TOO GOOD FOR GA?
The debate is a healthy one. I just don't see the need to denigrate an individual by resorting to the usual and very, very tired stereotypes of the military.
I'm not convinced anyone is demanding anything.
And you've indicated that it is about seniority, not equivalent experience which is what this case is about.
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.
There is an issue here also, that the reason a Grade 1 needs to have that ab-initio experience and 750 total TEACHING THE PART 61 MOS or equivalent, (most ICAO countries having very similar syllabi and standards) is because that grade qualifies you for a supervisory role, including HOO. Grade Threes need guidance and mentoring from a Grade 1. As do Grade 2s to a lesser extent.
f you have never flown the sequences in that type of aircraft, or been in "their shoes" in any other way, particularly dealing with the many and varied personality types and competency levels that you will be dealing with, then how can you effectively mentor/supervise someone else?
This is why he is a Grade 3 now and will have to be supervised by a Grade 1. If that rankles then civvie instructing is not for you.
f you have never flown the sequences in that type of aircraft, or been in "their shoes" in any other way, particularly dealing with the many and varied personality types and competency levels that you will be dealing with, then how can you effectively mentor/supervise someone else?
This is why he is a Grade 3 now and will have to be supervised by a Grade 1. If that rankles then civvie instructing is not for you.
The following users liked this post:
Is it just me or is the arrogance of this post quite astonishing? This is exactly the "what-ho Squiffy" attitude that I am talking about.
So, Bloggs is unprepared, could have all kind of valid reasons for that, so perhaps you can help him with some tips to manage his time to fit in flying with other commitments, rather than just pat him on the head and patronise him?
So, Bloggs is unprepared, could have all kind of valid reasons for that, so perhaps you can help him with some tips to manage his time to fit in flying with other commitments, rather than just pat him on the head and patronise him?
Last edited by finestkind; 26th Aug 2023 at 04:36.
There is an issue here also, that the reason a Grade 1 needs to have that ab-initio experience and 750 total TEACHING THE PART 61 MOS or equivalent, (most ICAO countries having very similar syllabi and standards) is because that grade qualifies you for a supervisory role, including HOO. Grade Threes need guidance and mentoring from a Grade 1. As do Grade 2s to a lesser extent.
All I see here is waffle about the regulations and no idea of the reality of what actually goes on in most flying schools.
So all this talk that the 750 instructional hours actual amounts to real, tangible, teaching experience is kidding themselves. It's hours in the logbook, and whether the candidate makes a good grade 1 or not will be luck and personal aptitude.
I quiver when I look at the damage that the introduction of CBT and now all the MOS has done to the training industry, lots of words and a skyrocketing accident rate, because everyone is looking at rules and recommendations and forgetting the basics. Something is very wrong in the GA training industry, we all know it. Why can the FAA do it without 1000 pages of 'MOS' and have a better safety record in less forgiving environment....
By the way a USAF instructor pilot can convert to a CFI/CFII or MEI as long as they held the equivalent in the forces and pass a theory and practical exam.
Last edited by 43Inches; 26th Aug 2023 at 05:51.
Clare if the trainee rocks up unprepared do you not think that the instructor (most I know do/would) would comment, nicely, that to get more bang for his buck that they should do a, b, c. If the trainee decides to ignore the advice what then. Do you say bugger off your wasting my and your time (again I know a few that would/have done) or do you look after the business and if they are happy, keep taking the money. The beauty of the military is self-motivation combined with reaching a standard in the required time and not a requirement to keep the company financially viable. You turn up unprepared that's a fail.
In my circumstances I'm not having to chase cash flow, I teach because I want to, I can pick and chose my students, the onus is on them to be able to stay on the course. So yeah if I have a student who isn't prepared to commit the time and effort they need we will give them three warnings then tell them that we will dedicate our resources to genuine students, particularly if they are a CPL student. If they have something like a new baby or illness in the family we will be accommodating and put them last in the day's schedule so that a late cancellation rather than a wasted lesson doesn't disrupt the whole day, but if they are just bone idle then we don't want them here, they are in fact a liability and will usually self-cull through our no show/late cancellation policy (three strikes and you're out). They will then go to another school with some made-up story about how mean we are and become someone else's problem, this is why we don't accept students coming from other schools mid course - usually the last place is glad to see the back of them.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 26th Aug 2023 at 06:33.
All I see here is waffle about the regulations and no idea of the reality of what actually goes on in most flying schools.
So all this talk that the 750 instructional hours actual amounts to real, tangible, teaching experience is kidding themselves. It's hours in the logbook, and whether the candidate makes a good grade 1 or not will be luck and personal aptitude.
I quiver when I look at the damage that the introduction of CBT and now all the MOS has done to the training industry, lots of words and a skyrocketing accident rate, because everyone is looking at rules and recommendations and forgetting the basics. Something is very wrong in the GA training industry, we all know it. Why can the FAA do it without 1000 pages of 'MOS' and have a better safety record in less forgiving environment....
So all this talk that the 750 instructional hours actual amounts to real, tangible, teaching experience is kidding themselves. It's hours in the logbook, and whether the candidate makes a good grade 1 or not will be luck and personal aptitude.
I quiver when I look at the damage that the introduction of CBT and now all the MOS has done to the training industry, lots of words and a skyrocketing accident rate, because everyone is looking at rules and recommendations and forgetting the basics. Something is very wrong in the GA training industry, we all know it. Why can the FAA do it without 1000 pages of 'MOS' and have a better safety record in less forgiving environment....
Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2010 to 2019 | ATSB
It's unfortunate you seem to have come across some very sub-standard flying schools in your world, I'm assuming you are Grade 1 to be able to speak with such authority? If so why did you not do something to improve things while you were in a position to?
Last edited by Clare Prop; 26th Aug 2023 at 08:22.
The following users liked this post:
Care to give us a reference for the "skyrocketing accident rate"?
It's unfortunate you seem to have come across some very sub-standard flying schools in your world, I'm assuming you are Grade 1 to be able to speak with such authority? If so why did you not do something to improve things while you were in a position to?
It's unfortunate you seem to have come across some very sub-standard flying schools in your world, I'm assuming you are Grade 1 to be able to speak with such authority? If so why did you not do something to improve things while you were in a position to?
By the way I did a lot to improve things in GA as I helped implement the instructor mentoring program at two schools. Try to play with other peoples ponds and you get nasty kickback.
PS in my line of work I know what goes on in about 90% of flying schools in Australia, so it's pretty wide spread the problem at hand.
CBT came in in 2000, part 61 in 2014, so that is a representative sample of the time you say the accident rates are "skyrocketing" due to those things.
"Done to death on other threads" isn't a reference...if you are going to make these allegations and lay the blame at the feet of flying instructors, then at least cite a credible source.
"Done to death on other threads" isn't a reference...if you are going to make these allegations and lay the blame at the feet of flying instructors, then at least cite a credible source.
CBT came in in 2000, part 61 in 2014, so that is a representative sample of the time you say the accident rates are "skyrocketing" due to those things.
"Done to death on other threads" isn't a reference...if you are going to make these allegation and lay the blame at the feet of flying instructors, all I am asking for is a credible source.
"Done to death on other threads" isn't a reference...if you are going to make these allegation and lay the blame at the feet of flying instructors, all I am asking for is a credible source.
PS I think one of the next few threads , the mid air one, FDR provided statistical evidence that mid air collisions alone were 3.5-7 times more likely in here than in the USA.
PS in my line of work I know what goes on in about 90% of flying schools in Australia, so it's pretty wide spread the problem at hand.
The following 3 users liked this post by Lookleft:
I just did a quick check of 2019 statistics and the US managed close to its long term fatal accident rate of 1.05 accidents per 100,000 flights. Australia was in the region of 2 accidents per 100,000 flights. That's double the accident rate for a massive country with next to no GA compared and benign weather and terrain....
Based on NTSB stats of 205 GA fatal accidents over around 20,000,000 flight hours, and, ATSB 22 fatal accidents over around 1,000,000 flight hours. (Sport and recreational aviation is not included in either numbers)
Here's something sobering, from 1990 to 2000 the accident rate for Australia averaged about 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flights. However the data suggests that in 1990 the rate was around 1.6 reducing to 0.9 per 100,000 by 2000. From 2000 onwards the rate has steadily climbed back up towards 2 accidents per 100,000. So what does that tell you?
The ATSB won't even quote the actual rate of accidents in the latest data as they probably don't want direct comparisons made to show up how badly we have done here.
Based on NTSB stats of 205 GA fatal accidents over around 20,000,000 flight hours, and, ATSB 22 fatal accidents over around 1,000,000 flight hours. (Sport and recreational aviation is not included in either numbers)
Here's something sobering, from 1990 to 2000 the accident rate for Australia averaged about 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flights. However the data suggests that in 1990 the rate was around 1.6 reducing to 0.9 per 100,000 by 2000. From 2000 onwards the rate has steadily climbed back up towards 2 accidents per 100,000. So what does that tell you?
