As with just about every curriculum in any course you'll find nowadays, for every skill or sequence that's taught there's a breakdown of small and smaller building blocks or 'units and elements of competency' in the jargon they use.

The MOS sets out which of these bits are mandatory training for pretty much all the things that are covered by licences, ratings or endorsements.
Whether they are accurate, exhaustive and sensible is a different story, but they're not too bad in the main I think, from what I've seen so far, apart from some dodgy wording here and there.

To address your question directly, the MOS is there to specify in detail what should be taught and tested. Good training is good training no matter how you get there, and what I suppose you're referring to is what we talk about as what happened in the old days, where good instructors used their brains, skill and common sense to teach people how to fly properly and safely.

Now, not just in aviation but in pretty much anything you want to name that has official courses of training, you get this sometimes seemingly ridiculous level of specification of what has to be done. You can't just point out where the toilet is these days, you have to specify how they should unzip their fly, where to point it so they don't splash their boots and how to wash their hands afterwards, it seems.

I think there are pros and cons to this kind of thing - it can get to a silly level of specificity, but it should also help with standardisation and to prop up inexperienced instructors as well as refresh and educate more experienced ones. It makes you analyse what you do against the defined standards, at least.

Arm,

With the very greatest of respect, absolute bollox.
That is all just post facto edu-babble justification for a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ignored --- meantime Australia's demonstrated flying standards continuum to deteriorate.
Our accident rate climbs, and the whole GA sector continues to sink under an unmanageable load of complex, contradictory and confusing and extremely costly regulatory micro-management by CASA.

Tootle pip!!

That's all good and fine AOTW, but what makes Australian aviation so unique compared to other countries with a similar mix of airline/business/private aviation (but on different scales) that requires us to have such prescriptive and detailed regulations?? It's hardly worlds best practice.

Ease off a bit there with the call of bollox, LeadSled - I'm not defending it particularly, just saying that's how all training courses have gone these days. I'd rather not have to include all the micro-descriptions of how to tie up your shoelaces in a training course either.

Look at any kind of organisation, they're all drowing in bull**** - talking to a mate who does contract work at a refinery, you can't start work until at least an hour of mandatory safety briefings and induction, not just once but every day.

Regarding why Australia has to have such prescriptive regs, it's all legal arse covering as far as I can see, and if that's the way it is I would be a bit stupid to be the one who didn't sign off all the sub elements of competency on someone's training record. I hate the writer's cramp from that crap, make no mistake!

Putting ticks in boxes never made anyone competent at anything.

Same, same putting ticks in boxes does not ensure proper maintenance.

The inescapable truth is the expertise and competence at doing these things lies within the industry, NOT within CAsA, it equates to a kindergarten student dictating the standards required for a university graduate.

As it stands the alleged "reforms" we must embrace are completely unsustainable, what's to come just an evil joke.

I cannot accept that the intelligence level within CAsA is so feeble that they don't understand this, therefore there is only one conclusion any sensible person could come to, the alleged "Reform" project is a malicious, deliberate, concerted, attempt to destroy an industry, and if the Minister had the courage of his convictions he'd stand up and admit that is the fact, and Why it is Australia's interest to not have a GA industry.

AOTW I'm sorry, but I cannot accept any other hypothesis, CAsA and their bulls..t is to blame, take a trip across the Tasman sometime to see what proper regulation can do.


Oh! and they are just as safe as we are, and their reg's only cost a few million...Not half a BILLION! and counting! That I believe is fraudulent waste of taxpayers money.

One thing I'd love to know is just how much CAsA crap adds to every airline ticket.

I have an old "Flight Instructors Handbook" published by the DCA.

I have have a copy of the new MOS.

If you got two flying schools and gave the instructors from "School A" the former and the instructors from "School B" the latter, then looked at the students from each, say one year down the track, my guess would be that the school with the Flight Instructors Handbook would have better trained pilots.

Aussie, have the same book, and I agree completely, CAsA are attemting to fix a problem that didn't exist, and making criminals out of everyone who commits aviation in the process.

Aussie, Thorn Bird,

Guys you're not listening.

Look at the whole education and training sector - it's stuffed!

It is so full of paperwork and bull**** that we are turning out tradies at a lower rate, and of a lower quality, than ever before.

I had a meeting with a RTO recently (supposedly about pilot training) and they spent the whole meeting talking about funding and policitcs between various elements of the Higher Education/Vocational Education sector.

THIS COUNTRY IS ROOTED, BOYS. :suspect:

Where is Torres? :ouch:

I guess we are reminiscing then :sad:

Horatio,

cant help but agree, I have offspring in the medical field, same, same buried in Box ticking and bullsh..t.

Just look where the $90 million the fuel levee minister Albosleezy bought in was allocated, new managers..Coal face staff??..Zilch!!...Levee??..still there and its ripped nearly $400 million from the industry so far.

That's $400 million of profits the Industry must make just to get square.


CAsA's workforce has almost doubled in the past ten years to supervise an Industry that is dying.

I have no idea what you have calculated, but for my company it now costs around $10 grand just to give a kid a job on our smallest aircraft, up the $50 grand for our biggest..$200 grand and two years wait for an AOC compared with NZ eight weeks and $20 grand.
$100 grand to add an aircraft to your AOC.

Part 61 has added more than %25 to our overheads. What will 91 and 135 add?

I am desperate to get out of this job, not because I hate it, I gain great satisfaction from mentoring the young guys coming along, trying to keep them safe, the blizzard of boxes to tick will not have the slightest affect on safety. I am a pilot, not a lawyer, I have no idea what the new regulations mean and I have really, really tried to figure them out.
The liabilities are just too great. Having to accept direction for things I don't understand, from people with no experience qualification or competence, which my experience tells me are unsafe, I must accept liability for, they accept none. This is unacceptable.

DCA in the Sixties employed a significant number of former RAAF pilots as Examiners of Airmen. The DCA Flight Instructors Handbook was largely based upon RAAF Central Flying School teachings. Rather like Mac Job's Aviation Safety Digest magazine, the DCA Flight Instructors Handbook was concise and eminently readable. The authors of the Bible length Part 61 please note.:rolleyes:

Known then as "Pub 45" and it is still the bible...

Yes, legislation is ruining lots of industries.
I "had to" obtain a forklift licence a couple of years ago. It was supposed to be competency based, so I asked if I could just do the written exam and practical test, as I have been driving forklifts for 25 years. Nope, you MUST sit there and waste two days.
And then there was the self storage facility I worked at until very recently. They had to pay a consulting firm tens of thousands of dollars to come up with evacuation diagrams, fire safety plans etc. The funniest/ saddest thing was, this storage facility was all ground level buildings with plenty of space to get away from anything burning and already extremely obvious exit locations.
We also had to compile and fill out a dangerous goods register, you know, for the massive 5 litre fuel container we had for the power equipment, the 1 litre bottle of mineral turpentine and the regular, small quantities of household cleaners anywhere with a kitchen and toilet has. Don't even start on the quarterly fire drills they introduced, which were pointless as no customers would do anything when advised it was a drill.
The company responsible for the "safety audits" for the above nonsense just wanted to come in and pick anything irrelevant to justify their inspections, even down to benchtop kitchen appliances not be test tagged.
It was at the stage they had to employ a store manager full time to oversee OH & S requirements and they didn't have a clue where to start, so just buried the stores with it. One of the reasons I left that job was because I was the OH & S officer for the store and head office just started dumping all the compliance and regulation duties onto the individual stores, with no training or resources on what exactly to do about it. If I had stayed there, it would've consumed half my working week I suspect.
The real problem with training and competency in industry is the rampant privatisation and with it, driving requirements for needless courses and licences. OH & S legislation has grown at a ridiculous rate since it was privatised and this new industry started lobbying heavily for tickets for anything and everything.
I have a trades background and I've NEVER seen a workplace accident that resulted in someone leaving work. It's all political ass covering for insurance companies and for the new private regulation industries.
If an employee is so stupid they need to be told to stay clear of dangerous equipment, not to spray bottles of chemicals in their face etc, you probably shouldn't employ them for the job!

Typhoon,
on the money, common sense completely thrown out the window.
OH&S will be the downfall of this country.
Did you know the unions get a percentage of every fine for non compliance?

Folks,
I won't mention the organisation, but had a wonderful session with the "auditors" of our fire and evacuation procedures.

The so called "auditor" would not accept that nitrogen was not a flammable gas, as far as he was concerned "gas was gas" and "gas burns". Save me??
Same chap had great trouble accepting the cleaners in the staff kitchen not flammable, seeing as they were all dihydrogen oxide based.

We are "inducting" a new forktruck next week, just replacing an existing one, the risk management assessment we have to go through covers 17 pages. 16 of the 17 pages, only an imbecile would need "instruction" on the "risk management" and "mitigation strategies". For example, what is the risk/hazard of driving around in the dark?? Running into something!! What is the mitigation --- turn the bleeding lights on !! Whod'a thunk it??
Tootle pip!!

I have just retired from the mining industry and the same thing is happening there . All this " safety" training is stopping people thinking for themselves because the procedure is supposed to keep them safe. If you make a task foolproof all you do is breed smarter fools. The new procedures affect me through sids/ medical/ afr/ and part 61. I only play aviation to keep myself occupied. As an aside I went around Jandakot yesterday to have a look having not been there for two years. It has gone from being a hive of activity to something dull and not very attractive. Two businesses that I used to spend money in have closed, there appears to be only half as many private aircraft on the field as I remembered. At 3 in the afternoon in reasonable weather/flying conditions there was not one aircraft in the circuit. I stayed for 30 mins . It used to be a good place to go and watch someone else waste money on their hobby/ passion. The surrounding area has been industrialised and I would hazard a guess and say good old Jandakot will go the same way as Bankstown appears to be going. So disappointing. What has happened in the last two years? Make your own mind up. I have.

LeadSled - if that's the quality of your risk assessments, you need new safety managers or new safety consultants.

Tootle Pip.

Horatio,

I have paraphrased it a bit, but it does come from one of Sydney's leading "experts" in the field, complies with the AS/NZS standard, and fits the nanny state requirements of the OH&S mob in NSW. After all, a lot of the inspectors are from a very difficult union.
What gets me is the dumbing down of the whole thing. If any of my drivers actually needed this nonsense to drive safely, they wouldn't be driving for us.

Tootle pip!!

OH&S? There's money to be made there!

Well guys, we can look forward to this:

CASA set to increase Recreational Oversight

Another empire building effort by the folks in CASA Sport Aviation Office.
The Recreational aviation organisations have worked under the assumption that they can keep CASA at bay to some extent and by having the Australian system of self administering organisations the crocodile will eat them last. Well the crocodile is hungry and coming for them now.

Frankly it is pretty obnoxious that people wanting to fly gliders or ultralights are forced to join a private body that has had some of the coercive powers of the State given to it on a monopoly basis.
The outcomes are pathetic also as RAAus members kill themselves regularly and GFA gliding instructors kill and injure their students.
Time to adopt the US rules. The EAA and SSA in the USA have NO regulatory powers at all and reject attempts to give them such powers as it would change the relationship between the organisation and its members.
The Australian system has organisations of individuals which meant to work for the benefit of the members, taking the part of the regulator. You can't work for two bosses with different goals.
Just take a look at the SAAA's ineptitude in defending Part 21 (they don't even try - it is becoming the RV kitbuilders's association - the website no longer highlights "home of Australian Experimental") and the GFA sold out the maintenance of gliders to CASA but the President got a seat on the Board so it's all good. Wonderful!

Eyrie,

It's time we had an Aviation party like Ricky Muir has the Motoring Enthusiast party.

It's time the Aviation industry mounted a public information campaign like the Unions do when their members' rights and freedoms are threatened.

It's time we had some vocal and influential representation in Canberra that can talk about more than esoteric and obscure Air Traffic Control rules.

Will the Australian GA, Recreational, Sport and Airline 'fraternity' finally band together now, before we vanish?

Having virtually killed GA, the parasite seeks new hosts. The MPC teaches nothing about a safe system of maintenance, but if your aircraft doesn't burn the coroner will find that your Maintenance release is beautifully filled out.

CASA cannot possibly add value to aviation activities at all. They remind me of my early maintenance "crusades" in the oil and then the aviation industry before I was taken aside and had some sense shaken into me...

A recommendation to ground the entire F27 fleet following a study of nose wheel vibration still makes me blush ;)

So HL who will step up and be the Gough Whitlam of Australian Aviation?

I'd do it.

At least I would get to fly more than I do as CP :D

Gough Whitlam?....someone more like Moses will be required!

Perhaps Solomon?

TEST... is there a problem with the display on this thread??

Thanks Triadic, everytime I logged in I found that I was the most recent poster, but with a different time/date each time - each far removed from when I made my last post! I wonder if it's related to people taking part in the poll?

From what I heard Truss say at the opening, the Government has allegedly ordered CASA to implement the Forsyth Review recommendations. However he did not mention them by name and he said that CASA had been given some sort of schedule or time limit. A video deconstruction would be needed to see if he said anything concrete at all, which I doubt. I didn't hear Skidmore so I don't know if he said anything more positive.

My take on the situation is that CASA will simply make appropriate noises and wait the government out. Delay is a powerful tool.

Once an election is called, all work (if any) on Forsyth will immediately stop. A new government is not bound to implement any of the previous governments policies and Forsyth can then be safely put in the archive to gather dust.

Another Albanese clone who hates general aviation will then be appointed and the embuggerisation of all those who had the temerity to complain to Forsyth will resume.

To put it another way: It will take more than honeyed words to convince me that the Leopard has changed his spots.

Given Skidmore started his briefing period before last Christmas I would have considered the Forsyth Report the first thing to read and act on. Some 12 months later nobody can even refer to it by name. One may ask what is the tenure of his appointment because it appears he has already wasted 30% of it. (Or 20% if a 5 year term). Can we get a refund of wages wasted?


And he's still asking for input. (I note yesterdays blurb gave Launceston 24 hours notice of the soiree. Pity it was 24 hours in arrears, 08/09/2015. CASA calls for Change Management Input

The good news, Frank, is that you can still register for the 8 September gabfest. Indeed, it's the only one on the list on the CASA website that has a 'register now' link.

Another organisational triumph for CASA. :D

PS: The CASA website has now magically changed ...

My advice to new CEO's has always been to make your changes in the first three months, after that you become too contaminated by the status quo and you'll never make any major changes.

Not looking good ...

For all those doubters out there, doubt no more. Mr Skidmore has issued a directive!

According to Australian Flying, the directive says that "aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary". Apparently, the directive also says: "If a regulation can be justified on safety-risk grounds, it must be made in a form that provides for the most efficient allocation of industry and CASA resources. Regulations must not impose unnecessary costs or unnecessarily hinder levels of participation in aviation and its capacity for growth."

Pure visionary genius! If only someone had thought to give directives like that in the past. Oh wait ....

I also note from the story that there are, apparently, still people in the industry who believe these directives mean something in the real world. Oh dear ...

Meanwhile, back in the letters pages, Mr Skidmore says that "suspending the new licensing regulations now would only cause confusion, cost and administrative burden for the aviation community." Since when has that stopped CASA from doing something? I can't think of much that CASA does that doesn't cause confusion, cost and administrative burden.

Mr Skidmore goes on to say: "People have asked me 'why not suspend Part 61 and go back to the old regulations'? Let me be clear, the regulations Part 61 replaced have been repealed so there are no regulations to go back to and already more than 13,000 pilots hold new Part 61 licences".

Mr Skidmore is either poorly advised or ignoring advice. It would only take a one-sentence regulation to revive the old regulations. Just as an old licence is deemed to be a Part 61 licence, so a Part 61 licence could be deemed to be a licence under the revived regulations. I'm sure they could manage a one sentence regulation, having produced over 2000 pages of regulations in the quest for "safety through simplicity".

The straps on that straightjacket are evidently tightening around Mr Skidmore.

I suppose it would be simplistic to say the new DAS is a disappointment but to be fair on him today, Truss is running the joint while Abbott is away.
So things could get worse.

"Mr Skidmore is either poorly advised or ignoring advice. It would only take a one-sentence regulation to revive the old regulations. Just as an old licence is deemed to be a Part 61 licence, so a Part 61 licence could be deemed to be a licence under the revived regulations".

Haven't applied for a new Part 61 licence yet, still trying to make my mind up if I want to keep going under the weight of the Crap piling up on us all.

Aviation has been my life for over fifty years, but its all becoming too hard.
I cannot see any point to it anymore, my 30,000 hour experience is meaningless to the regulator, Just a silly old fart who knows nothing.

I'm still using a licence issued in 1979, almost identical to the "New" one, strange aint it??? "everything old is new again"

Way back in 1966 as an industry, we had problems with smart ass, ex RAAF "types"...Sky Gods, if you want to anoint them as such, but my dear old Dad who won a DFC and taught me to fly, hammered into me.
"when you think you know it all...give it up and do something else"
Knowledge and expertise does not reside in CAsA it resides in the Industry,
It really is time the ex RAAF Cadre in CAsA stand aside and utilize the expertise of the industry, while there is still an industry left.

But TB, you lack the necessary experience to give you the wisdom and - let's call it for what it is - sheer guts to issue a directive that says: "aviation safety regulations must be shown to be necessary".

Think of the momentous occasion that it must have been when Mr Skidmore signed a piece of paper with those words.

A piece of paper! :eek:

With those words! :eek:

And more words! :eek:

Called a directive! :eek::eek:

Imagine all the CASA people slapping their own foreheads and gazing skywards: "If only we'd been directed to do that before! Finally we can stop making aviation safety regulations that have been shown to be unnecessary."

It cracks me up. I can just imagine the conversations that duchessed Mr Skidmore into falling for it. But he isn't the first and won't be the last.

Now that's just the pits. Where does he get off, putting out directives like that?

I demand - no, we as an industry should, nay, must! - demand that regulations must NOT be shown to be necessary. Band together now, brothers and sisters, and rid us of the scourge of this farcical band of fools forthwith!

And that's the genius of scams: Some of the people fall for them, every time. :D Including Mr Skidmore in this case.

People think that CASA was busy making regulations without having to justify them as necessary, because no one had directed them not to (patent poppycock), and as a consequence of the directive things will change.

Conversation in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel:

"So, these civil aviation safety regulations you're instructing us to draft. Are they necessary?"

CASA wallah: "Nup. No ... wait ... errmmm ... I know the answer to this one ... Yes!"

OPC: "Lucky. Now that Mr Skidmore has given that directive (which is completely meaningless and irrelevant to us because we don't work for him) we're obliged not to draft unnecessary regulations. Gone are the days when we sat around drafting unnecessary regulations for ****s and giggles."

It still cracks me up.

you had better have a calibration certificate for that torque wrench before you tighten that valve cap.

Understandable; there is a particularly rigorous process involved with applying for a Part 61 licence - you send away a form, or perhaps two if you don't have a photo less than 10 years old on record. Bastards!