TOO GOOD FOR GA?
rules are rules even tho CAA is not a shining example of commonsense (see the awful Glen B story)
they'd get murdered if there was any accident and they didn't follow their own procedures
they'd get murdered if there was any accident and they didn't follow their own procedures
I was wrong, in my previous company (under NZ CAA) it was a requirement to have an instructor rating to check. Even so, during my years training under the Airline system we had to attend Training Captain schools. I completed these at Ansett and on joining a NZ operation on return from Asia had to attend a five-day instructional technique course run by Air New Zealand.
What "procedures", Asturias56, weren't CASA following?
Please read the AAT decision, at the link I posted, about Mr Clarke's matter before you respond.
Please read the AAT decision, at the link I posted, about Mr Clarke's matter before you respond.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Leddie, while taking your point about safety (at least in terms of personal rather than overall system safety), do you agree that tandem training in PC 9/21, Hornets and Eagles is equivalent experience to multi-crew operations as envisaged in the civil system? Do you also agree that being a staff instructor employed as a StandO but not a Flight Commander or CFI is the equivalent of the duties and responsibility of a civil GR1, including eligibility to be a CFI?
What I'm saying is that the mystique of aviation is one the biggest impediments to the ongoing healthy growth of local aviation capability in Australia. And if we're so thick as to believe that someone of Mr Clarke's experience is going to be so stupid and incompetent that he would unleash unsafe aviators on us in the event he'd been granted the ratings for which he'd applied, then we're....thick.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a poor argument to suggest this individual couldn't safely act as a civilian instructor, there's absolutely no reason he couldn't just complete an AOC and crack on... paid for by his employer, of course. Anything more than that is simply ridiculous.
FIR-1, FIR-FIR, FIR-MEAI, FIR-MCP etc etc
And so, having thrown the keys to a C172 to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued.
I've dealt with quite a few coming back, most of these fellows have a realistic expectation of where their light aircraft skills are. But some don't.
And when one of these physically and mentally dysfunctional students with a wad of $$$ in their hand lobs up to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued had Mr Clarke been issued with the ratings for which he'd applied, and why that carnage would have ensued.
The following users liked this post:
There have been a number of race winning F.1 drivers who have gone on to fail a driving test. More than once. Just saying.
He's not qualified. Does he even have a PPL? Plenty of ATPLs out there who don't. Wouldn't trust them with my aircraft.
He's not qualified. Does he even have a PPL? Plenty of ATPLs out there who don't. Wouldn't trust them with my aircraft.
One of the requirements to obtain a G1 FIR is to have “completed at least 500 hours of flight time conducting initial flight training in an aircraft of the specified category”.
On the information given in this thread this bloke wants a G1 FIR with zero hours of initial flight training. Have to agree with CASA on this one.
On the information given in this thread this bloke wants a G1 FIR with zero hours of initial flight training. Have to agree with CASA on this one.
The following 7 users liked this post by Cloudee:
For a while there at 2FTS, we were doing ab initio instructing on the PC9. They ran a few courses through an all through PC9 Course. They went back to having the students go through the 1FTS CT4 course as it was proving a bit too much for them as we couldn't dumb down the pc9s as they can do on the pc21.
I think Clarky may have even been at 2fts during that phase.
I will posit the following question -
What harm would it do to the industry too allow ex military instructors to teach civies?
Clearly he would have to get a flight check on the aircraft he was going to instruct in. Once he showed that he can fly a C172 or Duchess in a flight review, why not let him teach others in that platform?
I wish Clarky all the best in winning this one. If he does, it will set a precedent. I will definitely be putting my hand up to get a refund from CASA for my civie Instructor ratings.
I think Clarky may have even been at 2fts during that phase.
I will posit the following question -
What harm would it do to the industry too allow ex military instructors to teach civies?
Clearly he would have to get a flight check on the aircraft he was going to instruct in. Once he showed that he can fly a C172 or Duchess in a flight review, why not let him teach others in that platform?
I wish Clarky all the best in winning this one. If he does, it will set a precedent. I will definitely be putting my hand up to get a refund from CASA for my civie Instructor ratings.
I recently completed an instructor course for ultralight aircraft having previously been an instructor on various other types from gliders to jets. The required training was shortened. But I needed to demonstrate competence from the right seat in the aircraft.
It involved mainly doing things a jet pilot never does like power off approach and landing from the overhead, demonstrating slips and off field landings etc. I don’t think it is at all unreasonable that you be required to demonstrate specific competences required for a different class of aircraft. Flying a cessna is quite different to a F18 or a 737. The authority’s position seems quite reasonable.
It involved mainly doing things a jet pilot never does like power off approach and landing from the overhead, demonstrating slips and off field landings etc. I don’t think it is at all unreasonable that you be required to demonstrate specific competences required for a different class of aircraft. Flying a cessna is quite different to a F18 or a 737. The authority’s position seems quite reasonable.
The following 6 users liked this post by lederhosen:
If we go by his logic my 35 years of civvie instructing should qualify me to jump into a PC21 with no conversion training and start training fighter pilots. Yeah right.
When I came here with a UK instructor rating I had to do a conversion too.
Surely this god-like creature can manage to do a PMI exam, flight test and get an endorsement on "single engine aeroplanes below 5700 kg"?
Sounds like he would be a nightmare to work with, the way he looks down on us all, not someone you would want on your team, someone who thinks they can go to the AAT for special treatment instead of just complying with Part 61, the Part he would be teaching!
A few years ago I did a CPL conversion for a guy who had been instructing on Tornadoes in the RAF. He then had to do more conversion training before he went on to instruct at Pearce. He would have been a great civvie instructor as well, because he recognised that they are two very different skill sets and never saw one as inferior to the other, having flown GA before joining the RAF.
When I came here with a UK instructor rating I had to do a conversion too.
Surely this god-like creature can manage to do a PMI exam, flight test and get an endorsement on "single engine aeroplanes below 5700 kg"?
Sounds like he would be a nightmare to work with, the way he looks down on us all, not someone you would want on your team, someone who thinks they can go to the AAT for special treatment instead of just complying with Part 61, the Part he would be teaching!
A few years ago I did a CPL conversion for a guy who had been instructing on Tornadoes in the RAF. He then had to do more conversion training before he went on to instruct at Pearce. He would have been a great civvie instructor as well, because he recognised that they are two very different skill sets and never saw one as inferior to the other, having flown GA before joining the RAF.
The following 8 users liked this post by Clare Prop:
This is consistent with what CASA has done before.
Pilots have worked overseas on validations of the Oz licences and received training and gained a lot of experience on types that require a type rating by CASA. When these pilots return to Oz, CASA will not put that type rating onto the licence.
A validation of a licence is not a licence, and you cannot add a type rating to a validation. So essentially these pilots had the training, had the experience, however did not have the qualification.
Without the qualification, CASA does not recognise it.
This is not only CASA, many people coming in from overseas have to run through all sorts of hoops despite having training and experience elsewhere.
Also CASA in the past has taken the view that “check and training” in an airline environment is not instructing, it is training someone who already holds a licence. They drew the line as instructing being for the issue of an licence, where training is adding skills to an existing licence, eg pressurisation, a type rating etc.
Pilots that held “check and training” in an airline had to go out and do an initial grade 3 if they wanted to instruct despite having the advanced check and training experience.
If this guy is as good as he says he is, under the competency based training, he should be able to prove himself quickly.
Pilots have worked overseas on validations of the Oz licences and received training and gained a lot of experience on types that require a type rating by CASA. When these pilots return to Oz, CASA will not put that type rating onto the licence.
A validation of a licence is not a licence, and you cannot add a type rating to a validation. So essentially these pilots had the training, had the experience, however did not have the qualification.
Without the qualification, CASA does not recognise it.
This is not only CASA, many people coming in from overseas have to run through all sorts of hoops despite having training and experience elsewhere.
Also CASA in the past has taken the view that “check and training” in an airline environment is not instructing, it is training someone who already holds a licence. They drew the line as instructing being for the issue of an licence, where training is adding skills to an existing licence, eg pressurisation, a type rating etc.
Pilots that held “check and training” in an airline had to go out and do an initial grade 3 if they wanted to instruct despite having the advanced check and training experience.
If this guy is as good as he says he is, under the competency based training, he should be able to prove himself quickly.
The following 2 users liked this post by swh:
now operates PC21s (set to 'dumb' mode) for ab initio training.
we couldn't dumb down the pc9s as they can do on the pc21
If we go by his logic my 35 years of civvie instructing should qualify me to jump into a PC21 with no conversion training and start training fighter pilots. Yeah right.
Surely this god-like creature....Sounds like he would be a nightmare to work with, the way he looks down on us all, not someone you would want on your team
The following users liked this post:
“Australia is privileged to have a significant cadre of highly qualified, talented and decorated ex-defence force pilots, who after concluding their military careers set their sights upon civilian aviation,” Mr Wheeler said.
Pilots that held “check and training” in an airline had to go out and do an initial grade 3 if they wanted to instruct despite having the advanced check and training experience.
If this guy is as good as he says he is, under the competency based training, he should be able to prove himself quickly.
If this guy is as good as he says he is, under the competency based training, he should be able to prove himself quickly.
There’s no reason this guy couldn’t have done the same, except perhaps arrogance going off his lawyer’s statement. He was willing to appeal his case all the way to the AAT but not willing to sign up for a 6 week Instructor’s rating.
Hmmmm……
He sounds like a disaster in any civilian aviation environment.
Last edited by dr dre; 23rd Aug 2023 at 15:27.
The following 4 users liked this post by dr dre:
Military: Highly motivated, pre-screened students with military indoctrination from their initial officer's course and guaranteed deference to a higher rank officer on an invariably full-time intensive course with no income, living or training payment difficulties in a fully aerobatic aircraft with large power reserve, and on a mission to pass or cut.
Civilian: Somewhat nervous, differing ability students with greatly variable motivation and confidence sometimes with weeks between lessons and with great concerns about the cost of each lesson and thus each repeated training exercise in a non-aerobatic aircraft of limited performance and a mission to continue training to a pass level (safe, not polished) or the instructor has failed.
Yeah - I'm with CASA on this one.
Civilian: Somewhat nervous, differing ability students with greatly variable motivation and confidence sometimes with weeks between lessons and with great concerns about the cost of each lesson and thus each repeated training exercise in a non-aerobatic aircraft of limited performance and a mission to continue training to a pass level (safe, not polished) or the instructor has failed.
Yeah - I'm with CASA on this one.
The following 14 users liked this post by Checkboard:
Given his experience he may make a great GA instructor but there are differences (as others above have mentioned).
Typical ab-initio students coming in off the street in GA are usually a different kettle of fish from highly vetted, already trained advanced airforce pilots.
Even ab initio airforce trainees will already have been screened for aptitude and the training will be highly regimented, the students well prepared and disciplined.
In GA your ab-initio student may be of mediocre aptitude, requiring flexiblility in how you approach their training, they may bring as well, inflated views of their ability and you need to work out how to safely deflate that without losing them as a customer (scrubbing an airforce candidate is not the same as pissing off a customer).
They may have been self preparing themselves by a diet of you-tube videos of sometimes eyebrow raising quality and self instruction on microsoft flight sim and require some undoing. Sometimes this "prior learning" can be quite insidious.
Some students may have already achieved in their non aviation life a high degree of success and are expecting immediate success in aviation and so present an interesting pyschological environment for the instructor. The instructor is being paid to provide them a service - to get them to achieve an outcome rather than in the airforce where (usually) there is a hierarchy normally in the instructor's favour and where the student is required to meet a standard or be dropped, rather than to be brought up to a standard even if not a good candidate for that role.
There are also students scrambling to fund their flying, working night shifts, turning up to lessons tired, having to take big breaks in their lessons due to cash flow and requiring more flexible program with lots of revision.
Finally many may look down on ab-initio training as being somehow the easy bit of instructing. I generally find ab-initio more intense and fatiguing and requiring more thinking on my feet than more advanced training.
None of this is no to put down the skills, ability, instructional ability and aptitude of the person in question, they may be a brilliant instructor but I think ab-initi instructing is not a walk in the park. Simply because that is the phase of training we throw new G3s at doesn't mean it is a doddle. What it does do is teach instructors some great skills in managing people in a cockpit under stress and a deeper understanding of human factors. Which is probably a good reason why we throw new G3s at it
My 2c
Welcome to the world of GA instruction
Even ab initio airforce trainees will already have been screened for aptitude and the training will be highly regimented, the students well prepared and disciplined.
In GA your ab-initio student may be of mediocre aptitude, requiring flexiblility in how you approach their training, they may bring as well, inflated views of their ability and you need to work out how to safely deflate that without losing them as a customer (scrubbing an airforce candidate is not the same as pissing off a customer).
They may have been self preparing themselves by a diet of you-tube videos of sometimes eyebrow raising quality and self instruction on microsoft flight sim and require some undoing. Sometimes this "prior learning" can be quite insidious.
Some students may have already achieved in their non aviation life a high degree of success and are expecting immediate success in aviation and so present an interesting pyschological environment for the instructor. The instructor is being paid to provide them a service - to get them to achieve an outcome rather than in the airforce where (usually) there is a hierarchy normally in the instructor's favour and where the student is required to meet a standard or be dropped, rather than to be brought up to a standard even if not a good candidate for that role.
There are also students scrambling to fund their flying, working night shifts, turning up to lessons tired, having to take big breaks in their lessons due to cash flow and requiring more flexible program with lots of revision.
Finally many may look down on ab-initio training as being somehow the easy bit of instructing. I generally find ab-initio more intense and fatiguing and requiring more thinking on my feet than more advanced training.
None of this is no to put down the skills, ability, instructional ability and aptitude of the person in question, they may be a brilliant instructor but I think ab-initi instructing is not a walk in the park. Simply because that is the phase of training we throw new G3s at doesn't mean it is a doddle. What it does do is teach instructors some great skills in managing people in a cockpit under stress and a deeper understanding of human factors. Which is probably a good reason why we throw new G3s at it
My 2c
Welcome to the world of GA instruction
Last edited by jonkster; 23rd Aug 2023 at 23:23.
The following 5 users liked this post by jonkster:
DRE
Im sorry, but yo( and others) are missing the point here.
Your Boeing/Airbus TRI, TRE analogy is invalid, Those TRI's and TRE's have never had an Instructional course in the same ball par/league as a RAAF QFI/FCI.
For the folk talking about his "attitude" etc, that is irrelevant. If he does a Civie Instructor course -he will go out in the world with the same personality he had before. (I know Clarky, and his attitude is NOT in question. He would make a superb instructor to an ab initio pilot in the civie world, with or without a Civilian CASA rating.
The Issue is - Does he need a Civie instructor course that is CASA approved? Does he need to demonstrate to a civie examiner that he can teach a stall in a c152? Really?
I say, good on him. I wish him all the best, and I hope he wins.
Exactly. A lot of experienced trainers, TRI and TRE on heavy jets have had to sit in a Cessna and do their G3 FIR if they wanted to instruct in that arena, I know several who have. They never thought doing the FIR in a Cessna after years of training on Boeing or Airbus was beneath them.
Your Boeing/Airbus TRI, TRE analogy is invalid, Those TRI's and TRE's have never had an Instructional course in the same ball par/league as a RAAF QFI/FCI.
For the folk talking about his "attitude" etc, that is irrelevant. If he does a Civie Instructor course -he will go out in the world with the same personality he had before. (I know Clarky, and his attitude is NOT in question. He would make a superb instructor to an ab initio pilot in the civie world, with or without a Civilian CASA rating.
The Issue is - Does he need a Civie instructor course that is CASA approved? Does he need to demonstrate to a civie examiner that he can teach a stall in a c152? Really?
I say, good on him. I wish him all the best, and I hope he wins.
The following users liked this post:
