TOO GOOD FOR GA?
Yep!
Re post 326. the old Day VFR syllabus was a collaborative effort of many CFIs, I was one of them; and the MOS is taken mostly from there, not written by an individual.
It's far from perfect as you would expect when a bunch of CFIs try to agree on what is a good landing, but as I said that is the book they will throw at you so you just have to learn to work with it and if you think it needs improving then talk to your local CASA person, good luck with that!
It isn't set in concrete as seen with the recent change of the unit "Recover from incipient spin" to "avoid spin" and there was consultation on that.
Re post 326. the old Day VFR syllabus was a collaborative effort of many CFIs, I was one of them; and the MOS is taken mostly from there, not written by an individual.
It's far from perfect as you would expect when a bunch of CFIs try to agree on what is a good landing, but as I said that is the book they will throw at you so you just have to learn to work with it and if you think it needs improving then talk to your local CASA person, good luck with that!
It isn't set in concrete as seen with the recent change of the unit "Recover from incipient spin" to "avoid spin" and there was consultation on that.
Yep!
Re post 326. the old Day VFR syllabus was a collaborative effort of many CFIs and the MOS is taken mostly from there, not written by an individual.
It's far from perfect as you would expect when a bunch of CFIs try to agree on what is a good landing, but as I said that is the book they will throw at you so you just have to learn to work with it and if you think it needs improving then talk to your local CASA person, good luck with that!
Re post 326. the old Day VFR syllabus was a collaborative effort of many CFIs and the MOS is taken mostly from there, not written by an individual.
It's far from perfect as you would expect when a bunch of CFIs try to agree on what is a good landing, but as I said that is the book they will throw at you so you just have to learn to work with it and if you think it needs improving then talk to your local CASA person, good luck with that!
One flying school I worked with would not assess early lessons, as they wanted to promote that technique was key, not trying to meet a standard that was not required until later.
This always came up when an instructor was new to sending solos, 'how do I know they are ready?'. Hang on, you have been filling out their training records, everything says 3s or whatever, so are they not ready to go? That's when you fly with the student and find out that somebodies interpretation of a 3 might be your 2 or 1. You get into airlines where some checkers won't give you above a 4 unless they have seen you over several sims consistently do the impossible, others will give you a 5 straight away. So it really all just comes back to the same S/N from previous years, except now you get a nice graph that you can manipulate up or down depending on whether you like the person or not.
From what I remember, the applicant had not been posted as a QFI for around 15 years at the time the application had been made.
Instrument rating, they need to have do the CASA theory exam, plus a flight test.
ATPL, need to do all of the CASA ATPL exams.
So a Professor of Mathematics is not allowed to teach Primary school kids math? This is probably why Australia has terrible literacy rates, of course CASA (and our education department) would have them teach Art class while a graduate who didn't even do math at high school teaches math subjects to kids. I agree some highly educated people can be poor teachers because of personality traits, but that goes for those with low education as well. Pretty sure somebody that has a deeper understanding of a subject that also has the traits to be a good teacher is better than somebody who has very basic understanding of something....
If they are seeking RPL for the relevant experience so that they do not have to do the hours required in GA aircraft, or PMI course, I can't understand why not. That is if they still have to pass the test itself. If they are trying to get out of the test itself, I can see an issue and hurdle they will never get over.
Let them do the test, if they have what it takes they pass, done, move on and teach. Having a wide base of experience in GA is exactly what GA needs. CASA seems to prefer a method where toddlers are teaching babies to play concert piano...
If they are seeking RPL for the relevant experience so that they do not have to do the hours required in GA aircraft, or PMI course, I can't understand why not. That is if they still have to pass the test itself. If they are trying to get out of the test itself, I can see an issue and hurdle they will never get over.
Let them do the test, if they have what it takes they pass, done, move on and teach. Having a wide base of experience in GA is exactly what GA needs. CASA seems to prefer a method where toddlers are teaching babies to play concert piano...
The following users liked this post:
If the MOS wanted a demo of the ability to recover, the wording would be “ recover from….”
Inducing a balloon or bounce would be negative training at that stage of a PPL syllabus. Instructors must demonstrate ability to talk a student through these situations, as well as take control when necessary. Knowing how far to let a student go is in itself a bit subjective.
But I do admit that the MOS could be better worded. “Does not balloon or bounce” is surely what is intended?
The following users liked this post:
Clare, any chance you'd have an old copy of the Day VFR syllabus? For the life of me I can't remember the format it was in. I do remember it being not to hard to read or digest.
But I do admit that the MOS could be better worded. “Does not balloon or bounce” is surely what is intended?
I'd be more in favor that these excursions be treated with a go-round, as once you start playing with power to soften the next landing you are now going to land well beyond your intended landing point, nullifying your landing distance calculations, that is, you are more likely to over-run the strip. Easier to go-round and come back for another go.
Last edited by 43Inches; 2nd Sep 2023 at 01:34.
