TOO GOOD FOR GA?

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by 43Inches

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?

There’s a lot of straw-manning there; no one said he should be completely prevented from flying a 152 or a Warrior? He was granted a a grade 3 FIR based on his military qualifications so he’s legally allowed to train in them. F-18s, Hawks, PC-9s are irrelevant when he wanted training approval for multi engine (real ME aircraft that produce yaw) and multi crew co-operation despite not holding those training approvals in the RAAF. He was granted an FIR endorsement for Aerobatics training because CASA found he had the equivalent in the RAAF.

He hasn’t been prevented from doing most forms of civilian training, he just needs to get a bit of experience and specific endorsements in those few remaining categories to get those added to his civilian licence. That’s it. He’s not being told to start flight training again from Effects of Controls.

[Lead Balloon]

Surely they didn’t let him loose with a G3? Oh the humanity…

And his ability to fly a 172 safely was questioned earlier in this thread, IMMSMC.

[Aussie Bob]

Thanks Clare, but there is one thing:

That is the purpose of the syllabus which will be in the ops manual of the part 141 or 142 organisation.

The Part 141 operation I work for has no syllabus in their ops manual. The cops manual was written by CASA and it points to the CASA syllabus which is downloaded and printed prior to each lesson. In reality the download remains on the office computer. CASA tell us (verbally) that we need to make sure that the same version Is used and student files should not contain copies of multiple versions.This syllabus (surely you have seen it) is convoluted repetitive and very time consuming prompting "tick (number) a box and move on. The student signs each lesson as having been completed when the instructor deems the lesson complete.

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.

I don't normally comment on things jurisdictional but I can't help but wonder if little Johnny's signature in a box on the CASA syllabus would cut it either.

[josephfeatherweight]

Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA

I don't know where 200 hours has been plucked from. That isn't remotely close to accurate.

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 ADF BFTS course was eventually 60 hours, but only in its latter years of existence.
My ADF BFTS course was significantly fatter - I have 137 hours on the CT4 - that would include about 20 hours of Flight Screening and about 3 hours of remedial training - so it was definitely over 100 hours for ADF1/2/3/4 or so...
I already had a CPL - I certainly believe ADF BFTS was CPL level when I did it.

[43Inches]

I always loved the part about CBT, where the student signs that they have received all the training required, and that they agree with what the instructor recorded. Because, of course, a new 'initial flight training' trainee is fully qualified to understand the waffle presented to them and understands completely that the instructor did not omit or miss anything important.

It really just sums up what CASA is trying (very poorly) to achieve, and that is some sort of watertight punitive system that makes it easy to prosecute anyone who breaks a rule. However the major failure is that it is so complicated that the average human would never be able to determine exactly what the rules are as they contradict on numerous occasions.

[Clare Prop]

I think you are referring to their dreadful sample syllabi, which note still point to the Part 61 MOS for recording the competency standards.
Sample syllabuses for flying training operators | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
A very different thing to the former Day VFR Syllabus.

CASA provide guidance and templates, which are mostly horrible things to use, but they don't write them for you.
We have a completely different system in our 141 manual which is much easier to use. If feel sorry for people who use the CASA templates because you are right they are horrible clunky things. Any school can modify them, providing you can show CASA that you have a way of achieving and recording the required competency standards.

Edited to add for 43", all our students get a hard copy of the MOS and it forms an essential part of the pre flight and debrief and it referred to so they know exactly what we mean by, for example, competency 2 in straight and level and why it is that level; so yes they do know what they are signing and what they need to prepare for, they also get to read the Flight Examiners Handbook prior to flight test, so there are no surprises and the onus is also on them to be sure that they are familiar with it all and can assess thier own progress.

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by Clare Prop

I think you are referring to their dreadful sample syllabi, which note still point to the Part 61 MOS for recording the competency standards.
Sample syllabuses for flying training operators | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
A very different thing to the former Day VFR Syllabus.

