TOO GOOD FOR GA?
I mean seriously the way people are treating this then RAAF pilots should not get any civilian qualifications, seriously, he was flying an F18, hawks, pc-9s, never flown the likes of a single engine piston aircraft, so he should be prevented from flying a Cessna 152 or a piper warrior. It seems this would be too difficult for an ex RAAF QFI. What if his whole plan is to operate a school specializing in fast jets?
He hasn’t been prevented from doing most forms of civilian training, he just needs to get a bit of experience and specific endorsements in those few remaining categories to get those added to his civilian licence. That’s it. He’s not being told to start flight training again from Effects of Controls.
Last edited by dr dre; 31st Aug 2023 at 11:08.
The following users liked this post:
Surely they didn’t let him loose with a G3? Oh the humanity…
And his ability to fly a 172 safely was questioned earlier in this thread, IMMSMC.
And his ability to fly a 172 safely was questioned earlier in this thread, IMMSMC.
Thanks Clare, but there is one thing:
The Part 141 operation I work for has no syllabus in their ops manual. The cops manual was written by CASA and it points to the CASA syllabus which is downloaded and printed prior to each lesson. In reality the download remains on the office computer. CASA tell us (verbally) that we need to make sure that the same version Is used and student files should not contain copies of multiple versions.This syllabus (surely you have seen it) is convoluted repetitive and very time consuming prompting "tick (number) a box and move on. The student signs each lesson as having been completed when the instructor deems the lesson complete.
I don't normally comment on things jurisdictional but I can't help but wonder if little Johnny's signature in a box on the CASA syllabus would cut it either.
That is the purpose of the syllabus which will be in the ops manual of the part 141 or 142 organisation.
if the worst should happen and we have to prove in a court of law that we covered everything, the old subjective "little Johnny did some quite good landings today" just won't cut it. Nor will instructing in the ADF.
I don't know where 200 hours has been plucked from. That isn't remotely close to accurate.
The ADF BFTS course was 60 hours - it isn't even close to a CPL standard. It's not ab-initio but they're definitely not winged qualified pilots. When it comes to things live navigation a PPL standard was substantially higher than what students had leaving BFTS. For this reason compleition of BFTS but not 2FTS did not entitle students to a PPL, let alone a CPL.
The ADF BFTS course was 60 hours - it isn't even close to a CPL standard. It's not ab-initio but they're definitely not winged qualified pilots. When it comes to things live navigation a PPL standard was substantially higher than what students had leaving BFTS. For this reason compleition of BFTS but not 2FTS did not entitle students to a PPL, let alone a CPL.
My ADF BFTS course was significantly fatter - I have 137 hours on the CT4 - that would include about 20 hours of Flight Screening and about 3 hours of remedial training - so it was definitely over 100 hours for ADF1/2/3/4 or so...
I already had a CPL - I certainly believe ADF BFTS was CPL level when I did it.
I always loved the part about CBT, where the student signs that they have received all the training required, and that they agree with what the instructor recorded. Because, of course, a new 'initial flight training' trainee is fully qualified to understand the waffle presented to them and understands completely that the instructor did not omit or miss anything important.
It really just sums up what CASA is trying (very poorly) to achieve, and that is some sort of watertight punitive system that makes it easy to prosecute anyone who breaks a rule. However the major failure is that it is so complicated that the average human would never be able to determine exactly what the rules are as they contradict on numerous occasions.
It really just sums up what CASA is trying (very poorly) to achieve, and that is some sort of watertight punitive system that makes it easy to prosecute anyone who breaks a rule. However the major failure is that it is so complicated that the average human would never be able to determine exactly what the rules are as they contradict on numerous occasions.
The following users liked this post:
I think you are referring to their dreadful sample syllabi, which note still point to the Part 61 MOS for recording the competency standards.
Sample syllabuses for flying training operators | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
A very different thing to the former Day VFR Syllabus.
CASA provide guidance and templates, which are mostly horrible things to use, but they don't write them for you.
We have a completely different system in our 141 manual which is much easier to use. If feel sorry for people who use the CASA templates because you are right they are horrible clunky things. Any school can modify them, providing you can show CASA that you have a way of achieving and recording the required competency standards.
Edited to add for 43", all our students get a hard copy of the MOS and it forms an essential part of the pre flight and debrief and it referred to so they know exactly what we mean by, for example, competency 2 in straight and level and why it is that level; so yes they do know what they are signing and what they need to prepare for, they also get to read the Flight Examiners Handbook prior to flight test, so there are no surprises and the onus is also on them to be sure that they are familiar with it all and can assess thier own progress.
Sample syllabuses for flying training operators | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
A very different thing to the former Day VFR Syllabus.
CASA provide guidance and templates, which are mostly horrible things to use, but they don't write them for you.
We have a completely different system in our 141 manual which is much easier to use. If feel sorry for people who use the CASA templates because you are right they are horrible clunky things. Any school can modify them, providing you can show CASA that you have a way of achieving and recording the required competency standards.
Edited to add for 43", all our students get a hard copy of the MOS and it forms an essential part of the pre flight and debrief and it referred to so they know exactly what we mean by, for example, competency 2 in straight and level and why it is that level; so yes they do know what they are signing and what they need to prepare for, they also get to read the Flight Examiners Handbook prior to flight test, so there are no surprises and the onus is also on them to be sure that they are familiar with it all and can assess thier own progress.
The following users liked this post:
I think you are referring to their dreadful sample syllabi, which note still point to the Part 61 MOS for recording the competency standards.
Sample syllabuses for flying training operators | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
A very different thing to the former Day VFR Syllabus.
CASA provide guidance and templates, which are mostly horrible things to use, but they don't write them for you.
We have a completely different system in our 141 manual which is much easier to use. If feel sorry for people who use the CASA templates because you are right they are horrible clunky things. Any school can modify them, providing you can show CASA that you have a way of achieving and recording the required competency standards.
Edited to add for 43", all our students get a hard copy of the MOS and it forms an essential part of the pre flight and debrief and it referred to so they know exactly what we mean by, for example, competency 2 in straight and level and why it is that level; so yes they do know what they are signing and what they need to prepare for, they also get to read the Flight Examiners Handbook prior to flight test, so there are no surprises and the onus is also on them to be sure that they are familiar with it all and can assess thier own progress.
Sample syllabuses for flying training operators | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
A very different thing to the former Day VFR Syllabus.
CASA provide guidance and templates, which are mostly horrible things to use, but they don't write them for you.
We have a completely different system in our 141 manual which is much easier to use. If feel sorry for people who use the CASA templates because you are right they are horrible clunky things. Any school can modify them, providing you can show CASA that you have a way of achieving and recording the required competency standards.
Edited to add for 43", all our students get a hard copy of the MOS and it forms an essential part of the pre flight and debrief and it referred to so they know exactly what we mean by, for example, competency 2 in straight and level and why it is that level; so yes they do know what they are signing and what they need to prepare for, they also get to read the Flight Examiners Handbook prior to flight test, so there are no surprises and the onus is also on them to be sure that they are familiar with it all and can assess thier own progress.
The following users liked this post:
DRE
Two issues here.
1. I have never commented on any other aspect of his submissions, just the Grade 1 certification.
2. All RAAF QFIs in the transport world, did the CFS instructor course, and usually (but not always time at 1FTS or 2 FTS) before returning to their squadron to do training on that platform, eg Hercs, Caribous, 707s etc.
I don't know what you are smoking, but I simply don't understand this pre occupation of yours to think that a civilian airline TRI could or should train in the RAAF world.
To become a TRI in the civilian airlines you have to be a line pilot, keep out of **** with management, maybe do an interview for the job, then do a bit of sim training then you are let loose.
I am all for your TRIs teaching in the RAAF, just let them pass a wings pilots course first, then pass CFS QFIs course.
For one of the endorsements he sought, the FIR-MCP for multi crew training an airline TRI/TRE would have far more relevant experience of training in multi crew operations on aircraft that actually require 2 pilots over a RAAF QFI, yet I don’t believe they are granted the endorsement to train for the Multi crew co-operation course with their TRI/TRE qualification (happy to be corrected if wrong).
1. I have never commented on any other aspect of his submissions, just the Grade 1 certification.
2. All RAAF QFIs in the transport world, did the CFS instructor course, and usually (but not always time at 1FTS or 2 FTS) before returning to their squadron to do training on that platform, eg Hercs, Caribous, 707s etc.
I don't know what you are smoking, but I simply don't understand this pre occupation of yours to think that a civilian airline TRI could or should train in the RAAF world.
To become a TRI in the civilian airlines you have to be a line pilot, keep out of **** with management, maybe do an interview for the job, then do a bit of sim training then you are let loose.
I am all for your TRIs teaching in the RAAF, just let them pass a wings pilots course first, then pass CFS QFIs course.
The following users liked this post:
Trying to claim MEAI, with asymmetric experience in an FA18.
mmm, think I might claim an A330 type rating with experience in the BE76.
Just to make a point of course.
mmm, think I might claim an A330 type rating with experience in the BE76.
Just to make a point of course.
The AAT said this at para 5 of its reasons:
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, CASA conceded that a number of the authorisations sought by the Applicant should be granted and the Applicant advised that he no longer pursued certain authorisations.
And a CT-4 vs C152 comparison would be more like V8 Supercar vs Kia Rio - both have piston engines and 4 wheels, but are designed for completely different purposes and, for that reason, are completely different to drive (in many ways the CT-4 is easier). Chalk and cheese. Just to make a point of course.
Could an airline TRI do the type rating training for an equivalent RAAF 330, 737 or Falcon 7X pilot? Yes, in fact a lot of current RAAF pilots were trained and do their checks in civilian airline C&T systems.
To become a TRI in the civilian airlines you have to be a line pilot, keep out of **** with management, maybe do an interview for the job, then do a bit of sim training then you are let loose.
I am all for your TRIs teaching in the RAAF, just let them pass a wings pilots course first, then pass CFS QFIs course.
Last edited by dr dre; 1st Sep 2023 at 00:40.
The following users liked this post:
Pretty sure it would get treated in court as TLDR, the same as any contract of sale that is the same. Any contract thats more than a few pages long and its considered too long for an average human to comprehend. Unless you specifically explained each item explicitly. "Sir they gave me a heap of books, but never told me how to read them, its all in weird jargon".
Taking the Little Johnny example, if neither he nor the instructor are aware that this is what is actually meant by "competent in land aeroplane" ie when he can consistently do all of the things in this unit then you are right the student records become meaningless and belive me I get some meaningless tick.n.flick student records forwarded to me often and wonder what on earth the HOOs are doing.
So on pre flight brief say "this is what you will need to be able to demonstrate to me and to the examiner to be deemed competent" then everyone knows what is expected.
So if LJ lands well but is consistently outside the +/- 2m of the centreline, or slams on the brakes, or forgets to put his flaps up before taxi, he will not be competency 1 and the record should match the debrief in explaining why so that he knows what to work on next time.
It's a worry that there are instructors who are unaware of this. eg when a certain school churns out another lot and they come knocking on my door with their halloween pilot costume and resume, I ask how they would deem someone competent in say recovery from unusual attitudes and get the blank stare and then the most annoying phrase an examiner gets: "My instructor told me..." ie they have had the subjective method of instructing that doesn't belong in modern training systems and it's a disgrace that flying schools are still churning out new instructors this way.
I don't consider this example weird jargon or too difficult for an average human to comprehend. A flying instructor and student should certainly be able to comprehend it or they really have no place in the flying training industry.
The following users liked this post:
It's a worry that there are instructors who are unaware of this. eg when a certain school churns out another lot and they come knocking on my door with their halloween pilot costume and resume, I ask how they would deem someone competent in say recovery from unusual attitudes and get the blank stare and then the most annoying phrase an examiner gets: "My instructor told me..." ie they have had the subjective method of instructing that doesn't belong in modern training systems and it's a disgrace that flying schools are still churning out new instructors this way.
Within flying schools at least, common sense is becoming less common. And mountains of CASA regs and requirements isn't helping.
I wasn't commenting on whether instructors would know this stuff, rather aspiring PPLs will not give a stuff about it and just want to learn how to fly, 44 pages is a decent read for anyone that's not very academic in nature. If one of them came to grief post training, or during training the court system will not really care for the signed documents as the trainer can not put the onus on a trainee to learn something that they have contracted the trainer to teach them, ie you have not signed up for a self education course when learning to fly. In almost all situations, it's the trainer and checkers responsibility to ensure the standard is met, both in training and on check day. Where it gets tricky is when a student comes to grief and is seriously injured or dies and the family sues the flight school for compensation, at this point it will be scrutinized as to whether the student was competent to be conducting that solo exercise, signed documents will only go so far, but will provide some insight into the schools process. Now in the states some public cases have gone through where student pilots have tried to sue the instructor for damages post an accident. Usually the court will rule on the outcome of the accident, that is, if they successfully employed some technique or procedure and survived the trainer/checker are absolved.
The purpose of signed documents in flight training is more that the student has read and accepts the outcome of the particular lesson. Then if it's disputed later if the student over runs hours the school can go back and say, 'on several occasions you were told you needed to improve xxxx, and you put in little effort, so your progression was hampered by your own attitude'. If you went back and all the documents showed progress with no notes as to why sequences were repeated, you could be in for some refunds...
Performance criteria for a sequence should be briefed prior to the flight, hence the old Aim/Objectives of a mass/pre-flight brief. It should be clearly spelled out at that point and discussed as to what you are trying to achieve and to what standard is required to pass. This should be covered for all sequences of training. If instructors are not adequately briefing students pre-flight then I can understand now why average solo times are ballooning to 10-20 hours.
I agree that a student should have access to the MOS, and standards by which they will be assessed, but this does not mean the onus is passed from the instructor to the student somehow being able to interpret these documents. And most importantly the MOS does not give an instructor the techniques to be applied, just what are the units to assess competency.
The purpose of signed documents in flight training is more that the student has read and accepts the outcome of the particular lesson. Then if it's disputed later if the student over runs hours the school can go back and say, 'on several occasions you were told you needed to improve xxxx, and you put in little effort, so your progression was hampered by your own attitude'. If you went back and all the documents showed progress with no notes as to why sequences were repeated, you could be in for some refunds...
Taking the Little Johnny example, if neither he nor the instructor are aware that this is what is actually meant by "competent in land aeroplane" ie when he can consistently do all of the things in this unit then you are right the student records become meaningless and belive me I get some meaningless tick.n.flick student records forwarded to me often and wonder what on earth the HOOs are doing.
I agree that a student should have access to the MOS, and standards by which they will be assessed, but this does not mean the onus is passed from the instructor to the student somehow being able to interpret these documents. And most importantly the MOS does not give an instructor the techniques to be applied, just what are the units to assess competency.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Sep 2023 at 02:08.
I don't expect to ever fly in Australia and certainly do not expect to ever instruct there. However, I have found the discussion quite interesting. The most recently posted gem leaves me wondering about the competence of those who write Australian rules and procedures:
"(a) Maintain a constant landing position aim point"
I have taught aim point technique to primary students and introduced the concept to rated pilots who have never heard of it.
Fundamental to aim point technique is that the aim point is NOT the landing position. Unless there is no flare the aircraft will always land past the aim point. The aim point must be selected making allowance for the flare if the touchdown is to be at the intended spot.
"(a) Maintain a constant landing position aim point"
I have taught aim point technique to primary students and introduced the concept to rated pilots who have never heard of it.
Fundamental to aim point technique is that the aim point is NOT the landing position. Unless there is no flare the aircraft will always land past the aim point. The aim point must be selected making allowance for the flare if the touchdown is to be at the intended spot.
DRE-
Can you please name one? and which base? and just to confirm, these civilian TRIs were not ex RAAF?
Like I said you may want to do your research better as plenty of civilian TRIs are teaching RAAF pilots how to fly equivalent types.
I don't expect to ever fly in Australia and certainly do not expect to ever instruct there. However, I have found the discussion quite interesting. The most recently posted gem leaves me wondering about the competence of those who write Australian rules and procedures:
"(a) Maintain a constant landing position aim point"
I have taught aim point technique to primary students and introduced the concept to rated pilots who have never heard of it.
Fundamental to aim point technique is that the aim point is NOT the landing position. Unless there is no flare the aircraft will always land past the aim point. The aim point must be selected making allowance for the flare if the touchdown is to be at the intended spot.
"(a) Maintain a constant landing position aim point"
I have taught aim point technique to primary students and introduced the concept to rated pilots who have never heard of it.
Fundamental to aim point technique is that the aim point is NOT the landing position. Unless there is no flare the aircraft will always land past the aim point. The aim point must be selected making allowance for the flare if the touchdown is to be at the intended spot.
Absolutely right 43" on post 323, and all the more reason why they need to know what the standard is. We refer to the units of competency pre and post flight when debriefing so we all know exactly what is expected and what they are signing. I'm university educated so I tend to reference everything, we both know how much hearsay and old wives tales abound in this industry and I am absolutely a pedant.
It's really not too much to expect them to do a bit of homework and have some curiosity and interest in their own progress, or to say "I would like to do a bit more work on my steep turns" etc. It's a two way street in adult education. But the signed document is evidence in the worst case scenario if they say eg "You never taught LJ how to do a missed approach"! you do have some comeback.
How often has that happened? AFAIK never, in Australia but the MOS is the book they will throw at you if it does.
There was this case in Scotland in 2002, which makes interesting reading, including how the family tried to apply shariah law in a Scottish court.... MOHAMMED ALI SHAHER AND OTHERS v. BRITISH AEROSPACE FLYING COLLEGE LIMITED (scotcourts.gov.uk)
and the Pprune thread at the time UK Court finds Instructor negligent in fatal training accident. - PPRuNe Forums
It's really not too much to expect them to do a bit of homework and have some curiosity and interest in their own progress, or to say "I would like to do a bit more work on my steep turns" etc. It's a two way street in adult education. But the signed document is evidence in the worst case scenario if they say eg "You never taught LJ how to do a missed approach"! you do have some comeback.
How often has that happened? AFAIK never, in Australia but the MOS is the book they will throw at you if it does.
There was this case in Scotland in 2002, which makes interesting reading, including how the family tried to apply shariah law in a Scottish court.... MOHAMMED ALI SHAHER AND OTHERS v. BRITISH AEROSPACE FLYING COLLEGE LIMITED (scotcourts.gov.uk)
and the Pprune thread at the time UK Court finds Instructor negligent in fatal training accident. - PPRuNe Forums