TOO GOOD FOR GA?
I think you'll find that the applicant wasn't on his lonesome in wanting to test CASA's application of CASR 61.285. And I anticipate the result will provide some increased impetus to change the recognition rules. (It would be fascinating to hear the CASA Chairman's personal views on the substance...)
Maybe they could establish a team reporting to a committee reporting to legal counsel, reporting to the Minister. Committee and team each comprising of at least a dozen SMEs drawn from prior RAAF, Airline , Flying Schools etc. If they really apply themselves and don’t squabble among themselves they could probably get it done by the time my yet to be born granddaughter completes her RAAF service.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 28th Aug 2023 at 23:12.
Nothing wrong with primates of course. Some of the outfits I was on contracted too, had SOP monkeys.
Last edited by RichardJones; 28th Aug 2023 at 13:45.
The following 3 users liked this post by RichardJones:
Quote Why do we say after these events that the pilot needed "re-training", it's because they were lacking in these areas. Unquote.
Political correctness, it's a polite way of saying "you fu####g Idiot.
Political correctness, it's a polite way of saying "you fu####g Idiot.
The following users liked this post:
Airlines pitch their training programs to the lowest common denominator with cyclic sim sessions, but in GA land a PPL can go two years between flight reviews which may or may not address deficiency. In the intervening two years they could fly a very few hours which means they lose whatever skills they barely had in the first place.
Pilots may shop around for an easy review, avoiding anywhere remotely resembling an academy with a reputation for high standards. Darwin Awards in the making…
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 28th Aug 2023 at 22:56.
Yes, some pilots can be dragged up to an adequate standard by rigorous training, but they need regular reinforcement to remain adequate.
Airlines pitch their training programs to the lowest common denominator with cyclic sim sessions, but in GA land a PPL can go two years between flight reviews which may or may not address deficiency. In the intervening two years they could fly a very few hours which means they lose whatever skills they barely had in the first place.
Pilots may shop around for an easy review, avoiding anywhere remotely resembling an academy with a reputation for high standards. Darwin Awards in the making…
Airlines pitch their training programs to the lowest common denominator with cyclic sim sessions, but in GA land a PPL can go two years between flight reviews which may or may not address deficiency. In the intervening two years they could fly a very few hours which means they lose whatever skills they barely had in the first place.
Pilots may shop around for an easy review, avoiding anywhere remotely resembling an academy with a reputation for high standards. Darwin Awards in the making…
In the majority of cases, that seems to work over here. Perhaps less so in the USA, where one can find answers to most any "What if I..." question simply by watching Youtube and go along for the ride from the safety of an armchair on the other side of the world.
Perhaps you should take you own advice, see point 3.
THE ISSUE
(c) meets the aeronautical experience requirements for the licence, rating or endorsement ...
The bloke may have graduated at the top of his FCI course, that does not mean he is experienced and qualified to teach pilots without their wings. The RAAF never posted him to do that role.
Like I said on a previous page, the best instructors I have worked with were trained educators, they were former primary school teachers. They had the ability to convey concepts into language that even a child could understand. Maybe I should get one on them to post on here so you can understand that having the best stick and rudder skills does not equip someone with the skills to impart grassroots concepts.
The decision affirmed CASA decision , and that position was he did not have the qualifications and experience required by CASR 61.285
”The Applicant is only entitled to be granted endorsements pursuant to CASR 61.285 if CASA, and in this case, the Tribunal is satisfied both of the equivalence of the ADF qualification on which the Applicant relies and of his relevant experience.”
Each point in CASR 61.285 is joined by the word “and”, each requirement must be met.
The requirements for progressing in instructor grades apply to any Grade 3. if a Grade 3 only taught cross country navigation, NVFR, and IFR, they could never get a Grade 2, or Grade1. They would not meet the experience requirements.
THE ISSUE
- Having quoted CASR 61.285, the Applicant’s SFIC[6] identified the issue for determination as being:... the definition of equivalence and the approach of the [CASA] in determining whether ADF experience is equivalent to the civilian authorisations.
- CASA in its SFIC identified the issue as being “whether Mr Clarke is entitled to be granted the endorsements that he seeks pursuant to Regulation 61.285 based upon his ADF qualifications and experience”.
- For reasons that will become clear below, I find that CASA’s statement of the issue for determination is correct. The issue is whether the Applicant is entitled to the authorisations that he seeks because he holds, or has held, ADF flight crew qualifications that are at least equivalent to the civilian authorisations and he meets the aeronautical experience requirements for the authorisations.
- CASR 61.285 relevantly provides:61.285 Australian Defence Force qualifications—recognitionDespite anything else in this Part, a member or former member of the Australian Defence Force is taken to meet the requirements under this Part for the grant of a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement, other than an examiner rating, if the member:
(c) meets the aeronautical experience requirements for the licence, rating or endorsement ...
- Understandably, and rightly, the Applicant has sought to identify the particular ADF qualifications that reflect or approximate to each of the civil authorisations sought. In each case, however, I am not satisfied on the evidence presented, that they approximate or align sufficiently closely to the civil authorisations to be considered “at least equivalent”, the standard required by CASR 61.285.
- In relation to the Flight Instructor Rating – Grade 1 (FIR-G1A) training endorsement sought by the Applicant, I agree with CASA’s submission that there is a lack of equivalence in the ADF qualification held by the Applicant and the privileges to be exercised under the FIR-G1A endorsement when it comes to instructing beginner or ab initio pilots. In that regard the Applicant is relying on his qualifications as an instructor in the ADF on the F/A-18 and the PC-9A, and his experience instructing ADF pilots at 2FTS. As noted by CASA, those ADF qualifications do not, of themselves, permit the Applicant to instruct ab initio pilots entering the ADF. Whether the Applicant would have the skills to do that is not the issue. The issue is whether he holds an ADF qualification with sufficient equivalence to entitle the Applicant to the issue of the civil endorsement.
- The fact that the Applicant is an enormously experienced pilot on far more sophisticated aircraft is, firstly not to the point but, secondly in any event, is not a guarantee that the Applicant would be suited to or equipped for teaching beginner pilots. While counsel used the analogy of the Applicant’s instructor experience being akin to Peter Brock teaching Craig Lowndes to drive a lap at Bathurst, perhaps a better analogy would be a professor of mathematics teaching arithmetic to primary school children. The professor would certainly have the technical knowledge of the subject matter, mathematics, but may be lacking the training or experience in teaching those with effectively no knowledge of mathematics. While the Applicant has instructed at 2FTS, those he was instructing already had flight training. The evidence did not establish any equivalence in the Applicant’s ADF qualifications in that regard.
The bloke may have graduated at the top of his FCI course, that does not mean he is experienced and qualified to teach pilots without their wings. The RAAF never posted him to do that role.
Like I said on a previous page, the best instructors I have worked with were trained educators, they were former primary school teachers. They had the ability to convey concepts into language that even a child could understand. Maybe I should get one on them to post on here so you can understand that having the best stick and rudder skills does not equip someone with the skills to impart grassroots concepts.
The decision affirmed CASA decision , and that position was he did not have the qualifications and experience required by CASR 61.285
”The Applicant is only entitled to be granted endorsements pursuant to CASR 61.285 if CASA, and in this case, the Tribunal is satisfied both of the equivalence of the ADF qualification on which the Applicant relies and of his relevant experience.”
Each point in CASR 61.285 is joined by the word “and”, each requirement must be met.
The requirements for progressing in instructor grades apply to any Grade 3. if a Grade 3 only taught cross country navigation, NVFR, and IFR, they could never get a Grade 2, or Grade1. They would not meet the experience requirements.
You're conflating the AAT's articulation of the issues for consideration - which are durr-obvious from the words of CASR 61.285 - with the way in which the AAT ultimately decided those issues after consideration of them. For your convenience, I'll quote, again, the way in which the AAT ultimately decided those issues, in the last paragraph under the intuitive heading "DECISION":
107. In the case of each of the authorisations sought by the Applicant, for the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the ADF qualification held by the Applicant is at least equivalent to the authorisation sought as required by CASR 61.285 for the Applicant to be taken to meet the requirements for the grant of the authorisations. Accordingly, the decision made by the Respondent on 29 April 2020 insofar as it relates to the four authorisations sought, is affirmed.
Again, while the Applicant’s experience may well mean that he could instruct instructors, that is not the test under CASR 61.285. The Applicant simply does not hold an ADF qualification that is sufficiently similar to the authorisation sought to be considered as at least equivalent to the authorisation sought.
LB , do you think CASA could be steered towards the UK CAA document for a template, with a view of course to improving on it, because flying in Australia is so much more challenging.
Maybe they could establish a team reporting to a committee reporting to legal counsel, reporting to the Minister. Committee and team each comprising of at least a dozen SMEs drawn from prior RAAF, Airline , Flying Schools etc. If they really apply themselves and don’t squabble among themselves they could probably get it done by the time my yet to be born granddaughter completes her RAAF service.
Maybe they could establish a team reporting to a committee reporting to legal counsel, reporting to the Minister. Committee and team each comprising of at least a dozen SMEs drawn from prior RAAF, Airline , Flying Schools etc. If they really apply themselves and don’t squabble among themselves they could probably get it done by the time my yet to be born granddaughter completes her RAAF service.
You can take the pilot out of the fighter but you can't take the fighter out of the pilot.
These guys are different, deliberately different and are very good at that job That doesn't mean they will automatically be good at another job, particularly one that doesn't require anything but a good average level headed Joe.
Case in point. A colleague of mine in a well known airline ( previous job was steely eyed warrior on an F18) brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque. As a result of the damage to leading edges, engine intakes etc the aircraft couldn't make flight planned levels and required excessive thrust settings to meet performance figures.. It was estimated there was not enough fuel remaining to taxi into the parking area if that had been attempted.
The point being I don't think any GA trained Captain would even think to attempt that. What his FO and FE thought I don't know but it was of course before CRM became a thing.
The episode was widely publicised at the time and the airline defended the Captain as some sort of hero where there was privately a strong advocacy to fire his a..e! but that would have admitted some perceived failure of the airline.
I'm not suggesting that all ex fighter pilots think like that but many that I have encountered do.
These guys are different, deliberately different and are very good at that job That doesn't mean they will automatically be good at another job, particularly one that doesn't require anything but a good average level headed Joe.
Case in point. A colleague of mine in a well known airline ( previous job was steely eyed warrior on an F18) brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque. As a result of the damage to leading edges, engine intakes etc the aircraft couldn't make flight planned levels and required excessive thrust settings to meet performance figures.. It was estimated there was not enough fuel remaining to taxi into the parking area if that had been attempted.
The point being I don't think any GA trained Captain would even think to attempt that. What his FO and FE thought I don't know but it was of course before CRM became a thing.
The episode was widely publicised at the time and the airline defended the Captain as some sort of hero where there was privately a strong advocacy to fire his a..e! but that would have admitted some perceived failure of the airline.
I'm not suggesting that all ex fighter pilots think like that but many that I have encountered do.
Last edited by deja vu; 29th Aug 2023 at 03:30.
They are just defending their guild.
If it gets easy for skilled and experienced pilots to instruct, the competition will raise
Also some flight schools will have to decide how to be more attractive
By making their students instructors after selling them an FI rating, or by hiring highly skilled ex military instructors?
Clarkey is on a crusade that's why he took the hard way
He is not doing that for his own interest but to make a point
If it gets easy for skilled and experienced pilots to instruct, the competition will raise
Also some flight schools will have to decide how to be more attractive
By making their students instructors after selling them an FI rating, or by hiring highly skilled ex military instructors?
Clarkey is on a crusade that's why he took the hard way
He is not doing that for his own interest but to make a point
brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque.
Clarkey is on a crusade that's why he took the hard way
He is not doing that for his own interest but to make a point
He is not doing that for his own interest but to make a point
If it turns out the case that he was just making a point and it was no skin off his nose, then someone or organisation was funding him? If so, who?
The AAT decision affirmed the CASA decision, which the AAT explained in “The Issue” they agreed with and would expand on further down. The CASA decision said the applicant did not have the qualification and experience, which the AAT simply shortened to a single word “equivalence”.
Leading edge and windshield abrasions point to volcanic cloud.
You have missed the point and the boat, I really do need a primary school teacher to explain this to you.
The AAT decision affirmed the CASA decision, which the AAT explained in “The Issue” they agreed with and would expand on further down. The CASA decision said the applicant did not have the qualification and experience, which the AAT simply shortened to a single word “equivalence”.
The AAT decision affirmed the CASA decision, which the AAT explained in “The Issue” they agreed with and would expand on further down. The CASA decision said the applicant did not have the qualification and experience, which the AAT simply shortened to a single word “equivalence”.
You can take the pilot out of the fighter but you can't take the fighter out of the pilot.
These guys are different, deliberately different and are very good at that job That doesn't mean they will automatically be good at another job, particularly one that doesn't require anything but a good average level headed Joe.
Case in point. A colleague of mine in a well known airline ( previous job was steely eyed warrior on an F18) brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque. As a result of the damage to leading edges, engine intakes etc the aircraft couldn't make flight planned levels and required excessive thrust settings to meet performance figures.. It was estimated there was not enough fuel remaining to taxi into the parking area if that had been attempted.
The point being I don't think any GA trained Captain would even think to attempt that. What his FO and FE thought I don't know but it was of course before CRM became a thing.
The episode was widely publicised at the time and the airline defended the Captain as some sort of hero where there was privately a strong advocacy to fire his a..e! but that would have admitted some perceived failure of the airline.
I'm not suggesting that all ex fighter pilots think like that but many that I have encountered do.
These guys are different, deliberately different and are very good at that job That doesn't mean they will automatically be good at another job, particularly one that doesn't require anything but a good average level headed Joe.
Case in point. A colleague of mine in a well known airline ( previous job was steely eyed warrior on an F18) brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque. As a result of the damage to leading edges, engine intakes etc the aircraft couldn't make flight planned levels and required excessive thrust settings to meet performance figures.. It was estimated there was not enough fuel remaining to taxi into the parking area if that had been attempted.
The point being I don't think any GA trained Captain would even think to attempt that. What his FO and FE thought I don't know but it was of course before CRM became a thing.
The episode was widely publicised at the time and the airline defended the Captain as some sort of hero where there was privately a strong advocacy to fire his a..e! but that would have admitted some perceived failure of the airline.
I'm not suggesting that all ex fighter pilots think like that but many that I have encountered do.
Experimental Test flying is the only type of flying, where a higher degree of education would be benifical, IMHO.
Last edited by RichardJones; 29th Aug 2023 at 18:19.
You can take the pilot out of the fighter but you can't take the fighter out of the pilot.
These guys are different, deliberately different and are very good at that job That doesn't mean they will automatically be good at another job, particularly one that doesn't require anything but a good average level headed Joe.
Case in point. A colleague of mine in a well known airline ( previous job was steely eyed warrior on an F18) brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque. As a result of the damage to leading edges, engine intakes etc the aircraft couldn't make flight planned levels and required excessive thrust settings to meet performance figures.. It was estimated there was not enough fuel remaining to taxi into the parking area if that had been attempted.
The point being I don't think any GA trained Captain would even think to attempt that. What his FO and FE thought I don't know but it was of course before CRM became a thing.
The episode was widely publicised at the time and the airline defended the Captain as some sort of hero where there was privately a strong advocacy to fire his a..e! but that would have admitted some perceived failure of the airline.
I'm not suggesting that all ex fighter pilots think like that but many that I have encountered do.
These guys are different, deliberately different and are very good at that job That doesn't mean they will automatically be good at another job, particularly one that doesn't require anything but a good average level headed Joe.
Case in point. A colleague of mine in a well known airline ( previous job was steely eyed warrior on an F18) brought a seriously damaged aircraft 3.5 hours back to his home base from overhead the destination and passed at least 3 more than acceptable airports, did a downwind auto land off the only ILS available and then shutdown on the runway as the windshields were completely opaque. As a result of the damage to leading edges, engine intakes etc the aircraft couldn't make flight planned levels and required excessive thrust settings to meet performance figures.. It was estimated there was not enough fuel remaining to taxi into the parking area if that had been attempted.
The point being I don't think any GA trained Captain would even think to attempt that. What his FO and FE thought I don't know but it was of course before CRM became a thing.
The episode was widely publicised at the time and the airline defended the Captain as some sort of hero where there was privately a strong advocacy to fire his a..e! but that would have admitted some perceived failure of the airline.
I'm not suggesting that all ex fighter pilots think like that but many that I have encountered do.
I also have a story about an ex-airforce pilot who was not up to scratch, even an ex Roulette, but there was also a medical condition involved so it's not fair to blame the air-force background in that instance.
As for ex school teachers making great instructors, I haven't come across many, but the few I have were OK, but not 'stand out' flight instructors. I've know two ex military 'test pilots', who had converted to civil life, and their flying skills and ability to make things simple for the average human were exemplary. But they were well and above the qualifications of a QFI, having undergone the empire test pilot program. These guys were brilliant at instructor training as they knew everything, but also were very critical if you over complicated something from the basics, they'd also shoot you down very quickly for bull****. In the US at least school teaching qualifications in secondary school or greater are recognized for the PMI component, but not primary school, that is year 7 and above is accepted.
It's a pity that the majority of really good ex-military pilot instructors I've come across are mostly from international backgrounds. Which probably hints at the lack of military converting to GA from the RAAF because it's all too much hassell.
BTW, all my posts before were never insinuating the AAT got it wrong, they were only assessing whether the rules were applied in the correct sense here. My point is that the rules are out of date and don't reflect the modern world, using the UK CAA is a waste of energy, their airspace and procedures for GA training are on a minute scale. We might as well emulate Fiji, or Botswana if you want to copy paste the UK rules sets, as commonality with the majority of the worlds pilots would be achieved via the US system, any thing else is tin pot politics. The FAA has the right idea for just about anything GA oriented, and they have a massive GA industry over a huge country. Whilst I know CASA will never concede to this, that is what should be applied here.
Also think of the aviation tourism opportunity if FAA licensed pilots could just come here without the rig-moral and go on touring holidays. Right now it's way too much hassell. You just have to watch the episode of the Simpsons where they come to Australia, they think we're some sort of Nazi rule oriented backwater.
Last edited by 43Inches; 30th Aug 2023 at 00:12.