TOO GOOD FOR GA?
This scenario has been done by pilots who have never been near the air force. Generally its a failure of the training department to clearly advise exactly what a 'nearest suitable' airport is. Again using singular evidence of the failure of an individual to abide by loose rules , which in the past were very loose. I know several occasions over the last 20 years where a captain has be disciplined for not landing at the nearest suitable, and none were ex air-force.
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 My point is that the rules are out of date and don't reflect the modern world, using the UK CAA is a waste of energy, their airspace and procedures for GA training are on a minute scale.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.
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.
One simply cannot say look at one system does, and then transfer that here. Fundamentally the issue here is the RAAF does not issue the same number/levels of qualifications as say the USAF and RAF do. The RAF for example have different levels of instrument ratings which are more like the the old Australian DOT system, class 4 to class 1 ratings. The lowest level of RAF instrument rating increases minima by about 1000 ft, and does not permit entry into CTA. The way the RAAF structure their system suits the RAAF, they don’t give a toss how this is then recognised outside.
The only people that give a toss about how things are/are not recognised are the people who leave the ADF. I don’t see any advantage at all in the ADF making it more attractive to leave.
If you take some time to look at the actual application form converting ADF qualifications into CASA, they do go into some detail to look at exactly what ADF courses were passed. They do look at exactly what the applicant was doing on a case by case basis. In the manual which is used to assess these forms, only a Grade 3 or Grade 2 instructor rating can be granted when converting an ADF qualification. Applying for a Grade 1 is outside the scope of the published procedures.
The applicant had a CASA licence for some time, and they have been flying VH registered aircraft on a CASA licence before they were posted as a QFI, this was not their initial conversion of ADF qualifications to CASA, it was an attempt to get additional qualifications onto their ATPL.
There are different levels of QFI, the applicant did not have the RAAF QFI qualification that would have granted them a Grade 2. There is no pathway from a ADF qualification to Grade 1.
When converting either an instrument rating or instructor rating from an ADF qualification, the applicant also needs to do an initial flight test. The applicant in this case would also seem to have wanted to bypass that as well.
If you take some time to look at the actual application form converting ADF qualifications into CASA, they do go into some detail to look at exactly what ADF courses were passed. They do look at exactly what the applicant was doing on a case by case basis. In the manual which is used to assess these forms, only a Grade 3 or Grade 2 instructor rating can be granted when converting an ADF qualification. Applying for a Grade 1 is outside the scope of the published procedures.
Where does it say that in the AATA decision?
Do you need a primary school teacher to explain it to you CS? 
The following users liked this post:
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.
CASA could easily validate any ICAO licence for private flying (as they once did), were it not for that embuggerance.
The following users liked this post:
There have been reports into military training, and the one of the most recents one I recall reading involved how to retain and promote more women in the military. One of the observations listed in that report was that the RAAF training focused more on the technicalities rather than teaching methods.
One simply cannot say look at one system does, and then transfer that here. Fundamentally the issue here is the RAAF does not issue the same number/levels of qualifications as say the USAF and RAF do. The RAF for example have different levels of instrument ratings which are more like the the old Australian DOT system, class 4 to class 1 ratings. The lowest level of RAF instrument rating increases minima by about 1000 ft, and does not permit entry into CTA. The way the RAAF structure their system suits the RAAF, they don’t give a toss how this is then recognised outside.
The only people that give a toss about how things are/are not recognised are the people who leave the ADF. I don’t see any advantage at all in the ADF making it more attractive to leave.
If you take some time to look at the actual application form converting ADF qualifications into CASA, they do go into some detail to look at exactly what ADF courses were passed. They do look at exactly what the applicant was doing on a case by case basis. In the manual which is used to assess these forms, only a Grade 3 or Grade 2 instructor rating can be granted when converting an ADF qualification. Applying for a Grade 1 is outside the scope of the published procedures.
The applicant had a CASA licence for some time, and they have been flying VH registered aircraft on a CASA licence before they were posted as a QFI, this was not their initial conversion of ADF qualifications to CASA, it was an attempt to get additional qualifications onto their ATPL.
There are different levels of QFI, the applicant did not have the RAAF QFI qualification that would have granted them a Grade 2. There is no pathway from a ADF qualification to Grade 1.
When converting either an instrument rating or instructor rating from an ADF qualification, the applicant also needs to do an initial flight test. The applicant in this case would also seem to have wanted to bypass that as well.
One simply cannot say look at one system does, and then transfer that here. Fundamentally the issue here is the RAAF does not issue the same number/levels of qualifications as say the USAF and RAF do. The RAF for example have different levels of instrument ratings which are more like the the old Australian DOT system, class 4 to class 1 ratings. The lowest level of RAF instrument rating increases minima by about 1000 ft, and does not permit entry into CTA. The way the RAAF structure their system suits the RAAF, they don’t give a toss how this is then recognised outside.
The only people that give a toss about how things are/are not recognised are the people who leave the ADF. I don’t see any advantage at all in the ADF making it more attractive to leave.
If you take some time to look at the actual application form converting ADF qualifications into CASA, they do go into some detail to look at exactly what ADF courses were passed. They do look at exactly what the applicant was doing on a case by case basis. In the manual which is used to assess these forms, only a Grade 3 or Grade 2 instructor rating can be granted when converting an ADF qualification. Applying for a Grade 1 is outside the scope of the published procedures.
The applicant had a CASA licence for some time, and they have been flying VH registered aircraft on a CASA licence before they were posted as a QFI, this was not their initial conversion of ADF qualifications to CASA, it was an attempt to get additional qualifications onto their ATPL.
There are different levels of QFI, the applicant did not have the RAAF QFI qualification that would have granted them a Grade 2. There is no pathway from a ADF qualification to Grade 1.
When converting either an instrument rating or instructor rating from an ADF qualification, the applicant also needs to do an initial flight test. The applicant in this case would also seem to have wanted to bypass that as well.
Australia you could be supervised as a G3 by a **** G1 and learn nothing more than what experience you pocket along the way. This is my reasoning as to why training standards have declined over the years. That and the blind leading the blind mentality. Those who advocate the new guys training the newer because the knowledge is fresh forget the simple rule that you can't transfer 100% of you knowledge to the new guy, so if your operational knowledge is already limited, because your experience is limited, then each time a generation passes the knowledge passed on reduces.
Experienced and competent trainers ensure not only are standards maintained, but promoted and expanded on.
Going back to the school educational system it's widely recognised that there is a massive variation in teaching ability and standards across the Australian system. The teachers union heavily pushes back against rating teachers, and with some good reasons, but it also recognizes that the training system for educators in Australia is also flawed. One thing that has waned from the Australian tertiary/post high school education system is practical application, this has been a problem for Engineering, Medicine and the Teaching profession itself. The education system being more of a holding file for future workers instead of the dole and money spinner for the providers. Candidates come out with a head full of knowledge that at times can be out of date already or impractical to what the world needs today.
One thing the FAA system does allow as well is variation in teaching, you can teach your techniques and way of doing things. There is no 'one way' of flying an aircraft, any good experienced instructor would know that sometimes you have to change the procedure or angle you approach something to get through to a candidate who has a different way of learning, or just thinks differently about the world. The Australian system has become overly prescriptive, again, for some ultra control, litigation process. Over the top CBT points, Act, regs, then MOS, then AIP,back to MOS then AIP agin, then CAAPs, then several other layers of regulation. FAA has what has to be taught, not how, and some guidance documents on what they think works. If you screw up the court system will call you in for a chat.
Last edited by 43Inches; 30th Aug 2023 at 02:32.
A big part of the delay is getting the other ICAO country to verify the licence.
For example people have to either go to an Australian embassy or find a DAME to get their documents verified for CASA, who unlike the ASIC agents and the regional CASA offices, would not do the process and then have everything ready, pending sighting the originals documents before handing it over, because of course this would have meant every single CoV applicant having to go to Canberra >
Processing an ASIC for someone overseas is one of the easy parts of the tortuous process!
SWH, you know all about circumscribing some CASA regulations whilst simultaneously using others to your advantage to gain your Grade 1 early (well before 12 months as a Grade 2) don’t you?
It didn’t stop you trying to deny other people from gaining a CASA qualification under similar circumstances, and as a plus for you, get them in trouble with their employer.
But it’s all about you isn’t it? Nice try!
It didn’t stop you trying to deny other people from gaining a CASA qualification under similar circumstances, and as a plus for you, get them in trouble with their employer.
But it’s all about you isn’t it? Nice try!
Have to disagree with you there Mach, this was my core business and what killed it was when they moved the issue of Certificates of Validation from the regional offices to Canberra. What used to take 24 hours on arrival face to face with the legendary John Pritchard or Maureen then took 9 months and often never happened at all. There was one safari operator who closed down and said it was because of ASICs, maybe it was maybe it wasn't, but that hasn't been a problem for us.
