I wonder...?
 

I wonder if there are some issues showing up in the pointy ends of the shiny jets with new pilots joining the ranks and showing some bad habits.

In making enquiries, could CASA now be looking at the testing grounds for GA - up North / Broome / FNQ, and could this have been a contributing factor to the closure of Alligator, DirectAir, et al?

I hear that last week CASA were ramping every person climbing into an aircraft at Parafield - have some pity for the student on their first solo or flight test!

Are CASA now going the next logical step and looking at the breeding grounds for GA - the flying schools, uni, etc?

Could this be, ultimately, a tightening of flying standards? :D

PS: I have no problems with being ramped - the regs are the regs, and we should know them if we're in this game. I do have some issues with how the regs are written, but that's a discussion for the bar, with a bevvy. And no, this isn't a CASA-bashing exercise - I was just curious if there was a trend happening..

Having never been 'ramped' before myself, would you mind providing some insight as to what these CASA guys are looking for?

Nothing much really, mostly to see that all your paperwork is in order (licence, medical, MR, etc...) occasionaly an airworthiness inspector will have a quick look over the aircraft. On one occasion, they weighed all my passengers, freight, etc and then I had to explain my load sheet in detail.

They may ask you a few questions about the type of operation that you are about to perform, if you are reasonably well prepared, a ramp check is certainly no big deal. :ok:

That you (and your aircraft) are airworthy and 'legal', Ben.

If you're unsure if what that constitutes, I'd get your head in the regs pronto, cause its not if, but when the little men in yellow bibs and clip boards will come scurrying across the ramp towards you as you pull up! :E

The problem, mate, is that if the Rampers really want to find a problem, they will. What is the equivalent of the standard Police excuse of "worn wiper blade rubbers" for declaring a vehicle unroadworthy?

just how will ramp checking improve training standards? only skilled experienced instructors will help increase pilot standards and airmanship.

That's an easy one. "Let me look at your maintenance release, Sir. Let me see now, counting the hours on the MR I see it comes to 75 hours since the last 100 hourly inspection. I must say Sir, what a beautiful clean MR you have here. Not one single defect recorded in 75 hours. I think we need to look a little closer, don't you?"

Whoops! that nosewheel tyre looks a bit bald to me. Sits in seat and looks around. My goodness gracious me, Sir - that right hand mixture lever is very stiff and the friction nut spins freely, too. Does it work? What's this Sir? The left cowl flap lever is jammed full open? The park brake doesn't seem to work either.. pilot looks glum and says I was told by my instructor yonks ago to never to trust park brakes so I hold my feet on the brake pedals for run-up so it doesn't matter if the park brake never works. And so on.

And so on….

There’s a 100 foot difference between the altimeter readings, despite them having the same QNH settings. Did that happen after landing, Sir?

Gosh that fuel selector placard is hard to read, Sir. Could you show me the ‘off’ position? Hmmmm, you seem to be having some difficulty in getting that selector to move, Sir.

I see your VHF is set to the CTAF that applied here until the first of this month. That might account for no one having heard any call from you inbound or in the circuit. Did you check NOTAMS for this aerodrome before or during your flight, Sir?

Could you show me the VTC you are carrying for this area? No Sir, your Ipad doesn’t count. And from the colour of the label on that paper one, I can see from here that it’s out of date.

You joined a left downwind and conducted a left hand circuit. Can you remind me what ERSA says about the circuit direction here, Sir?

I see your medical certificate includes a condition requiring vision correction. Please show me your spare pair of glasses, Sir.

And what’s this, Sir? Your logbook indicates you flew this aircraft yesterday. You entered 3.5 hours in command, yet the MR records only 1.5 hours TIS.

And so on...

Creamie,
Very long taxi, big departure delays, no gate available for ages on return, could happen to any of us.

Best I ever saw was 3.5h block, nil on the MR, because the aircraft never got airborne --- winter fog at (then) ASBK, and said pilot needed a min. of 3.5 hours PIC that day, or he missed a promotional slot in QF.
Tootle pip!!

That says it all really, doesn't it....

I agree Jack.

Small things occupy small minds!

Touche, big fella! :) I want to see the FOI’s face the first time an R22 pilot tries it! :)

Jack and Spotlight: to what and whom do you refer?

I've only been half ramped once when they were waiting for me only to find that I was flying the aircraft and not who they thought was in command. I realised why and simply said "Good day Mr Smith" and walked off in response to the then smurk on his face.

I'm just amusing myself thinking of how the conversation will go:

Me now: Yes hang on I'm sure it's here. No not this iPad1 or mini- yeah they're just being used for testing. Sorry this iPad4 is in the way. Oh wait here it is behind the iPhone.

Me in 2 years: What is this p-a-p-e-r thing you speak of? Is that like what the bible was written on or something?

Creampuff, not your posts! I'm actually enjoying them. Learning quite a bit :ok:

I've always been of the opinion if you're doing the right thing a ramp won't be a problem. I'm sure most of the surveillance crew use common sense when dealing with pilots.

The 'says it all' comment is in relation to, firstly a pilot that would log 3.5 hours sitting on his/her arse doing nothing with the engine running. Secondly a company accepting this as a 'box tick.' Thirdly an aviation 'system' that allows this as logable time. Fourthly, I'm no LAME but with no airflow over an air cooled engine, the possibility of damage? There's probably a fifth, sixth, seventh etc

Roger :ok:

When I am greeted with a ramp check, I normally open the door and hand them a pile with:

Maintenace Release
Weather & NOTAM's
Weight & Balance
Passenger Manifest
Licence
Logbook (not required, but makes the pile look bigger)

Am usually underway within 5 minutes, got a letter to my employer once complimenting me on the ramp check and the way I conducted myself. They soon moved onto the next guy (who was little less well prepared) and pinged him for a frayed seat belt!

Howard Hughes, may I ask what you mean by "Pinged"? just purely out of interest, we talking a rap on the knuckles, stern talking to or something else?

I believe it involves a rubber band and a rude part of one's anatomy

Pinged = Nicked. Induced by naughty activity.

"Pinged" for a "frayed seat belt", according to casa's Aviation Ruling 1/2004 = $8,500. (50 penalty units)
Doesn't matter if no-one is in the seat either. :yuk:

Haven't heard it used like that before Blackhand, we must run in different circles :E

And yes Mach E Avelli, I got that one!!

Ouch Trent972, I mean ok, if they were operating with a badly frayed seatbelt that was about to tear with some poor sod sitting in it then sounds fair, but I guess it depends on how badly the fray is!!

Ixixly, "badly frayed" may be too much. Chafing and fading of seatbelts are sufficient to require replacement.
AWB 25-2 Issue 1, 4 April 2003 includes this description...

If they are showing some "bad habits", then this has nothing to do with what they did in G.A. or where they came from. At fault is the training and checking by the jet operator.

Utterly ridiculous to think that CASA has closed some G.A. operators because of some "bad habits" observed in some "shiny jets".

CASA often do ramp checks. It is extremely unlikely those Parafield ramp checks had anything to do with those bad habits in those shiny jets.

Err, no, outnabout. Your naivete is astonishing.

It wasn't that long ago that a certain long standing flying school still in existence that had overseas students, arranged for one of their aircraft to sit on the tarmac with its engine ticking over for two hours or more with no one in it (chocked of course) so that students log books could be falsified by the simple means of a instructor writing up the log book as it if was a cross-country flight completed. This was in Australia by the way.

...and what your qualification is to say how much fraying will stand up to an accident that places 8+g on the belt. Would you go parachuting (yeah, let's say you are intending to go in the first place) if the rig had a 2mm tear in one of the harnesses? A 5mm tear? How about 10?

Saw an owner whinge about a LAME going ahead without permission and replacing a belt that was so old it fractured when it was folded in half.:rolleyes:

Centaurus,
Abysmal....:hmm:

Many cases of towers away from home fields phoning schools and asking if they knew one of their aircraft was sitting at the base of their tower idling away for several hours with the student sitting in there. I nailed a couple of these over the years based on overly large MR/FT splits.
Heard of one group who got together and played soccer while chocked aircraft ran at power...until one jumped the chocks...:E

Frayed/unserviceable seatbelt - placard the seat and belt as U/S. Simples

... and endorse the MR or equivalent. :ok:

Blackhand, I wonder .... If a private pilot hiring an aircraft, is subsequently 'ramped' by casa, and found responsible for flying with a faded/chafed seat belt, and 'pinged' with a $8500 fine, reasonable?
Do you really think everyone that hires an aircraft in which a seat belt looks to have even the slightest amount of fading/chafing, should enter it as a defect in the MR?
If not, then how much fading/chafing is allowed, just a little bit or 28 of the 50 shades of grey? Or should we get a LAME to appraise the belt condition prior to each and every occasion?
The problem lies in what is one mans idea of fair and reasonable, against what some casa person, trying to make a name for himself, thinks is an offence of strict liability and punishable by a fine equivalent to 30 weeks of a working mans take home pay.

Trent 972
Do you mean subsequent to the pilot endorsing the MR?

As a generalisation, an owner and maintenance organisation ignoring a damaged seatbelt could indicate deeper underlying issues.
I am yet to deal with any of the Pedant AWIs you are refering to, can anyone relate an actual incident?

I would also surmise, that if the seat was not accupied, it would be subject to an NCN on the registered operator/owner, not the poor private pilot.

Leave it to us halfwits, BH

Trent

I’m a big fan of taxes on the stupid. And when I see people rejecting the obvious solutions, I immediately think ‘ka-ching’.

Item 22 of the Daily Inspection list in Schedule 5 (you said private and let’s assume no SOM or MMS) says:Ramp check of an aircraft flown solo by Bloggs, private hirer, finds frayed back seat pax seatbelt not placarded or endorsed. Daily is signed.

Did Bloggs sign for the daily? If yes, Bloggs has a problem. If no, whoever signed the daily has a problem, and Bloggs has a problem only if he saw the defect during his pre-flight and didn’t endorse it/placard it.

So come on Trent: What have you been pinged for? Why is it that you think CASA FOIs fine private hirers $8,500 for a having a rear seat belt that’s one shade too close to dark grey?

You strike me as being someone who’s been drinking a little too much Leaddied Kool-Aid.

BTW: The amount of money collected from CASA infringement notices is on the public record. How many millions do you reckon it is?

blackhand, first of all you'll have to define 'damage'.
Which one of those 50 shades of grey I referred to? I was asking you if it's #1 or #25 or #49 or whichever one, because we mere mortals don't know until after casa has decided whether to take enforcement action or not.
If it's #1, then in this country, aviation is doomed.
Somewhere around #22 would be fair, don't you think? :rolleyes:

edit
That might be your experience, but it is not what the rules allow for. The rules allow for the wielding of the 'big stick' months before the establishment of proof of guilt.

Hello Creamy, you keep saying 'trust me', "we're from the government, we're here to help". You can read it on casa's website, therefore it must be true.
AH AH AAH BULLSH!T.
There are enough people around to know that while casa has 'quite a few good men', they also have more than their fair share of industry retards.
Just look towards the top.
Bye the way, I'm just being 'ornery' to get even for (mainly) you screwing up the Barrier thread.

C'mon people, the subject here is whether or not the current crop of pilots are causing the airlines grief when they get into a jet.
Maintenance now has its own thread.
Barrier thread totally destroyed with NOTHING useful to come out of it.

Back on topic, why would a pilot's prior background cause grief at an airline unless the person a) was unsuited to the task anyway and b) did not receive the necessary training and 'attitude' adjustment? If foreign airlines can produce acceptable jet First Officers in less than 300 hours total, surely our lot can beat the occasional cowboy into shape. If said cowboy is keen on an airline career he/she will take the beatings with pleasure.

Excellent suggestion, Mach.

Ahhh, partially. The C&T system cannot reasonably (read as realistically) be expected to retrain every single facet of a pilot's technique in the initial induction period. The best that can be expected is to catch and standardise the most important and safety related behaviours (and there will be some conjecture as to what that constitutes).
To remove the responsibility of GA (and I am including initial flying training in this definition) for producing RPT line pilots makes no sense. All that indicates to me is complacency as to the standard of instruction/mentoring in these early levels and not just in training, but by chief pilots and base managers as well.

If the correct habits are introduced at the early stage, there is no need for a jet operator to have to remove them, and to that end, the industry needs to provide better incentive to retain experienced pilots as instructors. Sorry if this seems like a plug, but guys like Brian Weston, Alan Dunbar, Tub Matheson and Ken Ames (those who know them will attest) are absolute treasures and the amount of knowledge these guys posess and have passed on to other pilots is invaluable. I would love to see guys like GG return to instructing with their level of experience to pass on, but where's the incentive (besides being say too old to maintain a command spot on international ops - not you specifically, GG)?

In your opinion. And the mods were always free to delete irrelevant/inappropriate posts, and did so on a couple of occasions …

Anyway, in my opinion MIHC and Cynical are correct. I’d merely add that “correct habits” should not be confined to flying techniques.

That is arguably true, but it is also true that the C&T system is responsible for the performance of their pilots. The C&T system cannot point to a pilot's G.A. background as an explanation for his unsatisfactory performance.

If it is too hard to "retrain" pilots, or exorcise "bad habits", then the C&T system needs to take a different approach (e.g, cadet schemes).

An NCN, as it was called in "those days"...:ok:

Nothing untrue about that statement, but would it not be easier to do the job properly the first time around?:cool:

With regard to cadet schemes, personally, I would much rather the FO up the front of the burner my wife and kids were on came with 1500 hours worth of experience than 300. What did happen to Xenephon's questions about the industry anyhoo?

Worth saying again . . .

Mind you, more revenue and more of a power trip in fining people . . .

Or …

The regulator might pick up and nip in the bud some behaviour or misunderstandings or ignorance that results in avoidable risks.

Or …

The regulator might find information to indicate that certain instructors and schools produce pilots who should not be let loose on the world.

You may have noted that some of the posters in this thread have suggested that some schools, and their instructors, conspire to falsify logbook entries.

Don’t know about you, but I’d prefer that those schools and instructors be removed from the industry (through administrative action initially) then put in goal (through the prosecution process), so that my loved ones aren’t put at greater risk than they should be.

Of course, that won’t happen, because the regulator’s job is, apparently, to ‘promote’ and ‘partner’ with the industry, so that fare paying passengers are free to put their lives in the hands of dangerously incompetent deliberate law-breakers. :ok: