Keith Page Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I attended the yearly RAAus AGM. The subject of the L1 arose... Yes again.... In my view L1 must have a Theory section and a Practical section if not how can one learn correctly. Must have a practical section to dispel these urban myths which are about. Ever since it was rolled out on the web I have been gobbed smacked as how CASA accepted it, as they were the ones pushing it years ago. Something like -- maintenance must have the practical content. Where is it? In the now case, What is it going to be the content? Now the trial period is over and now I am told another type of L1 is going to be rolled out with the practical content added. Trial of what? How come it is called a trial period when all the content is not there to assessed? What I see what it was, just another paper assessment just to satisfy a paper trail and this came without any real safety training. I think I am quite accurate with that statement. A pile of questions on laws and acts I think that is not safety. Regards, KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I attended the yearly RAAus AGM.The subject of the L1 arose... Yes again.... In my view L1 must have a Theory section and a Practical section if not how can one learn correctly. Must have a practical section to dispel these urban myths which are about. Ever since it was rolled out on the web I have been gobbed smacked as how CASA accepted it, as they were the ones pushing it years ago. Something like -- maintenance must have the practical content. Where is it? In the now case, What is it going to be the content? Now the trial period is over and now I am told another type of L1 is going to be rolled out with the practical content added. Trial of what? How come it is called a trial period when all the content is not there to assessed? What I see what it was, just another paper assessment just to satisfy a paper trail and this came without any real safety training. I think I am quite accurate with that statement. A pile of questions on laws and acts I think that is not safety. Regards, KP. And until there is a new Tech Manual ALL RAA pilot certificate holders still have and hold a L1 from issue of their pilots certificate UNLESS specifically suspended. RAA tech 4.1 (3) So although there is talk on this forum about a date in 2013 from which new pilot certificate holders need to do something else to get a L1 endorsement technical and legal construction of the regulations the Tech office have to operate within (the Tech manual - and the CASA approved one as of today is the version on the website) is that RAA Tech, unless they have removed a certificate holders L1, cannot deny any pilot certificate holder is an L1. But I agree with you - this L1 'trial' was not giving me a warm fuzzy feeling that it actually taught someone something useful ... and if they want to add a practical my mind says ... oh good, and who has to certify that practical? Are we looking at getting the L2-L4 group or LAME? Or is this something that an instructor is required to teach ... which is effectively what we have at the moment that apparently is not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 and if they want to add a practical my mind says ... oh good, and who has to certify that practical? I thought that was why RA-Aus have employed the new Training Co-Ordinator? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I thought that was why RA-Aus have employed the new Training Co-Ordinator? And 1 individual is going to certify the practical aspects of 3000+ pilot certificate holders across a country the size of Europe eh? Busy bee 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I attended the yearly RAAus AGM.The subject of the L1 arose... Yes again.... In my view L1 must have a Theory section and a Practical section if not how can one learn correctly. Must have a practical section to dispel these urban myths which are about. Ever since it was rolled out on the web I have been gobbed smacked as how CASA accepted it, as they were the ones pushing it years ago. Something like -- maintenance must have the practical content. Where is it? In the now case, What is it going to be the content? Now the trial period is over and now I am told another type of L1 is going to be rolled out with the practical content added. Trial of what? How come it is called a trial period when all the content is not there to assessed? What I see what it was, just another paper assessment just to satisfy a paper trail and this came without any real safety training. I think I am quite accurate with that statement. A pile of questions on laws and acts I think that is not safety. Regards, KP. Keith The engine course you just did is greater in content than an average L1 needs, but of course not recognised by RAA as a qualification. Well worth the effort just the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Mmm .... not sure what they are going to do. All I have been able to find out is that they have employed someone and there is mention of training in the Strategic Plan 2015-2018: Jan 2016 - Jun 2016 Commence roll out of training courses. Priority one training course is an L1 training course. Following successful delivery of this training course we will deliver three further courses including L2: safety management and instructor training As part of this roll out we will also develop an evaluation program to ensure our training remains relevant and up to date January 2016 is not far off .... so I guess someone has been busy behind the scenes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 KeithThe engine course you just did is greater in content than an average L1 needs, but of course not recognised by RAA as a qualification. Well worth the effort just the same. You are correct there Frank --- however what about the others who do not get to the good knowledge, they have to live with the urban myths. My line of thinking was more of teaching the basic skills how to use tools and understand a torque wrench - conditioning mind and ears to be sympathetic to machinery. L1 Stuff I do have a grin here when that knowledge is delivered does a trainer deliver and assess it? Who is trainer on the web site? What the computer? Which RTO has compiled it because RAAus is not a RTO. If it has "not" come from an RTO and has been to a training auditor, news for them not above board.. Same for their "new" training syllabus who is writing it? Regards, KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 They need to get with the program and recognise Kevs rotax course as Recognized Prior LEarning... This tripe of we only recognise A, B C is garbage that went out 20 years ago...if you can demonstrate competency you get recognition.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 The current L1 online test is a step in the right direction compared to the everybody wins a prize system they had in place of granting every one an L1 But when I did it, i did a hell of a lot of study and was bitterly disappointed that the vast majority of the test was focused on legalistic bullshit to cover their ass and say , well you passed L1 so you know the rules... Where as little things like making sure you know how to tighten a screw into fibreglass or wood without damaging them, putting thermal paste on plugs, lock wire etc would be more useful to most people. Teach them about diagnosing spark plug problems by looking at a plug color , to look for metal in the oil filter, etc etc... you get the jist... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Gents Is there any evidence that poor L1 skills are killing pilots? Seems to me that as an adult I don't need to do a course with practical application that shows me that putting a finger in a 240v power socket is not a good idea.........Its my view that applying hammers and wrenches liberally where you have no knowledge is pretty much the same thing....... I hope that for every $5 RAAus has to apply to teaching us pilots something that may save our lives at least $4 gets spent on human factors related training....x It also seems to me that the internet now allows anyone who is actually interested to research and ask experts questions about doing almost anything anywhere at anytime.........and in any event its still your own butt that is on the line if you get it wrong which brings me back to my first question, Is there any evidence that poor L1 skills are killing pilots? We need solutions to known problems, not solutions in need of a problem If there is proof that poor L1 skills are killing us, is it a top 5 cause of demise? If not why are we focusing on it when there are clearly higher priority issues? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 You are correct there Frank --- ho wever what about the others who do not get to the good knowledge, they have to live with the urban myths.My line of thinking was more of teaching the basic skills how to use tools and understand a torque wrench - conditioning mind and ears to be sympathetic to machinery. L1 Stuff I do have a grin here when that knowledge is delivered does a trainer deliver and assess it? Who is trainer on the web site? What the computer? Which RTO has compiled it because RAAus is not a RTO. If it has "not" come from an RTO and has been to a training auditor, news for them not above board.. Same for their "new" training syllabus who is writing it? Regards, KP. Well if the RAA want to do this through an RTO solution I am the finance manager at an RTO that specialises in distance online ... and is NOT dodgy brothers - we have nothing to do with VET fee help so I can tell you about the actual costs to develop and deliver effective practical and theory through distance education. Now the chances of RAAus actually going into a valid nationally accredited course and delivery is virtually nil - to set up and do the theory PROPERLY for a technical course would cost a bomb to develop, would cost a at least a few hundred $ each to deliver ... for nurse practice assisting where we have to do practicals as well as the theory as well its $5,000 for a 12 month CIV course ... yes that's including our profit but as we are a not-for-profit university owned RTO that markup is not huge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 andy i agree but when i think that my 18 year old who flies could technically sit that exam and rhen maintain my aircraft...thats bloody scary...he is a smart kid, but he has had no experience swinging spanners and fixing things like i did as a kidd and at his age.. Those guys need to attan a standard surely 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Is there any evidence that poor L1 skills are killing pilots? There has been no mention of any particular problems and yet the RA-Aus Strategic Plan 2015-2018 clearly states their intention of L1 focus ... starting in January! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Well if you allow your 18yr old to maintain your aircraft then that really is your fault isn't it? You put your Butt in his hands!!!!! I'm sorry but I don't ever foresee RAAus generating a training regime that takes someone who knows nothing about mechanical things at one end, and turns out effectively L2's but only authorised to work on their own aircraft at the other end...... What I do expect them to do is make it very clear what resources are available they can call on, what the potential for a screw up can cost in $ and lives and what their legal obligations are...... If you actually want a training course for L2's (in effect able to address anything and everything that can happen on an aircraft at our end of aviation) then expect that to be a multiyear full time training course...... Its my view that the greatest skill a L1 can be taught is to recognise when he/she doesn't have the skills and experiences and support to do a job and seek professional help..... and secondly that preventative maintenance is called that for a reason, and failing to prevent is really ugly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 There has been no mention of any particular problems and yet the RA-Aus Strategic Plan 2015-2018 clearly states their intention of L1 focus ... starting in January! hmmm CASA ....Box......Tick....move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 empire building andy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundsounds Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 The "plan" with the last L1 trial included a practical component, it was to take place once the level of legal / theory knowledge was established. The "trial" was intended to find out if any further theory training was needed, based on the pass rate there would not be any further theory needed. There were 2 practical streams proposed, one for a pilot already maintaining their aircraft, which involved fronting up to their next flight review with aircraft and maintenance records to a suitably qualified CFI/L2 for an assessment. If all was in order, L1 blessing given, if not then remedial training / fix aircraft, then blessing. The other stream was for new aircraft owners and involved a "workshop" run by persons capable and willing to deliver basic skills and assessment of competency. These could be held all around the country by non RAAus staff. But for some reason this path was not followed. They way I see it, maintaining an aircraft is like flying one. The person doing the flying or fixing needs a range of skills to do the job safely and legally. RAAus could use online methods to train and assess the theory and legal stuff (like the various pilot exams it sets), but not the practical. There needs to be a network of maintenance training facilities (MTF) like FTFs. These could be attached to FTFs, if they have suitably qualified trainers and assessors, or perhaps you approach a local LAME and do some work experience with their shop and have a list of tasks signed off by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 But back to Andy's comment "where is the evidence that a problem exists and needs fixing?" People coming up with more ideas in the name of SAFETY because it sounds good is BS. Have a look at the 21 incidents this year alone and look for a commen factor, L1 qualifications doesn't hold water. 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted October 16, 2015 Author Share Posted October 16, 2015 Well if the RAA want to do this through an RTO solution I am the finance manager at an RTO that specialises in distance online ... and is NOT dodgy brothers - we have nothing to do with VET fee help so I can tell you about the actual costs to develop and deliver effective practical and theory through distance education.Now the chances of RAAus actually going into a valid nationally accredited course and delivery is virtually nil - to set up and do the theory PROPERLY for a technical course would cost a bomb to develop, would cost a at least a few hundred $ each to deliver ... for nurse practice assisting where we have to do practicals as well as the theory as well its $5,000 for a 12 month CIV course ... yes that's including our profit but as we are a not-for-profit university owned RTO that markup is not huge Good post kasper and thank you for the good content... Yes go near training and there is the biggest can of worms ever opens up... I can not get over the L1, got its tick of approval without a practical section only an academic section and that was mostly legislation stuff... Just to look after our own aircraft would be very good, Recreational Aviation is the answer that is the whole idea we own and maintain our own aircraft in a cost effective manner for our own enjoyment... Do not loose sight of that... It is not a mini GA fleet of which a lot of people are heading to. The big "one" this new training syllabus would be good to have look at and see what it is aligned to... What concerns me here, where dose does the content come from? With out due diligence it could end up being full of urban myths. If there is no control on content and who can write a curriculum, well anything thing can become gospel. What stops someone with a big ego coming up with some brain wave and forming a curriculum? This we must be careful of. Regards KP. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Death by a thousand ticks. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 There were 2 practical streams proposed, one for a pilot already maintaining their aircraft, which involved fronting up to their next flight review with aircraft and maintenance records to a suitably qualified CFI/L2 for an assessment. If all was in order, L1 blessing given, This is good idea, however three of the 3 CFI's I know openly say they dont know one end of a spanner from the other..Its great they admit it, but are thy qualified to assess my ability? I think they are qualified to look at the paper trail and make an assessment. But there wouldnt necesairly be good practical training involved by choosing CFI's. There needs to be a network of maintenance training facilities (MTF) like FTFs. These could be attached to FTFs, if they have suitably qualified trainers and assessors, or perhaps you approach a local LAME and do some work experience with their shop and have a list of tasks signed off by them. There are already people like this, everywhere they just need to accredit them as such. Well if you allow your 18yr old to maintain your aircraft then that really is your fault isn't it? You put your Butt in his hands!!!!! True...im not implying I would do anything so reckless. I am implying that some young pup like him who has grown up with gadgets rather than tools has now clue...and they could easily get together enough money to by a used aircraft and be qualified to work on it...I dont think thats a good idea... More of this younger generation coming thru really has no clue compared to the older generation about building and repairing things. Oldies had to work on and fix things by economic necessity. I dont think RAAus would go down the path of RTO's most just make it more complex than it needs to be and attach a ridiculous price to things...but some form of training or testing would be a good idea. At least a 2-3 day course on stuff that might kill you! eg: leaving a control surface bolt looose, or jamming an elevator pully I'm sorry but I don't ever foresee RAAus generating a training regime that takes someone who knows nothing about mechanical things at one end, and turns out effectively L2's but only authorised to work on their own aircraft at the other end...... Totally agree...there needs to be a realistic course 2-3 days make you aware of critical stuff and get you to know what you need to call on others for...with no time what so ever spent on legalistic crap designed to cover canberra bums. we need a course designed to make it as safe as possible for as many people as possible in the minimum amount of time and cost. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 But people who can demonstrate they have the ability and have been maintaining should be exempt 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Are we going to prove ourselves inept with this issue too? "Practical expertise" is becoming rarer by the day. Also I doubt many LAME's would be keen to provide assistance to people doing THEM out of a job which they had to qualify for over many years. It's not the fault of the kids themselves. It's a throw away world. Only weirdo's like me fix things. Watch them drill a hole in sheet metal. They use a file like a scrubbing brush and wouldn't know which way the hacksaw blade goes in the frame. Solder, braze or weld metal to an acceptable standard? Not cross thread a sump plug or overtension it?. Mechanics still do those things to your car. what hope have you got? Nev 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Maybe as maintenence issues dont form a major part of our accident profile, one of the key lessons an L1 needs is to know what they can do, legal position and where and when to get help...........sounding like SAAA MPC course If it is a tick box process to keep CASA happy, keep it as simple as possible I do think there needs to be a structured system to credit those with existting skills and experience even to "builder" status. Currency is also a key part of most modern certification system too. Other point is that this issue is that new requirements need to be set so in the future it is clearer cut than situation now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 But why go looking for a problem that doesn't appear in the stats? A 2 or 3 day course is going to make our flying all that much more affordable......... Not! You say youth today has no idea about maintenance and generally you would be right but two points 1: looking at the ages in our organisation youth isn't a problem that is prevalent 2: the youngsters that I know that fly and are interested in flying are more switched on mechanically than the average tech junkie. I think through the whole process of learning to fly and being made to do the daily checks while under supervision all adds up to a fairly responsible pilot no matter what their age. All that learning process, while not exactly teaching you spanner sense, should be teaching us to spot problems and most of us should know when something is out of our league. I think the stats support that. I enjoy doing most of my maintenance but I made my mind up early to take the hornet home to Taree at least once a year so that someone else's eyes can go over it, not because I legally have to (because I don't) but because I know that I feel better having my work checked and it is suprising how we can miss a problem for ages and then someone else has a look and spots it straight away! Anyway my point is why force everyone through expensive hoops when there doesn't seem to be a problem. I agree with Andy and Frank on this one. I think it is much more important for us to be spending any spare money we have on maintaining our currency or increasing our skills base rather than fixing things that aren't broken. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now