Independant Instructing, CASA and the USA
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: in the air
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A compromise solution would not be hard...
i.e. all training towards a license, or rating be done with a school or an organisation with an AOC, everything else with a grade two instructor or better (or some sensible variation) etc.
Instead you have a charade where an instructor can provide a 'review', but can't provide instruction without a school...
i.e. all training towards a license, or rating be done with a school or an organisation with an AOC, everything else with a grade two instructor or better (or some sensible variation) etc.
Instead you have a charade where an instructor can provide a 'review', but can't provide instruction without a school...
ICAO Annex 1 states the holder of a flight instructor rating is authorised to train pilots, full stop. The whole 141/142 stuff is about allowing a reduction in the hours required to gain a licence of a particular type (PPL or CPL). CASA has decided to be more restrictive than ICAO SARPS for whatever reason. The industry needs to call them on why and justify the difference.
It's reasonable to expect an instructor of any kind to have an appropriate syllabus, record keeping, and equipment to do the job.
If you're setting up in business to train pilots then it's fair enough to have to prove you can do the job properly. That to me justifies the requirement for an approval process, and with a ready-made Part 141 ops manual available from CASA now https://www.casa.gov.au/files/sample...0march2016docx
and considering you're going to need the same sorts of equipment and resources to instruct either independently or as a Part 141 approved operator, it doesn't seem like such a big problem to go through that process.
If you're setting up in business to train pilots then it's fair enough to have to prove you can do the job properly. That to me justifies the requirement for an approval process, and with a ready-made Part 141 ops manual available from CASA now https://www.casa.gov.au/files/sample...0march2016docx
and considering you're going to need the same sorts of equipment and resources to instruct either independently or as a Part 141 approved operator, it doesn't seem like such a big problem to go through that process.
US Part 61 instruction does not have an approved syllabus. Instructors can teach whatever they want. *However* the students are tested against a list of required items in the Practical Test Standard (1 of 'a', any 2 of 'b', 'c', 'd', & 'e' etc). The FAA tracks each Part 61 Instructor's test recommendation for a minimum pass rate. Failure for an instructor to achieve the required pass rate results in a review of competency to hold the instructor rating. Pass rate includes recommendations to sit theory exams too. I don't know any instructor who would recommend someone for a test who wasn't likely to pass. The instructor's own certificate is at risk.
Similarly, an instructor is held accountable for sending students solo.
Separate training records are not required (although there are some records that an instructor must keep for various endorsements). Each student's log book is the training record. Every instructional entry must be signed by the instructor involved - or it doesn't count towards training times.
Similarly, an instructor is held accountable for sending students solo.
Separate training records are not required (although there are some records that an instructor must keep for various endorsements). Each student's log book is the training record. Every instructional entry must be signed by the instructor involved - or it doesn't count towards training times.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 9th May 2016 at 01:50.
Every instructional entry must be signed by the instructor involved - or it doesn't count towards training times.
Seems kind of hands-off for the supposedly litigious American society, though - if a student crashes on a solo, a log book record with just 'circuits' or 'stalling' seems like a set up for a 'You told me to do it that way' vs. 'That's not how I taught you to do it' scenario.
Yes the training records are important "evidence" in the unfortunate event of a mishap.
A freelance instructor would need all that, plus some good public liability insurance. (Something the many sham contractors don't have even if they are working through an AOC...which is the thing that makes the contracting a sham!)
A freelance instructor would need all that, plus some good public liability insurance. (Something the many sham contractors don't have even if they are working through an AOC...which is the thing that makes the contracting a sham!)
Thread Starter
So the reasons we have so far for not implementing independant instructing are:
1 The established commercial operators would be financially disadvantaged because they have spent time and effort establishing their operating systems.
2. Independant instructing wouldn't require the same level of keeping of student records to appropriation blame when an accident has occurred.
These seem kind of weak arguments. In the USA a commercial operator (under part 141) is able to provide integrated training and therefore the student can be issued a license in a reduced number of hours. For many students aiming for the airlines this is still a benefit and so they go to that way.
If the instructor keeping notes in their logbook is enough record keeping for training in the USA why do we need more paperwork here? Does it make us safer?
1 The established commercial operators would be financially disadvantaged because they have spent time and effort establishing their operating systems.
2. Independant instructing wouldn't require the same level of keeping of student records to appropriation blame when an accident has occurred.
These seem kind of weak arguments. In the USA a commercial operator (under part 141) is able to provide integrated training and therefore the student can be issued a license in a reduced number of hours. For many students aiming for the airlines this is still a benefit and so they go to that way.
If the instructor keeping notes in their logbook is enough record keeping for training in the USA why do we need more paperwork here? Does it make us safer?
CASA have always claimed that they are not making decisions based on economics, ie, that it's safety only. Yet over the years they have made decisions on granting of AOC's that are clearly influenced by the protests of any incumbents. It's been happening since the early 60's.
