C172 down near Camden - one fatality
I disagree with pretty much all of what you've written there. I'm not sure what the particular licensing was in this case; but generally if an instructor is sending an unlicensed pilot on a solo, they will bear the brunt of the responsibility for its outcome. More so if civil proceedings commence. An instructor can't just wipe their hands of responsibility when they exit the aircraft.
And there is a lot a supervising instructor can do, like I listed in previous post. There are ways to talk to a solo student in CTA: ask the tower to relay a msg, ask the twr if you can speak directly to the aircraft. If your the type worried about using a handheld radio, get yourself an AROC. But if your timely advice turns an accident into an incident, or incident into a non-event, nothing is going to happen. Now in a CTAF, where personalities try to dictate right of way, comms with your solo student can be essential.
And the biggest reason to be supervising a solo student: if something does happen, when the police come knocking, or the atsb, or the kids parents; you'll be able to give an account of what actually happened. As the authorising instructor, that'll be a lot better then saying "I was in the tea room when...". Same goes for your weird statement about minors. They are considered minors, and if you as an instructor arnt considering your elevated duty of care given your position of authority, you shouldn't be sending minors on a solo. Or instructing them at all. Be dammed if the regs don't say so specifically; they don't tell you not to call people of the internet idiots but I do that too.
And there is a lot a supervising instructor can do, like I listed in previous post. There are ways to talk to a solo student in CTA: ask the tower to relay a msg, ask the twr if you can speak directly to the aircraft. If your the type worried about using a handheld radio, get yourself an AROC. But if your timely advice turns an accident into an incident, or incident into a non-event, nothing is going to happen. Now in a CTAF, where personalities try to dictate right of way, comms with your solo student can be essential.
And the biggest reason to be supervising a solo student: if something does happen, when the police come knocking, or the atsb, or the kids parents; you'll be able to give an account of what actually happened. As the authorising instructor, that'll be a lot better then saying "I was in the tea room when...". Same goes for your weird statement about minors. They are considered minors, and if you as an instructor arnt considering your elevated duty of care given your position of authority, you shouldn't be sending minors on a solo. Or instructing them at all. Be dammed if the regs don't say so specifically; they don't tell you not to call people of the internet idiots but I do that too.
The whole idea of competency based training was that when accidents happen the training file will show what has and has not been taught. The student is required to countersign completed lessons and this shows acceptance of the assessment of their standard. In this case there would be recognition of prior learning/experience, in line with the regulations allowing it and that training also accounted for. Generally above about 15 years of age is an acceptable age to accept responsibility for ones own life. Hence why employment, learning to drive and various other competency based adult activities are allowed.
As I said above the only difference for a person under the age of 18 would be possibly a letter from the parent or guardian approving the activity and signed that they and the participant are aware of the risks and dangers.
So in short once the instructor is satisfied that the student is ready (CBT completed and assessment done), and the student has accepted they are ready (training documents signed) the legalities are done. The supervising instructors only real responsibility then is to ensure that the flight takes place in conditions that the pilot is capable of handling. That is the supervising instructors duty of care.
This was covered in another thread. There have been cases where this has been tested, and the outcome found as above. The law permits a person of 14 years of age to hold a student certificate, you can go solo at 15 years of age and hold licences from 16 years of age. All this talk of duty of care, is taken care of within the required laws. Unless the instructor does something else that is illegal with a person under the age of 18 unrelated to aviation then there is no other duty of care issue in regard to flying training. In any case there are many other things of similar nature that you could get in trouble with persons over the age of 18, so if that is your worry, then don't instruct at all. There's a whole different problem if you were to offer some sort of accommodation aside from simple flight training.
PS the same ATSB/CASA/Police will come knocking for the same reasons if it was a partner, son, father, mother, etc etc over the age of 18 if there was any sniff of negligence.
BTW I have sent a lot of first solos, triple digits of them, if I ever thought that they would need assistance in the circuit then I would not send them. I have watched them all conduct the circuit, to completion, never once have I needed to contact them or intervene in any way. Some were between 16 and 18 years old, I was never worried or in doubt of their capabilities when I jumped out, much less worried about any legal complication.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Feb 2024 at 06:03.
The following users liked this post:
While Operations manuals will vary, it will specify exactly what a supervising pilot will be required to do. What a supervising pilot has to do and what they should do will be specific, what you think they should do is not relevant.
The whole idea of competency based training was that when accidents happen the training file will show what has and has not been taught. The student is required to countersign completed lessons and this shows acceptance of the assessment of their standard. In this case there would be recognition of prior learning/experience, in line with the regulations allowing it and that training also accounted for. Generally above about 15 years of age is an acceptable age to accept responsibility for ones own life. Hence why employment, learning to drive and various other competency based adult activities are allowed.
As I said above the only difference for a person under the age of 18 would be possibly a letter from the parent or guardian approving the activity and signed that they and the participant are aware of the risks and dangers.
So in short once the instructor is satisfied that the student is ready (CBT completed and assessment done), and the student has accepted they are ready (training documents signed) the legalities are done. The supervising instructors only real responsibility then is to ensure that the flight takes place in conditions that the pilot is capable of handling. That is the supervising instructors duty of care.
This was covered in another thread. There have been cases where this has been tested, and the outcome found as above. The law permits a person of 14 years of age to hold a student certificate, you can go solo at 15 years of age and hold licences from 16 years of age. All this talk of duty of care, is taken care of within the required laws. Unless the instructor does something else that is illegal with a person under the age of 18 unrelated to aviation then there is no other duty of care issue in regard to flying training. In any case there are many other things of similar nature that you could get in trouble with persons over the age of 18, so if that is your worry, then don't instruct at all. There's a whole different problem if you were to offer some sort of accommodation aside from simple flight training.
PS the same ATSB/CASA/Police will come knocking for the same reasons if it was a partner, son, father, mother, etc etc over the age of 18 if there was any sniff of negligence.
The whole idea of competency based training was that when accidents happen the training file will show what has and has not been taught. The student is required to countersign completed lessons and this shows acceptance of the assessment of their standard. In this case there would be recognition of prior learning/experience, in line with the regulations allowing it and that training also accounted for. Generally above about 15 years of age is an acceptable age to accept responsibility for ones own life. Hence why employment, learning to drive and various other competency based adult activities are allowed.
As I said above the only difference for a person under the age of 18 would be possibly a letter from the parent or guardian approving the activity and signed that they and the participant are aware of the risks and dangers.
So in short once the instructor is satisfied that the student is ready (CBT completed and assessment done), and the student has accepted they are ready (training documents signed) the legalities are done. The supervising instructors only real responsibility then is to ensure that the flight takes place in conditions that the pilot is capable of handling. That is the supervising instructors duty of care.
This was covered in another thread. There have been cases where this has been tested, and the outcome found as above. The law permits a person of 14 years of age to hold a student certificate, you can go solo at 15 years of age and hold licences from 16 years of age. All this talk of duty of care, is taken care of within the required laws. Unless the instructor does something else that is illegal with a person under the age of 18 unrelated to aviation then there is no other duty of care issue in regard to flying training. In any case there are many other things of similar nature that you could get in trouble with persons over the age of 18, so if that is your worry, then don't instruct at all. There's a whole different problem if you were to offer some sort of accommodation aside from simple flight training.
PS the same ATSB/CASA/Police will come knocking for the same reasons if it was a partner, son, father, mother, etc etc over the age of 18 if there was any sniff of negligence.
Direct supervision has always been a loose rule when it comes to flying activities, like direct supervision of a junior instructor or area solo student whilst they are out in the training area, beyond ground based radio contact.
In any case this was at a towered airport, with ATC. Unauthorized use to broadcast on a handheld radio might slap you with other legal issues if you tried to communicate.
BTW what do you think the legal difference is between a first solo and subsequent solo circuits? Is there a different level of competency required for the later, a different level of supervision, different duty of care? I just remember signing off candidates for solo circuit operations and then area solo operations with operational limitations if required. The only reason the first one is a single circuit is more just the emotional side, however I have seen first solo students get carried away and do several when an instructor was not clear about doing one only, or do a go around or two before landing due to being unhappy with the approach. If it was the case a student was doing something abnormal or taking too long, then there would be more than enough time to jump in another aircraft and use its radio.
I'll add that the FAA does not require, but recommends a radio be 'at hand' during solo operations. That could mean access to another aircraft radio, or a registered base station, but not an unregistered hand held.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Feb 2024 at 06:31.
One other question I'd have to ask, is it actually legal to use a hand held radio to transmit on CTAF frequency, without it being approved for such purpose. The requirements governing use of Aeronautical Mobile Stations seems to say you can not.
i thought ppl(a) and by definition anyone above should automatically have a license to transmit on an aeronautical frequency?
The following users liked this post:
I never had a handheld radio sending students solo, because I never thought to bring one on a session of circuits in the aircraft, and mostly I would send a student solo after a session of circuits - that is, it was rarely a specific "solo check".
The following 4 users liked this post by gerry111:
Here’s a video that appears to show what happens when the student has gone solo and the instructor is on a handheld (presumably) and the student can’t hear the instructor when things went pear-shaped.
The following 3 users liked this post by Squawk7700:
Although in the video above it seems that the student had a panic attack. It would be interesting to know what someone in that situation would do if there was no radio contact available. Would survival instinct eventually prevail?
And if the instructor even vaguely thinks it will be necessary then the student is not ready for solo, so that calls into question the instructor’s judgment.
Although in the video above it seems that the student had a panic attack. It would be interesting to know what someone in that situation would do if there was no radio contact available. Would survival instinct eventually prevail?
Although in the video above it seems that the student had a panic attack. It would be interesting to know what someone in that situation would do if there was no radio contact available. Would survival instinct eventually prevail?
The following 2 users liked this post by jonas64:
Back to the origin of this thread - the onset of whatever happened here was so rapid that it’s unlikely anyone would have been able to offer advice by radio.
As for the legality or otherwise of handheld radios in aviation, should an emergency occur and the best means of communication not be ‘approved’ for the purpose, it matters not. But a student flying solo shouldn’t know that the instructor is eavesdropping on the radio.
As for the legality or otherwise of handheld radios in aviation, should an emergency occur and the best means of communication not be ‘approved’ for the purpose, it matters not. But a student flying solo shouldn’t know that the instructor is eavesdropping on the radio.
The following users liked this post:
From then on, I'm sure the instructor has more important things to do (paperwork, get coffee for the CFI..) than be bothered listening in on the radio.
The way I read the Aeronautical Mobile Station rules, is that you can operate the radio only on certain frequencies, as listed in the regulations. There is a major difference in the wording where Aircraft stations are allowed to use all AIP frequencies as published, where AMS are only allowed to use the AIP ones 'published from time to time'. PS a handheld comes under the rules for Aeronautical Mobile Stations, as well as a lot of other aircraft that carry radios that are not CASA registered Aircraft, cars etc...
Why on earth not?!? After First Solo, you'd hope the instructor has enough confidence in the student's ability that they aren't going to come to grief, but if we're speaking of the first time a student pilot has been on their own in an aircraft - it's a really freaky big deal! In my experience at Moorabbin, most instructors will do exactly that. If they can't hear communications between the student and the tower (and perhaps note the level of calmness, professionalism or otherwise in their voice) how are they supposed to do a proper and complete debrief? Just take the student's word for it?? Seriously..
To be honest if you feel you have to stare at your student like a hawk the whole way round a first solo you probably are too much of a stress pot to be an instructor, or you feel you sent them too early and are somehow willing them around, rather than confident and trust the student to do what they were trained.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Feb 2024 at 22:53.
Where I come from, when the instructor walks out with the hand-held you know full well that someone is about to go solo.
If he’s carrying it in the lesson and you haven’t been solo yet, guess what!
If he’s carrying it in the lesson and you haven’t been solo yet, guess what!
The following users liked this post:
PS not all hand held airband radios are approved for use on Australian frequencies.
BTW I'm not sure the instructor helped that much in that video, probably even spooked the student a bit by being on frequency.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Feb 2024 at 23:10.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications.../aair200004070
Here's a good example of an accident that was partly caused when a station on CTAF witnessed two aircraft in close proximity and told the aircraft (non directed) to 'go-round'. The lower, leading aircraft complied and climbed into the upper aircraft which had not responded. Luckily both pilots survived, because Grobs are built like tanks.
Without directed information to de-conflict the situation ie, tell the upper aircraft to go-round first, then you can make a situation worse than if they had just landed and hit each other on the runway. And random extra voices on the radio can get in the way of critical communication, which is why I'm not a fan at all of having extra radios on the ground putting in their two cents. Remembering that and hand helds have very limited range and you could be over-transmitting others approaching the aerodrome without knowing.
Here's a good example of an accident that was partly caused when a station on CTAF witnessed two aircraft in close proximity and told the aircraft (non directed) to 'go-round'. The lower, leading aircraft complied and climbed into the upper aircraft which had not responded. Luckily both pilots survived, because Grobs are built like tanks.
Without directed information to de-conflict the situation ie, tell the upper aircraft to go-round first, then you can make a situation worse than if they had just landed and hit each other on the runway. And random extra voices on the radio can get in the way of critical communication, which is why I'm not a fan at all of having extra radios on the ground putting in their two cents. Remembering that and hand helds have very limited range and you could be over-transmitting others approaching the aerodrome without knowing.
The following 4 users liked this post by 43Inches:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications.../aair200004070. And random extra voices on the radio can get in the way of critical communication, which is why I'm not a fan at all of having extra radios on the ground putting in their two cents. Remembering that and hand helds have very limited range and you could be over-transmitting others approaching the aerodrome without knowing.
Drifting and dragging….I prefer not to speculate, but in this case will go out on a limb and say pilot error was extremely unlikely.
If the instructor was watching the flight (as one would hope) there should be a reliable witness.
If the instructor was watching the flight (as one would hope) there should be a reliable witness.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 2nd Feb 2024 at 23:30.
The following users liked this post:
The instructor would need to have very good eyesight
The following users liked this post: