RAA
Competence
Interesting debate largely centred around what hours can count.
It is obvious that the existing regs don't make it clear and it appears that even CASA can't make its mind up with various interpretations at various times.
Isn't the easy answer to make it all about competence? Sure there needs to be minimum number of hours of aeronatutical experience, but everyone agrees that the regs allow those hours to be accumulated in a glider or rotorcraft. Possibly because those were the main forms of "alternative" flying when the regs were written.
A simple and sensible solution would be to use the flight tests as the competency "gateway". Beef up the flight tests if necessary but if your prior training and aeronautical experience is up to it (wherever and however gained), you will be able to demonstrate all of the required competencies.
All logical views appreciated (including contra ones).
PJ
It is obvious that the existing regs don't make it clear and it appears that even CASA can't make its mind up with various interpretations at various times.
Isn't the easy answer to make it all about competence? Sure there needs to be minimum number of hours of aeronatutical experience, but everyone agrees that the regs allow those hours to be accumulated in a glider or rotorcraft. Possibly because those were the main forms of "alternative" flying when the regs were written.
A simple and sensible solution would be to use the flight tests as the competency "gateway". Beef up the flight tests if necessary but if your prior training and aeronautical experience is up to it (wherever and however gained), you will be able to demonstrate all of the required competencies.
All logical views appreciated (including contra ones).
PJ
Propjet88,
Indeed, in theory at least, all our aviation training standards are "competency based" as of right now.
But, as always, old shibboleths are hard to shake, ICAO doesn't help much, nor does the FAA etc., and minimum flight hours "fly in the face" of the whole idea of competency based standards.
Which make it even sillier, that hours on a VH- Jabiru can be counted to a CPL, but not on the same aircraft, on the RAOz register.
Tootle pip!!
Indeed, in theory at least, all our aviation training standards are "competency based" as of right now.
But, as always, old shibboleths are hard to shake, ICAO doesn't help much, nor does the FAA etc., and minimum flight hours "fly in the face" of the whole idea of competency based standards.
Which make it even sillier, that hours on a VH- Jabiru can be counted to a CPL, but not on the same aircraft, on the RAOz register.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good stick and rudder men/ women are hard to find sometimes.
Thank goodness for GFA and RAA for instilling this in their training.
Some actually do go on to fly "real aeroplanes".
Thank goodness for GFA and RAA for instilling this in their training.
Some actually do go on to fly "real aeroplanes".
That's right Frank.
Guys who understand the rules and have a thorough, deep and technical knowledge of their subject matter and a professional attitude are hard to find sometimes.
Thank goodness for professional and regulated flight instruction for commercial pilots.
Some of us even go back to Aero Clubs and fly "Fun aeroplanes" to try to show them what airmanship is all about
..It's a tough job, especially since most of them have been taught by PPL holders with a grudge and a chip on their shoulder.
...and before you come back at me have a little think about your equally stupid generalisations
Thank goodness for professional and regulated flight instruction for commercial pilots.
Some of us even go back to Aero Clubs and fly "Fun aeroplanes" to try to show them what airmanship is all about
..It's a tough job, especially since most of them have been taught by PPL holders with a grudge and a chip on their shoulder.
...and before you come back at me have a little think about your equally stupid generalisations
In search of competence
Hello there Leadsled,
You are on the money. Competence should be nothing to do with hours, but it is unlikely that industry is ready for complete removal of min specified hours just yet. I can only imagine the arguments.
The problem is that while CASA has made a fair first attempt at defining flight competencies, these are not, by any means, flly developed.
In the area of technical (handling) skills there is much confusion surrounding demonstrating competence. Defining VFR competencies as, for example, holding VApp -0/+10 kts, or achieving touchdown +/- so many feet / (metres?) from the centreline is wrong. Even more confusing is that these metrics differ for CPL and PPL. The achievement of technical competence may be evidenced by being able to achieve these numbers, but just achieving this numbers does not always indicate competence.
It gets more difficult in the area of so called "non - technical skills" (bad term) such as airmanship and situiational awareness. These competencies are not well defined at all - nor frankly are they well understood. It is only when we carefully analyse and break down such skills, can we hope to try to teach / encourage / engender them. "I know good airmanship when I see it" is not good enough for instructors.
The upcoming pilot shortage, that has been lying dormant for a couple of years due to the GFC, will soon be on us with a vengeance. If we are to maintain (and hopefully improve) standards we must focus on the true competencies needed in professional pilots rather than arguing about whether numbers or letters are painted on the side of the training aircraft.
Gone are the days when we will have the luxury of saying (or perhaps thinking):
"We can teach you to push and pull the aircraft but don't really know how to teach what else you need to be a professional pilot. But if you do 150 hours we will give you a CPL,then you can go and fly in PNG or the bush for a couple of years and if you come back, whatever it is - you will have picked it up"! (Sorry to be cynical, but I hear this type of stuff regularly).
A couple of summary points for consideration:
Competence can be obtained by "experiential learning" but this is an inefficient, rocky and dangerous path. Whether letters or
numbers are painted on the side of the aircraft has little effect on this pathway.
Competence is most efficiently and safely attained and retained by effective teaching. If there is any hope of maintaining standards (never mind improving them) during the upcoming pilot shortage, we must get the best minds together and start properly defining the full range of professional competencies and developing the best ways to teach these. Whether letters or numbers are painted on the side of the aircraft (or simulators) has little effect on this pathway either.
As always, completely open to reasoned discussion.
Best wishes
PJ
You are on the money. Competence should be nothing to do with hours, but it is unlikely that industry is ready for complete removal of min specified hours just yet. I can only imagine the arguments.
The problem is that while CASA has made a fair first attempt at defining flight competencies, these are not, by any means, flly developed.
In the area of technical (handling) skills there is much confusion surrounding demonstrating competence. Defining VFR competencies as, for example, holding VApp -0/+10 kts, or achieving touchdown +/- so many feet / (metres?) from the centreline is wrong. Even more confusing is that these metrics differ for CPL and PPL. The achievement of technical competence may be evidenced by being able to achieve these numbers, but just achieving this numbers does not always indicate competence.
It gets more difficult in the area of so called "non - technical skills" (bad term) such as airmanship and situiational awareness. These competencies are not well defined at all - nor frankly are they well understood. It is only when we carefully analyse and break down such skills, can we hope to try to teach / encourage / engender them. "I know good airmanship when I see it" is not good enough for instructors.
The upcoming pilot shortage, that has been lying dormant for a couple of years due to the GFC, will soon be on us with a vengeance. If we are to maintain (and hopefully improve) standards we must focus on the true competencies needed in professional pilots rather than arguing about whether numbers or letters are painted on the side of the training aircraft.
Gone are the days when we will have the luxury of saying (or perhaps thinking):
"We can teach you to push and pull the aircraft but don't really know how to teach what else you need to be a professional pilot. But if you do 150 hours we will give you a CPL,then you can go and fly in PNG or the bush for a couple of years and if you come back, whatever it is - you will have picked it up"! (Sorry to be cynical, but I hear this type of stuff regularly).
A couple of summary points for consideration:
Competence can be obtained by "experiential learning" but this is an inefficient, rocky and dangerous path. Whether letters or
numbers are painted on the side of the aircraft has little effect on this pathway.
Competence is most efficiently and safely attained and retained by effective teaching. If there is any hope of maintaining standards (never mind improving them) during the upcoming pilot shortage, we must get the best minds together and start properly defining the full range of professional competencies and developing the best ways to teach these. Whether letters or numbers are painted on the side of the aircraft (or simulators) has little effect on this pathway either.
As always, completely open to reasoned discussion.
Best wishes
PJ
Last edited by Propjet88; 25th Mar 2010 at 09:41.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 60
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interestingly, the single most important flight in any pilots log book is competency based!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio Leafblower;
And you obviosly don't!
So a dyslexic can't be a good stick and rudder man because he can't fathom the innards of a radio?
Your "elitist" crap is part of the problem, not the solution.
most of them have been taught by PPL holders with a grudge and a chip on their shoulder
thorough, deep and technical knowledge of their subject matter
Your "elitist" crap is part of the problem, not the solution.
No mate you just don' get it.
You said:
This is a stupid statement which I simply matched with equally stupid statements.
Was Col Pay a good Stick & Rudder man? Chuck Yeager? Bob Hoover? Scott Crossfield?
...did any of them learn in RAAus or in GFA gliders?
The RAAus training syllabus places no greater emphasis on stick & rudder skills than the GA syllabus.
There is good and bad in both school groups; there are good and bad instructors in GA and in RAAus; there are some students with more aptitude than others in both GA and RAAus.