I can see value in Part 61 'allowing' for independent instructors to train pilots for design feature and flight activity endorsements outside of a Part 141 school, provided they are experienced and comply with record keeping etc. By 'experienced' I'd be thinking at least Grade 1, and with substantial flight experience in that activity - say, 100+ hrs of time in each - none of this piddly 'go out and instruct immediately after your own endo' that has been the case under the CAR's.
But where Part 61 has failed the average PPL, (IMHO), is that that pilot cannot do their AFR with a locally based independent instructor. Well, that how I read it in 61.1120. Often, country pilots have to travel some distance to obtain their AFR from a 141 school - when, often, there is the option to do it locally, (but with an independent instructor). This is even more galling for the pilot if they own a notably difficult to fly taildragger or a very high performance type, on which they often have to effectively 'train' their AFR instructor at the 141 school. (C170/180/185 come to mind).
It really wouldn't be any skin off the 141 schools' noses for CASA to allow AFR's to be done by experienced G1's out in the regions. It's not as though AFR's are a major source of income for most schools.
And, the pilot would be receiving good value in their review without all the travel costs.
And, we could then 'instruct' during the AFR - instead of the farcical situation of doing the review on flight #1, then going back out to do the remedial instruction on flight #2.
This isn't much to ask CASA to change. Yes, a complete transplant of the NZ or US Part 61 would be good - but the air in Australia is quite different to elsewhere......isn't it? Maybe just in Canberra, where it seems chronic hypoxia is determining the content of the CASR rewrites.
happy days,
I can see value in Part 61 'allowing' for independent instructors to train pilots for design feature and flight activity endorsements outside of a Part 141 school, provided they are experienced and comply with record keeping etc. By 'experienced' I'd be thinking at least Grade 1, and with substantial flight experience in that activity - say, 100+ hrs of time in each - none of this piddly 'go out and instruct immediately after your own endo' that has been the case under the CAR's.
But where Part 61 has failed the average PPL, (IMHO), is that that pilot cannot do their AFR with a locally based independent instructor. Well, that how I read it in 61.1120. Often, country pilots have to travel some distance to obtain their AFR from a 141 school - when, often, there is the option to do it locally, (but with an independent instructor). This is even more galling for the pilot if they own a notably difficult to fly taildragger or a very high performance type, on which they often have to effectively 'train' their AFR instructor at the 141 school. (C170/180/185 come to mind).
It really wouldn't be any skin off the 141 schools' noses for CASA to allow AFR's to be done by experienced G1's out in the regions. It's not as though AFR's are a major source of income for most schools.
And, the pilot would be receiving good value in their review without all the travel costs.
And, we could then 'instruct' during the AFR - instead of the farcical situation of doing the review on flight #1, then going back out to do the remedial instruction on flight #2.
This isn't much to ask CASA to change. Yes, a complete transplant of the NZ or US Part 61 would be good - but the air in Australia is quite different to elsewhere......isn't it? Maybe just in Canberra, where it seems chronic hypoxia is determining the content of the CASR rewrites.
happy days,
It really wouldn't be any skin off the 141 schools' noses for CASA to allow AFR's to be done by experienced G1's out in the regions. It's not as though AFR's are a major source of income for most schools.
I can see value in Part 61 'allowing' for independent instructors to train pilots for design feature and flight activity endorsements outside of a Part 141 school
As one who ran, for many years, my own flying school as airport and aircraft owner, general cleaner, manager, CFI, also CP for charter and an RPT run, the sole reality for CASA's AOC regime is fee gouging, egotistical control and a continual bureaucratic make work program.
Its true that the independent instructor concept was not popular due to the vested interests of flying schools. That myopic view is I think is nearly extinct because the whole industry is dying under the stifling and crushing burden of our out of control regulator. To grow the pie, plain as the nose on your face, independent instructors are a must, training is the progenitor of all GA activity. Some 70% of all US pilots are trained outside of the equivalent AOC system. With our low population thinly spread out across country where GA is perhaps most useful, the expensive and inefficient AOC system is simply not affordable, not appropriate and therefore not fit for purpose. No substantial change will occur unless and until Parliament takes action, so it behoves us all to get behind any effort for reform.
Its true that the independent instructor concept was not popular due to the vested interests of flying schools. That myopic view is I think is nearly extinct because the whole industry is dying under the stifling and crushing burden of our out of control regulator. To grow the pie, plain as the nose on your face, independent instructors are a must, training is the progenitor of all GA activity. Some 70% of all US pilots are trained outside of the equivalent AOC system. With our low population thinly spread out across country where GA is perhaps most useful, the expensive and inefficient AOC system is simply not affordable, not appropriate and therefore not fit for purpose. No substantial change will occur unless and until Parliament takes action, so it behoves us all to get behind any effort for reform.
CASA have always claimed that they are not making decisions based on economics, ie, that it's safety only. Yet over the years they have made decisions on granting of AOC's that are clearly influenced by the protests of any incumbents. It's been happening since the early 60's.
