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 26th Aug 2023, 03:06
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,225
Received 281 Likes on 155 Posts
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer

And you have the temerity to make post after post about arrogance and perceived personality traits of the individual.
Well I’m not the one suing for the right to skip the standard process every other G1 instructor in the country had to go through. I’m not the one getting a lawyer to publicly talk about how great I am and how the civilian world ‘needs’ me.

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.
It’s the military complainant who’s perpetuating that stereotype himself, aided by some posters supporting him here.

I'm not convinced anyone is demanding anything.
So why did he go to court then? Did he first try to change the process the proper way by making a submission to CASA? If he did he didn’t get his way so went to the courts to force an outcome in his favour. That’s him demanding he be exempt from the rules.

And you've indicated that it is about seniority, not equivalent experience which is what this case is about.
It does point to the truth that some military pilots see themselves as above civilian pilots, and that their ‘military’ status should give them some type of privilege in the civilian world.
dr dre is online now  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 03:32
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,265
Received 288 Likes on 111 Posts
Originally Posted by dr dre
It’s the military complainant who’s perpetuating that stereotype himself
Is it?
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.​​
Originally Posted by dr dre
So why did he go to court then?
They're not in court. It's an administrative appeal.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 04:01
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,282
Received 203 Likes on 89 Posts
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.


Clare Prop is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 26th Aug 2023, 05:03
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SAUDI
Posts: 460
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Clare Prop
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?
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.

Last edited by finestkind; 26th Aug 2023 at 05:36.
finestkind is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 06:40
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,726
Received 379 Likes on 209 Posts
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. I remember one school with 4 seaters where grade ones or the CFI might occasionally sit in the back of a training flight to watch what a company instructor did. Two other schools that made working groups where grade ones were teamed up with grade 2/3s for mentoring. Another 10+ schools where a grade 3 was an annoying liability until they were senior G3 and didn't need someone 'present' to supervise them, and then they did what they wanted to do until the next check ride.

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 06:51.
43Inches is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 07:21
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,282
Received 203 Likes on 89 Posts
Snoop

Originally Posted by finestkind
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.
That's a good question.
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 07:33.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 07:27
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,282
Received 203 Likes on 89 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
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....
Care to give us a reference for the "skyrocketing accident rate"?


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 09:22.
Clare Prop is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 26th Aug 2023, 08:09
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,726
Received 379 Likes on 209 Posts
Originally Posted by Clare Prop
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?
You only quoted the past 9 years, and we have done this to death on other threads, Australia has an abysmal safety record in GA compared to the US... when compared in rates.

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.
43Inches is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 08:15
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,282
Received 203 Likes on 89 Posts
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.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 08:16
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,726
Received 379 Likes on 209 Posts
Originally Posted by Clare Prop
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.
Can't be bothered doing it again, you provide the evidence against it.

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.
43Inches is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 08:21
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,210
Received 169 Likes on 75 Posts
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 aviation community is so honoured to have one so noble and humble amongst its ranks. Accept a thousand pardons for anyone daring to speak against one so exalted.
Lookleft is offline  
The following 3 users liked this post by Lookleft:
Old 26th Aug 2023, 08:42
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,726
Received 379 Likes on 209 Posts
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.

Last edited by 43Inches; 26th Aug 2023 at 09:06.
43Inches is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 26th Aug 2023, 09:21
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: EU
Posts: 109
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clare Prop
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?
It's just you
Plain truth is not arrogance
menekse is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 10:19
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: EU
Posts: 109
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
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.
I opened this thread Nepotism in pilot selection
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
menekse is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 14:02
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 2,173
Received 138 Likes on 91 Posts
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, donít wind them up because it may come back to bite you.






Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 26th Aug 2023 at 14:25.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
The following 3 users liked this post by Mach E Avelli:
Old 26th Aug 2023, 14:09
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: EU
Posts: 109
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted 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.
Maybe it's not about himself, probably he wanted to make a point
If he had a fund raising for lawyer expenses I would support
menekse is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 15:12
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 2,225
Received 281 Likes on 155 Posts
Originally Posted by menekse
It's just you
Plain truth is not arrogance
How do we define "truth"? Here's some excerpts from the post Clare was responding to:

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,
Are you so sure mate? No wonder the description of arrogant is being used here.

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.
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.

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.​​​​​​​
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.
dr dre is online now  
The following 4 users liked this post by dr dre:
Old 26th Aug 2023, 15:58
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: EU
Posts: 109
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted 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.
It's not an opinion that fighter jet pilots are highly skilled professionals
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
menekse is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2023, 16:52
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 545
Received 15 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Clare Prop
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 can't comment on "most ICAO countries" but I can comment on FAA and USA. I hold FAA flight instructor ratings for glider, airplane single engine, and instrument. There are no "grades" of instructor in USA. The day I was issued each of those ratings I had the same instructor privileges as an instructor with 10,000 hours instruction given.

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 22:58. Reason: correct aircraft to airplane
EXDAC is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 26th Aug 2023, 17:36
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: North Haven
Posts: 214
Received 165 Likes on 78 Posts
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.
Good point, took a while for it to come about

​​​​​​​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.
I'm a new participant here, but out of genuine interest, are you retired? And are you using ChatGPT? The bolded comment above, really? I've worked in lots of schools obviously started at Grade 3 (I didn't fly for the RAAF so couldn't skip straight to Grade1) and in every one of them the majority of Grade 3's would naturally gravitate to 2's and 1's for advice. And most HOO's tell Grade 3's on induction tell 3's 'if in doubt, ask a 2 then a 1.

In regards to Clare's comment above it further reinforces CASA's excellent decision.

Mr Mossberg 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.