TOO GOOD FOR GA?
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.
This was CASA’s reasoning:
(k) It is understandable that an instructor who is assessing whether a student pilot is ready for their first solo should have a minimum number of hours of experience in instructing students at that level of flying skill. A grade 1 instructor is then required to have even more experience with students at that level, because only a grade 1 instructor can be the head of operations of a Part 141 flying school (see CASR 141.125(1)(a)(i)).
(l) The Applicant may well be a very capable instructor, and with the requisite time working as a grade 3 instructor with student pilots he will almost certainly qualify as a grade 2 and grade 1 instructor. However, he does not presently have the required experience with student pilots at that level.
The following 2 users liked this post by dr dre:
There was a period at 2FTS when we taught ab initio, all through pilot training at 2FTS. Plus the CFS QFI training, had ab initio training in the syllabus, because the instructors course was the same whether or not you were going to 1FTS or 2FTS.
I'll reiterate again. The RAAF QFI training and flying is polar opposite to airline sim instructing. An ex RAAF QFI is by far capable enough to be a Grade 1 instructor.
I'll reiterate again. The RAAF QFI training and flying is polar opposite to airline sim instructing. An ex RAAF QFI is by far capable enough to be a Grade 1 instructor.
The following users liked this post:
I'll reiterate again. The RAAF QFI training and flying is polar opposite to airline sim instructing. An ex RAAF QFI is by far capable enough to be a Grade 1 instructor.
"Those that can do, those that can't, teach" - Bernard Shaw
Often thrown around in a derogatory manner, the adage still bears thinking about. My observations of exceptional pilots is that in fact they are poor teachers because their standards and expectations are too high. They cannot understand why others aren't like them. They resort to demonstration when the hapless student is incapable of either understanding or observing at the rate the instructor expects.
Give the bloke his grade 1 instructor rating, give all ex RAAF pilots who have taught one too. In that I am in full agreement, but wether they will actually make good ab initio trainers, the market will have to decide. Some no doubt will, many already have, some will fail miserably and be generally disliked. It's always been thus.
Indeed. When I started learning, we had a instructor who was unable to tolerate any inaccurate flying, whatsoever. Note I didn't use the word learnt, as the learning process, never ceases. He managed to upset most of the students he tried to teach, to the extent he was avoided. Not a commercial success.
We all perform better in a relaxed environment. Captains and instructors should set this tone. IMHO.
We are all human and we like a pat on the back occasionally. If people do a job well, tell they have done a good job
We all perform better in a relaxed environment. Captains and instructors should set this tone. IMHO.
We are all human and we like a pat on the back occasionally. If people do a job well, tell they have done a good job
Last edited by RichardJones; 30th Aug 2023 at 22:42.
The following users liked this post:
Perhaps Captain, perhaps. I have flown with a few RAAF pilots over the years and their skills have been exceptional but remember the old adage"
"Those that can do, those that can't, teach" - Bernard Shaw
Often thrown around in a derogatory manner, the adage still bears thinking about. My observations of exceptional pilots is that in fact they are poor teachers because their standards and expectations are too high. They cannot understand why others aren't like them. They resort to demonstration when the hapless student is incapable of either understanding or observing at the rate the instructor expects.
Give the bloke his grade 1 instructor rating, give all ex RAAF pilots who have taught one too. In that I am in full agreement, but wether they will actually make good ab initio trainers, the market will have to decide. Some no doubt will, many already have, some will fail miserably and be generally disliked. It's always been thus.
"Those that can do, those that can't, teach" - Bernard Shaw
Often thrown around in a derogatory manner, the adage still bears thinking about. My observations of exceptional pilots is that in fact they are poor teachers because their standards and expectations are too high. They cannot understand why others aren't like them. They resort to demonstration when the hapless student is incapable of either understanding or observing at the rate the instructor expects.
Give the bloke his grade 1 instructor rating, give all ex RAAF pilots who have taught one too. In that I am in full agreement, but wether they will actually make good ab initio trainers, the market will have to decide. Some no doubt will, many already have, some will fail miserably and be generally disliked. It's always been thus.
The reality is a good instructor is a good instructor, made better with skill and experience. You can learn about instructional technique, but more than anything it requires personality traits of patience, tolerance, empathy and curiosity. Patience is obvious, everybody learns in their own time, at their own pace. Tolerance, in that you have to accept there are multiple ways of doing things, not just yours, teach different people from different backgrounds and such without treating stereotypes. Empathy, in understanding what the student needs to progress, having regards to what other struggles they may be dealing with. And a level of curiosity to expand your own knowledge and also have interest in learning how and why a particular student is the way they are.
Do ex military all demand high standards? This all comes down to what you might consider high. Some are unwavering, this can be good if you want to achieve that, but, in GA the student can walk to another flight school to get training should they not like it. So even if the instructor (of any background) pushes too higher standard, the market will send them broke if nobody wants that, nothing wrong with them trying though. The market will decide in the long run whether that standard is sought after. But a good ex military instructor will show the traits I listed above, as would a good civilian instructor. So the point becomes moot as in both military and civilian life you will get instructors that don't fit the bill. The military however tends to be way more selective of instructors as the candidate is not paying for the exercise, the air force is. So there is a vested interest that the instructor is capable and competent to reduce training times and scrubs to minimal. In GA a bad instructor is tolerated as the extra training time is money in the bank for the flying school.
What I do see here a is a lot of comment from pilots with no instructional qualifications. I've trained pilots from all walks of life, including ex military from several different countries, some converted to instructing, others to airlines. I've trained instructors, inducted them into both flying schools and airlines. I would have no issue with a QFI being unsupervised training new pilots, after a check of their skills. Generally I'd be happy with most FIR G3s training unsupervised (Mentoring and supervision are two different things BTW), because in reality they do that anyway, no one is watching them actually conduct flights, you could possibly do this in a 4 seater, but not in a C152. You can sit in on briefings, but that's not going to show much, and safety wise, maybe you might stop a vicious paper cut, or ruler poke out an eye. Most PPLs could probably safely teach somebody how to fly without instructor qualifications, just some right seat practice before hand, not saying they would all be safe, effective, efficient instructors, however standards would definitely dwindle towards road type skills.
The following 2 users liked this post by 43Inches:
The adage does not work.
The reality is a good instructor is a good instructor, made better with skill and experience. You can learn about instructional technique, but more than anything it requires personality traits of patience, tolerance, empathy and curiosity. Patience is obvious, everybody learns in their own time, at their own pace. Tolerance, in that you have to accept there are multiple ways of doing things, not just yours, teach different people from different backgrounds and such without treating stereotypes. Empathy, in understanding what the student needs to progress, having regards to what other struggles they may be dealing with. And a level of curiosity to expand your own knowledge and also have interest in learning how and why a particular student is the way they are.
Do ex military all demand high standards? This all comes down to what you might consider high. Some are unwavering, this can be good if you want to achieve that, but, in GA the student can walk to another flight school to get training should they not like it. So even if the instructor (of any background) pushes too higher standard, the market will send them broke if nobody wants that, nothing wrong with them trying though. The market will decide in the long run whether that standard is sought after. But a good ex military instructor will show the traits I listed above, as would a good civilian instructor. So the point becomes moot as in both military and civilian life you will get instructors that don't fit the bill. The military however tends to be way more selective of instructors as the candidate is not paying for the exercise, the air force is. So there is a vested interest that the instructor is capable and competent to reduce training times and scrubs to minimal. In GA a bad instructor is tolerated as the extra training time is money in the bank for the flying school.
What I do see here a is a lot of comment from pilots with no instructional qualifications. I've trained pilots from all walks of life, including ex military from several different countries, some converted to instructing, others to airlines. I've trained instructors, inducted them into both flying schools and airlines. I would have no issue with a QFI being unsupervised training new pilots, after a check of their skills. Generally I'd be happy with most FIR G3s training unsupervised (Mentoring and supervision are two different things BTW), because in reality they do that anyway, no one is watching them actually conduct flights, you could possibly do this in a 4 seater, but not in a C152. You can sit in on briefings, but that's not going to show much, and safety wise, maybe you might stop a vicious paper cut, or ruler poke out an eye. Most PPLs could probably safely teach somebody how to fly without instructor qualifications, just some right seat practice before hand, not saying they would all be safe, effective, efficient instructors, however standards would definitely dwindle towards road type skills.
The reality is a good instructor is a good instructor, made better with skill and experience. You can learn about instructional technique, but more than anything it requires personality traits of patience, tolerance, empathy and curiosity. Patience is obvious, everybody learns in their own time, at their own pace. Tolerance, in that you have to accept there are multiple ways of doing things, not just yours, teach different people from different backgrounds and such without treating stereotypes. Empathy, in understanding what the student needs to progress, having regards to what other struggles they may be dealing with. And a level of curiosity to expand your own knowledge and also have interest in learning how and why a particular student is the way they are.
Do ex military all demand high standards? This all comes down to what you might consider high. Some are unwavering, this can be good if you want to achieve that, but, in GA the student can walk to another flight school to get training should they not like it. So even if the instructor (of any background) pushes too higher standard, the market will send them broke if nobody wants that, nothing wrong with them trying though. The market will decide in the long run whether that standard is sought after. But a good ex military instructor will show the traits I listed above, as would a good civilian instructor. So the point becomes moot as in both military and civilian life you will get instructors that don't fit the bill. The military however tends to be way more selective of instructors as the candidate is not paying for the exercise, the air force is. So there is a vested interest that the instructor is capable and competent to reduce training times and scrubs to minimal. In GA a bad instructor is tolerated as the extra training time is money in the bank for the flying school.
What I do see here a is a lot of comment from pilots with no instructional qualifications. I've trained pilots from all walks of life, including ex military from several different countries, some converted to instructing, others to airlines. I've trained instructors, inducted them into both flying schools and airlines. I would have no issue with a QFI being unsupervised training new pilots, after a check of their skills. Generally I'd be happy with most FIR G3s training unsupervised (Mentoring and supervision are two different things BTW), because in reality they do that anyway, no one is watching them actually conduct flights, you could possibly do this in a 4 seater, but not in a C152. You can sit in on briefings, but that's not going to show much, and safety wise, maybe you might stop a vicious paper cut, or ruler poke out an eye. Most PPLs could probably safely teach somebody how to fly without instructor qualifications, just some right seat practice before hand, not saying they would all be safe, effective, efficient instructors, however standards would definitely dwindle towards road type skills.
Perhaps Captain, perhaps. I have flown with a few RAAF pilots over the years and their skills have been exceptional but remember the old adage"
"Those that can do, those that can't, teach" - Bernard Shaw
Often thrown around in a derogatory manner, the adage still bears thinking about. My observations of exceptional pilots is that in fact they are poor teachers because their standards and expectations are too high. They cannot understand why others aren't like them. They resort to demonstration when the hapless student is incapable of either understanding or observing at the rate the instructor expects.
Give the bloke his grade 1 instructor rating, give all ex RAAF pilots who have taught one too. In that I am in full agreement, but wether they will actually make good ab initio trainers, the market will have to decide. Some no doubt will, many already have, some will fail miserably and be generally disliked. It's always been thus.
"Those that can do, those that can't, teach" - Bernard Shaw
Often thrown around in a derogatory manner, the adage still bears thinking about. My observations of exceptional pilots is that in fact they are poor teachers because their standards and expectations are too high. They cannot understand why others aren't like them. They resort to demonstration when the hapless student is incapable of either understanding or observing at the rate the instructor expects.
Give the bloke his grade 1 instructor rating, give all ex RAAF pilots who have taught one too. In that I am in full agreement, but wether they will actually make good ab initio trainers, the market will have to decide. Some no doubt will, many already have, some will fail miserably and be generally disliked. It's always been thus.
I think we’ve found the crux of the issue. The subject pilot did have experience in some areas, which is why the majority of the endorsements he requested were granted. But for those specific areas which he lacked the specific experience they were not granted by CASA and this was confirmed by the AAT.
He wanted a FIR-FIR endorsement, “train the trainer”? He failed to provided evidence the he had experience or endorsements from the RAAF to conduct instructor training.
He wanted a FIR-MCP endorsement, multi crew training? His only evidence was flying hours, not training, in a King Air 200, hardly “Multi Crew” if it can be flown single pilot even if some operators use 2 crew. I know some operators use two crew in Piper Chieftain for insurance purposes, doesn’t make it a suitable “multi crew aircraft”.
He wanted FIR-MEAI, multi engine class rating training? He showed limited actual experience in training on the F-18, and as he and his witnesses admitted to the tribunal the F-18 isn’t a suitable platform for teaching generic asymmetric flight. He didn’t have any experience in training on an aircraft that produces substantial yaw in asymmetric flight, yet wanted the equivalent civilian rating straight up.
For every other endorsement he wanted he got it because he demonstrated he had the equivalent military experience to gain that endorsement.
I'll reiterate again. The RAAF QFI training and flying is polar opposite to airline sim instructing. An ex RAAF QFI is by far capable enough to be a Grade 1 instructor.
For one of the endorsements he sought, the FIR-MCP for multi crew training an airline TRI/TRE would have far more relevant experience of training in multi crew operations on aircraft that actually require 2 pilots over a RAAF QFI, yet I don’t believe they are granted the endorsement to train for the Multi crew co-operation course with their TRI/TRE qualification (happy to be corrected if wrong).
Last edited by dr dre; 31st Aug 2023 at 00:34.
The following 4 users liked this post by dr dre:
The Brits have a civilian category of instructor which allows PPLs to instruct. It’s really intended for flying clubs. They are not permitted to send a student solo. At club level I am not even sure that they have to be supervised by a higher grade. Someone more familiar with that system could comment?
Because there is no military equivalent, no RAF rating is recognised by CAA for this, even if a QFI elects to only hold a civilian PPL
A RAF QFI who converts to a CPL or ATPL can also get an instructor rating, subject to flight test. Privileges of that rating are dependent upon what said QFI did while in the service; e.g. to be able to send students solo, must have already done certain minimum number.
CASA’s approach is very similar, though in the past may have been inconsistent. No surprises there!
Because there is no military equivalent, no RAF rating is recognised by CAA for this, even if a QFI elects to only hold a civilian PPL
A RAF QFI who converts to a CPL or ATPL can also get an instructor rating, subject to flight test. Privileges of that rating are dependent upon what said QFI did while in the service; e.g. to be able to send students solo, must have already done certain minimum number.
CASA’s approach is very similar, though in the past may have been inconsistent. No surprises there!
This shows that ab initio training for all ADF pilots was conducted by the BFTS at Tamworth from 1999-2019. They had (the AAT found) a minimum of 200 hours by the time they came to 2FTS and were instructed by that Pilot. .
The ADF BFTS course was 60 hours - it isn't even close to a CPL standard. It's not ab-initio but they're definitely not winged qualified pilots. When it comes to things live navigation a PPL standard was substantially higher than what students had leaving BFTS. For this reason compleition of BFTS but not 2FTS did not entitle students to a PPL, let alone a CPL.
Last edited by junior.VH-LFA; 31st Aug 2023 at 01:49.
The adage does not work.
This shows that ab initio training for all ADF pilots was conducted by the BFTS at Tamworth from 1999-2019. They had (the AAT found) a minimum of 200 hours by the time they came to 2FTS and were instructed by that Pilot.
This was elucidated on page 1 of this thread as was the link to the decision.
The subject pilot did have experience in some areas, which is why the majority of the endorsements he requested were granted. But for those specific areas which he lacked the specific experience they were not granted by CASA and this was confirmed by the AAT. ....For every other endorsement he wanted he got it because he demonstrated he had the equivalent military experience to gain that endorsement.
"CASR 61.285 provides for recognition of equivalent flight crew qualifications, not equivalent qualifying experience. It does not matter how experienced the Applicant is; if he has not received an equivalent flight crew qualification to the endorsements that he is now seeking, then he is not entitled to the endorsement under CASR 61.285."
Then there is the matter of relevant aeronautical experience in 61.285(c)
Although the CASA FCL goes some way to establishing 'at least equivalent' qualifications, it seems to stop at graduation from FIC. There doesn't seem to be any recognition of QFI categories.
The ADF BFTS course was 60 hours - it isn't even close to a CPL standard. It's not ab-initio but they're definitely not winged qualified pilots. When it comes to things live navigation a PPL standard was substantially higher than what students had leaving BFTS. For this reason compleition of BFTS but not 2FTS did not entitle students to a PPL, let alone a CPL.
The following users liked this post:
But it’s hardly “ab initio” (from the beginning). Students are sent solo, and are trained to a standard (stats show a rough 20% failure rate at BFTS) in things like aerobatics, IF, VFR Nav and night flying. To a point the CASA and the AAT are satisfied the student pilots in question were too advanced to be considered “ab initio” (which would’ve been training up to RPL standard or GFPT as it was known in the day).
What isn't accurate is to suggest (not you, the AAT) that every student taught by the applicant had 200 hours - that isn't correct.
Ok. Just trying to state where the AAT and CASA may have gotten their reasoning from.
"Ab intio" is no longer used, it is "initial flight training" ie “initial flight training means a dual flight conducted for training in the units of competency mentioned in the Part 61 Manual of Standards for the grant of a recreational pilot license”
For the n'th time those are not the same units of competency that are used in the military therefore he does not have the required aeronuatical experience because he was not teaching or assessing those competencies relevant to that MOS or licence.
For the n'th time those are not the same units of competency that are used in the military therefore he does not have the required aeronuatical experience because he was not teaching or assessing those competencies relevant to that MOS or licence.
Maybe the RAAF should gather up all the Act, MOS, AIP, CAAPs, SUP/AIC, ASICs, AVIDs, and whatever else CASA has burdened us with and drop it on our enemies. Whoever the initial drop of 100 megatons of sheer bureaucratic tripe does not kill with blunt trauma will be demoralized as soon as they open up and read the absolute bull**** contained within. There will be no more will to fight, almost immediate surrender, and they will never bother us again out of pity for what we have to endure from our own leaders.
CASA didn't reason anything, they applied the regulations of equivalence, which in their own terms has to be exactly the same as what you are seeking, but with another name. The AAT just confirmed that CASA applied the law appropriately, and that there was no bias or mis-understanding.
I mean seriously the way people are treating this then RAAF pilots should not get any civilian qualifications, seriously, he was flying an F18, hawks, pc-9s, never flown the likes of a single engine piston aircraft, so he should be prevented from flying a Cessna 152 or a piper warrior. It seems this would be too difficult for an ex RAAF QFI. What if his whole plan is to operate a school specializing in fast jets?
PS, I know he may have flown a CT-4 at some stage, but the new breed of RAAF pilots will never have touched a piston single, let alone taught in one.
Ok. Just trying to state where the AAT and CASA may have gotten their reasoning from.
I mean seriously the way people are treating this then RAAF pilots should not get any civilian qualifications, seriously, he was flying an F18, hawks, pc-9s, never flown the likes of a single engine piston aircraft, so he should be prevented from flying a Cessna 152 or a piper warrior. It seems this would be too difficult for an ex RAAF QFI. What if his whole plan is to operate a school specializing in fast jets?
PS, I know he may have flown a CT-4 at some stage, but the new breed of RAAF pilots will never have touched a piston single, let alone taught in one.
Last edited by 43Inches; 31st Aug 2023 at 07:34.
The following 2 users liked this post by 43Inches:
For the n'th time those are not the same units of competency that are used in the military therefore he does not have the required aeronuatical experience because he was not teaching or assessing those competencies relevant to that MOS or licence.
If the MOS is good for anything, it is a precise guide for an instructor to use, so painfully spelled out that any ex military instructor would be able to understand and follow it. Everything is spelled out in the CASA syllabus, with a direct reference and anyone who understands curriculum can follow it.
Maybe the RAAF should gather up all the Act, MOS, AIP, CAAPs, SUP/AIC, ASICs, AVIDs, and whatever else CASA has burdened us with and drop it on our enemies. Whoever the initial drop of 100 megatons of sheer bureaucratic tripe does not kill with blunt trauma will be demoralized as soon as they open up and read the absolute bull**** contained within. There will be no more will to fight, almost immediate surrender, and they will never bother us again out of pity for what we have to endure from our own leaders.
The following users liked this post:
Just saying that is the definition, and presumably what the AAT meant when they said that his qualifications weren't equivalent, because he had not been teaching the units of competency as detailed in the Part 61 MOS.
The MOS details what the outcomes need to be to demonstrate competence and what the examiner is testing, not how to teach it. That is the purpose of the syllabus which will be in the ops manual of the part 141 or 142 organisation. The CASA Day VFR Syallabus went out in 2014. The curriculum is what courses you teach. All different things/
All the student training records have to refer to the MOS. What we teach is pretty much the same, it is how it is recorded that has changed, remembering that we all need that evidence if the worst should happen and we have to prove in a court of law that we covered everything, the old subjective "little Johnny did some quite good landings today" just won't cut it. Nor will instructing in the ADF.
The MOS details what the outcomes need to be to demonstrate competence and what the examiner is testing, not how to teach it. That is the purpose of the syllabus which will be in the ops manual of the part 141 or 142 organisation. The CASA Day VFR Syallabus went out in 2014. The curriculum is what courses you teach. All different things/
All the student training records have to refer to the MOS. What we teach is pretty much the same, it is how it is recorded that has changed, remembering that we all need that evidence if the worst should happen and we have to prove in a court of law that we covered everything, the old subjective "little Johnny did some quite good landings today" just won't cut it. Nor will instructing in the ADF.