With 800 hours of RAAus instruction under my belt and having conducted over 40 Pilot Certificate tests I would say no, I have no grudge or chip, but I have a good understanding of both RAAus and GA instruction.
How many hours do you have as an instructor, Frank? The attitude you display with your sweeping generalisations about GA pilots flying skills would indicate that YOU have the chip on your shoulder.
Good stick and rudder men/ women are hard to find sometimes.
Thank goodness for GFA and RAA for instilling this in their training.
Thank goodness for GFA and RAA for instilling this in their training.
Was Col Pay a good Stick & Rudder man? Chuck Yeager? Bob Hoover? Scott Crossfield?
...did any of them learn in RAAus or in GFA gliders?
The RAAus training syllabus places no greater emphasis on stick & rudder skills than the GA syllabus.
There is good and bad in both school groups; there are good and bad instructors in GA and in RAAus; there are some students with more aptitude than others in both GA and RAAus.
With 800 hours of RAAus instruction under my belt and having conducted over 40 Pilot Certificate tests I would say no, I have no grudge or chip, but I have a good understanding of both RAAus and GA instruction.
How many hours do you have as an instructor, Frank? The attitude you display with your sweeping generalisations about GA pilots flying skills would indicate that YOU have the chip on your shoulder.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did any of them learn in RAAus or in GFA gliders?
I've had a PPL since 1965. (Never instructed), but like you, have seen the good and bad. I have moved to recreational flying because of the insanity rife in GA. Seen the cons, witnessed corruption, watched the industry just about regulated out of existence, paid the financial costs and lived in the real world.
I'm sick of the aviation "pecking order" in this country, so I'm sorry if I offended your ego. I'm sure you'll get over it.
Does a 40Kt ragwing open cockpit ultralight pilot really need to know how to do a 1:60 when he only needs some basic mapreading skills to get where he's going. Has he been badly taught when you consider the agility he would need to carry out such a task in the open cockpit? Something that would bring into question safety issues. Is he therefor an inferior pilot?
If you have 800 hours instructing RAA and you see it so bad, why don't you try to make change from within?
Or have you already tried that?
Where did I say that I saw RAAus as being bad? 
I think RAAus is fantastic - it can be awesome fun and offers freedoms that the GA system cannot.
All the tripe (above) about counting RAAus hours towards CPL (or not) is an argument about legal interpretation, not the quality (or otherwise) of RAAus output.
The fact that CASA does not monitor, administer, surveil, check or vouch for the quality of RAAus school output does not mean for a second that RAAus schools cannot exceed CASA requirements - we both know many RAAus schools do so.
However, I have also seen in the RAAus system something I hesitate to call "corruption" - let's call it a lack of rigour. For example, as an Aero Club CP/CFI I was put into a position where I was forced to report the (PPL qualified, not RAAus, not an instructor) Club president to CASA and RAAus for a long list of Reg breaches - sly charter, back yard ultralight instruction, Low flying to name a few.
I lost my job, and RAAus not only made him an instructor - he is now the RAAus Senior Instructor for the Club.
Now I see that operation doing stupid, dangerous stuff all the time because the instructional staff are PPLs who have never worked under the supervision of a wise old head and haven't had their self-discipline developed over an apprenticeship period.
They have risen up through a Club situation where they are now the "ranking pilots" and everyone, including them, believes that they now know everything.
I think I remember my late Dad telling me "The biggest turds always float to the top, son..."
You may ask why I will not report them again: that's because following my "confidential report" from the last episode a CASA officer disclosed my identity to the person in question.
Confidential my arse.
I think RAAus is fantastic - it can be awesome fun and offers freedoms that the GA system cannot.
All the tripe (above) about counting RAAus hours towards CPL (or not) is an argument about legal interpretation, not the quality (or otherwise) of RAAus output.
The fact that CASA does not monitor, administer, surveil, check or vouch for the quality of RAAus school output does not mean for a second that RAAus schools cannot exceed CASA requirements - we both know many RAAus schools do so.
However, I have also seen in the RAAus system something I hesitate to call "corruption" - let's call it a lack of rigour. For example, as an Aero Club CP/CFI I was put into a position where I was forced to report the (PPL qualified, not RAAus, not an instructor) Club president to CASA and RAAus for a long list of Reg breaches - sly charter, back yard ultralight instruction, Low flying to name a few.
I lost my job, and RAAus not only made him an instructor - he is now the RAAus Senior Instructor for the Club.
Now I see that operation doing stupid, dangerous stuff all the time because the instructional staff are PPLs who have never worked under the supervision of a wise old head and haven't had their self-discipline developed over an apprenticeship period.
They have risen up through a Club situation where they are now the "ranking pilots"
and everyone, including them, believes that they now know everything. I think I remember my late Dad telling me "The biggest turds always float to the top, son..."
You may ask why I will not report them again: that's because following my "confidential report" from the last episode a CASA officer disclosed my identity to the person in question.
Confidential my arse.
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 25th Mar 2010 at 07:15. Reason: Felt like having a rant
Interesting point Propjet88. [thread drift] forget about hours in what type...standardise the instructor! A CFI must have a competency certificate from the CASA run school of instructing. Once certified this individual may teach individual students or run a school as the CFI without the need for an AOC...The chief instructor's certificate is the AOC. DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY!
If the school requires a CFI, whether GFA, RAA or GA they gotta have a certificate from the CASA as passing to the CASA standard. Only then will we get rid of the short cuts and BS....If a product fails scrutiny down the track, its all filed away under the CFIs dossier. To many of the same thing going wrong and lets come in for a cup of tea, shall we.[/thread drift]
If the school requires a CFI, whether GFA, RAA or GA they gotta have a certificate from the CASA as passing to the CASA standard. Only then will we get rid of the short cuts and BS....If a product fails scrutiny down the track, its all filed away under the CFIs dossier. To many of the same thing going wrong and lets come in for a cup of tea, shall we.[/thread drift]
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio Leafblower;
We do have some common ground then, but I'm still sick of the "aviation pecking order"
Apologies for not knowing your particular situation. Sounds like a job for The Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Was it CASA that breached your confidentiality? CAIR matters should go to CASA de-identified. Or so I was lead to believe.
We do have some common ground then, but I'm still sick of the "aviation pecking order"
Apologies for not knowing your particular situation.
Sounds like a job for The Commonwealth Ombudsman. Was it CASA that breached your confidentiality? CAIR matters should go to CASA de-identified. Or so I was lead to believe.
Folks,
Fortunately, the "old" CASA confidential reporting system is long gone, and good a bloody good thing, the system was a hazard to air safety, not a benefit. It was a system for backstabbing and malcontents to "get even". It was a perversion of a "proper" confidential scheme, as you find in US or UK.
The new system is run by ATSB, under a very tight legislative leash, with serious penalties for any person breaching the confidentiality rules. Still not as good as the US or UK, but very close, let's hope it makes an actual contribution to airsafety.
It WILL NOT BE just another source of "evidence" for CASA Compliance and Enforcement.
Tootle pip!!
Fortunately, the "old" CASA confidential reporting system is long gone, and good a bloody good thing, the system was a hazard to air safety, not a benefit. It was a system for backstabbing and malcontents to "get even". It was a perversion of a "proper" confidential scheme, as you find in US or UK.
The new system is run by ATSB, under a very tight legislative leash, with serious penalties for any person breaching the confidentiality rules. Still not as good as the US or UK, but very close, let's hope it makes an actual contribution to airsafety.
It WILL NOT BE just another source of "evidence" for CASA Compliance and Enforcement.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Just skimmimg the pages, but the general idea is, GA vs RAA. How many PPL holders that work 40+ hours a week painting and building etc. (e.g every day people) can afford to pay over $200/ hr + landing fees and all the other BS........ These guys can go and hire a RAA aircraft for $140/hr, it cruises at 120kts, with fuel tanks and his mate, and not have to worry about the BS that goes on at Flying schools anymore. 1. He saves over $60 per hour.... Second, I know of at least 1 school, RAA based, that is embrasing systems like the safety management system, and the DAMP. This school may be dealing within the GA market, but they choose to run with these 'ideas', because thay work.
Fact is, like it or not, RAA is here to stay, we just need all the operators, to come in line, and make it a bit more professional.
Just skimmimg the pages, but the general idea is, GA vs RAA. How many PPL holders that work 40+ hours a week painting and building etc. (e.g every day people) can afford to pay over $200/ hr + landing fees and all the other BS........ These guys can go and hire a RAA aircraft for $140/hr, it cruises at 120kts, with fuel tanks and his mate, and not have to worry about the BS that goes on at Flying schools anymore. 1. He saves over $60 per hour.... Second, I know of at least 1 school, RAA based, that is embrasing systems like the safety management system, and the DAMP. This school may be dealing within the GA market, but they choose to run with these 'ideas', because thay work.
Fact is, like it or not, RAA is here to stay, we just need all the operators, to come in line, and make it a bit more professional.
PropJet 88,
You'r spot on, particularly the need for much further development of the description of the competencies. Indeed, the early attempts were really quite funny.
If you were flying any tail-dragger, "clearing the nose" would have been a fail, because of "unacceptable heading deviations during taxi". Likewise, turning into wind to do a run-up would also have been a failure --- to remain aligned with the taxiway --- and so it went on.
I have serious reservations about GA "experience" for brand new pilots (CPLs), all too often it is XXX hours of consolidation of errors, training shortcomings and misconception and surviving intact ( or not, as the case may be)--- ergo that must be the way it's done.
My experience in hiring low time pilots is that those whose first job was as an instructor are far more likely to meet the stick and rudder standards and other general standards I want to see. Not only have they had the extra time doing the initial rating, but their own shortcomings will be magnified in their student ---- It's a good CFI's job to fix both to instructor and the student.
That may sound a bit tough on the student, but that's how it has been for years, and is not about to change.
Tootle pip!!
You'r spot on, particularly the need for much further development of the description of the competencies. Indeed, the early attempts were really quite funny.
If you were flying any tail-dragger, "clearing the nose" would have been a fail, because of "unacceptable heading deviations during taxi". Likewise, turning into wind to do a run-up would also have been a failure --- to remain aligned with the taxiway --- and so it went on.
I have serious reservations about GA "experience" for brand new pilots (CPLs), all too often it is XXX hours of consolidation of errors, training shortcomings and misconception and surviving intact ( or not, as the case may be)--- ergo that must be the way it's done.
My experience in hiring low time pilots is that those whose first job was as an instructor are far more likely to meet the stick and rudder standards and other general standards I want to see. Not only have they had the extra time doing the initial rating, but their own shortcomings will be magnified in their student ---- It's a good CFI's job to fix both to instructor and the student.
That may sound a bit tough on the student, but that's how it has been for years, and is not about to change.
Tootle pip!!
----whether GFA, RAA or GA they gotta have a certificate from the CASA
As a matter of interest, the GFA Instructor Course is being looked at very as the basis for heavy revisions to the CASA GA Instructor program.
In particular, the GFA approach to "teaching to teach" is about half the (ground school) course --- In other words, instruction in the theories and practices of Adult Education ---- Completely missing from the CASA course.
Sadly, a CASA Instructor Rating course is all too often a remedial flying training course for the candidate.
Tootle pip!!
In other words, instruction in the theories and practices of Adult Education ---- Completely missing from the CASA course.
Well bugger me - I spent all that time studying for nothing?
Oh hang on - here's the CAO reference:
CAO 40.1.7 Flight Instructor Ratings
4.1 An applicant for the issue of a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating grade 3 must:
(a) in accordance with paragraph 4.1A, have completed a course of flight
instruction that is conducted in accordance with the outline in Appendix I,
at a flying school that has the approval to conduct instructor training
endorsed on its AOC; and
(b) have completed a course of instruction in instructional principles and
methods of at least 12 classroom hours in accordance with the syllabus
specified in Appendix I; and...
(a) in accordance with paragraph 4.1A, have completed a course of flight
instruction that is conducted in accordance with the outline in Appendix I,
at a flying school that has the approval to conduct instructor training
endorsed on its AOC; and
(b) have completed a course of instruction in instructional principles and
methods of at least 12 classroom hours in accordance with the syllabus
specified in Appendix I; and...
2 Grade 3 ratings — theoretical and air training
2.1 For clarity, the syllabus is divided into theoretical and air training, although in
practice the 2 areas are interrelated and complementary. Theoretical training is
oriented towards providing the junior instructor with a knowledge of
elementary learning processes and the practical aspects of instructional
principles. In addition to the 12 hour ground training course, additional
experience in the conduct of pre-flight and post-flight briefings is to be
acquired by the trainee instructor for each of the airborne sequences in the
syllabus.