The following users liked this post:
If you download Schedule 2 Part 61 Manual of Standards Instrument 2014 (legislation.gov.au) the relevant pages for comparison are 77, 80-104 and 106-126
The MOS schedule 3 also includes the requirements for the aeronautical knowledge which they need to know what to study, standard learning objectives for any course and referenced in the Knowledge Deficiency Reports. All covered in the ATC and Bob Tait texts.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 2nd Sep 2023 at 01:58.
The following users liked this post:
There's no problem with a minor balloon or bounce if it's corrected. The wording does insinuate that it should be checked. It should be written as "any ballooning controlled and corrected as required", that would then imply that only if a balloon occurred then the candidate should deal with it in an appropriate manner. In a few schools I've worked at students are not taught to "control" a balloon or bounce, just told to go-round from the situation. Again the MOS being written by someone with experience in traditional trainers, Cessna and Pipers, where this would be normal. Hence why I don't like over prescriptive rules, as eventually they delve into 'type specific' issues that make it hard to comply with. I remember some instructors with significant hours that did not understand 'landing attitude' because they were used to basically stalling their Piper or Cessna onto the ground. This then gets them into trouble with aircraft that tail strike at high nose attitude, which is more common in light aircraft these days.
I'd be more in favor that these excursions be treated with a go-round, as once you start playing with power to soften the next landing you are now going to land well beyond your intended landing point, nullifying your landing distance calculations, that is, you are more likely to over-run the strip. Easier to go-round and come back for another go.
I'd be more in favor that these excursions be treated with a go-round, as once you start playing with power to soften the next landing you are now going to land well beyond your intended landing point, nullifying your landing distance calculations, that is, you are more likely to over-run the strip. Easier to go-round and come back for another go.
On that note of bouncing, agreed, the aeroplane bounces because it has too much energy. Adding some power but not enough for a go around isn't going to improve that situation, makes a runway excursion more likely and wouldn't be available in the event of a glide anyway. They need to be able to preferably prevent it but if it does happen, to control it without the use of power. Plus they might have bent to undercarriage or hit the prop and could have an unexpected outcome in the climb out or the next landing which is potentially much worse. But again by first solo they should be have the skills to make that decision for themselves.
I tell my students that the word "Perfect" does not appear in any of the documents. The idea is that they apply the non-technical skills to those situations and make the right decision as to whether to go around or try to recover from the bounce, rather than using the "my instructor told me I should always go around" method; well good luck with that in the event of a glide.
On that note of bouncing, agreed, the aeroplane bounces because it has too much energy. Adding some power but not enough for a go around isn't going to improve that situation, makes a runway excursion more likely and wouldn't be available in the event of a glide anyway. They need to be able to preferably prevent it but if it does happen, to control it without the use of power. Plus they might have bent to undercarriage or hit the prop and could have an unexpected outcome in the climb out or the next landing which is potentially much worse. But again by first solo they should be have the skills to make that decision for themselves.
On that note of bouncing, agreed, the aeroplane bounces because it has too much energy. Adding some power but not enough for a go around isn't going to improve that situation, makes a runway excursion more likely and wouldn't be available in the event of a glide anyway. They need to be able to preferably prevent it but if it does happen, to control it without the use of power. Plus they might have bent to undercarriage or hit the prop and could have an unexpected outcome in the climb out or the next landing which is potentially much worse. But again by first solo they should be have the skills to make that decision for themselves.
The issue with both the bounce and balloon at those flying schools was that mishandled it would inevitably end up in a tail strike or prop strike, the aircraft involved were very unforgiving in that respect. So going round was a far safer option to practice, glide approach, the aircrafts already in bad shape if the engine failed, so if the landings a bit lumpier who cares.
Some good and informative posts on this thread.
When I was instructing, I remember there was a window of opportunity to get them solo before they, sought of lost interest. It can be left a little late. This of course if the student has had the same instructor up to solo, helps. I am talking over 50 years ago. Things have changed since then of course. Certainly no box ticking. K.I.S! Keep it simple.
I've had one or two solo at 5 hours.T.T. You know when they are ready. Depends also of course on traffic etc. I instructed mainly at nocontrolled quiet airfields.
On the other hand, if I went though a studends log book and saw he or she had done steep turns for example pre solo, then I know they have had a good instructor.
I didn't solo until I had 10 hours.
When I was instructing, I remember there was a window of opportunity to get them solo before they, sought of lost interest. It can be left a little late. This of course if the student has had the same instructor up to solo, helps. I am talking over 50 years ago. Things have changed since then of course. Certainly no box ticking. K.I.S! Keep it simple.
I've had one or two solo at 5 hours.T.T. You know when they are ready. Depends also of course on traffic etc. I instructed mainly at nocontrolled quiet airfields.
On the other hand, if I went though a studends log book and saw he or she had done steep turns for example pre solo, then I know they have had a good instructor.
I didn't solo until I had 10 hours.
Last edited by RichardJones; 2nd Sep 2023 at 12:46.
Does this august group of instructors really believe that a bounce only results from having too much energy?
The case where a pilot flares too high and fails to check descent rate with power will quite likely result in a bounce. The problem here is far too little energy. Maybe it's not seen much with the "drive it on" landings that seem to be taught these days. You will see a few if you teach tailwheel 3 point landings.
The case where a pilot flares too high and fails to check descent rate with power will quite likely result in a bounce. The problem here is far too little energy. Maybe it's not seen much with the "drive it on" landings that seem to be taught these days. You will see a few if you teach tailwheel 3 point landings.
The following users liked this post:
Like this? The only thing the pilot got right on this one, was to go around. The cross wind skills aren't there anymore.
Here is another
https://www.facebook.com/reel/245688734908158?s=yWDuG2&fs=e illustration of deteriorating handling skills.
I spoke to a management pilot of a major carrier in Eurooe about 20 years ago. He said and I quote, "flying skills are well down the list of priorities in this company"
https://www.facebook.com/reel/245688734908158?s=yWDuG2&fs=e illustration of deteriorating handling skills.
I spoke to a management pilot of a major carrier in Eurooe about 20 years ago. He said and I quote, "flying skills are well down the list of priorities in this company"
Last edited by RichardJones; 2nd Sep 2023 at 21:10.
Does this august group of instructors really believe that a bounce only results from having too much energy?
The case where a pilot flares too high and fails to check descent rate with power will quite likely result in a bounce. The problem here is far too little energy. Maybe it's not seen much with the "drive it on" landings that seem to be taught these days. You will see a few if you teach tailwheel 3 point landings.
The case where a pilot flares too high and fails to check descent rate with power will quite likely result in a bounce. The problem here is far too little energy. Maybe it's not seen much with the "drive it on" landings that seem to be taught these days. You will see a few if you teach tailwheel 3 point landings.
How would you teach a glider pilot to recover from flaring too high?
Better to train them where to focus so as not to flare too high in the first place.
I have taught quite a few glider pilots to land. I was a glider instructor long before I was an airplane instructor. The immediate response to flaring too high in a glider is to close the airbrakes and lower the nose. If the student does not respond immediately to verbal instruction the instructor must take over. I assume you have lots of gider time and would know this.
So we are saying pretty much the same thing. I am not a glider instructor but I do teach my students that they need to be able to recover without taking power for granted (I also encourage them to go and do some glider flying to reinforce this) and an aircraft has quite a bit of potential energy in its undercarriage that will contribute to the total in a bounce. The amount of pilots who come for flight reviews who seem to have no idea what the pedals are for could lose pitch and directional control with the application of power and lead to a runway excursion and/or wingtip strike. So IMO best to leave it alone unless you commit to a go-around. I'm talking about small singles, pre solo stuff.
The following users liked this post:
The A320 above was not a bounce as such, the pilot over reacted to the high sink rate and yanked back, the aircraft touched down in the process of the transition to the new flight path, yes there was probably some amount of push off on the landing gear but the whole event was PIO at low level. The aircraft became airborne again because it had energy to fly, which most airlines will land well above stall speed, so a hard yank back will throw it back into the air. If you were to 'bounce' an airliner purely by it's impact with earth and the resultant push back by the landing gear then things are going to break. Light aircraft are much easier to bounce because of the light weight and springy undercarriage. PA-28s love a good bouncing sequence and about the 3rd or 4th time the nosewheel usually gives up and allows it to stop bouncing and slide to a stop. The simple recovery is to just hold appropriate backpressure, set an attitude, and resist the urge to force it nose down onto the ground.
That's where landing attitude awareness is important, as in a bounce or balloon you want to correct to the normal landing attitude. Then as long as you are not excessively fast or high the aircraft will settle onto the runway under control and in the right attitude, it may be firmer than you would have liked, but perfectly safe. In any case where this attitude and process would result in a large drop or landing too far down the runway, or lowering the nose will result in significant rate of descent, those are key indicators that a go-round is now the safer option.
That's where landing attitude awareness is important, as in a bounce or balloon you want to correct to the normal landing attitude. Then as long as you are not excessively fast or high the aircraft will settle onto the runway under control and in the right attitude, it may be firmer than you would have liked, but perfectly safe. In any case where this attitude and process would result in a large drop or landing too far down the runway, or lowering the nose will result in significant rate of descent, those are key indicators that a go-round is now the safer option.
The following users liked this post:
What is glaringly obvious to me, is the lack of crosswind technique attempted. In fact there is none. The truth is, crosswind landing skills are sadly lacking. Probably because they haven't been taught. Not taught because there is no one with the skills to teach them.
Oh the boxes would have been ticked , you can guarantee that. For what? Attendance? The results are plain to see in both videos.
Sadly a lost art. Lost when they got rid of the conventenal U/C training A/C.
Oh the boxes would have been ticked , you can guarantee that. For what? Attendance? The results are plain to see in both videos.
Sadly a lost art. Lost when they got rid of the conventenal U/C training A/C.
Last edited by RichardJones; 3rd Sep 2023 at 11:04.