I can see value in Part 61 'allowing' for independent instructors to train pilots for design feature and flight activity endorsements outside of a Part 141 school, provided they are experienced and comply with record keeping etc. By 'experienced' I'd be thinking at least Grade 1, and with substantial flight experience in that activity - say, 100+ hrs of time in each - none of this piddly 'go out and instruct immediately after your own endo' that has been the case under the CAR's.
But where Part 61 has failed the average PPL, (IMHO), is that that pilot cannot do their AFR with a locally based independent instructor. Well, that how I read it in 61.1120. Often, country pilots have to travel some distance to obtain their AFR from a 141 school - when, often, there is the option to do it locally, (but with an independent instructor). This is even more galling for the pilot if they own a notably difficult to fly taildragger or a very high performance type, on which they often have to effectively 'train' their AFR instructor at the 141 school. (C170/180/185 come to mind).
It really wouldn't be any skin off the 141 schools' noses for CASA to allow AFR's to be done by experienced G1's out in the regions. It's not as though AFR's are a major source of income for most schools.
And, the pilot would be receiving good value in their review without all the travel costs.
And, we could then 'instruct' during the AFR - instead of the farcical situation of doing the review on flight #1, then going back out to do the remedial instruction on flight #2.
This isn't much to ask CASA to change. Yes, a complete transplant of the NZ or US Part 61 would be good - but the air in Australia is quite different to elsewhere......isn't it? Maybe just in Canberra, where it seems chronic hypoxia is determining the content of the CASR rewrites.
happy days,
I can see value in Part 61 'allowing' for independent instructors to train pilots for design feature and flight activity endorsements outside of a Part 141 school, provided they are experienced and comply with record keeping etc. By 'experienced' I'd be thinking at least Grade 1, and with substantial flight experience in that activity - say, 100+ hrs of time in each - none of this piddly 'go out and instruct immediately after your own endo' that has been the case under the CAR's.
But where Part 61 has failed the average PPL, (IMHO), is that that pilot cannot do their AFR with a locally based independent instructor. Well, that how I read it in 61.1120. Often, country pilots have to travel some distance to obtain their AFR from a 141 school - when, often, there is the option to do it locally, (but with an independent instructor). This is even more galling for the pilot if they own a notably difficult to fly taildragger or a very high performance type, on which they often have to effectively 'train' their AFR instructor at the 141 school. (C170/180/185 come to mind).
It really wouldn't be any skin off the 141 schools' noses for CASA to allow AFR's to be done by experienced G1's out in the regions. It's not as though AFR's are a major source of income for most schools.
And, the pilot would be receiving good value in their review without all the travel costs.
And, we could then 'instruct' during the AFR - instead of the farcical situation of doing the review on flight #1, then going back out to do the remedial instruction on flight #2.
This isn't much to ask CASA to change. Yes, a complete transplant of the NZ or US Part 61 would be good - but the air in Australia is quite different to elsewhere......isn't it? Maybe just in Canberra, where it seems chronic hypoxia is determining the content of the CASR rewrites.
happy days,
If someone qualified as an Instructor wishes hang up a shingle at a small airfield giving 'instruction' then surely that is their right to take the plunge into a small business.
A QFI is an Instructor is an Instructor...No ?
And market forces, word of mouth and the successful passing of flight tests by his/her students will ensure the viability of the business.
Its called free enterprise and capitalism.If the job is not done properly, no more students, no continuing business. Remove shingle. Simple really.
But for Cantberra and (Non) Aviation House..home of control freaks, 'we know best'ers and the of haters of entrepreneurs, such an idea would be so unsafe as to litter the country with broken bodies and aircraft.
After all their MO is to be the sole arbiter of "safety" and boy, hasnt that cost the taxpayer and the industry dearly. Mega millions and still wasting.....
CAsA is a gigantic con job. A massive fraud.
It should be
A QFI is an Instructor is an Instructor...No ?
And market forces, word of mouth and the successful passing of flight tests by his/her students will ensure the viability of the business.
Its called free enterprise and capitalism.If the job is not done properly, no more students, no continuing business. Remove shingle. Simple really.
But for Cantberra and (Non) Aviation House..home of control freaks, 'we know best'ers and the of haters of entrepreneurs, such an idea would be so unsafe as to litter the country with broken bodies and aircraft.
After all their MO is to be the sole arbiter of "safety" and boy, hasnt that cost the taxpayer and the industry dearly. Mega millions and still wasting.....
CAsA is a gigantic con job. A massive fraud.
It should be
Aussie Bob, in the US some independent instructors do get together and create 'flying schools'. They can have premises, employ a secretary and so on, much like an AOC type school.
In other words sensible arrangements to suit the market. No doubt the same would apply here, but also the flexibility for an instructor to go bush and teach where the need exists
In other words sensible arrangements to suit the market. No doubt the same would apply here, but also the flexibility for an instructor to go bush and teach where the need exists
