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 24th Aug 2023, 02:03
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Here and there
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
What CASA is saying is that regardless how much flight time Clarke has or how much instructional time he has give if he want to hold a CASA civilian instructors ticket then he would have to start at the bottom of the ladder and become a Grade 3 instructor.
I have heard this situation more than once in the past. Only CASA can change the situation.

R
runway16 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 02:09
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,222
Received 161 Likes on 67 Posts
Capt Havok
Yes he has to demonstrate competency in all the elements in the Part 61 Manual of Standards
He has to show that he can teach all the elements in the MOS
He has to demonstrate that he can assess all the elements in the MOS
He has to provide written evidence that the student has achieved competency in all the elements in the MOS
He has to have a Single engine <5700 kg type rating

He just has to do what every other civvie instructor has had to do, whatever their background. I didn't know that "Top Gun" was actually a thing in Australia but it doesn't sound like something that would fit in comfortably in a busy GA flying school. Maybe in the cinema, or propping up an aero club bar, but Top Gun? Really?? Because don't we all just love having people around those of us who are not worthy, who have been waved through and given special privileges?

If he wasn't aware of how things work then perhaps this would have been a good place to start.
Skills recognition | ADF Members & Families | Defence
Clare Prop is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Clare Prop:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 02:13
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,222
Received 161 Likes on 67 Posts
Originally Posted by runway16
What CASA is saying is that regardless how much flight time Clarke has or how much instructional time he has give if he want to hold a CASA civilian instructors ticket then he would have to start at the bottom of the ladder and become a Grade 3 instructor.
I have heard this situation more than once in the past. Only CASA can change the situation.

R
I know of ex-military instructors who had done ab-initio in the RAAF being able to fast-track through from Grade 3 to Grade 2 but still had to start at the bottom.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2023, 03:00
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,196
Received 237 Likes on 130 Posts
Originally Posted by Capn Rex Havoc
DRE

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.
I donít know about the levels of each instructional course but in my decades of aviation I can confidently say former military trainers Iíve encountered are no better than wholly civilian trainers, so trying to pass off RAAF trained instructors in a civilian environment as superior doesnít hold up.

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.
Really? - some comments by his lawyer show an air of arrogance about his arguments - a definite ĎIím better than you and you civvies need meí mentality.

ďAustralia 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,Ē

Australian flying students could only benefit from lower barriers for ex-defence pilots in this regard as diversity of aviation experience is a proverbial pearl of aviation wisdom they could benefit from.Ē

I mean címon.

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?
Yes. Heavy jet TRI/TRE can train for stall and unusual attitude recover in a high performance jet yet still have to demonstrate those competencies to CASA to obtain an FIR.

Anecdotally Iíve heard some fast jet pilots sometimes struggle with low powered light training aircraft. They donít always show the required competency straight up. Itís only 30hrs of dual instruction required for an G3 FIR anyway.

I say, good on him. I wish him all the best, and I hope he wins.
Given the time in courts and appeals, and the legal fees heís spent, if he just had done a 6 week G3 FIR course heíd probably wouldíve had his desired outcome much cheaper and quicker.



dr dre is offline  
The following 5 users liked this post by dr dre:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 03:01
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Oka
Posts: 28
Received 10 Likes on 3 Posts
All this fellow has to do is take and pass the inspections relevant to the qualification he seeks.

Given his other qualifications it shouldnít be that difficult. So what reason does he have for not just taking the relevant tests and acing them?

I am (or was) reasonably competent at analyzing the propagation of electromagnetic waves through a wave guide using Fourier analysis.

In other words I can operate

v(t)=∑n=1∞12n−1sin((2n1)2πft)

Amazingly I can also divide numbers.

That didnít qualify me to teach long division to a five year old.

I have a five year old and bluntly whilst I could tell them the answer I couldnít teach them consistent with the curriculum because the way they were supposed to do it made no sense to me.

I hadnít done it that way since I was five years old myself and that was decades ago.

It only took me a few minutes of study to refresh myself on how I was taught to do it when I was five.

Thatís all this guy has to do here.

Last edited by Bbtengineer; 24th Aug 2023 at 03:28.
Bbtengineer is offline  
The following 7 users liked this post by Bbtengineer:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 03:02
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 2,132
Received 108 Likes on 72 Posts
When I was a lowly student, and later when I got to airlines, some of the best - and worst - instructors I flew with were ex-military. Ditto with airline trainers & checkers - some great mentors, and some who were barely adequate as line donkeys (the 'screamers' etc).
No matter a pilot's background, suitability for instruction comes down to personality, knowledge, ability to impart knowledge, and natural flying ability.
But CASA is not in the business of psychoanalysis (praise be for that small mercy!), so they do their usual 'jump through ALL the hoops' BS for every case. CASA is unable to think outside their tiny square.
With the industry allegedly facing a pilot shortage, you'd think that some middle ground could be found in the way CASA recognises prior experience in the intersts of creating a fast track to more advanced instructor ratings and approvals. There will always be a trickle of hour-building Grade 3's coming through the pipeline, so that is probably not a problem for industry. The problem lies in the hours it takes a Grade 3 to move up the instructor food-chain, by which time many move on.
For someone with military or airline instructional experience, a short PMI course tailored to ab-initio training, a few hours in the relevant aircraft type, some self -study to bone up on briefings for the entire PPL/CPL syllabus should not be too much to ask, and not too expensive. It shouldn't need a six week Grade 3 course.
Then require a pass in a practical test for issue of Grade 2.
Expecting a Grade 1 with all the 'fruit' from the get-go with no prior exposure to the GA way of doing things could end in failure for the candidate, or disappointment for students.
Whatever further qualifications are desired should be subject only to proof of prior relevant experience (credits for instrument, multi etc instruction) and a practical test - same as any other instructor moving up. Exemptions in time required as Grade 2 before applying for Grade 1 could be appropriate.
If people baulk at being tested to prove competence, they have no place in aviation.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by Mach E Avelli:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 03:07
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Posts: 549
Received 36 Likes on 18 Posts
At least this is somewhat more justifiable than making qualified military pilots do IREX and a flying test for an insturment rating - an absolute ridiculous cash grab if there ever was one.
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2023, 04:37
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 386
Received 28 Likes on 13 Posts
Some significant differences between civilian and military instructing I would reckon.

A military trainer gets a student who has been through culling programme after culling programme to get to a series of interviews where at least 50% more get culled. Flight training begins with chopping slow learners and more chopping and sends them off to ATC or transport or wherever. So the trainer is left with outstanding (their words) students, piece of cake. I don't know the figures, would it be 5% 10%

The Civvy instructor gets a student who has wandered in from who knows where, all sorts of backgrounds all sorts of reasons to want to learn to fly, all ages, all sorts of aptitude. No chopping here but finding a way to get them up to speed if at all possible . These $200 per hour students don't need an ace, they need and deserve an instructor who has been in their shoes.

I'm not saying a military guy can't make the transition, many have, but as in this case arrogance is not needed in GA
deja vu is offline  
The following 6 users liked this post by deja vu:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 05:14
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 386
Received 28 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
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.
Well Mr Clarke has demonstrated a degree of arrogance that would suggest he could well unleash unsafe aviators. Of course arrogance and an inflated sense of ego is always seen as an asset in military aviation
deja vu is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 05:16
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Port Moresby
Age: 53
Posts: 1,423
Received 25 Likes on 19 Posts
With CASA recently relaxing the FIR/Examiner prerequisites for experienced pilots to do Part 61 training activities for aerial work (Part 138) under certain conditions as a result of industry consultation, maybe itís time to proactively as an industry throw a few robust suggestions to CASA to relax the FIR requirements for the air transport side of the industry.

Certainly needs to be some bridging requirements, however the full Grade 3 FIR training under the current requirements are effectively prohibiting experienced pilots from entering the training arena.

The requirement for some green horn CPL holders to do a GA ready course says it all with regards to the quality of training that some schools are delivering, that ultimately reverts back to instructor experience.

Only need to look at a few recent fatal accident reports to prove the above statement!
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2023, 05:28
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,643
Likes: 0
Received 325 Likes on 180 Posts
Well Mr Clarke has demonstrated a degree of arrogance that would suggest he could well unleash unsafe aviators. Of course arrogance and an inflated sense of ego is always seen as an asset in military aviation
I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.

I assume even if he was granted RPL he would still need to pass a proficiency check to be able to use said qualifications. I have many ratings on my licence, some I haven't used in years, so I would have to do a check ride to be able to use them. So having the rating does not equate to unfettered use of such.
43Inches is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2023, 05:40
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,360
Received 22 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
And so, having thrown the keys to a C172 to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued.
Many years ago I remember seeing an instructor have to go out to the flight line and tell someone to shut down their 172. This Pilot was a 747 Captain, highly experienced, had flown GA but not for a couple of decades and was trying to get a 172 out of an absolutely impossible spot it was parked in and nearly took out the damned wing in their efforts. That's the type of carnage I'm talking about and I've no doubt most experienced Instructors, especially at smaller schools, have similar stories.

How about this, Mr Clarke as a Grade 1 is able to sign off Grade 3s, a Grade 3 is meant to be teaching the fundamentals and one of those fundamentals is Airlaw, do you think walking straight out of the RAAF that Mr Clarke would be fully conversant on all laws as they apply to Civilians? What about Part 91? Or any of the newer regulations? But you feel he should be given these rights and privileges without having actually demonstrated them? In what world does that make sense?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't just throw him the keys, I'd want to go do a couple of circuits with him first for my own peace of mind.

Last edited by Ixixly; 24th Aug 2023 at 05:44. Reason: added last sentence to clarify
Ixixly is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 05:40
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Perth
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
I read the case, seems the AAT and CASA's decision is well reasoned

What is unclear to me is the Applicant sought 9 ratings, but only argued 4 with the AAT. The remainder 5, would be given by CASA, but Applicant has refused. Was a G3FIR rating part of that?

It seems to be G3 needs 200hours (?) of ab-initio experience before being able to graduate. Given the Applicant does not seem to have any ab-initio training experience, I am not even sure how he can ask for a G1 rating. As it stands, I have been instructed by a senior G1, but I dont think they were a particularly good ab-initio instructor, what more a person who has never done it at all...

As an aside, I guess another pilot could presumably train and get a G3, then go on instructing to fly the Space Shuttle. But never be able to advance to G2 or above.



  1. By the Decision, CASA refused to grant nine authorisations sought by the Applicant.

    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. The authorisations still in dispute area) Flight Instructor Rating: Grade 1 training endorsement (FIR-Grade 1);(b) Flight Instructor Rating Instructor rating training endorsement (FIR-FIR);

    (c) Flight Instructor Rating with multi-engine aeroplane class rating instructor training endorsement (FIR-MEAI); and

    (d) Flight Instructor Rating Multi-crew pilot training endorsement (FIR-MCP).
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/v...2023/2628.html
zegnaangelo is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2023, 05:44
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,360
Received 22 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.

I assume even if he was granted RPL he would still need to pass a proficiency check to be able to use said qualifications. I have many ratings on my licence, some I haven't used in years, so I would have to do a check ride to be able to use them. So having the rating does not equate to unfettered use of such.
From what I can tell from the AustLii link handing him something like an RPL or PPL was not in question, they were happy to do that. We're talking about handing him a Grade 1 Flight Instructor Rating and some other higher-level qualifications that would have given him rights and privileges for which he was unable to properly show he had the ability to execute fully. I don't think anyone here would doubt his skills as a Pilot or ability to handle an Aircraft but there are a lot of civilian procedures, laws and such that he wouldn't be current on and as a Grade 1 you're expected to be current on them and know them based on the current laws and requirements.
Ixixly is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Ixixly:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 06:14
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 386
Received 28 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.

I assume even if he was granted RPL he would still need to pass a proficiency check to be able to use said qualifications. I have many ratings on my licence, some I haven't used in years, so I would have to do a check ride to be able to use them. So having the rating does not equate to unfettered use of such.
Well would you consider it arrogant of me if took my 20,000hours of which 8000 IC hours are on the A330 and 5000 IC on the B737 to the RAAF and insisted they gave me the appropriate tickets and a job flying the wascally wabbit all around the world because I am so much more experienced than the lot who are doing it now. And if they said no I would challenge them in the courts and call their system outdated.
deja vu is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by deja vu:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 06:40
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Port Moresby
Age: 53
Posts: 1,423
Received 25 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.
Tested??? Why???

CASA have got a lot of things wrong with regards to the implementation of the new rules dating back to the introduction of Part 61, however I fail to understand why industry and individual ARN holders need to be tested with regards to the introduction of the new regulations.

And CASA recon all the Part 133 and 135 operators are going to have a CASA approved SMS and Safety Manager in place by the end of 2024.

Wonder why CASA relaxed the exemption instrument deadlines for the new requirements relating to SMS, HF and NTS and Helicopter performance procedures.

And now CASA are enforcing Part 135 operators with IFR aircraft to have a MEL for their aircraft. Where did that little gem come from? Even the current regs donít mandate this. Certainly wasnít raised in Part 135 advisory material prior to the new regs being implemented in December 2021, nor consulted with industry.

Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2023, 07:06
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: YHOT
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
And now CASA are enforcing Part 135 operators with IFR aircraft to have a MEL for their aircraft. Where did that little gem come from? Even the current regs don’t mandate this. Certainly wasn’t raised in Part 135 advisory material prior to the new regs being implemented in December 2021, nor consulted with industry.
135.045
DynamicStall is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 07:19
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,196
Received 237 Likes on 130 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
I'm not sure how you equate arrogance with fighting the ridiculous system of rules that the bureaucracy called CASA has developed. There are many of CASA's rule set that really need to be tested as they really don't make sense in the real world.
Hmmm if this RAAF instructor wanted to truly “test” the system then wouldn’t it be more prudent to undertake a G3 FIR course himself. Then potentially review and analyse the positive/benefits of that training course in the ab-initio environment and if it could be shortened for former military or airline trainers who have training experience but not ab-initio instructor ratings. Then submit a review to CASA and work with them to simplify the system?

Instead he’s gone straight to the courts (and failed) to argue that he, as an ex military pilot, is superior to mere “civvies” and therefore normal rules shouldn’t apply to him. This story isn’t really helping to overturn the reputation and stereotypes of military pilots.

Not only is this arrogant but it also leads me to think there’s an ulterior motive behind it. Surely a G3 FIR course would’ve been quicker and cheaper than a court case and appeals?

Last edited by dr dre; 24th Aug 2023 at 07:30.
dr dre is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by dr dre:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 10:00
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: 3rd Rock
Posts: 356
Received 57 Likes on 31 Posts
I find it uncomfortably easy to agree with CASA on this.

Sure the guy is experienced and probably a great instructor, but that experience is pretty irrelevant to the role he's trying to avoid qualification for.

Qualifications and experience aside, I have some questions regarding what's going on in this guys head even trying this argument on in the first place.
Lapon is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 24th Aug 2023, 10:15
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,172
Received 343 Likes on 178 Posts
The 'bottom line' is that the AAT agreed with CASA so, absent some glaring error of law, that's that!

Very interesting debate and the balance of (very) experienced instructor opinion supports CASA and the AAT's decision. I'm now convinced by those far (far) more experienced than me.
Lead Balloon is offline  
The following users liked this post:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.