A big part of the delay is getting the other ICAO country to verify the licence.
For example people have to either go to an Australian embassy or find a DAME to get their documents verified for CASA, who unlike the ASIC agents and the regional CASA offices, would not do the process and then have everything ready, pending sighting the originals documents before handing it over, because of course this would have meant every single CoV applicant having to go to Canberra >
Processing an ASIC for someone overseas is one of the easy parts of the tortuous process!
A big part of the delay is getting the other ICAO country to verify the licence.
For example people have to either go to an Australian embassy or find a DAME to get their documents verified for CASA, who unlike the ASIC agents and the regional CASA offices, would not do the process and then have everything ready, pending sighting the originals documents before handing it over, because of course this would have meant every single CoV applicant having to go to Canberra >
Processing an ASIC for someone overseas is one of the easy parts of the tortuous process!
What I was amazed at was how easy it was to fly in Europe as a PPL, I always thought the regulation would have curbed it, but it seemed so much easier than Australia (back then).
Yes we used to get a lot of Europeans who would go off and do their own thing, hour-builders from the UK and some mobs would take them all over the place in guided groups, it was great for GA and for outback tourism but CASA killed it off with CLARC. We lost 60% of our business overnight with that bright idea as we could no longer guarantee it would be processed in time so couldn't take deposits. In some ways it is easier now, you can convert them to a CASA licence without having to do an air law exam and flight test, but you still have to get CASA to do their part which takes months and months, so they need to be living or working here as it doesn't work for holidays.
Yes, I remember when that changed and the field offices closed. They used to just walk into the local CASA building and walk out with a validation paper. Then not long after the change I had a foreign PPL student from Europe who arrived to start CPL/CIR training, it took ages to get a basic validation for the PPL and then a lot of time further as to what they would recognize towards the CPL. Luckily we could issue a Student licence to get them started. Then there was the issue of converting the PPL so that they could start instrument training prior to the CPL, we gave up on that idea as CASA made it too difficult and it was easier (and cheaper) they just did the CPL and then did IREX.
This all puts off the foreign students wanting to come over for a flying/training holiday as nothing can really be done at any fast pace.
The only sure validation of any qualification is a check ride, it would be very apparent after a few circuits if they have what they claim to have. The paper work in this day and age is just stupid and causes delays that have no merit. Hans turns up with a log book with obvious entries over time, a licence from the EU that states he's a pilot, shows his passport to confirm it's him, and flies a few circuits at the standard he claims to be, done. The whole process behind the scenes achieves nothing in this day and age, where he could have just stolen the Australian paperwork and ASIC, claims to be Dave-o from down the pub, doesn't have to prove anything about his authenticity and without a check ride would just go flying. Why would you bother falsifying foreign papers for a validation to fly on a holiday, when you could just falsify the local ones.
This all puts off the foreign students wanting to come over for a flying/training holiday as nothing can really be done at any fast pace.
The only sure validation of any qualification is a check ride, it would be very apparent after a few circuits if they have what they claim to have. The paper work in this day and age is just stupid and causes delays that have no merit. Hans turns up with a log book with obvious entries over time, a licence from the EU that states he's a pilot, shows his passport to confirm it's him, and flies a few circuits at the standard he claims to be, done. The whole process behind the scenes achieves nothing in this day and age, where he could have just stolen the Australian paperwork and ASIC, claims to be Dave-o from down the pub, doesn't have to prove anything about his authenticity and without a check ride would just go flying. Why would you bother falsifying foreign papers for a validation to fly on a holiday, when you could just falsify the local ones.
The paper work in this day and age is just stupid and causes delays that have no merit
And that is the problem...some jobsworth got their KPIs and a nice pay rise but it cost GA and tourism millions! And no-one is going to get thier KPIs for reducing the amount of paperwork so that we can start the tourism up again...plus there are a lot fewer AVGAS outlets now because guess what...the demand dropped off suddenly
And that is the problem...some jobsworth got their KPIs and a nice pay rise but it cost GA and tourism millions! And no-one is going to get thier KPIs for reducing the amount of paperwork so that we can start the tourism up again...plus there are a lot fewer AVGAS outlets now because guess what...the demand dropped off suddenly
We used to have a lot of European pilots come over and hire planes and fly all around the country, Germans especially. It used to be so easy, CASA left it up to us what we checked them on, they got a simple validated licence, we did a short ground course and navex to focus on Australian procedures and the importance of DR navigation (Pre-GPS days) and a day later off they went. Ok, a few NCNs would roll in in the weeks following the trips, but no safety issues, just compliance stuff mostly. I think one group I remember hired over 10 aircraft and flew to Ayres Rock, up to Cape york, down the East coast, over a few weeks, they had a ball, and used to be almosta yearly thing. <snip>
Ah, so you were the genius responsible for the gaggles of Germans who departed YSBK without much of clue as to the applicable procedures, causing consternation and complaints from the ‘locals’. Interesting the distinction you draw between “safety issues” and “just compliance stuff”. Some of us take the quaint view that compliance with procedures often reduces the risks to safety.
Normally it was a big group with a mix of commercial pilots, PPLs and their partners and such, which made sure there was a variety of experience. I think that year there were less ATPL/CPLs, handheld GPS had just sort of come in, and a few other factors. Considering how many years they did it and the miles covered they showed they had enough nous to get around without damaging anything. At the time, and probably still now, there were local PPLs who were getting around using the force who displayed much less ability. With that group there was two pilots who failed to show any sort of standard near even GFPT, they were told they would not be able to fly our aircraft, so they went down the road and hired somebody elses who was less caring. The current CASA rules would not have changed any of that though, as they held PPLs, somehow. They would have just had to wait longer for the issue of a validation.
Originally Posted by 43inches
At the time, and probably still now, there were local PPLs who were getting around using the force who displayed much less ability.
We used that term to describe how the older PPLs who came in for BFR/AFRs, whatever they are called now, would pass. They could not tell you how or what they do, they don't display any recognizable technique, there is no consistantly evident navigation method, half the time they talk incessantly while looking at something unrelated to what they are doing. But somehow they could navigate anywhere, in a zigzag fashion, completely unstable approaches would result in greased accurate landings, somehow a PFL would just end up lined up with a field, and so on.... So we had to assume they had a strong connection with a force guiding them somehow, maybe, just 'the force'.
Here’s a link to the AAT matter.
Essentially, CASA decided that Clarke did not hold and had not held a flight crew qualification, granted by the ADF, at least equivalent to a flight instructor rating to conduct ab initio flight training in ‘little’ piston aircraft. Here’s the relevant reg:Presumably CASA is worried that Clarke would move students too quickly into transonic and supersonic configurations in the Cessna 152, and be getting them to do initial and pitch approaches.
I think the standards of literacy in our schools would be higher if there were more professors of mathematics in them teaching it.
Essentially, CASA decided that Clarke did not hold and had not held a flight crew qualification, granted by the ADF, at least equivalent to a flight instructor rating to conduct ab initio flight training in ‘little’ piston aircraft. Here’s the relevant reg:Presumably CASA is worried that Clarke would move students too quickly into transonic and supersonic configurations in the Cessna 152, and be getting them to do initial and pitch approaches.
I think the standards of literacy in our schools would be higher if there were more professors of mathematics in them teaching it.
Ditto: a professor of maths might not have any knowledge, skill or training in how to engage children and teach them the basics of language. (They might not have the necessary skills to teach the first stages of maths either !).
I have much more than twice the total flying hours that this guy does, (mine are in airliners), but that does not mean I could competently teach a new pilot how to fly a C152 from scratch, since I have no instructor training or rating.
If this guy wants to teach ab-initio flying, he simply needs to pass the relevant instructor qualification - it cannot be considered a 'grandfather right', because the two disciplines are so different.
The following 2 users liked this post by Uplinker:
Uplinker, thanks for getting thread back on track. Couldn’t agree more. Despite being an ATPL Examiner with 25000 hours I would have no idea how to train a sprog up to solo, or how to teach them to recover from a spin, despite being able to do it myself. This stuff is best left to those with specific training in the task. Basic instruction is a skill set all of its own.
The following 2 users liked this post by Mach E Avelli:
UPLINKER and MACH
Clarkey HAS had experience instructing ab Initio. He was an instructor at Pearce. He has taught spins, aerobatics, formation flying. He has authorised first solo flights, in the PC9. He was a qualified flying instructor, having successfully completed the RAAF QFI course at Central Flying School at East Sale.
Clarkey HAS had experience instructing ab Initio. He was an instructor at Pearce. He has taught spins, aerobatics, formation flying. He has authorised first solo flights, in the PC9. He was a qualified flying instructor, having successfully completed the RAAF QFI course at Central Flying School at East Sale.