Flight Standards GA Ready Course
Said candidate passes check flight, employed and give them the ICUS needed, ok so what is the cost? Ok yes a second pilots wage and time. No different to an airline, ya join ya fly with training Captains, ya get let loose. The cost of business.
Oh and we didn’t expect a perfect performance in a 210 check flight for a 150 hour pilot. It was more about attitude, preparation and ability to listen and learn, again pretty similar to an airline sim interview ride. If check pilot said yes then we would invest the time, funnily pilots rarely left unless it was for bigger better higher faster, ie the airlines.
Like all things in life, it is not all good and not all bad. Personally I think there are green-as-grass graduate CPLs who will benefit from doing the course. I know when I graduated from my CPL course I had experience on a PA28 and a Duchess and not much else - totally useless for a first job up North unless I was some sort of gun (and I wasn't). Despite training in a regional area I don't think I had ever landed on grass or dirt until I moved north.
The reality is that flight schools are churning out CPLs of wildly varying quality and the old concept that "holding a CPL meant you are competent to do the job" just doesn't hold now (and to be honest i am not sure it was that true in the 1990s either).
Having a CPL doesn't mean you have the skills or aptitude for GA Charter work. Some have obvious ability and drive and they walk into a job. They probably don't need the course.
Some have intelligence and ability but really haven't been prepared by their flight school for the realities of a GA transition to an airline career. With some exposure to bush conditions and competence in a C210, the GA Ready course will probably give them the confidence to have a decent crack. Some might decide to instruct instead.
...then there are the others, many of whom might never have any aptitude for a flying job of any sort despit e the $200,000 hole in their future. They might make OK instructors in a sausage factory during a pilot shortage until they have enough hours for airlines. The GA ready course won't help them much.
Mach E Avelli and dr dre suggest that an induction and appropriate ICUS is far beyond the scope of the GA Ready course and would be additional to.
The reality is that flight schools are churning out CPLs of wildly varying quality and the old concept that "holding a CPL meant you are competent to do the job" just doesn't hold now (and to be honest i am not sure it was that true in the 1990s either).
Having a CPL doesn't mean you have the skills or aptitude for GA Charter work. Some have obvious ability and drive and they walk into a job. They probably don't need the course.
Some have intelligence and ability but really haven't been prepared by their flight school for the realities of a GA transition to an airline career. With some exposure to bush conditions and competence in a C210, the GA Ready course will probably give them the confidence to have a decent crack. Some might decide to instruct instead.
...then there are the others, many of whom might never have any aptitude for a flying job of any sort despit e the $200,000 hole in their future. They might make OK instructors in a sausage factory during a pilot shortage until they have enough hours for airlines. The GA ready course won't help them much.
Mach E Avelli and dr dre suggest that an induction and appropriate ICUS is far beyond the scope of the GA Ready course and would be additional to.
The following 3 users liked this post by Horatio Leafblower:
Check flight for suitability, surely you don’t pay an interviewing candidate?
Said candidate passes check flight, employed and give them the ICUS needed, ok so what is the cost? Ok yes a second pilots wage and time. No different to an airline, ya join ya fly with training Captains, ya get let loose. The cost of business.
Oh and we didn’t expect a perfect performance in a 210 check flight for a 150 hour pilot. It was more about attitude, preparation and ability to listen and learn, again pretty similar to an airline sim interview ride. If check pilot said yes then we would invest the time, funnily pilots rarely left unless it was for bigger better higher faster, ie the airlines.
Said candidate passes check flight, employed and give them the ICUS needed, ok so what is the cost? Ok yes a second pilots wage and time. No different to an airline, ya join ya fly with training Captains, ya get let loose. The cost of business.
Oh and we didn’t expect a perfect performance in a 210 check flight for a 150 hour pilot. It was more about attitude, preparation and ability to listen and learn, again pretty similar to an airline sim interview ride. If check pilot said yes then we would invest the time, funnily pilots rarely left unless it was for bigger better higher faster, ie the airlines.
What I meant was are there really still pilots who are stupid enough to do unpaid ICUS?
So there is a cost, the cost of two pilots on a single pilot operation. Airlines are a two crew operation and they would practice emergency procedures on the sim, so not sure how they can be compared.
The ATSB has raised these points in numerous fatal accidents in previous years.
The ‘build-up’ period to the wet season in Darwin is known for weather conditions hazardous to flying activities. Pilots in tropical areas need to recognise and respond to these conditions to avoid the hazards including turbulence, windshear and reduced visibility. However, this is more challenging when a pilot has not experienced these conditions, and therefore may not accurately assess the situation or perceive the risks. Ball (2008) states that the lack of hazardous weather flying experience plays ‘a role in the pilot’s ability to make timely and safe decisions about flying in and around hazardous weather’. Many of the pilots that the ATSB spoke with indicated that they only learned how to handle the weather during the wet season through their own exposure to the conditions, particularly the distance to keep from rapidly-developing cells.
There were differences in the perception of how much distance to keep from them, ranging from 10 to 40 NM.
In this case, neither pilot had flown during a previous wet season in Darwin. Whilst the ATSB could not determine whether the pilots had ever experienced conditions similar to wet season conditions ever before, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that there were limited opportunities to have done so.
The risk mitigation provided by pairing a supervisory pilot with a pilot new to the company did not adequately address the weather-related risks because neither pilot had experience flying in the region during the wet season.
The ‘build-up’ period to the wet season in Darwin is known for weather conditions hazardous to flying activities. Pilots in tropical areas need to recognise and respond to these conditions to avoid the hazards including turbulence, windshear and reduced visibility. However, this is more challenging when a pilot has not experienced these conditions, and therefore may not accurately assess the situation or perceive the risks. Ball (2008) states that the lack of hazardous weather flying experience plays ‘a role in the pilot’s ability to make timely and safe decisions about flying in and around hazardous weather’. Many of the pilots that the ATSB spoke with indicated that they only learned how to handle the weather during the wet season through their own exposure to the conditions, particularly the distance to keep from rapidly-developing cells.
There were differences in the perception of how much distance to keep from them, ranging from 10 to 40 NM.
In this case, neither pilot had flown during a previous wet season in Darwin. Whilst the ATSB could not determine whether the pilots had ever experienced conditions similar to wet season conditions ever before, there was sufficient evidence to indicate that there were limited opportunities to have done so.
The risk mitigation provided by pairing a supervisory pilot with a pilot new to the company did not adequately address the weather-related risks because neither pilot had experience flying in the region during the wet season.
I never remembered these $5k courses in past times. Operators interviewed new pilots, selected those suitable and gave them the C210 training and local experience they needed til they were ready to do the job alone. So why is it a necessity now? It’s just exploitation of young pilots. What next? Pay for 50/100hrs of C200 series “line experience” to be “employable”? Pay $5k for a “C208 ready course”?
The following 2 users liked this post by dr dre:
My reference to check flight means, let’s go for a couple of circuits to see how you perform/ learn. Then we got into the real stuff if suitable.
Just like an airline interview sim, out of GA and into a 737/747/A320 Sim check ride, ya not expected to nail it, but you are expected to learn.
If a fresh CPL has the right attitude and willingness to learn then why would t you as a company invest time and money?
So blowing 5k on a GA ready course… As I said it’s as bad as that company charging for check flight/ interview flights!
Just like an airline interview sim, out of GA and into a 737/747/A320 Sim check ride, ya not expected to nail it, but you are expected to learn.
If a fresh CPL has the right attitude and willingness to learn then why would t you as a company invest time and money?
So blowing 5k on a GA ready course… As I said it’s as bad as that company charging for check flight/ interview flights!
The following 2 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
I agree with the two above, that a one-size-fits-all course is the reason that a lot of pilots DON'T have all the skills they need. They don't go beyond a smallish distance from base, they have probably never pushed any boundaries, they have probably never had a bit of a fright in an aircraft, something you don''t want for the first time with a load of passengers on board in unfamiliar weather and terrain. They aren't prepared for any of that in the very sheltered and strictly controlled integrated courses. Someone who has hired an aeroplane and gone out hour building under their own steam is more likely to have varied experience. BUt these days the few schools that provide this training are being swamped by the sausage factories, who are also swamping the very limited ATC resources.
So is a one-size fits-all GA ready course any better? Probably not. But it should't all fall on the shoulders of the operator either...especially as those pilots will be gone like a rat out of an aquaduct as soon as they can.
So is a one-size fits-all GA ready course any better? Probably not. But it should't all fall on the shoulders of the operator either...especially as those pilots will be gone like a rat out of an aquaduct as soon as they can.
The following 2 users liked this post by Clare Prop:
It's a different world mate.
The following users liked this post:
In my experience it's like observing a driver in a car and you just know it won't be long before that vehicle has panel damage. You don't know the driver or how long he or she has been driving, but you just know. Pilots are no different.
Common sense and risk management is something you have or don't have. You can provide guidance but it cannot be learnt. You can observe a bunch of guys wading through an obstacle course an pick the ones less likely to emerge unscathed.
Common sense and risk management is something you have or don't have. You can provide guidance but it cannot be learnt. You can observe a bunch of guys wading through an obstacle course an pick the ones less likely to emerge unscathed.
Last edited by Xeptu; 31st Mar 2024 at 18:29. Reason: extended
The following users liked this post:
I totally agree though that a motivation to learn, be a team player and respond well to critical feedback are far less teachable traits and things an employer would want to see in a new pilot. These GA ready courses might not teach these skills or any "common sense" but they might just make your "5 hours minimum on 200 series" much more valuable with mentorship and exposure to airfields or weather they haven't had prior or wouldn't otherwise do if they hired the machine on their own. It doesn't sound like this course exists to replace a company ICUS or line training program but rather to give some real world context to the plastic-fantastic trained CPLs. Worth it? For some maybe for others maybe not!
The following 3 users liked this post by Prattnwho:
I remember not long ago doing some ICUS with a new person in Cairns. Tower asked us to follow the dash 8. I was then asked "which one is a dash 8?".
Next flight was told to follow the 717. Didn't know what that looked like either.
During this persons training they had never, done a fuel drain, put oil in the engine, signed the MR or fueled the plane by themselves. Apparently only instructors were allowed to do these things.
Some people need a lot more than a few hours in a 210.
Next flight was told to follow the 717. Didn't know what that looked like either.
During this persons training they had never, done a fuel drain, put oil in the engine, signed the MR or fueled the plane by themselves. Apparently only instructors were allowed to do these things.
Some people need a lot more than a few hours in a 210.
The following 6 users liked this post by Climb150:
My reference to check flight means, let’s go for a couple of circuits to see how you perform/ learn. Then we got into the real stuff if suitable.
Just like an airline interview sim, out of GA and into a 737/747/A320 Sim check ride, ya not expected to nail it, but you are expected to learn.
If a fresh CPL has the right attitude and willingness to learn then why would t you as a company invest time and money?
So blowing 5k on a GA ready course… As I said it’s as bad as that company charging for check flight/ interview flights!
Just like an airline interview sim, out of GA and into a 737/747/A320 Sim check ride, ya not expected to nail it, but you are expected to learn.
If a fresh CPL has the right attitude and willingness to learn then why would t you as a company invest time and money?
So blowing 5k on a GA ready course… As I said it’s as bad as that company charging for check flight/ interview flights!
It’s always been hard for a young fresh CPL grad to scrounge up enough money for anything so slapping more financial burden on them isn’t going to do any favours, especially given the current cost of living which disproportionately affects the asset poor youth.
The following 2 users liked this post by dr dre:
I remember not long ago doing some ICUS with a new person in Cairns. Tower asked us to follow the dash 8. I was then asked "which one is a dash 8?".
Next flight was told to follow the 717. Didn't know what that looked like either.
During this persons training they had never, done a fuel drain, put oil in the engine, signed the MR or fueled the plane by themselves. Apparently only instructors were allowed to do these things.
Some people need a lot more than a few hours in a 210.
Next flight was told to follow the 717. Didn't know what that looked like either.
During this persons training they had never, done a fuel drain, put oil in the engine, signed the MR or fueled the plane by themselves. Apparently only instructors were allowed to do these things.
Some people need a lot more than a few hours in a 210.
“During this persons training they had never, done a fuel drain, put oil in the engine, signed the MR or fueled the plane by themselves. Apparently only instructors were allowed to do these things.”
Flight school probably sick and tired of this generation of entitled, honey badger clientele finds it easier to get an accountable employee to do the dirty work to make sure it’s done correctly. Cant say I blame them. And being unable to recognize a Dash 8 or a 717 pretty much puts them in that category. Ahh well, he or she is probably a gun hand at selfies and social media.
The following users liked this post:
Beggars belief that any aspiring commercial pilot not know what every other aircraft looks like
The following users liked this post:
If the CASA Part 61 MOS syllabus of training was correct for the current industry demands, the additional training wouldn’t be required.
Unless the trainee pilots have been trained by competent instructors with industry experience in legacy/vintage aeroplanes, the green horn freshly minted CPL holders will have absolutely no idea how to handle a full load of passengers and a Cessna 207 on a 35 degree afternoon out of Kununurra, or the Rock doing a scenic, let alone dealing with a bunch of drunks trying to smuggle grog to Port Keats hidden in baby diapers 🤣
Unless the trainee pilots have been trained by competent instructors with industry experience in legacy/vintage aeroplanes, the green horn freshly minted CPL holders will have absolutely no idea how to handle a full load of passengers and a Cessna 207 on a 35 degree afternoon out of Kununurra, or the Rock doing a scenic, let alone dealing with a bunch of drunks trying to smuggle grog to Port Keats hidden in baby diapers 🤣
The following 2 users liked this post by Duck Pilot:
The following users liked this post:
Instructing has always been the play ground of hour builders too “refined” to get their hands dirty with a charter job up north
