TOO GOOD FOR GA?
EXDAC
I'm referring to the syllabus they are teaching to students rather than the syllabus for the instructor rating.
Meanwhile in the UK this document refers.
Military Aircrew Accreditation Scheme (caa.co.uk)
I'm referring to the syllabus they are teaching to students rather than the syllabus for the instructor rating.
Meanwhile in the UK this document refers.
Military Aircrew Accreditation Scheme (caa.co.uk)
I doubt you do, as the FAA does not issue pilot licences, nor do they issue instructor ratings. The FAA ratings are instrument, multi-engine, helicopters, gyroplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, and seaplanes. If you had 10,000 hrs given, you would also probably be a DPE and gold seal, they have more privileges than a CFI/CFII.
If you tried to convert a FAA CFI/CFII with 10,000 hrs instructional, CASA would only grant a Grade 3. If you were to convert a NZ A Cat, CASA would grant a Grade 1. There is a equivalence in qualification and experience.
I doubt you do, as the FAA does not issue pilot licences, nor do they issue instructor ratings. The FAA ratings are instrument, multi-engine, helicopters, gyroplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, and seaplanes. If you had 10,000 hrs given, you would also probably be a DPE and gold seal, they have more privileges than a CFI/CFII.
If you tried to convert a FAA CFI/CFII with 10,000 hrs instructional, CASA would only grant a Grade 3. If you were to convert a NZ A Cat, CASA would grant a Grade 1. There is a equivalence in qualification and experience.
If you tried to convert a FAA CFI/CFII with 10,000 hrs instructional, CASA would only grant a Grade 3. If you were to convert a NZ A Cat, CASA would grant a Grade 1. There is a equivalence in qualification and experience.
You can look up the FARs on requirerements for an instructor rating, it's only about one page of reading, including syllabus.
Section XII RATINGS on the back of my FAA instructor certificate shows the RATINGS that I listed. Maybe you should become more familiar with the subject before posting. Perhaps start with 14 CFR 61.181 and 61.191.
Last edited by EXDAC; 26th Aug 2023 at 18:26. Reason: correct typo, add 61.181
The following users liked this post:
If this instructor chap wanted to become a civil instructor he should have been offered a practical test or assesment, including briefing and debriefing. Carried out by a CASA testing officer for the grade he applied for? If he passed that, like every other instructor in the civilian training world, then he shorld be allowed to instruct in the civilian environment.
The FAA instructor appointment system seems too simple to those of us labouring under CASA complexity. Yet, the GA accident rate in the USA is lower than that in Australia, despite your more demanding environment.
Is it true that the FAA keep a close watch on individual instructors by having examiners test students and reporting a first time pass rate? An instructor must achieve a certain student success rate to continue without FAA involvement. Or some similar quality assurance?
Ex DAC, genuine question to follow.
The FAA instructor appointment system seems too simple to those of us labouring under CASA complexity. Yet, the GA accident rate in the USA is lower than that in Australia, despite your more demanding environment.
Is it true that the FAA keep a close watch on individual instructors by having examiners test students and reporting a first time pass rate? An instructor must achieve a certain student success rate to continue without FAA involvement. Or some similar quality assurance?
The FAA instructor appointment system seems too simple to those of us labouring under CASA complexity. Yet, the GA accident rate in the USA is lower than that in Australia, despite your more demanding environment.
Is it true that the FAA keep a close watch on individual instructors by having examiners test students and reporting a first time pass rate? An instructor must achieve a certain student success rate to continue without FAA involvement. Or some similar quality assurance?
28 GOLD SEAL FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATES OTHER THAN FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS WITH A SPORT PILOT RATING. Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 2, Section 13, Issue a Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificate, contains the specific requirements for the Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificate other than flight instructors with a sport pilot rating. Flight instructor certificates bearing distinctive gold seals are issued to flight instructors who have maintained a high level of flight training activity and who meet special criteria. Once issued, a Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificate will be reissued each time the instructor’s certificate is renewed. Applicants for Gold Seal Flight Instructor Certificates must meet the following requirements:
1. The flight instructor must hold a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an instrument rating (glider flight instructors need not hold an instrument rating) or an ATP Certificate;
2. The flight instructor must hold a ground instructor certificate with an advanced or instrument ground instructor rating; and
3. The flight instructor must have accomplished the following within the previous 24 calendar-months:
• Trained and recommended at least 10 applicants for a practical test, and at least 80 percent of the applicants passed their tests on the first attempt;
• Conducted at least 20 practical tests as a DPE, or graduation tests as chief instructor of a part 141 approved pilot school course; or
• A combination of the above requirements. Two practical tests conducted equal the credit given for one applicant trained and recommended for a practical test.
1. The flight instructor must hold a Commercial Pilot Certificate with an instrument rating (glider flight instructors need not hold an instrument rating) or an ATP Certificate;
2. The flight instructor must hold a ground instructor certificate with an advanced or instrument ground instructor rating; and
3. The flight instructor must have accomplished the following within the previous 24 calendar-months:
• Trained and recommended at least 10 applicants for a practical test, and at least 80 percent of the applicants passed their tests on the first attempt;
• Conducted at least 20 practical tests as a DPE, or graduation tests as chief instructor of a part 141 approved pilot school course; or
• A combination of the above requirements. Two practical tests conducted equal the credit given for one applicant trained and recommended for a practical test.
There is also a pass requirement if you wish to train instructors, but have not held a CFI for more than 24 months.
Technically even in Australia CASA will get involved if they hear of low first time pass rates, it may be just in the form of more frequent Audits. Which sounds proactive, until you realize they don't do much but check duty times and inspect placards on trainers.
Last edited by 43Inches; 26th Aug 2023 at 22:56.
Is it true that the FAA keep a close watch on individual instructors by having examiners test students and reporting a first time pass rate? An instructor must achieve a certain student success rate to continue without FAA involvement. Or some similar quality assurance?
An FAA flight instructor certificate expires 24 months after the issue date (14 CFR 61.19(d). FAA flight instructors have to "renew" every 2 years. That can be on the basis of student success if enough recommendations are given. I don't do nearly enough for that and have to take a flight instructor refresher course every 2 years. ref - https://ctipft.com/how-to-renew-your-cfi/
My ground instructor certificate does not expire.
FAA cannot issue an instructor certificate with no associated ratings. The RATINGS are listed on the certificate. Did you read the references I provided?
Have you ever held an FAA flight instructor certificate? If so, please save us the drama and read what is written on it.
Have you ever held an FAA flight instructor certificate? If so, please save us the drama and read what is written on it.
The aeronautical experience requirements for various RATINGS are listed in 61.129, there is no instructor RATING. The ratings they refer to in 61.181 is when you want to say add on a helicopter RATING to your Commercial Pilot/CFI CERTIFICATE. In the FAA world, RATING sets forth the special conditions, privileges, or limitations on a CERTIFICATE. The Commercial Pilot/CFI are the CERTIFICATES, RATING is the privileges/limitations on the CERTIFICATE, e.g. airplane, helicopter, multi-engine etc.
In FAA world they are instructor CERTIFICATES, not ratings.
In FAA world they are instructor CERTIFICATES, not ratings.
It gives me no pleasure agreeing with CASA on this one. Having significant experience on both sides of the coin, there are a number of very good instructors in the Airline Industry and the ADF, delegates, that have trained many 3000 hr plus commercial pilots on various types and have never held an instructor rating. This does not make them a Grade One Flight Instructor. I support consideration or credits for previous experience, but not a substitute for.
It gives me no pleasure agreeing with CASA on this one. Having significant experience on both sides of the coin, there are a number of very good instructors in the Airline Industry and the ADF, delegates, that have trained many 3000 hr plus commercial pilots on various types and have never held an instructor rating. This does not make them a Grade One Flight Instructor. I support consideration or credits for previous experience, but not a substitute for.
The aeronautical experience requirements for various RATINGS are listed in 61.129, there is no instructor RATING. The ratings they refer to in 61.181 is when you want to say add on a helicopter RATING to your Commercial Pilot/CFI CERTIFICATE. In the FAA world, RATING sets forth the special conditions, privileges, or limitations on a CERTIFICATE. The Commercial Pilot/CFI are the CERTIFICATES, RATING is the privileges/limitations on the CERTIFICATE, e.g. airplane, helicopter, multi-engine etc.
§ 61.181 Applicability.
§ 61.181 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes the requirements for the issuance of flight instructor certificates and ratings (except for flight instructor certificates with a sport pilot rating), the conditions under which those certificates and ratings are necessary, and the limitations on those certificates and ratings.
(2) An instrument rating, or privileges on that person's pilot certificate that are appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought, if applying for—
(i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating;
(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating;
(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating; or
(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.
(i) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating;
(ii) A flight instructor certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating;
(iii) A flight instructor certificate with a powered-lift rating; or
(iv) A flight instructor certificate with an instrument rating.
Once you have some experience you can then apply for a 'Gold Seal', which gives you a fancy certificate and bragging rights.
Last edited by 43Inches; 27th Aug 2023 at 01:46.
So you are totally ignoring what we are talking about, that a USAF instructor pilot can basically get a CFI/CFII or MEI recognized, to teach whatever ratings they hold. They have no requirements for 'ab-initio' training, just a general 'have conducted' x amount of training to be involved in instructor training, which would be the only similarity to a FIR G1. And with all that have a safer system than Australia? I can't agree with CASA regulations on this as it's a draconian bureaucratic system that holds tight to laws and not outcomes. The AAT basically had it's hands tied as the way CASA regulations are written mean that they can not disagree with CASA.
They seem to have a love affair with military trained pilots. For instance under their ATPL rules a military pilot can qualify for a restricted ATPL and sit in an F/O's seat with only 750 hours total time, whereas most civilian trained pilots would have to wait until 1500 hours is obtained. This is discrimination in favour of military pilots (or alternatively against civilian pilots). Thankfully most of the world doesn't follow this and treats candidates equally and fairly.
As several posters have pointed out for this person to get his G1 FIR it would only be about a year or so of instruction, so that by the time he reaches G1 and is granted privileges like supervising brand new grade 3's he has enough relevant experience in that environment he can supervise them properly.
The following users liked this post:
The US does a lot of things different to the rest of the world. Doesn't mean that it's better.
They seem to have a love affair with military trained pilots. For instance under their ATPL rules a military pilot can qualify for a restricted ATPL and sit in an F/O's seat with only 750 hours total time, whereas most civilian trained pilots would have to wait until 1500 hours is obtained. This is discrimination in favour of military pilots (or alternatively against civilian pilots). Thankfully most of the world doesn't follow this and treats candidates equally and fairly.
As several posters have pointed out for this person to get his G1 FIR it would only be about a year or so of instruction, so that by the time he reaches G1 and is granted privileges like supervising brand new grade 3's he has enough relevant experience in that environment he can supervise them properly.
They seem to have a love affair with military trained pilots. For instance under their ATPL rules a military pilot can qualify for a restricted ATPL and sit in an F/O's seat with only 750 hours total time, whereas most civilian trained pilots would have to wait until 1500 hours is obtained. This is discrimination in favour of military pilots (or alternatively against civilian pilots). Thankfully most of the world doesn't follow this and treats candidates equally and fairly.
As several posters have pointed out for this person to get his G1 FIR it would only be about a year or so of instruction, so that by the time he reaches G1 and is granted privileges like supervising brand new grade 3's he has enough relevant experience in that environment he can supervise them properly.
Again the Australian GA accident rate is double that of the US, despite having virtually no terrain, benign weather and seriously less concentration of traffic, also without a massive variation in the mix of types and speeds of relative traffic. The real eye opener is that Australia has over 3 times the Mid air collision rate of the US despite having mostly empty skies. You can not seriously say the Australian system is even close to being good, it's terrible. The FIR system is not producing quality outcomes, as the proof is the rate of accidents. Or is it that US pilots are just naturals vs Australians who struggle with the concepts?
There are many CFI/CFI-I and MEI in the US who are ex military, who have converted from military instructors to civilian. There is absolutely no proof they are any more dangerous without supervision than the civilian trained pilots. The proof is there that the Australian system is preventing this cross over for absolutely no beneficial reason.
Other good parts of the US system is the requirement for teaching skills at the start, not at some later stage, again a practical and evidence based approach.
Last edited by 43Inches; 27th Aug 2023 at 02:30.
Again missing the point earlier that Australia had reduced it's GA accident rate from 1.6 in 1990 to about 0.9 in 2000. What changed after that to make it jump back up again? It's not ageing aircraft, the average fleet age is younger now than in 1999, as that was pre all the influx of new trainers and caravans etc.. and contrary to the witch hunt CASA is on, airframe failure due age is not high on the list of reasons pilots crash. The 90s were also pre the mass introduction of GPS, so no fancy navigation, moving map displays, ACAS for GA, etc... All clocks, maps and DR. In the 90s large GA airports like Moorabbin were still thriving, so large concentrations of GA aircraft, so it's not that either. It was also pre-ADSB, so virtually no radar coverage outside of the main cities. Lots of GA airplanes plying the skies around the country and no huge rate of mid airs either, a lot more country airstrips because CASA had not deemed they need some sort of oversight, manager and law suits coming up because some idiot crashed there, claiming the grass was not inline with some MOS somewhere.
Hmm what changed in the early 2000s? Oh that's right we went to a fancy new system that focuses on competency rather than the age old system of 'is that pilot safe'. We also made it ten times harder for CFI/CP to get involved in the practical operation of the flying school due to them being inundated with regulations, procedures and dealing with CASA. The regulated difficulty in running a decent flying school with the 1000s of pages of paperwork required to prove somebody competent has removed the simplicity of the instructors task of just teaching and assessing somebody 'safe' and moving on. Add to the list an unworkable and contradictory rule set, that requires a 'MOS' to interpret the convoluted rules, which the 'MOS' in itself is as convoluted and unintelligible. Now if I want to look something up quickly I look in the AIP, where a simple answer used to be, it now says refer MOS xxxx, and I have to dig through that, and half way through give up and just do what I think is right...
The only thing that has really changed is the regulatory environment and procedures. CASA is directly responsible for the current issues in GA in Australia, as well as many other problems in Aviation at all levels. Safety has gone backwards since 2000.
What is really sad is that for all the new aircraft, ADSB coverage and new fancy navigation and collision avoidance technology, we have gone backwards since it was all introduced.
Hmm what changed in the early 2000s? Oh that's right we went to a fancy new system that focuses on competency rather than the age old system of 'is that pilot safe'. We also made it ten times harder for CFI/CP to get involved in the practical operation of the flying school due to them being inundated with regulations, procedures and dealing with CASA. The regulated difficulty in running a decent flying school with the 1000s of pages of paperwork required to prove somebody competent has removed the simplicity of the instructors task of just teaching and assessing somebody 'safe' and moving on. Add to the list an unworkable and contradictory rule set, that requires a 'MOS' to interpret the convoluted rules, which the 'MOS' in itself is as convoluted and unintelligible. Now if I want to look something up quickly I look in the AIP, where a simple answer used to be, it now says refer MOS xxxx, and I have to dig through that, and half way through give up and just do what I think is right...
The only thing that has really changed is the regulatory environment and procedures. CASA is directly responsible for the current issues in GA in Australia, as well as many other problems in Aviation at all levels. Safety has gone backwards since 2000.
What is really sad is that for all the new aircraft, ADSB coverage and new fancy navigation and collision avoidance technology, we have gone backwards since it was all introduced.
I think the way I look at it is that CASA relies on arbitrary hours to assess whether a candidate is any good, which we all know is not the measure of a good pilot, it just says they have some rudimentary experience, of any kind. In the US quality of training, and measurable positive outcomes allow you to reduce the amount of hours required for a number of things. That means somebody who excels in the area can get ahead faster and get recognition for having higher standards.
To say the "quality of training" allows the hour requirement to be reduced is questionable itself. To me the quality of training would only be demonstrated by military pilots achieving better standards when they are placed in the same environment as a civilian trained pilot. The most common arena where these two groups would interact is in the airline world with ex RAAF pilots joining an airline and then being assessed in the same system as civilian trained pilots. As far as I know there hasn't been any recent studies on the differences in outcomes between the two groups, and anecdotal experience and feedback from a wide variety of pilots who have flown with each group in an airline career indicates no observable evidence that military trained pilots are "better" in any respect than civilian trained ones.
So to me the 750/1500 difference is unproven (the whole 1500 hour rule is stupid to being with) and CASA just doesn't rely on arbitrary hour limits, there require competencies to be demonstrated in multiple areas in order to be granted ratings and privileges.
The following users liked this post:
That's funny because it's the US that threw in the arbitrary 1500 hr limit for airline F/Os (less for military pilots) without any real data backing up the 750/1500 hour rule as a positive for safety.
To say the "quality of training" allows the hour requirement to be reduced is questionable itself. To me the quality of training would only be demonstrated by military pilots achieving better standards when they are placed in the same environment as a civilian trained pilot. The most common arena where these two groups would interact is in the airline world with ex RAAF pilots joining an airline and then being assessed in the same system as civilian trained pilots. As far as I know there hasn't been any recent studies on the differences in outcomes between the two groups, and anecdotal experience and feedback from a wide variety of pilots who have flown with each group in an airline career indicates no observable evidence that military trained pilots are "better" in any respect than civilian trained ones.
So to me the 750/1500 difference is unproven (the whole 1500 hour rule is stupid to being with) and CASA just doesn't rely on arbitrary hour limits, there require competencies to be demonstrated in multiple areas in order to be granted ratings and privileges.
To say the "quality of training" allows the hour requirement to be reduced is questionable itself. To me the quality of training would only be demonstrated by military pilots achieving better standards when they are placed in the same environment as a civilian trained pilot. The most common arena where these two groups would interact is in the airline world with ex RAAF pilots joining an airline and then being assessed in the same system as civilian trained pilots. As far as I know there hasn't been any recent studies on the differences in outcomes between the two groups, and anecdotal experience and feedback from a wide variety of pilots who have flown with each group in an airline career indicates no observable evidence that military trained pilots are "better" in any respect than civilian trained ones.
So to me the 750/1500 difference is unproven (the whole 1500 hour rule is stupid to being with) and CASA just doesn't rely on arbitrary hour limits, there require competencies to be demonstrated in multiple areas in order to be granted ratings and privileges.
Just a point on 'quality' of training, I think is also a factor of 'consistency' of training. The Air Force is a known quantity with predictable standards. In some countries this is not compatible with airlines, in the US it is with little effort. I don't think it will be long before the large airline academies get the same concession based on training standards. It has been tested a few times lately, and will continue to be tested, as the airlines struggle more for adequately experienced pilots. I think the major hurdle is proving that the civilian academies will maintain standards, especially when aligned with an airline hungry for pilots, will they bend to just push them through? Where the air force you meet the standard or get the boot...
Prior to the current shortage of pilots there were particular paths you had to follow to get into certain airlines. The airlines could trust pilots with experience from these operators would be of a consistent standard that would make them easy to train in low hours. They would not entertain many applicants, even those with higher hours from outside these sources. As hours did not mean somebody had the required standard, and they didn't want to waste time finding out.
Last edited by 43Inches; 27th Aug 2023 at 04:01.
43" if you are going to present statistics you need to cite your source and please provide a link.
Anyone can say "Statistics show dot dot dot", the media do it all the time, but to analyse statistics correctly and have a sensible debate you need to know more, a lot more.
For a start the sample sizes of the USA and Aus would be very different, have your figures been adjusted for that? Are we talking about null hypothesis testing or just trying to ram a point home by belittling people who don't accept it at face value? Or something in between such as presenting data in a graphical form with a written explanation like this? Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2010 to 2019 (atsb.gov.au)
If you don't cite your source then your argument has little merit. If you just try to shout down others then it has no merit at all.
Anyone can say "Statistics show dot dot dot", the media do it all the time, but to analyse statistics correctly and have a sensible debate you need to know more, a lot more.
For a start the sample sizes of the USA and Aus would be very different, have your figures been adjusted for that? Are we talking about null hypothesis testing or just trying to ram a point home by belittling people who don't accept it at face value? Or something in between such as presenting data in a graphical form with a written explanation like this? Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2010 to 2019 (atsb.gov.au)
If you don't cite your source then your argument has little merit. If you just try to shout down others then it has no merit at all.
43" if you are going to present statistics you need to cite your source and please provide a link.
Anyone can say "Statistics show dot dot dot", the media do it all the time, but to analyse statistics correctly and have a sensible debate you need to know more, a lot more.
For a start the sample sizes of the USA and Aus would be very different, have your figures been adjusted for that? Are we talking about null hypothesis testing or just trying to ram a point home by belittling people who don't accept it at face value? Or something in between such as presenting data in a graphical form with a written explanation like this? Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2010 to 2019 (atsb.gov.au)
If you don't cite your source then your argument has little merit. If you just try to shout down others then it has no merit at all.
Anyone can say "Statistics show dot dot dot", the media do it all the time, but to analyse statistics correctly and have a sensible debate you need to know more, a lot more.
For a start the sample sizes of the USA and Aus would be very different, have your figures been adjusted for that? Are we talking about null hypothesis testing or just trying to ram a point home by belittling people who don't accept it at face value? Or something in between such as presenting data in a graphical form with a written explanation like this? Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2010 to 2019 (atsb.gov.au)
If you don't cite your source then your argument has little merit. If you just try to shout down others then it has no merit at all.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ch_fatality_tr
Contained in that dataset is the trend data that clearly shows a reduction in fatal accident rates over that period. And accident rates in general.
The 2010-2019 dataset you presented clearly shows a higher accident rate, at almost double the 1990s figures for both accidents in general and fatal accidents compared to hours flown. This number had jumped in the mid-late 2000s and remained higher since.
Last edited by 43Inches; 27th Aug 2023 at 05:57.
If you had clicked on the link I cited you would have found a lot more than the example graph I presented, which is why the link was provided. So I presume your level of education doesn't go up to the bit where you need to back up things you say with references. That's OK, but doesn't excuse gaslighting.
I've asked you to provide a link to prove your assertion that accident rates have "skyrocketed", it will be interesting because hyperbole and statistics are rarely seen together and I'm looking forward to it.
As for my bona fides to comment on this thread, 14,000 hours/ 33 years as a GA flying instructor must count for something. Plus coming from a military family and being married to a soldier. However, I do not answer to "Sir". You are wasting your time trying to get personal.
I've asked you to provide a link to prove your assertion that accident rates have "skyrocketed", it will be interesting because hyperbole and statistics are rarely seen together and I'm looking forward to it.
As for my bona fides to comment on this thread, 14,000 hours/ 33 years as a GA flying instructor must count for something. Plus coming from a military family and being married to a soldier. However, I do not answer to "Sir". You are wasting your time trying to get personal.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 27th Aug 2023 at 06:53.
The following 2 users liked this post by Clare Prop: