I have been conducting LL training under CAO 29.10 for the past 20 years. I hold an Instructor 1 and Ag2. I have considerable LL time doing surveys, tracking, and dropping - and these activities continue today. To date I have completed somewhere close to 90 LL courses of training.

Under the previous system, I was able to both train and 'test' for the training, (not a rating), because I was not required to hold an ATO approval. The trained pilot was not required to undergo recurrent testing etc, because the 'LL' was just a course. On the mustering or survey job, the pilot would be subject to the LL approved Operators training schedule.

Under Part 61, it appears I will require a FE,(ATO), approval just to issue a few LL's annually. I cannot see myself undertaking the training and costs just for this. I think this is how many older instructors will also see the future.

I have forwarded a detailed proposal to CASA which offers them several alternative approaches to this hastily conceived imposition. That was 2 months ago, and I have heard nought.

happy days,

Would be interested to read your ideas. Any chance you could post some options here?

Cheers

Coolnames

Poteroo

We can only live in the hope that CASA listen to what you have to offer.

Stiky:D

I'll have my nurse read it to me:rolleyes: happy days,

Options for LL Training

1. Include a couple hours in the basic RPL course - this may have the desired effect in convincing the student that it's a high risk environment and they should think before doing a beatup

2. Under Part 61 - allow those LL instructors who have a longstanding record of instruction to be 'delegated' or 'approved' to do the training, testing and reviewing. this avoids the FE issue,and also takes the pressure off existing FE's who probably don't want to do LL but may feel pressured into it

3. Under Part 61 - extend the renewal times to perhaps every 3-4 years. this will ease the burden of renewal compliance

4. Under Part 61 - cancel the requirement for LL to become a rating, and it then becomes similar to a formation endorsement where there is no renewal requirement. 90 day currency might be a more applicable limitation on LL. This allows all existing LL instructors to continue as at present.


There is no fundamental logic behind creating a LL rating. Pilots are going to fly low and continue to have accidents because they will not ever bother with a rating. If they don't queue up to undertake LL training under the current system - then they certainly won't under the Part 61 LL Rating.

The only people who might do the LL rating are probably CPL's who may use it to further their careers instructing or mustering. They are a more responsible cohort who would probably not have been involved in low flying accidents anyway - CAR or CASR system.

Why do we have instrument flying in the RPL/PPL? Correct, in part to perhaps save lives, but in the main - it's to demonstrate to pilots just how difficult it is, and perhaps prevent them from going illegal IFR.

The same approach could be used to reduce the LL incident/accident rate. Once pilots have a healthy respect for LL perils, I believe that this will make an improvement in the LL accident rate.

Making LL into a difficult to achieve and maintain rating is not the way to fix the problem.

happy days,

of yesteryear...
 

Low level flying WAS part of the PPL training done many moons ago. Effects of turn upwind or downwind in and out of the turn, setting up with slightly nose up trim, so if you relax a bit the aircraft will climb away from the ground etc. And as a hazard over water !
"Very good son, but when that fisherman standing up in his dinghy lay down I did get the impression you were wanting me to swim home. A bit higher if you will !"

Spinning was also on the agenda. But decades later new licences were issued and those things got wiped.."because we don't do that now".
So nothing on the record.

And since then those valuable lessons not taught or learned.:mad:

#1 and etc Excellent ideas poteroo. Back to the future :ok:

ps. Has there been a recent growth in low flying accident stats?