The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

TOO GOOD FOR GA?

Old 23rd Aug 2023, 10:22
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,863
Received 437 Likes on 263 Posts
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
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 10:26
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 583
Received 91 Likes on 22 Posts
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.

By George is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 10:28
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,421
Received 498 Likes on 253 Posts
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.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 10:29
  #24 (permalink)  
 
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?
scrubba is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 10:43
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,421
Received 498 Likes on 253 Posts
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.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 11:20
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,322
Received 5 Likes on 2 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.
Contact Approach is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 11:25
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: North Haven
Posts: 214
Received 165 Likes on 78 Posts
FIR-1, FIR-FIR, FIR-MEAI, FIR-MCP etc etc
In that case, no. Perhaps some sort of RPL process, or an assessment of skills and subject matter.

And so, having thrown the keys to a C172 to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued.
I'm not sure if you have or have had an Instructor Rating? But there have been examples of airline pilots who've been a long time out of light aircraft, jumping back into light aircraft, particularly of the light sport category and coming to grief.

​​​​​​​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.
I think Mr Clarke will get quite the surprise when he eventually enters the CASA system and has to deal with the difference between those he instructed in the RAAF and those he'll be instructing in civvie. And perhaps entering as a G1 with all the bells and whistles in not the way to cut your teeth.

Mr Mossberg is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 11:35
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: N.YORKSHIRE
Posts: 892
Received 22 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
Flyingmac is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Flyingmac:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 11:43
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 561
Received 79 Likes on 38 Posts
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.
Cloudee is offline  
The following 7 users liked this post by Cloudee:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 12:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Doomadgee
Posts: 287
Received 55 Likes on 30 Posts
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.

Capn Rex Havoc is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 13:05
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 561
Received 79 Likes on 38 Posts
Originally Posted by Capn Rex Havoc
What harm would it do to the industry to allow ex military instructors to teach civies?
No harm, providing they don’t all want to start at the top.
Cloudee is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 13:16
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
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.
lederhosen is online now  
The following 6 users liked this post by lederhosen:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 13:17
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,346
Received 266 Likes on 122 Posts
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.

Clare Prop is offline  
The following 8 users liked this post by Clare Prop:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 13:47
  #34 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,185
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
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.
swh is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by swh:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 14:10
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,346
Received 388 Likes on 151 Posts
​​​​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
What is this dumbing down you speak of?

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.
No. Using CASA's own analogy that would be like asking a primary school maths teacher to lecture PhD candidates at university.

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
C'mon Clare. You're better than that. He's just pressing to test.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 14:10
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,350
Received 465 Likes on 251 Posts
“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.
Alright….……..

Originally Posted by swh
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.
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.

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……

Originally Posted by Clare Prop
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!
You’ve nailed it there. Emotional intelligence, attitude and humility are just as important in making a good pilot and a good instructor as technical ability, if not more so. All this guy has demonstrated is arrogance and a belief he’s above the rules. A mentality that the civilian world ‘needs’ him to be able to fly.

He sounds like a disaster in any civilian aviation environment.

Last edited by dr dre; 23rd Aug 2023 at 14:27.
dr dre is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by dr dre:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 17:56
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,869
Received 196 Likes on 96 Posts
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.
Checkboard is offline  
The following 14 users liked this post by Checkboard:
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 19:59
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
The audacity of the authorities is shocking… the UK have been fast tracking “Fast Jet” aces into every job there is.. high fives all around in the old boys RAF club..
605carsten is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2023, 22:10
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 433
Received 23 Likes on 8 Posts
Given his experience he may make a great GA instructor but there are differences (as others above have mentioned).

Originally Posted by MickG0105
I don't know all the ins and outs on this one but would someone with GA instructor experience care to opine?
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

Last edited by jonkster; 23rd Aug 2023 at 22:23.
jonkster is offline  
The following 5 users liked this post by jonkster:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 00:37
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Doomadgee
Posts: 287
Received 55 Likes on 30 Posts
DRE
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.
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.
Capn Rex Havoc is offline  
The following users liked this post:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.