TOO GOOD FOR GA?
Your response tone tells me you take it very personally when it was not intended as a personal slant. There's only one here saying 'I'm better than you' and that's you. I'm just peddling the stats. Just because you don't like it you don't have to get up on a soap box, I'd rather you actually provide some proof I'm wrong, which so far you have provided nothing of the sort. I wait in anticipation.
And my comment on whether you should comment on this thread was in direct response to what you accused me of, but have done yourself.
PS I'm not writting a thesis here, or making a submission to some peer group, so if you want to disprove my statements, go on, do it, show your facts.
Getting back to the thread;
The premise is that a military (RAAF) instructor somehow needs supervision to be safe and effective when the comparative military instructor (USAF) converting in the USA does not. The statistical data shows that the US accident rate in GA (and recreational aviation) is similar if not better than Australia. Therefore it is quite easy to say that there is no benefit to safety to require a converted RAAF instructor to be supervised at all, as the training required for military instructors in the RAAF and USAF is very high, and both make competent civilian instructors. Are we seriously saying that USAF instructors are way better than RAAF ones, or is there some truth that I have missed here?
The benefit would be to make it much easier for long serving RAAF instructors to come back to be senior instructors to assist with the drain in basic aeronautical knowledge that has afflicted Australian aviation.
Also it's quite easy to see that the US system favors promoting instructors with high pass rates, to give them recognition of their abilities. Australia does no such thing. It's very easy to see the safety benefits from encouraging high first time passes, as that means the training is solid.
As for the aeronautical knowledge of airline training/check captains, you have probably heard of certain ones who ask candidates about retreating blade stall on turboprops, and that you have to be careful turning out of wind (on autopilot) in case the downwind stalls you....
And my comment on whether you should comment on this thread was in direct response to what you accused me of, but have done yourself.
PS I'm not writting a thesis here, or making a submission to some peer group, so if you want to disprove my statements, go on, do it, show your facts.
Getting back to the thread;
The premise is that a military (RAAF) instructor somehow needs supervision to be safe and effective when the comparative military instructor (USAF) converting in the USA does not. The statistical data shows that the US accident rate in GA (and recreational aviation) is similar if not better than Australia. Therefore it is quite easy to say that there is no benefit to safety to require a converted RAAF instructor to be supervised at all, as the training required for military instructors in the RAAF and USAF is very high, and both make competent civilian instructors. Are we seriously saying that USAF instructors are way better than RAAF ones, or is there some truth that I have missed here?
The benefit would be to make it much easier for long serving RAAF instructors to come back to be senior instructors to assist with the drain in basic aeronautical knowledge that has afflicted Australian aviation.
Also it's quite easy to see that the US system favors promoting instructors with high pass rates, to give them recognition of their abilities. Australia does no such thing. It's very easy to see the safety benefits from encouraging high first time passes, as that means the training is solid.
As for the aeronautical knowledge of airline training/check captains, you have probably heard of certain ones who ask candidates about retreating blade stall on turboprops, and that you have to be careful turning out of wind (on autopilot) in case the downwind stalls you....
Last edited by 43Inches; 27th Aug 2023 at 07:44.
Take a deep breath, 43, and ask yourself whether you’re sure all instructors are male…
I'll even concede the rates did not 'skyrocket', just using some poetic licence.
My point still stands however on the rest. I'm all for robust debate on how bad the regulatory system in Australia has become. Especially in regards to the imposts on training organizations.
What you are training an Air Force pilot to do, eg go to war and kill the enemy if required, and what you are training a civilian pilot to do, eg transport people and things from place to place without killing anyone, are two different skill sets. Just as I wouldn't presume to be able to train someone to control a very fast killing machine, so I wouldn't presume a trained fighter pilot to be able to assess the progress of a civilian student who is doing it for all sorts of reasons other than to defend the country. Switching both ways would require some conversion training and hands-on experience, particularly before going into a supervisory role. What is so outrageous about that?
If this one individual was given the exemptions they sought, there would still be the obstacle of finding an employer and team who were OK with that.
LB isn't it ironic when people talk about prejudice and then make those sorts of assumptions!
If this one individual was given the exemptions they sought, there would still be the obstacle of finding an employer and team who were OK with that.
LB isn't it ironic when people talk about prejudice and then make those sorts of assumptions!
Indeed. We all have our prejudices.
I note that most RAAF pilots (and most of the pilots of any country’s air force) are not fighter pilots, and it’s been many years since any RAAF pilot fired a shot or dropped a bomb in anger. I think the most recent RAAF pilot to score a ‘kill’ - bad guy’s aircraft shot down - was Kim Osley (sp?) during one of the Iraq turkey shoots and another RAAF pilot chose not to engage (or maybe drop bombs) due to concerns about the accuracy of the identification of the target. I think many would be surprised at how human and empathetic most if not all RAAF pilots are. They’re chosen on many bases beyond just aeronautical aptitude.
I note that most RAAF pilots (and most of the pilots of any country’s air force) are not fighter pilots, and it’s been many years since any RAAF pilot fired a shot or dropped a bomb in anger. I think the most recent RAAF pilot to score a ‘kill’ - bad guy’s aircraft shot down - was Kim Osley (sp?) during one of the Iraq turkey shoots and another RAAF pilot chose not to engage (or maybe drop bombs) due to concerns about the accuracy of the identification of the target. I think many would be surprised at how human and empathetic most if not all RAAF pilots are. They’re chosen on many bases beyond just aeronautical aptitude.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 27th Aug 2023 at 09:29.
Indeed LB, but the one we are talking about on this thread was training on the FA18 and PC9s and F15s.
BTW..."Sir" isn't a pronoun.
As for the imposts on flying training organisations, that is really only for the ones who go for part 142, because they are given the route to CPL with less hours than 141, so need more oversight and standardisation. The impost on Part 141 organisations is minimal, an audit every three years and the occasional random drug test.
There are many faults in the regulatory system, but it is what it is, and other countries have plenty of issues with their regulators too..
BTW..."Sir" isn't a pronoun.
As for the imposts on flying training organisations, that is really only for the ones who go for part 142, because they are given the route to CPL with less hours than 141, so need more oversight and standardisation. The impost on Part 141 organisations is minimal, an audit every three years and the occasional random drug test.
There are many faults in the regulatory system, but it is what it is, and other countries have plenty of issues with their regulators too..
Its all online available material from ATSB and NTSB. You are just being lazy not to look it up yourself. However, notice that the ATSB does not even provide a 'rate' of occurence in that 2010-2019 data. Previous trend data, like the 1990s data set they do provide the rates. They are avoiding the direct comparison with the US statistics. If you can't do a basic search to find this information that confirms what I'm saying then you yourself have no place commenting here, from your own words, because you are not providing any citations or opposing resources to prove that I'm wrong, just a link to the latest data set that confirms the Australian data I presented. So you sir are just shouting down anybody without any proof at all, because you have obviously not search further than that one graph you presented.
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.
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.
If you look at the ATSB report “Figure 1 of the Exposure by activity 2014 to 2018”, there has been a very small increase the amount of flying. It would then follow, the rate occurrences per year per hours flown would have the smallest of downtrends, nothing statistically significant.
Looking at the NTSB “General Aviation Accident Dashboard: 2012-2021”, they averaged 231 fatal accidents per year between 2012 and 2021, with a standard deviation of 22.52. They have also seen a small decline in the number of occurrences per year per flight hour, that like the ATSB data is not due to the reduction of events per year, it’s because their has been a small uptick in the number of hours flown.
Both the ATSB and NTSB data shows that the number of fatal accidents per year has been fairly constant, with small annual variations normally within 1 standard deviation of the mean.
The following users liked this post:
Someone please explain what this evolving pissing contest about relative accident statistics has to do with recognition of military instructors, and whether our CASA is unreasonable compared with FAA.
To debate suitability of instruction methods and instructor backgrounds in achieving safety, instead of trotting out obscure charts and numbers on GA rates, why not also compare relative accident rates between the USA military and Australian military? Crashes per thousand hours flown, please, so that we can understand the numbers.
No? Too hard?
To debate suitability of instruction methods and instructor backgrounds in achieving safety, instead of trotting out obscure charts and numbers on GA rates, why not also compare relative accident rates between the USA military and Australian military? Crashes per thousand hours flown, please, so that we can understand the numbers.
No? Too hard?
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 27th Aug 2023 at 09:33.
The following users liked this post:
Y
As for the aeronautical knowledge of airline training/check captains, you have probably heard of certain ones who ask candidates about retreating blade stall on turboprops, and that you have to be careful turning out of wind (on autopilot) in case the downwind stalls you....
As for the aeronautical knowledge of airline training/check captains, you have probably heard of certain ones who ask candidates about retreating blade stall on turboprops, and that you have to be careful turning out of wind (on autopilot) in case the downwind stalls you....
Don't know how you can compare the US Instructor structure, where independent instructing is wide spread and across most ratings, endorsements etc, and the CASA system that is greatly different. Supervision is a key component of G1 and like it not, so is CBT across licences, ratings and endorsements. All this fellow has to do is prove is competency in the areas that don't show up on his RAAF quals.
The following users liked this post:
I don’t want to incur Mach’s wrath, but comparisons on the basis of “fatal [events/accidents/occurrences] per year” without more is BS.
However, the strategic conclusion to be drawn from this thread is clear. Australia will keep being Australia, because…well, because… it’s Australia.
However, the strategic conclusion to be drawn from this thread is clear. Australia will keep being Australia, because…well, because… it’s Australia.
The following users liked this post:
In the military, part of the brainwashing and reprogramming involves getting into the heads of personal, that they are the best of the best. If you go to war, with the mindset you aren't the best of the best, you are a looser!!
The case in question may be a carry over of this indoctrination and a dollop dollop of a sense of entitlement
Military agreesion and the above attitude has no place in civil aviation.
The case in question may be a carry over of this indoctrination and a dollop dollop of a sense of entitlement
Military agreesion and the above attitude has no place in civil aviation.
At least RAAF pilots can spell and chose the correct word for the context. (Nothing personnel, and I don’t want to appear to be advocating for loser standards or aggregation, Richard.)
No not taking it personally. I was an aviator. Not an academic by any stretch of the imagination. Left school at 15 which gave me an early start in aviation. First job at 20. Qualified as a CFI before I was 21.
In the military, part of the brainwashing and reprogramming involves getting into the heads of personal, that they are the best of the best. If you go to war, with the mindset you aren't the best of the best, you are a looser!!
The case in question may be a carry over of this indoctrination and a dollop dollop of a sense of entitlement
Military agreesion and the above attitude has no place in civil aviation.
The case in question may be a carry over of this indoctrination and a dollop dollop of a sense of entitlement
Military agreesion and the above attitude has no place in civil aviation.
You will have to pass this on to all the ex military pilots flying in Australia that they have no place in civil aviation. Perhaps time to let Qantas HR know as well.
I left school at 15, too, Richard.
First job in aviation at … 15. In the RAAF.
First job in aviation at … 15. In the RAAF.
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.
Serious airlines don't ask just hours
Usually ask for hours on aircrafts above 20 tones for example
EASA regulated that ZFTT applies only for planes above some standards. Do you also find it funny?
Not all the hours the same and that is recognized by the market and by some authorities
Someone please explain what this evolving pissing contest about relative accident statistics has to do with recognition of military instructors, and whether our CASA is unreasonable compared with FAA.
To debate suitability of instruction methods and instructor backgrounds in achieving safety, instead of trotting out obscure charts and numbers on GA rates, why not also compare relative accident rates between the USA military and Australian military? Crashes per thousand hours flown, please, so that we can understand the numbers.
No? Too hard?
To debate suitability of instruction methods and instructor backgrounds in achieving safety, instead of trotting out obscure charts and numbers on GA rates, why not also compare relative accident rates between the USA military and Australian military? Crashes per thousand hours flown, please, so that we can understand the numbers.
No? Too hard?
The reason I used relative accident rates was to establish if there was tangible difference between the standard of training between the US and Australia. Once you understand that the overall accident rate between the two countries is pretty much the same with the US being ahead of late then one can assume that there is no major flaw between the two when it comes to how pilots are trained and their relative competencies. If anything, Australia seems to have more issues with accident rate than the USA, particularly in regard to mid air collisions, which dealing with traffic is something that should be taught during all stages of gaining a licence/certificate, so therefore is a training failure if the rates are statistically higher. Considering the USA has much more complicated/difficult flying conditions then you should deduce that the accident rate should be higher than Australia by it's nature, but it's not.
So we come to the part where we join the dots wrt military pilots. Many civilian instructors in the US are ex-military who gained their certificate through conversion and do not require any form of direct supervision, they can teach whatever they can convert relative to their military ratings. So that means they could teach anything from ab-initio through to multi engine IFR, immediately, without supervision. The accident rate shows that there is no increased problem occurring from all these converted military instructors acting without supervision. After all the reason we have rules, certificates and ratings is to ensure pilots are safe and competent to do what they are doing.
So why is it, with that in mind, that Australia will not let a RAAF QFI convert to high level instructor authorizations and act unsupervised? There's no arrogance or elitism about it, it's a valid question when you compare what we do to the USA.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
That legislation is the minimum hour requirement to sit in the right hand seat of multicrew airliner. A LET410 is a multicrew airliner. Statistically there's no evidence that a 750 hour F-16 pilot is better in an airline job than any civilian trained pilot. The skills, mentality and operation of those kinds of flying are totally different.