Not just UK
 

Different countries, different problems.

In OZ you normally do your CPL in a S/E aircraft then your IR in a multi. You can do your CPL flight test in a multi but it doesn’t make any difference to you licence here. It just costs a lot more. If you want to be able to use nav aids on your CPL test you must be endorsed to use them by either having a night VFR or a SE-IR. Needless to say I was still only allowed to tune up the VOR as I was VFR on top on one of my legs during my CPL flight test. I did a short field landing and take-off from a very short dirt strip as well.PFL was covered as was UA’s. I also went into an airfield that had active parallel runways with 4 or 5 a/c in each circuit.

The problem here is none of your training is done in an aircraft that a GA operator here actually uses. Most entry level jobs require 10 to 50 hours on a Cessna 206, 207, 210 (anything with 300hp) etc. Do you think any of the schools around the major cities have one of these for hire? No way. Instead you have to go to an operator who isn’t a flying school and pay through the nose for private hire. I would have rather spent an extra $150 dollars and hour and done navs in a C206 rather than a C182. At least I could have applied for jobs fresh out of CPLcourse.

In regards to what is taught I was lucky in the sense that my instructors went out of the way to take me to dirt/grass strips and teach me max cross wind landings on those very skinny strips. I often hear new guys where I work say they have never landed on a dirt/grass strip until they got here. Some even say they don’t know how to use a gps except for the “direct to” function. “Oh no” they say, our Chief Instructor didn’t let us use a gps during our training he insisted it all be map and DR. So your IFR test didn’t require it? “No, it was just VOR to VOR and then to a NDB with an ILS at the end”. Who needs the nearest airport or VOR function anyway?

The reason I find all this funny is because 95% of entry level jobs (besides instructing) in OZ will have you flying in remote areas onto very basic strips dodging CB’s in the middle of monsoon season. If you can’t use a gps you will get very lost. If this is what you progress to why don’t we teach it? Just like the UK we seem to have a fixation on with DR navigation and incipient spin recovery. I’m sorry but an incipient spin isn’t a real spin. Until you have been in a full spin you don’t get the appreciation for it. I did an aero’s endorsement and found this one out for myself.

I would hate to think what would happen if like the UK we started to go straight to the RHS of jets here in OZ. We can’t even train people well enough to fly single engine Cessna for money.

I've got a great idea...why not have a Basic CPL that allows you to build experience and earn from it and then when (if?) you want to go on to more steely eyed planes you upgrade to a CPL...hmmm sounds familiar...

I would agree to some extent with the comments - I encountered spin training right at the end of my CPL training as a few jollies and found it enlighteneing, rewarding and it enhanced the theory that until then was just 'this is how an aerofoil works'.

However, I can also see it from the regulatory authorities' viewpoint; studies in the US in the late '70s discovered more deaths (not just accidents) of low hour pilots were attributed to an over confidence in the 'upset' flight envelope. Thus the emphasis on just avoiding the scenario came into play.

Training for unusual/unnecessary(!) attitudes is a good compromise, because it is these that usually lead to spins, especially at base to final turn with a windshear risk. These were the primary findings of these studies.

especially as there ain't enough air under you to be able to recover how ever much training you have had.

Old fashioned...
 

The CPL as a standalone qualification entitles the upgrading PPL holder some extra privileges. Those (limited) extra privileges should be form some part of the CPL syllabus. Of course the tolerances and standards exhibited are expected to be higher that that of lower licences. The problem is that the flight test is designed to form part of a scenario in which the graduate CPL holder would be unlikely to face without futher ratings being issued. (public transport) All to often this licence is simply a hoop along with the instument rating course that people do in order to get the fATPL. They do not in fact intend to fly single crew, or operate 6 pack display aircraft and they do not aspire to utilize the old technology that the GA fleets used for such training supply. That is why the airlines teach horses for courses in MPL. Good old fashioned stick and rudder skills have been dumbed down too much IMHO recently - let's replace stall-spin recovery with upset manoevres (oh sh1t) just knocked my coffee off my meal tray...... :rolleyes:

The system works. Leave it as it is. It is expencive enough already.
Like the PPL, the CPL is just another licence to learn!
In good time, experience prevails any training.

We could create a training system as selective a comprehensive as a military training, however the costs would skyrocket and since flight schools are in the business of making money, being super selective only works for the likes or Oxford and sponsored schemes. Just my 2 cents