Independant Instructing, CASA and the USA
Thread Starter
Independant Instructing, CASA and the USA
In the USA there are two ways that a Pilot can receive training, commonly called Part 61 and part 141. Under part 141 a school needs to have a "pilot school certificate" and have a structured curriculum. Compared to the other method, part 141 allows a student to have less flight experience to gain a licence.
Under part 61 any instructor can give them training for a person to get a PPL. They don't need to operate as part of a school. They can operate in the students aircraft, their own or a third parties. There is no AOC, no Chief Pilot and no formal curriculum however the instructor must be satisfied that the student has received instruction in all the parts listed in the regulations. When the student has the skills and the hours they are recommended for the flight test with an independent examiner, who may be employed by the FAA or work on their own. There are a limited number of examiners and they are busy. This is one way that the FAA is able to maintain consistency as they only have to keep a relatively small number of examiners aligned. Many small flight schools in the USA operate this way as there is minimal setup costs.
Why can't we have the independant instructing of the FAA Part 61 here in Australia? It would simplify the record keeping, auditing and management of flight training allowing resources that are, at the moment wasted, to be focused more towards actual training. This would lead to reduced cost and potentially more students and a larger more vibrant industry.
It would improve safety in a number of ways. For an aircraft owner at times in Australia it is hard to get an instructor that will fly in their type. By not having to operate within the framework of a school environment with the associated overhead, many US instructors are happy to teach specific advanced skills. It would simplify doing a BFR for many of the homebuilt types. In the USA many EAA chapters have members who are instructors who are willing to do BFRs for other members for a nominal fee. It would also allow for a higher level of standardisation as the number of examiners could be reduced and levels of assessment made consistent across regions and flight schools.
What roadblocks are standing in the way of implementing this here in Australia?
Under part 61 any instructor can give them training for a person to get a PPL. They don't need to operate as part of a school. They can operate in the students aircraft, their own or a third parties. There is no AOC, no Chief Pilot and no formal curriculum however the instructor must be satisfied that the student has received instruction in all the parts listed in the regulations. When the student has the skills and the hours they are recommended for the flight test with an independent examiner, who may be employed by the FAA or work on their own. There are a limited number of examiners and they are busy. This is one way that the FAA is able to maintain consistency as they only have to keep a relatively small number of examiners aligned. Many small flight schools in the USA operate this way as there is minimal setup costs.
Why can't we have the independant instructing of the FAA Part 61 here in Australia? It would simplify the record keeping, auditing and management of flight training allowing resources that are, at the moment wasted, to be focused more towards actual training. This would lead to reduced cost and potentially more students and a larger more vibrant industry.
It would improve safety in a number of ways. For an aircraft owner at times in Australia it is hard to get an instructor that will fly in their type. By not having to operate within the framework of a school environment with the associated overhead, many US instructors are happy to teach specific advanced skills. It would simplify doing a BFR for many of the homebuilt types. In the USA many EAA chapters have members who are instructors who are willing to do BFRs for other members for a nominal fee. It would also allow for a higher level of standardisation as the number of examiners could be reduced and levels of assessment made consistent across regions and flight schools.
What roadblocks are standing in the way of implementing this here in Australia?
No one, thanks for the post. I agree with everything you say and all I can suggest is that politicians should become involved. I don't know how else this will ever be implemented although if memory serves me correctly this is part of project Eureka from AOPA.
Non RAA flying schools are a dying breed and I often suspect that CASA would like all new private pilots either learning and flying RAA or not at all. If this was implemented it would make an instructor rating a great prospect. From my point of view all I want to do is be able to do conversion training from RAA to GA, provide training as required when flight reviews are conducted and the applicant is lacking some skills and be able to add a navigation endorsement to a Recreational Pilots License but under the current system I can't even do this. I have just watched a private pilot sell his lovely 152 and move to RAA because of a lack of a GA instructor. I could have trained him and there are others in the same boat.
Non RAA flying schools are a dying breed and I often suspect that CASA would like all new private pilots either learning and flying RAA or not at all. If this was implemented it would make an instructor rating a great prospect. From my point of view all I want to do is be able to do conversion training from RAA to GA, provide training as required when flight reviews are conducted and the applicant is lacking some skills and be able to add a navigation endorsement to a Recreational Pilots License but under the current system I can't even do this. I have just watched a private pilot sell his lovely 152 and move to RAA because of a lack of a GA instructor. I could have trained him and there are others in the same boat.
Agree. It was originally mooted that 'our' Part 61 would have provision for the US non AOC instruction model. Methinks that current AOC, (now Part 141 and 142)holders got to CASA, who made another 'commercial' decision to manage the industry. All this has done is allow school owners to push prices for instruction-in-own-aircraft charges higher because individual instructors are effectively locked out of the market save for a few minor fields such as general competency training, activity endos such as formation and aeros, plus design features endos such as tailwheel, csu. AFR's are excluded - yet these are the very item that many pilots have to travel in to a city location, (at great expense), to complete.
Last edited by poteroo; 4th May 2016 at 07:58. Reason: add explanation of AFR
Great idea and something I've often thought about. Seems to me this kind of thing might, heaven forbid, encourage and promote aviation activities.
Which is exactly why CASA wont go for it. You probably just made some old FOI choke on his dinner!
Jokes aside, it would actually encourage me (and others) to think about becoming an instructor. Its the current system that is keeping me out of it.
Alpha
Which is exactly why CASA wont go for it. You probably just made some old FOI choke on his dinner!
Jokes aside, it would actually encourage me (and others) to think about becoming an instructor. Its the current system that is keeping me out of it.
Alpha
Good idea I reckon, and really when it comes down to it, isn't this exactly what all this competency based training is all about - it doesn't really matter what the means of getting there is as long as you fulfil the minimum requirements for hours etc and you can fly and operate to the appropriate standards.
I would push for it.
I would push for it.
I attempted to copy the US system when I was chairman but the change was resisted by those schools who had spent all the money getting an AOC.
So often it is vested interests in our industry that stop cost reductions which will get more people flying.
So often it is vested interests in our industry that stop cost reductions which will get more people flying.
Thread Starter
Have a read of this article. While I admire the lateral thinking I am dismayed that it is necessary.
http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/innovative-idea-aims-to-save-flying-school-costs
http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/innovative-idea-aims-to-save-flying-school-costs
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You are right about the intentions. Part 141 / 142 differs from the US same numbered parts but the idea was that 141 (simple flying training) would not need an AOC, nor would a Grade One instructor need to instruct in association with an AOC holder.
First point: the biggest outcry against this came from flying school operators who had purchased an AOC; plus their lament that they would lose all their Grade One instructors!
Almost total opposition to the proposal.
Second point: the alignment of the DVFR syllabus with the RAAus syllabus and the removal of the need for a Student Pilot Licence was to allow someone to walk into a GA school or go to an individual instructor and be able to start flying immediately (not an Intro flight; real flying training).
Again, who objected?
Flying schools.
The data is there for someone who wants to look.
Same, same Cessna SIDs. BIG complaints that that numb nut Truss listened to from many quarters, particularly Horsham, about 'not needed', 'ridiculous as it is not mandatory in the USA', etc, etc; what do we see now?
Support for CASA's action.
Go figure: AMROBA and others; just bull...t.
You are right about the intentions. Part 141 / 142 differs from the US same numbered parts but the idea was that 141 (simple flying training) would not need an AOC, nor would a Grade One instructor need to instruct in association with an AOC holder.
First point: the biggest outcry against this came from flying school operators who had purchased an AOC; plus their lament that they would lose all their Grade One instructors!
Almost total opposition to the proposal.
Second point: the alignment of the DVFR syllabus with the RAAus syllabus and the removal of the need for a Student Pilot Licence was to allow someone to walk into a GA school or go to an individual instructor and be able to start flying immediately (not an Intro flight; real flying training).
Again, who objected?
Flying schools.
The data is there for someone who wants to look.
Same, same Cessna SIDs. BIG complaints that that numb nut Truss listened to from many quarters, particularly Horsham, about 'not needed', 'ridiculous as it is not mandatory in the USA', etc, etc; what do we see now?
Support for CASA's action.
Go figure: AMROBA and others; just bull...t.
IF a flying school has had all the costs and hassle of compliance and then it is proposed that it was all unnecessary and anyone can do it without all that hassle (and obviously undercut them) then of course there was opposition to it, when people have invested so much. For much the same reasons as taxi drivers object to Uber.
Not all flying schools are a dying breed, and I disagree that vested interests are a bad thing that should be dismissed as just an annoying obstruction, but RA has certainly made things a lot harder.
Not all flying schools are a dying breed, and I disagree that vested interests are a bad thing that should be dismissed as just an annoying obstruction, but RA has certainly made things a lot harder.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I attempted to copy the US system when I was chairman but the change was resisted by those schools who had spent all the money getting an AOC.
So often it is vested interests in our industry that stop cost reductions which will get more people flying.
So often it is vested interests in our industry that stop cost reductions which will get more people flying.
ExactlyI am wanting to take on a different industry and business, problem is, too much gubbermint. I would need my head read. In order to do it I would need to be not a fit and proper person, yet that is demanded of the task.
Cost of compliance is killing so much Australian industry, my grandkids (not here yet) will be in a lot of strife.
Taxi licences V Uber is a classic example. Yet Fishing licences get bought back by the government due to pressure from extremist green groups. Go figure.
Thread Starter
While I can understand that schools that had invested a lot of money in setting up a formal system would be resistant to a less onerous system they need to understand that if there are no students everyone loses.
It is also important to remember under the US system schools that have an AOC and a formal curriculum can offer reduced minimum flight times for the issue of a licence.
If a more relaxed system lead to more students then the established schools would likely see more activity as some of those students go on to things like advanced ratings or IFR. If ever there was a example of grow the pie then this is it.
It is also important to remember under the US system schools that have an AOC and a formal curriculum can offer reduced minimum flight times for the issue of a licence.
If a more relaxed system lead to more students then the established schools would likely see more activity as some of those students go on to things like advanced ratings or IFR. If ever there was a example of grow the pie then this is it.
A less onerous system would be better for all but when RA Aus were allowed to increase their maximum weight and compete directly with the GA schools at capital city airports it shrunk the already shrinking pie, so your "grow the pie" idea is not applicable here. All that has happened is that the industry has been devalued.
Thanks for your patronage, I'm glad I now know what I need to understand and what I have to remember. What is this, a year ten economics assignment?
Perhaps if you own a house and then someone comes along and says "anyone can build a house and no approvals required, just do what you want" what would happen to the values of the houses that were build with all the onerous building and council regulations? Don't you think the people who have worked all their lives to pay off a mortgage would be a little but peeved? That doesn't make them bad or greedy people.
Thanks for your patronage, I'm glad I now know what I need to understand and what I have to remember. What is this, a year ten economics assignment?
Perhaps if you own a house and then someone comes along and says "anyone can build a house and no approvals required, just do what you want" what would happen to the values of the houses that were build with all the onerous building and council regulations? Don't you think the people who have worked all their lives to pay off a mortgage would be a little but peeved? That doesn't make them bad or greedy people.
I hear what you are saying Clare. However, there is always a however .....
I think most students would prefer a school. The remaining schools are mostly getting HECS funding and industries come and go, times change, farriers, blacksmiths and coachmakers have come and gone too.
I think most students would prefer a school. The remaining schools are mostly getting HECS funding and industries come and go, times change, farriers, blacksmiths and coachmakers have come and gone too.
The very idea that somone could instruct outside the confines of a school with an AOC and Ops manual would have CASA apoplectic.
You simply can't instruct without a multi thousand page Ops Manual or student training folders that make the Yellow Pages look like a single page extract. What CASA be ale to give you an NCN for if you don't have these. I kid you not, I was asked why I wrote, "Recomend for CPL Test" instead of the correct "Recomended for CPL Test".
My god, it would make CASA actually go outside and look at what is going on in the circuit.
Does anyone in CASA actually still fly a plane?
You simply can't instruct without a multi thousand page Ops Manual or student training folders that make the Yellow Pages look like a single page extract. What CASA be ale to give you an NCN for if you don't have these. I kid you not, I was asked why I wrote, "Recomend for CPL Test" instead of the correct "Recomended for CPL Test".
My god, it would make CASA actually go outside and look at what is going on in the circuit.
Does anyone in CASA actually still fly a plane?
I would have loved to have done freelance instructing like this but the option wasn't open then, to do it I had to jump through all the hoops to get my own AOC.
Aussie bob, very few elite schools get the FEE HELP funding, and most of them still seem to run into financial strife. There are still plenty of schools operating as viable small businesses, the ones that didn't adapt to being cut off at the knees by the RA lot are long gone
Aussie bob, very few elite schools get the FEE HELP funding, and most of them still seem to run into financial strife. There are still plenty of schools operating as viable small businesses, the ones that didn't adapt to being cut off at the knees by the RA lot are long gone
The thing with freelance instructing is, you still need pretty much all the things a Part 141 school would need when it comes down to it - aircraft, maintenance, fuel, premises, training aids, record keeping, instructor rating renewals, so bar an AOC and some manuals you wouldn't really have to go that much further to get a Part 141 approval, would you?
If you're teaching someone in their own aircraft, different story, but flying schools can do that too. I reckon you could set up a small Part 141 school for not much more than you would have to fork out to do independent instructing, or perhaps I'm deluding myself.
If you're teaching someone in their own aircraft, different story, but flying schools can do that too. I reckon you could set up a small Part 141 school for not much more than you would have to fork out to do independent instructing, or perhaps I'm deluding myself.
Yes, you can.