DrZoos Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 Im not sure yet what they classify as technical, but I am confident maintenance would fall within that category..hence the focus on HF and Maintenance Whatever does fall within Technical is clearly the area CASA and RAA will want us to address The closest reference to is i can find on the ATSB site is on sentence saying "which pilot actions or technical events occur, and usually impact upon a pilot’s ability to control his or her actions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 What do the above figures relate to? The headings used would tell you FA. Failure to to a proper fuel drain (check it reseated.) Technical or Operational.? Silly categories (in my opinion). Every time some new people come in the first thing they do is change the names of everything, so you have to relearn what an "Artificial Horizon" is now called. .Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 17, 2015 Share Posted October 17, 2015 What do the above figures relate to? The headings used would tell you FA. Failure to to a proper fuel drain (check it reseated.) Technical or Operational.? Silly categories (in my opinion). Every time some new people come in the first thing they do is change the names of everything, so you have to relearn what an "Artificial Horizon" is now called. .Nev I think they do it so they cant be measured...then they focus on a shit area so they can easily fix it and create a resume bullet point for their next job I successfully reduced the incidence of XYZ at company ABC from 74 accidents per 100,000 hours to 20 accidents in under 2 years..... nothing else can be measured or used against them 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted October 17, 2015 Author Share Posted October 17, 2015 Yep Dr.Zoos.... That is about the money.. We hear many times, "That will go well on my resume".. KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted October 18, 2015 Author Share Posted October 18, 2015 GentsIs 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 Andy you are correct, the primary evidence indicates that L1 skills are not at fault. However a though knowledge of what is covered in theory and the practical in the L1 could be contributing factors in prevention. Mix L1 and HF training together and there will a synagestic effect for the training outcome. Like the Swiss cheese model if one covers the holes early the lower end holes will become irrelevant. Regards, KP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 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. And would suitably qualified trainer and assessor require BOTH the technical ability through RAA L2-4, LAME etc AND the Cert IV in training and assessment? the Cert IV is a nationally recognized and generally required minima to allow vocational education to be delivered and assessed ... Given that I would hazard a guess as there being maybe 2 or 3 other L2s out there with a Cert IV (I have one and my L2 while not current has never been revoked)I am afraid something that is easily sold as a recognised course and assessment structure will take a few years and cost many thousands to create ... In the alternate I am perfectly happy to set up an RTO for Ultralights in consultation and partnership with RAAus to establish and deliver the practicals and the theory - hell if they feel like it we could do all the theory for I come relatively inexpensive - will travel for petrol and landing fees ;-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tillmanr Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 Don't just go for the younger flyers. I recently attended a 3 day engine maintenance course and had to teach a 60 something person how to read a micrometer as well as set a torque wrench. Said person had co built two kit aircraft during the last 12 months. We need a minimum skill level to be acquired and this may cost money but we need to show as a group we are working for safety in preparing our aircraft. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWF Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 There are four stages of competence: 1. The Unconcious Incompetent - you don't know you can't do it (properly). 2. The Conscious Incompetent - you know you can't do it (properly). 3. The Conscious Competent - you can do it but you have to consciously think about it. 4. The Unconscious Competent - you can do it (properly) without consciously thinking about it. Many members are at stage 1. We need to get them all to at least stage 2. I don't think this needs a trainer with formal qualifications to do this although a well produced training plan/program would be good for standardisation and to ensure all required topics/info are covered. All pilots should be taken to at least stage 2. I believe ALL pilots should be given enough theory and practical training to be able to perform the tasks permitted in CASA CASR Schedule 8 (see CAAP 42ZC-1(2)). As far as I can see almost all of the items in Schedule 8 are NOT covered in the pilot training syllabus. Being competent in Schedule 8 items only does not meet all the L1 competerncy requirements. Members who want to tinker with/maintain their own aircraft need to move from stage 2 to at least stage 3 and have L1 competency. There should be appropriate theory AND practical training and assessment required for an L1 endorsements. My 2 cents worth. DWF 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 There's an old saying . "Can the blind lead the blind"? Our section of Aviation should not fall for it. It's an illusion of "doing something" and ticking boxes. Sound familiar? This is a general comment DWF. ALL contributions are valid..Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 If its case of box ticking znd covering thier bums im against it, if it actuslly has hands on prsctical skills and must know life saving competency i am all for it. At the very least certify a few who are dojng it and let those eho want to attend courses and be accredited to a standard. Regardless of whether that standard id opyional or mandatory. And hive RPL status. Grrr small phone letters n big thumbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennyboy320 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Personally I think that the L1 qualification gives us too much authority to tinker, as long as I am able to do a daily inspection & sign the maintenance release, occasionally change a spark plug, oil filter & oil I'd be happy, i.e. line maintenance. So maybe we need a basic pilot preflight qualification for the mechanically challenged like me. When the L1 quiz came out I gave up after the first question was asking something about electrical wiring, sorry I have no idea & no interest, as Dirty Harry said "a man has got to know his limits" Happy to pay a qualified mechanic to service my future Foxbat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Personally I think that the L1 qualification gives us too much authority to tinker, as long as I am able to do a daily inspection & sign the maintenance release, occasionally change a spark plug, oil filter & oil I'd be happy, i.e. line maintenance. So maybe we need a basic pilot preflight qualification for the mechanically challenged like me.When the L1 quiz came out I gave up after the first question was asking something about electrical wiring, sorry I have no idea & no interest, as Dirty Harry said "a man has got to know his limits" Happy to pay a qualified mechanic to service my future Foxbat. Thats awesome you recognize that, and I think that if the L1 test made you realize this then its prob doing its job... some more questions on practical and less on policy would be great, as any nerd who studies with virtually no practical skills can pass the test they have made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 You just passed the main test in my mind I have issue tht we have L1 for everyone then the next step is L2 being able to commercially provide maintenence services Builder or advanced L1 would be a training level to be earnt and maintaind by currency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Well at least technically L1 isn't an auto accreditation any more... L2 is pretty comprehensive...I have been clocking my logbook and its very very comprehensive what is required now.. Im doing Kev McNalley's course soon, even though stupidly its not accredited, but it will certainly be looked upon favourably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennyboy320 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Thats awesome you recognize that, and I think that if the L1 test made you realize this then its prob doing its job I agree 100%, I've been fortunate in that I have always had first class tradesmen working on the a/c that I fly, e.g. RAAF & the airlines at the moment, something goes wrong you write up in the tech log, after 35 years of following that model it's not going to change, very happy to continue on that path with my RAA flying, after all I don't personally service my car. As mentioned I'm talking about myself, I realize that there are some very talented folks out there that have built their own a/c, hats off I'm very impressed. BTW do we maintain our L1 in the future i.e. grandfather rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I would think at some point, the L1 automatic rights will disappear...they have in every other industry in Australia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 The original L2 qualification would only be awarded IF you were going to be active in maintaining and signing off a reasonable number of aircraft, so I never took it up under those circumstances. I like to pick whose plane I work on when my house is on the line. People will fiddle with their planes no matter what you require as an official position, if they are so inclined. The best thing you can have is people realising their limits and seeking more knowledge and advice when needed. The Owner/operator is RESPONSIBLE by law for the plane they are involved in being appropriately serviced. It's not any LAME's job to take that responsibility over. You can't opt out of YOUR legal responsibility to ensure things are done.. Don't assume LAME's and Airline maintenance can't have problems. The files are full of it but at least it's a controlled environment with a paper trail. Still you get bogus parts and shoddy work (at times). I want to be able to do my own stuff then it's my fault and my neck, and I'm sure there are others who feel the same. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Exactly Nev, while I agree with bennyboy inasmuch as I don't mind handing over to someone more experienced when needed (I have some lazy bones in me) I still enjoy the privilege of being allowed to do it all myself if I so desire and wouldn't like to see that taken away for any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Zoos, there are some working privileges available to PPL's. quite limited but just the same are there. It would be quite difficult to operate if they were removed. There must be some lower limit to the knowledge one must have to operate an aeroplane. A good preflight is the basic point of involvement. If you don't do that properly you will eventually pay for it. Similarly if the engine is not operating smoothly YOU are the one who decides it should be looked at, BEFORE it fails, not after. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennyboy320 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I would think at some point, the L1 automatic rights will disappear...they have in every other industry in Australia The only reason I mention grandfather rights is from the rumor we are hearing overseas with the new Part 61 licencing in Oz, e.g. to be an airline training or check captain you MUST have an instructor rating i.e. Grade 3 etc, not all checkies hold instructor ratings, all of these training positions are done in the particular airline with a final check done by the regulator i.e. a CASA FOI, apparently all the airlines in Australia would of come to a grinding halt due to the lack of suitably qualified checkies, alas common sense prevailed & only new trainers require an instructor rating, all those currently in the training departments were given grandfather rights with no need to hold an instructor rating, that's my spin on what will happen to us, if we legally held a L1 qualification that should not be to take it away from us, in this PC mad world that would be discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 The only reason I mention grandfather rights is from the rumor we are hearing overseas with the new Part 61 licencing in Oz, e.g. to be an airline training or check captain you MUST have an instructor rating i.e. Grade 3 etc, not all checkies hold instructor ratings, all of these training positions are done in the particular airline with a final check done by the regulator i.e. a CASA FOI, apparently all the airlines in Australia would of come to a grinding halt due to the lack of suitably qualified checkies, alas common sense prevailed & only new trainers require an instructor rating, all those currently in the training departments were given grandfather rights with no need to hold an instructor rating, that's my spin on what will happen to us, if we legally held a L1 qualification that should not be to take it away from us, in this PC mad world that would be discrimination. As I understand it you do not need a grade three instructor rating to do check and training. If you teach ab initio you must have at least a grade three. An instructor rating can just have a "type training endorsement" or "design feature endorsement" without necessarily having a grade 3, 2 or 1 endorsement. See below. https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100212/part61-guide-instructor.pdf 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Personally I think that the L1 qualification gives us too much authority to tinker, as long as I am able to do a daily inspection & sign the maintenance release, occasionally change a spark plug, oil filter & oil I'd be happy, i.e. line maintenance. So maybe we need a basic pilot preflight qualification for the mechanically challenged like me.When the L1 quiz came out I gave up after the first question was asking something about electrical wiring, sorry I have no idea & no interest, as Dirty Harry said "a man has got to know his limits" Happy to pay a qualified mechanic to service my future Foxbat. well i despair. The whole point of non-GA aircraft under CAO exemptions and RAA operation was private ops = owner operator and if commercial ops then=L2 The fact that people recognise that they are not comfortable looking after their own aircraft is great - BUT to say that L1 gives us too much authority to tinker and mix in GA specific items like a the maintenance release leaves me with ice in my veins -we are NOT GA and PLEASE STOP PUSHING FOR GA EQUIVALENT ON EVERY ASPECT OF RAA AIRCRAFT AND OPS or CASA will just slice off all the differences bit-by-bit. If people do L1 assessments and decide that they are not comfy looking after their aircraft brilliant. AS they were even considering it clearly it was not for commercial ops or it already required L2 so find a local person to look after your aircraft for you. Be they an L2 or just the local mechanic or a LAME if you prefer - there is NO requirement at all for authority to do maintenance on non-commercial ops aircraft. And by commercial ops I mean an aircraft used for hire and reward 6 1 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