CASA provide guidance and templates, which are mostly horrible things to use, but they don't write them for you.
We have a completely different system in our 141 manual which is much easier to use. If feel sorry for people who use the CASA templates because you are right they are horrible clunky things. Any school can modify them, providing you can show CASA that you have a way of achieving and recording the required competency standards.

Edited to add for 43", all our students get a hard copy of the MOS and it forms an essential part of the pre flight and debrief and it referred to so they know exactly what we mean by, for example, competency 2 in straight and level and why it is that level; so yes they do know what they are signing and what they need to prepare for, they also get to read the Flight Examiners Handbook prior to flight test, so there are no surprises and the onus is also on them to be sure that they are familiar with it all and can assess thier own progress.

Pretty sure it would get treated in court as TLDR, the same as any contract of sale that is the same. Any contract thats more than a few pages long and its considered too long for an average human to comprehend. Unless you specifically explained each item explicitly. "Sir they gave me a heap of books, but never told me how to read them, its all in weird jargon".

[Capn Rex Havoc]

DRE

​​​​​​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).

Two issues here.
1. I have never commented on any other aspect of his submissions, just the Grade 1 certification.

2. All RAAF QFIs in the transport world, did the CFS instructor course, and usually (but not always time at 1FTS or 2 FTS) before returning to their squadron to do training on that platform, eg Hercs, Caribous, 707s etc.

I don't know what you are smoking, but I simply don't understand this pre occupation of yours to think that a civilian airline TRI could or should train in the RAAF world.

To become a TRI in the civilian airlines you have to be a line pilot, keep out of **** with management, maybe do an interview for the job, then do a bit of sim training then you are let loose.
I am all for your TRIs teaching in the RAAF, just let them pass a wings pilots course first, then pass CFS QFIs course.

​​​​​​​

[Mr Mossberg]

Trying to claim MEAI, with asymmetric experience in an FA18.

mmm, think I might claim an A330 type rating with experience in the BE76.

Just to make a point of course.

[Lead Balloon]

Originally Posted by swh

Nope, would have needed to do a flight test first. To get an instrument or instructor rating based off ADF conversion requires an initial flight test for that rating.

Are you saying he wasn’t granted G3?

The AAT said this at para 5 of its reasons:

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, CASA conceded that a number of the authorisations sought by the Applicant should be granted and the Applicant advised that he no longer pursued certain authorisations.

What were the authorisations granted to Clarke by CASA?

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by Mr Mossberg

Trying to claim MEAI, with asymmetric experience in an FA18.

mmm, think I might claim an A330 type rating with experience in the BE76.

Just to make a point of course.

And a CT-4 vs C152 comparison would be more like V8 Supercar vs Kia Rio - both have piston engines and 4 wheels, but are designed for completely different purposes and, for that reason, are completely different to drive (in many ways the CT-4 is easier). Chalk and cheese. Just to make a point of course.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by Capn Rex Havoc

I don't know what you are smoking, but I simply don't understand this pre occupation of yours to think that a civilian airline TRI could or should train in the RAAF world.

No, what I said was civilian TRIs have experience in teaching and training that could be transferred to the civilian ab-initio arena in some fashion - but this still shouldn’t grant them any type of Flight Instructor Rating straight up without having to meet all the CASA competencies to gain that instructor rating.

Could an airline TRI do the type rating training for an equivalent RAAF 330, 737 or Falcon 7X pilot? Yes, in fact a lot of current RAAF pilots were trained and do their checks in civilian airline C&T systems.

To become a TRI in the civilian airlines you have to be a line pilot, keep out of **** with management, maybe do an interview for the job, then do a bit of sim training then you are let loose.

It’s a bit more than that. Relevant experience, standards, knowledge and instruction for the position. But trained especially for that role, and not granted automatic privileges in other forms of training based on status, unlike what the subject pilot was seeking. Airline training now is heavily geared toward the HF and CRM aspects of Multi Crew training and an airline TRI most definitely would have the experience of guiding and assessing the development of multi crew skills more so than a military instructor who hasn’t trained in multi crew ops, yet even they are not granted an FIR-MCP privilege (I believe) automatically.

I am all for your TRIs teaching in the RAAF, just let them pass a wings pilots course first, then pass CFS QFIs course.

Like I said you may want to do your research better as plenty of civilian TRIs are teaching RAAF pilots how to fly equivalent types. Civilian TRIs who’ve never set foot on a RAAF base or had any desire to wear a blue uniform.

[Clare Prop]

Originally Posted by 43Inches

Pretty sure it would get treated in court as TLDR, the same as any contract of sale that is the same. Any contract thats more than a few pages long and its considered too long for an average human to comprehend. Unless you specifically explained each item explicitly. "Sir they gave me a heap of books, but never told me how to read them, its all in weird jargon".

There are 44 pages of the MOS that are relevant to Day VFR PPL and CPL standards for the flying, non technical skills, English Language and airspace operations units. Just 44 with double spaced text.

Taking the Little Johnny example, if neither he nor the instructor are aware that this is what is actually meant by "competent in land aeroplane" ie when he can consistently do all of the things in this unit then you are right the student records become meaningless and belive me I get some meaningless tick.n.flick student records forwarded to me often and wonder what on earth the HOOs are doing.

So on pre flight brief say "this is what you will need to be able to demonstrate to me and to the examiner to be deemed competent" then everyone knows what is expected.

So if LJ lands well but is consistently outside the +/- 2m of the centreline, or slams on the brakes, or forgets to put his flaps up before taxi, he will not be competency 1 and the record should match the debrief in explaining why so that he knows what to work on next time.

It's a worry that there are instructors who are unaware of this. eg when a certain school churns out another lot and they come knocking on my door with their halloween pilot costume and resume, I ask how they would deem someone competent in say recovery from unusual attitudes and get the blank stare and then the most annoying phrase an examiner gets: "My instructor told me..." ie they have had the subjective method of instructing that doesn't belong in modern training systems and it's a disgrace that flying schools are still churning out new instructors this way.

I don't consider this example weird jargon or too difficult for an average human to comprehend. A flying instructor and student should certainly be able to comprehend it or they really have no place in the flying training industry.

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by Clare Prop

It's a worry that there are instructors who are unaware of this. eg when a certain school churns out another lot and they come knocking on my door with their halloween pilot costume and resume, I ask how they would deem someone competent in say recovery from unusual attitudes and get the blank stare and then the most annoying phrase an examiner gets: "My instructor told me..." ie they have had the subjective method of instructing that doesn't belong in modern training systems and it's a disgrace that flying schools are still churning out new instructors this way.

It's not always the Instructors fault: it seems many kids these day (millennials) coming through our broken school system are being taught by rote / multiple choice, rather than how to rationally think for themselves. Hence the "My instructor told me..." response. It's a disgrace for sure, then made worse by ex-Airline "instructors" (with lots of experience, sure, but not a teaching bone in their body) who are so scared of what these rote-learnt students will do, they insist on flying the plane for the student rather than setting some boundaries for the student to work within... because that's not what is written down in the manual!

Within flying schools at least, common sense is becoming less common. And mountains of CASA regs and requirements isn't helping.

[43Inches]

I wasn't commenting on whether instructors would know this stuff, rather aspiring PPLs will not give a stuff about it and just want to learn how to fly, 44 pages is a decent read for anyone that's not very academic in nature. If one of them came to grief post training, or during training the court system will not really care for the signed documents as the trainer can not put the onus on a trainee to learn something that they have contracted the trainer to teach them, ie you have not signed up for a self education course when learning to fly. In almost all situations, it's the trainer and checkers responsibility to ensure the standard is met, both in training and on check day. Where it gets tricky is when a student comes to grief and is seriously injured or dies and the family sues the flight school for compensation, at this point it will be scrutinized as to whether the student was competent to be conducting that solo exercise, signed documents will only go so far, but will provide some insight into the schools process. Now in the states some public cases have gone through where student pilots have tried to sue the instructor for damages post an accident. Usually the court will rule on the outcome of the accident, that is, if they successfully employed some technique or procedure and survived the trainer/checker are absolved.

The purpose of signed documents in flight training is more that the student has read and accepts the outcome of the particular lesson. Then if it's disputed later if the student over runs hours the school can go back and say, 'on several occasions you were told you needed to improve xxxx, and you put in little effort, so your progression was hampered by your own attitude'. If you went back and all the documents showed progress with no notes as to why sequences were repeated, you could be in for some refunds...

Taking the Little Johnny example, if neither he nor the instructor are aware that this is what is actually meant by "competent in land aeroplane" ie when he can consistently do all of the things in this unit then you are right the student records become meaningless and belive me I get some meaningless tick.n.flick student records forwarded to me often and wonder what on earth the HOOs are doing.

Performance criteria for a sequence should be briefed prior to the flight, hence the old Aim/Objectives of a mass/pre-flight brief. It should be clearly spelled out at that point and discussed as to what you are trying to achieve and to what standard is required to pass. This should be covered for all sequences of training. If instructors are not adequately briefing students pre-flight then I can understand now why average solo times are ballooning to 10-20 hours.

I agree that a student should have access to the MOS, and standards by which they will be assessed, but this does not mean the onus is passed from the instructor to the student somehow being able to interpret these documents. And most importantly the MOS does not give an instructor the techniques to be applied, just what are the units to assess competency.

[EXDAC]

I don't expect to ever fly in Australia and certainly do not expect to ever instruct there. However, I have found the discussion quite interesting. The most recently posted gem leaves me wondering about the competence of those who write Australian rules and procedures:

"(a) Maintain a constant landing position aim point"

I have taught aim point technique to primary students and introduced the concept to rated pilots who have never heard of it.

Fundamental to aim point technique is that the aim point is NOT the landing position. Unless there is no flare the aircraft will always land past the aim point. The aim point must be selected making allowance for the flare if the touchdown is to be at the intended spot.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

DRE-

Like I said you may want to do your research better as plenty of civilian TRIs are teaching RAAF pilots how to fly equivalent types.

Can you please name one? and which base? and just to confirm, these civilian TRIs were not ex RAAF?

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by EXDAC

I don't expect to ever fly in Australia and certainly do not expect to ever instruct there. However, I have found the discussion quite interesting. The most recently posted gem leaves me wondering about the competence of those who write Australian rules and procedures:

"(a) Maintain a constant landing position aim point"

I have taught aim point technique to primary students and introduced the concept to rated pilots who have never heard of it.

Fundamental to aim point technique is that the aim point is NOT the landing position. Unless there is no flare the aircraft will always land past the aim point. The aim point must be selected making allowance for the flare if the touchdown is to be at the intended spot.

My point on how the Australian rules are over prescriptive and miss the mark by a wide margin in some cases. An individual has written a lot of the MOS and supporting documents and unfortunately especially in the early stages put in personal preferences instead of leaving it with a wider application margin.

[Clare Prop]

Absolutely right 43" on post 323, and all the more reason why they need to know what the standard is. We refer to the units of competency pre and post flight when debriefing so we all know exactly what is expected and what they are signing. I'm university educated so I tend to reference everything, we both know how much hearsay and old wives tales abound in this industry and I am absolutely a pedant.
It's really not too much to expect them to do a bit of homework and have some curiosity and interest in their own progress, or to say "I would like to do a bit more work on my steep turns" etc. It's a two way street in adult education. But the signed document is evidence in the worst case scenario if they say eg "You never taught LJ how to do a missed approach"! you do have some comeback.

How often has that happened? AFAIK never, in Australia but the MOS is the book they will throw at you if it does.
There was this case in Scotland in 2002, which makes interesting reading, including how the family tried to apply shariah law in a Scottish court.... MOHAMMED ALI SHAHER AND OTHERS v. BRITISH AEROSPACE FLYING COLLEGE LIMITED (scotcourts.gov.uk)

and the Pprune thread at the time UK Court finds Instructor negligent in fatal training accident. - PPRuNe Forums

[43Inches]

I think we're more or less on the same page, just some semantics getting in the way.