2.2 Theoretical training. A course of at least 12 hours’ duration in instructional
principles and methods is to include the following topics:
• Learning theory
− definition of learning
− perception
: types of perception
: factors affecting perception
− transfer (positive and negative)
− motivation (positive and negative)
− factors which aid and hinder the learning process
• Instructional techniques
− effective communication
− teaching methods
: lecture
: theory and skill lessons
: guided discussion
: briefing
− questioning techniques
− application of learning and teaching principles to airborne
instruction
• Aids to instruction
− types of aids
− how to use teaching aids
• Behavioural objectives
• Lesson planning
• Conducting a lesson period and pre-flight briefing
• Practice in conducting instructional periods and pre-flight briefings.
2.1 For clarity, the syllabus is divided into theoretical and air training, although in
practice the 2 areas are interrelated and complementary. Theoretical training is
oriented towards providing the junior instructor with a knowledge of
elementary learning processes and the practical aspects of instructional
principles. In addition to the 12 hour ground training course, additional
experience in the conduct of pre-flight and post-flight briefings is to be
acquired by the trainee instructor for each of the airborne sequences in the
syllabus.
2.2 Theoretical training. A course of at least 12 hours’ duration in instructional
principles and methods is to include the following topics:
• Learning theory
− definition of learning
− perception
: types of perception
: factors affecting perception
− transfer (positive and negative)
− motivation (positive and negative)
− factors which aid and hinder the learning process
• Instructional techniques
− effective communication
− teaching methods
: lecture
: theory and skill lessons
: guided discussion
: briefing
− questioning techniques
− application of learning and teaching principles to airborne
instruction
• Aids to instruction
− types of aids
− how to use teaching aids
• Behavioural objectives
• Lesson planning
• Conducting a lesson period and pre-flight briefing
• Practice in conducting instructional periods and pre-flight briefings.
Sorry Leadsled, your posts are tripe and can only be calculated to mislead readers
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that the GFA model is the best to emulate. This is the organization that has trivial exams for the A,B and C badges, all of which can be answered verbally and are on the net to memorise beforehand.
Because the GFA keeps such a tight leash on pilots, many non-instructors who don't fly cross-country (at some clubs, that's most solo pilots) don't ever get exposed to little things like airspace or an ERSA. At one club I know students are simply told 'don't fly above 4500 feet' and it is possible to get a C certificate without ever even seeing a VTC, let alone know what something like 'C LL 4500' means. There is simply no process that makes sure students know the theory.
There are some great clubs out there, and I'm sure the majority are good. However, the worst clubs turn out pilots with 5% of the theory knowledge of a GFPT student
Because the GFA keeps such a tight leash on pilots, many non-instructors who don't fly cross-country (at some clubs, that's most solo pilots) don't ever get exposed to little things like airspace or an ERSA. At one club I know students are simply told 'don't fly above 4500 feet' and it is possible to get a C certificate without ever even seeing a VTC, let alone know what something like 'C LL 4500' means. There is simply no process that makes sure students know the theory.
There are some great clubs out there, and I'm sure the majority are good. However, the worst clubs turn out pilots with 5% of the theory knowledge of a GFPT student
Folks,
My specific reference was to the GFA ground school element of instructor training.
Yes, there could be improvements, but compared to the CASA syllabus and training in practice, which in reality barely touches on "Adult Education" , the GFA model of instructor training is significantly more advanced -- to say the very least.
That glider flying is very different to powered flying, that some pilots hardly ever leave sight of the launch area etc., all has nothing to do with instructor training --- or the comments I made.
The fact remains, the training of instructors in GA, particularly "teaching to teach", is woefully lacking, and it shows.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The CAO's 12 hours of generalities is not withing a bull's roar of the GFA requirement ---- which, in themselves are being reviewed and updated.
My specific reference was to the GFA ground school element of instructor training.
Yes, there could be improvements, but compared to the CASA syllabus and training in practice, which in reality barely touches on "Adult Education" , the GFA model of instructor training is significantly more advanced -- to say the very least.
That glider flying is very different to powered flying, that some pilots hardly ever leave sight of the launch area etc., all has nothing to do with instructor training --- or the comments I made.
The fact remains, the training of instructors in GA, particularly "teaching to teach", is woefully lacking, and it shows.
Tootle pip!!
PS: The CAO's 12 hours of generalities is not withing a bull's roar of the GFA requirement ---- which, in themselves are being reviewed and updated.