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

IFR Ratings – 65% in the USA – 16% in Oz – and Even Less with ADSB Mandate

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

IFR Ratings – 65% in the USA – 16% in Oz – and Even Less with ADSB Mandate

Old 7th Feb 2016, 22:08
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
IFR Ratings – 65% in the USA – 16% in Oz – and Even Less with ADSB Mandate

I’m surprised that no one has referred to the article in last Friday’s Australian on page 28 headed, “Few pilots can handle clouds, Smith Warns

Attached is the no doubt controversial letter I’ve sent to the Prime Minister which instigated the article.

Now with the latest accident at Port Lonsdale, surely there is a message here.

I point out in the USA, even though you do a bi-annual every two years, this has nothing to do with instrument rating and no IFR flight is required for the review.

In less than 12 months’ time the most onerous and expensive requirements in the world will come in, requiring all aircraft that fly IFR to be fitted with ADSB at costs of up to $49,500 per aircraft.

Many owners will drop their aircraft out of the IFR category resulting in the 16% coming down to less than 10% and may result in even more fatalities.

http://www.rosiereunion.com/file/mt22012016.jpg

Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Feb 2016 at 22:23.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 23:15
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,426
Dick, have you considered the cost of gaining and maintaining a instrument rating
in Australia on top of the costs involved in equipping and maintaining an IFR aircraft, compared to the USA?

Surly aircraft must be falling out of the sky all over the place over there, with all these improperly trained pilots and maintained aircraft.

Their not??..The US is actually a safer place to fly than Australia?..cant be they don't have enough rules that nobody can understand, CAsA should go and audit them and downgrade their airlines.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 23:35
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,667
Dick

Thanks for getting the numbers. I think this is a clear example of CASA'a over regulation causing a reduction in safety.

I believe that having more IFR pilots would save lives. VFR flying is fun on a nice day. But when you have an impulsion to go somewhere its demonstrably safer not to be scud running but instead be at a safe altitude in IMC or better still above a cloud layer.

IFR no longer has the situational awareness complexities of interpreting abstract black & white dials now that we can just "follow the magenta line". The act of flying IFR is getting easier, why is licencing (of pilots and aircraft) getting harder?

Why are we not encouraging pilots to go beyond the VFR syllabus that is essentially the same as I did 40 years ago?
Old Akro is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 23:53
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,999
Because there are so many cushy government jobs that depend on the mystique of aviation!
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 14:23
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 928
Dick,
Same problem here in UK. Probably anti American predudice prevents EASA from just accepting the FAA format. Reduced ground school , just relevant subjects, but the flying test is just as demanding.
AOPA over here are trying to negotiate a lighter touch IR with EASA, but so far seems just as complicated. In fact like most EASA regs you need a lawyer to decipher the bu...hit!!
As you know many of us keep our aircraft on the N reg to enable the safety of the FAA IR. Although trying hard, EASA not succeeded in shutting off this route, been delayed for another year. Again politics seem to rule over common sense and safety.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 20:46
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 201
Good try Dick but I can't see Mr Turnbull doing much other than passing it down the line until it ends up in the bureaucratic quagmire. Not sure anyone up there gives a stuff about GA.
Thorn Bird is right. The cost of gaining and maintaining an IR is already out of reach for most private guys. Unless you're using it all the time (as in commercial) its just too hard. The training costs are going to balloon even more once the flying schools increase their prices to recover the costs of ADSB compliance.


Appreciate your efforts though, keep up the fight.

On a side note and just for the record, its POINT Lonsdale.
IFEZ is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 04:56
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,225
The FAA instrument rating is very affordable to maintain and it seems to work very well. Something like 3 departures, 3 intercepts and 3 approaches every three months, no annual check.
27/09 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 05:39
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 56
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by 27/09 View Post
The FAA instrument rating is very affordable to maintain and it seems to work very well. Something like 3 departures, 3 intercepts and 3 approaches every three months, no annual check.

Right, but I think that the relevant point here that the OP touched on is that even if you don't stay current, you still have the instrument rating (although aren't able to exercise the privileges) You could earn the instrument rating, and not fly another minute on instrumnts for 30 years, but you'd still have an instrumnt rating on your certificate. As opposed to the Australian method where the Instrument Rating ceases to exist if hot renewed. That's why the statistics are so lop-sided between the US and Australia. I bet if you compared the Number of Australian Pilots with Instrument Ratings with the number of US pilots who have maintained legal currency to fly instruments, the difference wouldn't be as marked.
A Squared is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 08:50
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,878
A2, naughty boy, don't use inconvenient facts against Dicks arguments!
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 10:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,793
Just one of the reasons why the Cessna 185 which I have just bought in the USA is going to stay on the N reg when it comes over.
QDMQDMQDM is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 11:10
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,667
A2 . Actually, Australian IFR ratings are permanent too under part 61.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 13:00
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,256
A great achievement, Dick.


A newspaper and shock jocks further scaring people away from coming flying in GA aircraft. That's got to be a good thing...
gerry111 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 14:14
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 56
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
A2 . Actually, Australian IFR ratings are permanent too under part 61.
Oh, are they? Sorry, I guess I misunderstood how the Oz system works.
A Squared is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 21:09
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 309
Dick,

The sad part about the ADS-B implementation in Australia is that in a few years time all this expensive equipment will be obsoleted by the cheaper newer stuff. By upgrading now we loose the opportunity to spend that money on other things that could benefit safety to a greater extent

In the past few days Garmin have released an all in one transponder/GPS that is $3750US. Imagine what will be available in another few years.

Garminฎ Unveils the Next Generation of All-in-One ADS-B Transponders | Garmin Newsroom

No_one

Last edited by no_one; 9th Feb 2016 at 21:11. Reason: Paragraphs
no_one is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 23:01
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up there
Posts: 153
Instrument ratings

A few facts not included in the discussion.

The weather in the USA is much different to that in Australia. They get a lot more snow and inclement weather compared to us here.

To get a CPL in the USA the candidate has to have an instrument rating or be limited to a short radius from home. I can think that that could apply to pilots going into Ag work.
That aspect of needing an IF rating to become a CPL would surely boost the holder numbers to the 65% that Dick mentioned.

Thirdly to get an instrument rating in the USA is easier because it requires a lesser standard than here. 'Get your instrument rating in 10 days'.
In short the Australian IF rating is more demanding and a better ticket at the end of the day.
runway16 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 23:32
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 309
In short the Australian IF rating is more demanding and a better ticket at the end of the day.
..and yet the accident statistics suggest they are killing people at a lower rate.
no_one is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 23:51
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,426
"In short the Australian IF rating is more demanding and a better ticket at the end of the day."

Certainly a more demanding level of Bullsxxxt to wade through in this country both to achieve the rating then maintain it.

Given our benign weather conditions compared with the USA and according to Runway an appalling standard of training how do they manage to achieve safety standards way beyond ours?

Statistics?..the first Beech bonanza was sold in 1947 for $7975:00. Since then over 18,000 have been built, 12,000 still in service. At a recent fly in in Wichita,
over 1,000 bonanzas turned up. Add to the bonanza all the cessna, pipers etc
that are still flying in the USA, SAFELY, we appear as little children pissing about in the sand box by comparison, yet our sky gods would have people believe that we are the only ones who know anything about aviation.

I have flown around most of the world and the mantra amongst the various regulators is pretty common "Of course, OUR standards are very much higher than anybody else's", except funnily in the USA where they seem quite content with their "standards" which are continuously improving utilising education,consultation, mentoring,and where necessary, as a last resort, a big stick. Ego's don't seem to count for much over there. The essence of their philosophy appears to be to teach, as opposed to our philosophy of check the living bejeezes out of it until it gives up or they run out of money.

CAsA's catchcry as annunciated by a learned gentleman.

" In Australia it is better to die safely, than live non compliant"

Last edited by thorn bird; 10th Feb 2016 at 03:10.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 08:31
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
We should harmonise with the less expensive , less complex FAA system.

That's what I intended as Chairman of CASA when the private instrument rating was introduced. It was then hijacked by idiots and now hardly anyone has an IFR rating.

And now with the rediculous expensive ADSB mandate for all IFR aircraft the number will drop even more.

Fatalities will increase just like the PMs Dad .
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 09:04
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 56
Posts: 864
Ah statistics, gotta love em......

I assume this is about private ops, as professional ops will be IFR. And while I think the ADSB thing has some issues, it is a done deal for commercial ops so there's no point barking about it.

I fly for a living in an organisation where time constraints often apply, so the option to not fly in inclement weather is negated. Additionally 50% of my flying is at night. Disregarding the night flying for private ops, of the remaining day ops in Oz 75% are in conditions where VFR flight is entirely safe, or perhaps that should be 'VFR flight has no weather-related safety issues'.

So for the limited number of private operators, flying for recreation or leisure with no compelling rationales for pushing daylight or weather boundaries, 75% of their proposed flying can be done in completely benign weather.... why would they want to operate under the IFR?

If I was to buy another aeroplane for private use (gods forbid) it would be VFR, and no less safe for it. I would also put a Garmin ADSB-GPS in it 'cause I like gadgets and if I can afford an aeroplane just for shits & giggles, I can afford a few bucks worth of toys.

Really, I think you should quit flogging this particular horse; it's dead.
Jamair is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 10:03
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1,307
I went flying last Sunday at YMMB for the first time in a long while. It was coincidently a very beautiful VMC day and the place was freakingly devoid of the usual fair-weather flyers on days like that. I was expecting to squeeze myself into a fully packed circuit as it used to be in days gone by, but no, I could have done it with my eyes closed. Sign of the times.

Although I never bothered with one, I feel the IFR rating should be mandatory as they are a learned skill just like short field landings.

I could have gotten one, but with all that bureaucracy involved, I chose to investigate unusual attitudes with aerobatic craft instead.

This reminds me a bit of the mandatory TAC fee here in Victoria which is $422 added on top of the normal car registration fee. That money could buy you 4 new tyres or a service to improve your vehicle safety, but instead it's used to create a refugee camp for marketers and over servicing doctors... sound familiar.
cattletruck is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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