|
TOO GOOD FOR GA?
I don't know all the ins and outs on this one but would someone with GA instructor experience care to opine?
Meet the top gun CASA says is too good to train new pilots
Former Royal Australian Air Force squadron leader Adam Clarke challenged the decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but was unsuccessful. In his judgment, AAT deputy president Stephen Boyle said there was much evidence to attest to Mr Clarke’s expertise as a highly skilled and trained ADF pilot. “It may also be that because of Mr Clarke’s vast experience and training he would be able to discharge the functions associated with the authorisations he seeks,” Mr Boyle wrote. “However that is not the enquiry directed by CASA’s regulation. That enquiry is as to the equivalence of the qualification granted by the ADF.” In his 26 years in the RAAF, Mr Clarke flew F/A-18 hornets and instructed other pilots on the aircraft. He also worked in the 2 Flying Training School (2FTS) as a Pilatus PC-9/A instructor, and provided remedial instruction for students that required additional help. More recently Mr Clarke worked in Saudi Arabia as an instructor on F-15SA fighter jets, and throughout his career amassed close to 5000 hours of flying time. The tribunal heard Mr Clarke’s flight training experience was “at least equivalent to the civil standard because the platforms on which he instructed were more complex with higher performance”. “In-flight instruction is extremely important, but it is improved and focused by pre-flight tutorials, mass briefs, before flight briefs, and most importantly debriefs,” submissions for Mr Clarke said. “These disciplines are a real strength of RAAF flying and particularly fighter flying. This allows significant student improvement and progression in a healthy learning environment.” But CASA reasoned that as an ADF instructor, Mr Clarke trained pilots in more complex aircraft than the light recreational aircraft used by flight training schools. “It does not matter how experienced the applicant is,” CASA’s submissions to the tribunal said. “If he has not received an equivalent flight crew qualification to the endorsements that he is now seeking then he is not entitled to the endorsement (under CASA regulations)”. Mr Boyle concluded that to grant Mr Clarke the civilian endorsements he sought would be akin to allowing “a professor of mathematics to teach arithmetic to primary school children”. “The professor would certainly have the technical knowledge of the subject matter, mathematics, but may be lacking the training or experience in teaching those with effectively no knowledge of mathematics,” Mr Boyle wrote. “While (Mr Clarke) has instructed at 2FTS, those he was instructing already had flight training.” He upheld CASA’s original decision in the matter, finding the ADF qualification was not equivalent to that required by the regulator. Mr Clarke’s solicitor Joseph Wheeler, from the International Aerospace Law and Policy Group, said his client was considering his appeal options. “Australia is privileged to have a significant cadre of highly qualified, talented and decorated ex-defence force pilots, who after concluding their military careers set their sights upon civilian aviation,” Mr Wheeler said. “Their qualifications and experience are globally held in very high regard. Australian flying students could only benefit from lower barriers for ex-defence pilots in this regard as diversity of aviation experience is a proverbial pearl of aviation wisdom they could benefit from.” A CASA spokesman said they met regularly with Defence “to identify opportunities to align our regulatory arrangements where appropriate”. |
I can't work out what the exact issue is. Is it that Mr Clarke is trying to get a civee instructor rating without doing all the training/tests/approvals? What "endorsements" is CASA talking about?
As for: Mr Boyle concluded that to grant Mr Clarke the civilian endorsements he sought would be akin to allowing “a professor of mathematics to teach arithmetic to primary school children”. |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 11489633)
I can't work out what the exact issue is. Is it that Mr Clarke is trying to get a civee instructor rating without doing all the training/tests/approvals? What "endorsements" is CASA talking about?
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 11489633)
As for:
Mr Boyle concluded that to grant Mr Clarke the civilian endorsements he sought would be akin to allowing “a professor of mathematics to teach arithmetic to primary school children”. |
So a Professor of Mathematics is not allowed to teach Primary school kids math? This is probably why Australia has terrible literacy rates, of course CASA (and our education department) would have them teach Art class while a graduate who didn't even do math at high school teaches math subjects to kids. I agree some highly educated people can be poor teachers because of personality traits, but that goes for those with low education as well. Pretty sure somebody that has a deeper understanding of a subject that also has the traits to be a good teacher is better than somebody who has very basic understanding of something....
If they are seeking RPL for the relevant experience so that they do not have to do the hours required in GA aircraft, or PMI course, I can't understand why not. That is if they still have to pass the test itself. If they are trying to get out of the test itself, I can see an issue and hurdle they will never get over. Let them do the test, if they have what it takes they pass, done, move on and teach. Having a wide base of experience in GA is exactly what GA needs. CASA seems to prefer a method where toddlers are teaching babies to play concert piano... |
“The professor would certainly have the technical knowledge of the subject matter, mathematics, but may be lacking the training or experience in teaching those with effectively no knowledge of mathematics,” Mr Boyle wrote. “While (Mr Clarke) has instructed at 2FTS, those he was instructing already had flight training.” |
Here’s a link to the AAT matter.
Essentially, CASA decided that Clarke did not hold and had not held a flight crew qualification, granted by the ADF, at least equivalent to a flight instructor rating to conduct ab initio flight training in ‘little’ piston aircraft. Here’s the relevant reg: 61.285 Australian Defence Force qualifications—recognition Despite anything else in this Part, a member or former member of the Australian Defence Force is taken to meet the requirements under this Part for the grant of a flight crew licence, rating or endorsement, other than an examiner rating, if the member: (a) holds, or has held, a flight crew qualification granted by the Australian Defence Force that CASA is satisfied is at least equivalent to the licence, rating or endorsement; and (b) ... (c) meets the aeronautical experience requirements for the licence, rating or endorsement ... I think the standards of literacy in our schools would be higher if there were more professors of mathematics in them teaching it. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11489647)
Essentially, CASA decided that Clarke did not hold and had not held a flight crew qualification, granted by the ADF, at least equivalent to a flight instructor rating to conduct ab initio flight training in ‘little’ piston aircraft. Here’s the relevant reg:Presumably CASA is worried that Clarke would move students too quickly into transonic and supersonic configurations in the Cessna 152, and be getting them to do initial and pitch approaches.
|
So, only instructors from 1FTS can get a civvy rating, because they have had the "ab initio" experience. Instructors from 2FTS or FCI courses are apparently not eligible, despite teaching students to operate a more complex aircraft in a more complex environment. That would mean that military helo instructors would be ineligible for the qualification as well, because the students had already passed their F/W wings course.
Sounds like somebody in CA$A has a huge anti-RAAF chip on his shoulder, maybe got scrubbed off a CT4 course. |
I think you'll find that 1FTS now operates PC21s (set to 'dumb' mode) for ab initio training. No pistons any more...
|
Yeah, but to be a highly esteemed CA$A FOI he would likely be older than 40, hence the CT4 reference.
|
I find it very hard after all of these years to side with CASA on just about anything, however they do have some reasons that I think are worthwhile. In addition, the RAAF has done little to make anything to do with civil licences easy for their pilots. CASA used to certainly recognise all graduates of RAAF Flying Instructors Course for a Grade 3 rating. The RAAF course whether on Macchi or PC9/A up until No.100 FIC (1989 I think) prepared all instructors for Ab Initio instruction. At 100FIC they decided that they were over training the 2FTS instructors and then assumed that they only needed advanced instruction. For example, if you taught spinning you assumed that Bloggs had already done spinning at BFTS and you were just showing them how to do it in a different platform. In classic RAAF planning the ‘powers to be’ decided soon after to try ‘all through PC9/A training’. Guess what, they had few people with Ab Initio experience at 2FTS and had to conduct a number of PC9/A transitions on some BFTS instructors and post them to Pearce. After 2 courses they came to the same conclusion as they did when they tried the same thing with the Macchi, years earlier. Just as well the world is now very different and RAAF is ‘all through PC21/A training! I think RAAF is the only operator doing all through PC21/A training. And no it’s not simulators that have helped. I assume that provided CASA and the RAAF discuss this, the change to PC21/A with everyone now doing Ab Initio training should end up with all recents FIC graduates able to get a Grade 3. Dont hold your breath!
Beez. |
It is no different coming out of an Airline with years of training experience, you still need the GA ratings. Even more bizarre under the new rules before you can be promoted to be a training captain within the Airlines you have to have an instructor rating. I have witnessed several senior captains who have been out of GA for 30 years going off to the local to get a Grade 3 so they can become a training captain. It is one thing to master the dreaded Cessna 150 after a Boeing or an Airbus but that FOI Exam, or whatever they call it, is a little doozy. I have never read anything quite like it.
'Tis the rules chaps and flexibility or common sense is a strict liability. |
Read the full judgement on austlii.edu.au (just name & CASA into search)
AAT is an independent body The applicant was seeking stuff like FIR-1, FIR-FIR, FIR-MEAI, FIR-MCP etc etc |
Originally Posted by By George
(Post 11489713)
It is no different coming out of an Airline with years of training experience, you still need the GA ratings. Even more bizarre under the new rules before you can be promoted to be a training captain within the Airlines you have to have an instructor rating. I have witnessed several senior captains who have been out of GA for 30 years going off to the local to get a Grade 3 so they can become a training captain. It is one thing to master the dreaded Cessna 150 after a Boeing or an Airbus but that FOI Exam, or whatever they call it, is a little doozy. I have never read anything quite like it.
'Tis the rules chaps and flexibility or common sense is a strict liability. As far as I know its still not a requirement to hold a FIR to be a training captain, although it's been constantly talked about for a while. |
The applicant was seeking stuff like FIR-1, FIR-FIR, FIR-MEAI, FIR-MCP etc etc |
I posted the link to the AAT's decision earlier.
Let us all give thanks that CASA did not grant the ratings for which Mr Clarke applied, and convinced the AAT that the refusal was a good decision. The skies are so much safer than they otherwise would have been if Mr Clarke now held those ratings. |
Originally Posted by 43Inches
(Post 11489747)
It's very different, the person in this instance was a qualified Air Force instructor. Which for all intents is probably a higher qualification than a CASA FIR. Airline pilots are just pilots, and unless they were previous instructors have no experience in training and the problems associated with such. There is no part of a CPL or ATPL that covers training activities and methods of instruction.
As far as I know its still not a requirement to hold a FIR to be a training captain, although it's been constantly talked about for a while. How about for once, instead of just jumping on the CASA hate train (That they admittedly deserve a lot of the time), we instead use some common sense and say that yeah, in this case just signing some paperwork (which is all that happened according to the case details) probably wasn't enough to satisfy that they're fully able to exercise all the rights and privileges that a Grade 1 would convey them? |
And so, having thrown the keys to a C172 to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued.
|
And in the RAAF he will have been training people who have already passed all sorts of tests and examinations designed to winnow out all but the best.
At Grade 1 in civi. street you have to deal with whoever walks in off the street and has a wad of $$$ in their hand - they may be totally physically & mentally dysfunctional. It's a different game and requires some different skills that's all |
And when one of these physically and mentally dysfunctional students with a wad of $$$ in their hand lobs up to Mr Clarke, walk us through the carnage that would have ensued had Mr Clarke been issued with the ratings for which he'd applied, and why that carnage would have ensued.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.