA and SSA in the USA have NO regulatory powers at all and reject attempts to give them such powers as it would change the relationship between the organisation and its members.
The Australian system has organisations of individuals which meant to work for the benefit of the members, taking the part of the regulator. You can't work for two bosses with different goals.
Just take a look at the SAAA's ineptitude in defending Part 21 (they don't even try - it is becoming the RV kitbuilders's association - the website no longer highlights "home of Australian Experimental") and the GFA sold out the maintenance of gliders to CASA but the President got a seat on the Board so it's all good. Wonderful!
Eyrie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.