The ATSB won't even quote the actual rate of accidents in the latest data as they probably don't want direct comparisons made to show up how badly we have done here.
Last edited by 43Inches; 26th Aug 2023 at 08:06.
The following users liked this post:
Is it just me or is the arrogance of this post quite astonishing? This is exactly the "what-ho Squiffy" attitude that I am talking about.
So, Bloggs is unprepared, could have all kind of valid reasons for that, so perhaps you can help him with some tips to manage his time to fit in flying with other commitments, rather than just pat him on the head and patronise him?
So, Bloggs is unprepared, could have all kind of valid reasons for that, so perhaps you can help him with some tips to manage his time to fit in flying with other commitments, rather than just pat him on the head and patronise him?
Plain truth is not arrogance
I just did a quick check of 2019 statistics and the US managed close to its long term fatal accident rate of 1.05 accidents per 100,000 flights. Australia was in the region of 2 accidents per 100,000 flights. That's double the accident rate for a massive country with next to no GA compared and benign weather and terrain....
Based on NTSB stats of 205 GA fatal accidents over around 20,000,000 flight hours, and, ATSB 22 fatal accidents over around 1,000,000 flight hours. (Sport and recreational aviation is not included in either numbers)
Here's something sobering, from 1990 to 2000 the accident rate for Australia averaged about 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flights. However the data suggests that in 1990 the rate was around 1.6 reducing to 0.9 per 100,000 by 2000. From 2000 onwards the rate has steadily climbed back up towards 2 accidents per 100,000. So what does that tell you?
The ATSB won't even quote the actual rate of accidents in the latest data as they probably don't want direct comparisons made to show up how badly we have done here.
Based on NTSB stats of 205 GA fatal accidents over around 20,000,000 flight hours, and, ATSB 22 fatal accidents over around 1,000,000 flight hours. (Sport and recreational aviation is not included in either numbers)
Here's something sobering, from 1990 to 2000 the accident rate for Australia averaged about 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flights. However the data suggests that in 1990 the rate was around 1.6 reducing to 0.9 per 100,000 by 2000. From 2000 onwards the rate has steadily climbed back up towards 2 accidents per 100,000. So what does that tell you?
The ATSB won't even quote the actual rate of accidents in the latest data as they probably don't want direct comparisons made to show up how badly we have done here.
The local CAA occuses the pilot selection for an incident
There are a lot of posts regarding that the specific airline was hiring below the entry requirements they published
Seems that is not that relevant with this thread but that's pretty much the situation in flight schools
Most of the FIs are fresh CPL graduates that mommy could afford to pay the FI course in the same school so they were hired there
I come from the military, fighter jet experience, commercial jet experience I would be fine to give any exam for a FI rating but I would never pay 10.000+ euros to obtain the same course with a 200 hours piston pilot
I could write some pages for the reasons
Having waded through the tribunal report, I gather that because he had never trained ab initio students, CASA granted him a Grade 3, so they were not totally refusing to recognise his military instruction time. Maybe I got that wrong ? But if they granted him a G 3, he did not have to spend a cent before going to work, albeit at apprentice wages.
Instead of getting CASA offside by lawyering up (bad idea) why did he not grab the G 3, train a few pilots up to solo standard to prove his worth, then apply for a Grade 2 on the basis of prior experience, get that, add other approvals or endorsements based on prior experience, and do whatever qualifying hours or time or tasks needed for Grade 1? He probably could have knocked it all over in 18 months, and given an employer in need of his skills, without spending a cent.
I am no CASA lover, but (generally) got what I needed out of them by (usually) taking a non-antagonistic approach. Which is saying that unless they threaten you, don’t wind them up because it may come back to bite you.
Instead of getting CASA offside by lawyering up (bad idea) why did he not grab the G 3, train a few pilots up to solo standard to prove his worth, then apply for a Grade 2 on the basis of prior experience, get that, add other approvals or endorsements based on prior experience, and do whatever qualifying hours or time or tasks needed for Grade 1? He probably could have knocked it all over in 18 months, and given an employer in need of his skills, without spending a cent.
I am no CASA lover, but (generally) got what I needed out of them by (usually) taking a non-antagonistic approach. Which is saying that unless they threaten you, don’t wind them up because it may come back to bite you.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 26th Aug 2023 at 13:25.
The following 3 users liked this post by Mach E Avelli:
Having waded through the tribunal report, I gather that because he had never trained ab initio students, CASA granted him a Grade 3, so they were not totally refusing to recognise his military instruction time. Maybe I got that wrong ? But if they granted him a G 3, he did not have to spend a cent before going to work, albeit at apprentice wages.
Instead of getting CASA offside (bad idea) and getting lawyers involved (even badder idea), why did he not grab the G 3, train a few pilots up to solo standard to prove his worth, then apply for a Grade 2 on the basis of prior experience, get that, add other approvals or endorsements based on prior experience, and do whatever qualifying hours or time or tasks needed for Grade 1? He probably could have knocked it all over in 18 months, and given an employer in need of his skills, without spending a cent.
Instead of getting CASA offside (bad idea) and getting lawyers involved (even badder idea), why did he not grab the G 3, train a few pilots up to solo standard to prove his worth, then apply for a Grade 2 on the basis of prior experience, get that, add other approvals or endorsements based on prior experience, and do whatever qualifying hours or time or tasks needed for Grade 1? He probably could have knocked it all over in 18 months, and given an employer in need of his skills, without spending a cent.
If he had a fund raising for lawyer expenses I would support
How do we define "truth"? Here's some excerpts from the post Clare was responding to:
Are you so sure mate? No wonder the description of arrogant is being used here.
Apart from the two spelling errors this genius here believes military pilots have the ability to just magically teach anything, even if they've never actually done it themselves. That's an opinion, not a truth.
That's an opinion, not a truth. In my own personal experience I would say the skills of some ex military I've encountered has been lacking in some of those areas, especially CRM.
After 4000 hours or so of GA and military, I did the GA instructor course. Whilst mildy entertaining for the first 3-4 flights all I really did was turn money into CO2. Could have done the test on day 2 and passed easily,
The CASA beurocrats can't seem to grasp that a military trained pilot who has attained check and training (let alone actually gone to CFS for 3 months so they can teach triming and flaring) can pick up any syllabi and just teach.
The expertise they bring with extensive training in CRM,AVRM, flying supervision, airborne instructional technique, sim checking, route checking, AVMED, etc far, far surpasses the CASA requirements.
The following 4 users liked this post by dr dre:
How do we define "truth"? Here's some excerpts from the post Clare was responding to:
Are you so sure mate? No wonder the description of arrogant is being used here.
Apart from the two spelling errors this genius here believes military pilots have the ability to just magically teach anything, even if they've never actually done it themselves. That's an opinion, not a truth.
That's an opinion, not a truth. In my own personal experience I would say the skills of some ex military I've encountered has been lacking in some of those areas, especially CRM.
Are you so sure mate? No wonder the description of arrogant is being used here.
Apart from the two spelling errors this genius here believes military pilots have the ability to just magically teach anything, even if they've never actually done it themselves. That's an opinion, not a truth.
That's an opinion, not a truth. In my own personal experience I would say the skills of some ex military I've encountered has been lacking in some of those areas, especially CRM.
It's just a fact
Filters in military profession guarantee the emotional balance
What more could you ask from a teacher?
Experience matters, that's why there is ZFTT
There is an issue here also, that the reason a Grade 1 needs to have that ab-initio experience and 750 total TEACHING THE PART 61 MOS or equivalent, (most ICAO countries having very similar syllabi and standards) is because that grade qualifies you for a supervisory role, including HOO. Grade Threes need guidance and mentoring from a Grade 1. As do Grade 2s to a lesser extent.
It was a little different in UK where I was granted glider "assistant instructor" privileges based on my FAA glider instructor rating and experience. I could not have been a "full cat" instructor without additional training.
Last edited by EXDAC; 26th Aug 2023 at 21:58. Reason: correct aircraft to airplane
The following users liked this post:
There is an issue here also, that the reason a Grade 1 needs to have that ab-initio experience and 750 total TEACHING THE PART 61 MOS or equivalent, (most ICAO countries having very similar syllabi and standards) is because that grade qualifies you for a supervisory role, including HOO. Grade Threes need guidance and mentoring from a Grade 1. As do Grade 2s to a lesser extent.
I've seen about 3 schools in 20 that have even the basic form of Grade 1s actually mentoring Grade 3s. It's pie in the sky stuff, sounds great, and it's written in the rules, but in reality Grade 3s do mostly their own thing and that's it.
In regards to Clare's comment above it further reinforces CASA's excellent decision.
The following users liked this post: