issues of concern across the industry where they may exist and what "we" the RAA community can do to

[old man emu]

An apology:

 

In Post #125 I made a comment that on further reflection occurs to me to have been a personal attack on a person whom I do not know. It was wrong to make a personal attack, and that opinion has been that of a moderator who has deleted that sentence.

 

What I should have done was to attack the action, and not attribute it to any particular person.

 

Therefore, I rephrase:

 

My personal feeling is if I say anything before anything really bad happens the people involved have been in the aviation community long enough will use there influence against me to discredit the allegations.

 

This is a gutless stance for anyone to take.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[David Isaac]

OME, I am hoping that some of the more seniour RAA members will step up and show some leadership. As with most misconduct, I am not the only one that knows what's going on and it appears to have been going on for some time.

Merry Christmas Ft,

I would like to suggest that your 'situation' may be a little more common than perhaps we are all prepared to acknowledge. Your case is perhaps an example of what I was trying to get some momentum in the discussion on.

 

So without going into detail lets hypothesize on a situation that might be similar to yours in either GA or RAA.

 

1. Something of a safety matter has occurred that has caused concern to you

 

2. A number of persons have made similar observations and appear have similar concerns

 

3. For these people to know about each other's concerns some private conversation between them must have ocurred

 

4. There appears to be significant concerns of reprisals

 

5. There appears to be a concern that if reported, nothing will be done about it and the reporters will be ostracised

 

6. There is concern that even if reported anonymously, the reporters identity would be obvious

 

I would imagine that this situation and the feelings of those involved would not be unusual.

 

So collectively what suggestions can we get from the rest of us ...? How would we handle this situation?

 

 

[David Isaac]

So, getting back to the crux of it - what do people think may be issues across RAA?Using the Ferris wheel incident as an example, does anyone think that training regarding the use of ALAs is lacking, or perhaps that the responsibilities and processes to follow for ALAs aren't clearly defined? Identify a problem, come up with possible solutions!

Good question Bandit. I think there is a general lack of knowledge about ALA s in both GA and RAA. I mean how many know that you are required to have permission to land at ALAs and that it is the pilots responsibility to obtain details and to be able to ensure that he / she can conduct the flight into and out of the ALA safely?

GA and RAA pilots regularly fly into Warnervale having not phoned ahead to obtain permissions and check on strip condition. So who would be responsible if on arrival the pilot discovered that a displaced threshold due runway work meant he could not safely land there? Well the pilot would be of course because he did not gain permission and in not doing so he was denied operational information which he is legally responsible for obtaining in order to operate his flight in safety. There are no NOTAMs for ALAs!

 

Then again is a flight training facility responsible for the actions of one of its students once the student has achieved his / her license or certificate? Is a driver training school responsible for the actions of a car driver once they have passed the test? What responsibility does a pilot have to continue his / her knowledge base? Having passed the license / certificate test, how do you assess how well a student was trained and how much of what they were trained has been lost or not retained by the pilot?

 

All hard questions, the sooner we learn we are primarily responsible for our safety, maybe we will become more thorough in our study, flight reviews, type endorsements, look out and inquiry.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Now that we mention airports, does anyone know what the latest is with Warnervale & Belmont Airports?

We, the Central Coast Aero Club, have been formally advised by Wyong Council that Warnervale will close. We anticipate within five years.

The Central Coast Aero Club has made an offer to Mirvac to purchase Belmont. Time will tell how and when this pans out.

 

Warnervale is definitely closing and Belmont is currently protected for future aircraft use by Lake MacQuaries Council who insists that Belmont will remain as an airport.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Then again is a flight training facility responsible for the actions of one of its students once the student has achieved his / her license or certificate? Is a driver training school responsible for the actions of a car driver once they have passed the test? What responsibility does a pilot have to continue his / her knowledge base? Having passed the license / certificate test, how do you assess how well a student was trained and how much of what they were trained has been lost or not retained by the pilot?

Q1

 

If the CFI signs the trainee off as having satisfactory skills to hold a Certificate, he would be responsible where a lack of training was very obvious. For example not knowing reasonably correct radio procedures.

 

Q2

 

Different story because the driver training school hands the student over to a government organization for a test.

 

Q3

 

Total responsibility. After a period away from flying, usually due to cost, a pilot should not go near an aircraft without going up with an instructor for long enough that he/she knows he/she has been pushed to the point where all control skills and procedures are occurring without any hesitation. Some of the blood curdling stories here and elsewhere indicate this is one of the danger points. It's irresponsible just to hope the instructor will let you off with just half an hour's expense. Recency can be lost with just two or three weeks away from the aircraft.

 

Q4

 

I'm in favour of annual testing by unrelated parties. reading the stories on this and other sites it becomes very obvious that there are pockets in Australia where CFI's just don't have it, or don't care.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Q1If the CFI sins the trainee off as having satisfactory skills to hold a Certificate, .

Sorry Turbo, I just couldn't he'p m'sef... "If the CFI sins...." What the???

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hilarious, maybe it was a freudian slip ... LOL

 

 

[turboplanner]

Stop picking on me, I had to leave school at the age of 27 to help out on the farm, and it's Christmas Day!

 

 

[poteroo]

Q1If the CFI signs the trainee off as having satisfactory skills to hold a Certificate, he would be responsible where a lack of training was very obvious. For example not knowing reasonably correct radio procedures.

Q2

 

Different story because the driver training school hands the student over to a government organization for a test.

 

Q3

 

Total responsibility. After a period away from flying, usually due to cost, a pilot should not go near an aircraft without going up with an instructor for long enough that he/she knows he/she has been pushed to the point where all control skills and procedures are occurring without any hesitation. Some of the blood curdling stories here and elsewhere indicate this is one of the danger points. It's irresponsible just to hope the instructor will let you off with just half an hour's expense. Recency can be lost with just two or three weeks away from the aircraft.

 

Q4

 

I'm in favour of annual testing by unrelated parties. reading the stories on this and other sites it becomes very obvious that there are pockets in Australia where CFI's just don't have it, or don't care.

Clearly there's a duty-of-care responsibility with every flying instructor, (GA,RAA,GFA,HGFA etc), to teach the student every item in the curriculum up to a given competency standard. Unfortunately, Australia still follows the quaint and potentially dangerous rules wherein the CFI tests their own student. The USA has it right - it allows instructors to operate independantly of all this silly bureaucratic bulldust of training only in an approved FTF or under an AOC, ie, it halves the cost of instruction because there are less overheads and less ridiculous paperwork. The FAA then tests your 'product', and if it becomes evident that you are producing a sub-standard product - your ticket is suspended.......no mucking about! Which is as it should be. There is no greater incentive to reach a standard than facing loss of your own ticket. CASA on the other hand, has created an additional section,(jobs-for-the-boys,again!), which is now supposed to lift instructor standards. It hasn't, it isn't, and it won't succeed - because they are not focusing on the most important point.....the business future of the CFI.

 

Now, if RAAus wants to create a fully transparent system of pilot training - they must start by providing an independant examiner who will test every CFIs' product. Upon failing 3 students from a particular CFI - RAA then suspends the FTF approval.....and the IR of the former CFI, until such time as they complete remedial training to the satisfaction of the Ops Mgr. This is where the PE should be employed. PE's should be independant - and therefore, not current CFI's. It's not as though there are hundreds of students doing their flight test every month. I think that RAAus should itself pay these PE's a fee per test, regardless of fail/pass, and this would perhaps make it attractive enough for some 'retired' CFI's to provide an independant testing service.

 

I invite comment, because this really is fundamental to lifting standards throughout all flying training organisations.

 

happy days,

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sounds like a very good direction to go to me Poteroo

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

..............I invite comment, because this really is fundamental to lifting standards throughout all flying training organisations.

happy days,

Well said Poteroo... It has always bothered me when an instructor assesses his own students and they are then issued a license/certificate. I'm aware that at times, because of location and/or lack of check airman availability, there are occassions when it has to be done. But in my opinion, it should definately not be the norm. I believe your suggestions have merit and deserve to be considered and discussed.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Clearly there's a duty-of-care responsibility with every flying instructor, (GA,RAA,GFA,HGFA etc), to teach the student every item in the curriculum up to a given competency standard. Unfortunately, Australia still follows the quaint and potentially dangerous rules wherein the CFI tests their own student. The USA has it right - it allows instructors to operate independantly of all this silly bureaucratic bulldust of training only in an approved FTF or under an AOC, ie, it halves the cost of instruction because there are less overheads and less ridiculous paperwork. The FAA then tests your 'product', and if it becomes evident that you are producing a sub-standard product - your ticket is suspended.......no mucking about! Which is as it should be. There is no greater incentive to reach a standard than facing loss of your own ticket. CASA on the other hand, has created an additional section,(jobs-for-the-boys,again!), which is now supposed to lift instructor standards. It hasn't, it isn't, and it won't succeed - because they are not focusing on the most important point.....the business future of the CFI. Now, if RAAus wants to create a fully transparent system of pilot training - they must start by providing an independant examiner who will test every CFIs' product. Upon failing 3 students from a particular CFI - RAA then suspends the FTF approval.....and the IR of the former CFI, until such time as they complete remedial training to the satisfaction of the Ops Mgr. This is where the PE should be employed. PE's should be independant - and therefore, not current CFI's. It's not as though there are hundreds of students doing their flight test every month. I think that RAAus should itself pay these PE's a fee per test, regardless of fail/pass, and this would perhaps make it attractive enough for some 'retired' CFI's to provide an independant testing service.

 

I invite comment, because this really is fundamental to lifting standards throughout all flying training organisations.

 

happy days,

I am pretty sure this was the case back in DoA days (pre seventy five) Dept examiner did all the testing.

 

 

[facthunter]

Just checked my log books and ALL (PPL CPL Instructor rating) were done by the authority. DCA DoT etc. Once employed by an airline however you will be reviewed by the employer's organisation or checked out by an overseas concern who may be responsible for supplying a "conversion/endorsement", at points along the way.

 

IF the process has integrity then perhaps it doesn't matter who does it, provided they are "approved".

 

I understand that some overseas persons doing pilot training in australia "expect" to pass , by having paid for the course. This kind of attitude is certainly not appropriate as some people just don't make good pilots.

 

Promoters of Flying Schools and Aircraft Sales, have tried to put over the belief that,"Anyone Can Fly an Aeroplane". Perhaps that is a bit irresponsible, RAAus included. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

I am pretty sure this was the case back in DoA days (pre seventy five) Dept examiner did all the testing.

No Ozzie, I've just checked up in my logbooks, and find that I did my RPPL at Archerfield in August 1963 - with the CFI of my flying school. However, the log book 'check' stamp is signed off by DCA and shown as PPL. Then, at the end of Sept 1963, my CFI signed off my navs, (7.5 hrs dual, 5.8 ICUS, 8.0 solo), and so I became UPPL. I did comlete a flight test for a Commonwealth Flying Scholarship in Sept 1964, and this was done with a DCA Examiner-of-Airmen,(now = FOI). My CPL test,(4.8 hrs TT), was done by a DCA Examiner-of-Airmen in Nov 1965 @ Brisbane Airport. Now that was a real CPL test!! With that bit of green paper burning a virtual hole in my pocket - I was in Port Moresby the next day, and 3 days later was being checked to line in a C185. Heaven help the passengers - I had the sum total of 200.1 hrs in my logbook. Those were the good old days.

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

Cooincidence there, potteroo. I did a Commonwealth Scholarship test, in Aug.1962 (R Jarvis) (DCA examiner of airmen). That certainly changed the direction of my life.

 

Things were different then. When we got our PPL's we all got to be presented with them by the Minister for Civil Aviation, ( Then Donald G Andersen). Now we don't have a minister for Aviation. We have a minister for transport and about 3 other portfolios all rolled up into one. It's an indicator of how important Aviation is in ths country now. Most people wouldn't care if all our pilots came from overseas as long as the fares were cheap.

 

Australia's aviation pioneers would be turning in their graves. We have a proud an quite emminent position in the history and development of world Aviation Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

.... I think what we should probably be doing ...

who is "we"?

... show them the direction they are taking it and try and work out a positive action plan to make aviation a main priority as it once was...

Some people are doing it already and they deserve our support: http://www.aopa.com.au/information-centre/aopa-news/2010/08/16/aopa-weighs-in-to-support-ga-revitalisation-plan/

 

[facthunter]

It might be worthwhile to elaborate further on the circumstances prevailing at the time.

 

There was an anticipated pilot shortage looming and the scholarships were introduced to try and avoid the projected shortage.

 

By 1966 there were no vacancies of any consequence in airlines, so things changed fast (as they always do in aviation).

 

Flying was popular after the war ended and there were plenty of planes about and a lot of the ex war pilots wanted to keep on flying so many of them did part and full time instruction.

 

There was a steady decline from then due to high costs, associated with using "new" planes like the C-172 , Piper cherokee 140, Piper tripacer etc replacing Chipmunk DH82 Wacket, various Austers, and Avro Cadet?. A weeks wages only got you less than two hours flying, though if you were under a certain age some subsidy was available as you were considered something of "reserve" proposition, in case of war need.

 

There were plenty of interesting types around but the ones with wooden structures started to be a liability, due mainly to the deterioration of the Casein glue. Ansons, Wackets, Percival Proctors ,Miles Gemini's, ( a twin with two cirrus minors of only 90 HP) . There were some inflight structural failures, so it got harder to keep these in the air.

 

In my opinion there has never been a real revival in GA though I havent gone over the hours flown each year and done a thorough investigation.

 

It was difficult to get a high performance warbird onto the private register and most of our "good" stuff like sea furies were sold outside australia.

 

Some Mustangs were around ( a few crashed). Illawara had one for target drogue towing. Jack Mcdonald was doing aerobatic shows and some race car drivers and rather well-off people flew them. Arnold Glass being one I can remember. Nev

 

 

[Tomo]

My PPL flight test was conducted by a third party CASA ATO from what I believe.

 

 

[facthunter]

You should have his name in your log book Tomo. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

My PPL flight test was conducted by a third party CASA ATO from what I believe.

Was it Allan Dunbar ? I had him for my GFPT test.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Now that we have drifted completely off topic again my beloved forumites, may I suggest that we apply problems (perceived or factual) in relation to training and testing to the hypothetical below and discuss how we would progress these isuues from the point of observation, through discussion with a few others to ... " what do we do with this information ...". In other words how can we advise each other in an appropriate course of action to discharge our 'duty of care', if indeed we think we have a 'duty of care'.

 

I would like to suggest that your 'situation' may be a little more common than perhaps we are all prepared to acknowledge. Your case is perhaps an example of what I was trying to get some momentum in the discussion on.So without going into detail lets hypothesize on a situation that might be similar to yours in either GA or RAA.

 

1. Something of a safety matter has occurred that has caused concern to you

 

2. A number of persons have made similar observations and appear to have similar concerns

 

3. For these people to know about each other's concerns some private conversation between them must have ocurred

 

4. There appears to be significant concerns of reprisals

 

5. There appears to be a concern that if reported, nothing will be done about it and the reporters will be ostracised

 

6. There is concern that even if reported anonymously, the reporters identity would be obvious

 

I would imagine that this situation and the feelings of those involved would not be unusual.

 

So collectively what suggestions can we get from the rest of us ...? How would we handle this situation?

[facthunter]

The diversion on my part is related to what our expectations may reasonably be. ie where we have come from and a guess at where we might reasonably expect to end up. ( the size and nature of the group in the future). Nev

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

David's post #151

 

From my limited observation of RAA members, we tend to fall into two camps. There are those who, on seeing something of concern comment to others, but would never contemplate "dobbing in" a mate (even if you barely know the guy), but hope that someone in authority will notice it and deal with it. There are others who feel it is their responsibility to do something about it. A very small sub-set of these are the true Whistle Blowers, those with incredible fortitude, sense of justice and desire to make the world a better place, against fierce opposition to shut up and put up.

 

I fit into the second group, due to my personality and professional training (but I lack the courage for true whistle blowing). The professions, Engineering, Accounting, Medicine etc - all have ethics and professional standards drummed in from the start and backed up by the professional organisation's code of ethics and in some, legislation too.

 

I have been involved with accident investigations and the ATSB guys have commented on the number of people who say they predicted the accident - but did nothing about it except tell others "he's gunna kill someone one day ...." There are no prizes for being right on that one.

 

So how do we handle "reporting". I think we are pretty well served with CFI's, Instructors, experienced pilots; people who will listen to your concerns and do something. Should we have a system like REPCON - the CASA system - published in Flight Safety where you can put in a report and they will de-identify it and investigate? I don't think we need the administrative burden - a phone call to the RAA office should be all that's required. I realise some behaviours would be difficult to prove, but as someone pointed out on the Lake Hume thread, lots of people have camera phones and know how to use them. In two serious incidents I was witness to, it was members of the public who contacted RAA (AUF then).

 

Suggestions:

 

- Include "how to report" in training

 

- Info sessions on how and the need to react to unsafe practices

 

- Assurances from RAA that reports will be handled in confidence if requested

 

- Discourage posting video of unsafe practices to YooToob etc

 

Any other ideas?

 

Sue

 

 

[dazza 38]

Its a hard one reporting.I have done it, but if you are the only person to report somebody.Nothing will be done about.The reason is purely because it may be two people who do not like each other and it is a way of getting back at them.Evidence is the key, either multiple people seeing a bad act or video.The trouble is, and it has already been mentioned.Who makes is classed as a authorised person. . I would go Repcon if I saw a dangerous act.Actually I would confront them first, reason is that I have a duty of care.If they flogg me off.No problems I would look at other avenues..