fly_tornado Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 So the previous restriction was that a student had to be 14 years old before starting to learn, now they can be any age. Existing restriction of being 15 years before going solo applies. Good on the board for fixing a problem that didn't exist 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 The restriction was introduced in 2012. It had been provoked because it was known that kids as young as 9 and possibly younger were being taught to fly. There were real concerns that if an 8yo was killed in a flying training accident, the press and then the politicians would go nuts. The thinking was that since you couldn't go solo until age 15, starting at 14 would still allow ample time to reach solo standard. The Board vote was very close with the motion passing by only one vote. At least one Board Member abstained as he was teaching his very young sons to fly. The restriction was removed by the current Board as it was seen to be out of step with ICAO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 The question would be, what difference does it make? It's not like you can enforce a minimum age anyway. Anyone in a dual control aircraft can say "I wasn't teaching him... I was just taking him for a fly!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Regardless of the age of the student, the Instructor is, of course, the PIC. Instructors are trained to be able to correct any errors made by their students. This is a dead issue now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 The question would be, what difference does it make? It's not like you can enforce a minimum age anyway. Anyone in a dual control aircraft can say "I wasn't teaching him... I was just taking him for a fly!" I have two little kids (3 and 4 and a half) and one day I would love to see them learn to fly. IMO I think removing the age limit at least provides some legal options for a younger person to learn and could reduce the temptation for parents to "stick share". My children are obviously too small to reach the stick let alone the rudder pedals but once they get to 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 they may have the length to reach the controls and I would certainly appreciate a legal option to let them get a few lessons so that I don't get tempted to "show" them. I still agree that there should be a minimum age to solo and do NOT think that that should be reduced! Anyway just my ten cents worth :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I fully agree there should be a legal minimum age to solo. My point was simply that whether it's legal or not, up until that point they're always flying with a qualified pilot - so it doesn't matter if they're just sitting back or being taught to fly. Let's face it if your 9 / 10/ 11 year old was keen to learn to fly and loved flying with you, would you tell them to sit back, shut up and not touch anything, or would you get to a safe height and teach them to control the aircraft? It's not like letting your kid drive the car on the road where others could be in danger, you have no control, and the cops can see there's a very short driver. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 18, 2016 Author Share Posted January 18, 2016 The restriction was introduced in 2012. It had been provoked because it was known that kids as young as 9 and possibly younger were being taught to fly. There were real concerns that if an 8yo was killed in a flying training accident, the press and then the politicians would go nuts. I wonder what has changed since 2012? Is there a slow down in the training sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I fully agree there should be a legal minimum age to solo. My point was simply that whether it's legal or not, up until that point they're always flying with a qualified pilot - so it doesn't matter if they're just sitting back or being taught to fly.Let's face it if your 9 / 10/ 11 year old was keen to learn to fly and loved flying with you, would you tell them to sit back, shut up and not touch anything, or would you get to a safe height and teach them to control the aircraft? It's not like letting your kid drive the car on the road where others could be in danger, you have no control, and the cops can see there's a very short driver. Exactly right Marty, at least this way though I can send them with an instructor so that they don't pick up all my bad habits :-) I was taught how to drive each vehicle on the farm once I was big enough to safely reach all the controls. I would like to do the same with my littlies if they want to learn. I've got a video of my 4 and a half year old driving our quad under supervision. I want her to move into our single seat Polaris ace (roll cage and seatbelt!) but her legs are not long enough to reach the pedals yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Let's face it if your 9 / 10/ 11 year old was keen to learn to fly and loved flying with you, would you tell them to sit back, shut up and not touch anything, or would you get to a safe height and teach them to control the aircraft?It's not like letting your kid drive the car on the road where others could be in danger, you have no control, and the cops can see there's a very short driver. I'm convinced there are instructors out there who just don't bother to teach pilots their obligations under the Civil Aviation Regulations. Here's what CAR 228 says about teaching your kids how to fly (unless you are a qualified instructor): CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 228 Unauthorised persons not to manipulate controls (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person manipulates the controls of a registered aircraft during flight; and (b) the person is not: (i) if the aircraft is a balloon--authorised under Part 5 to fly the balloon or perform an activity essential to the balloon's operation during flight time; or (ii) for an aircraft other than a balloon--authorised under Part 61 of CASR to pilot the aircraft. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability. Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . Current Commonwealth Penalty Unit is $180.00, so that's a fine of $9,000.00 if someone posts a photo etc., but if you can't recover the aircraft and one of them is killed, you are looking at culpable negligence and a manslaughter charge, just like the guy who flew low level and hit wires. Don has mentioned the reasons behind this CAR, or are we now saying we don't need Instructors? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Did you not read "get to a safe height"? So I'm beetling along at 5000' letting my son do some gentle turns. He's been worded up to immediately let go of the controls if I tell him. I would be fascinated to know how someone "posts a photo" of that, or are you saying that CASA can read thoughts now? It's now moot anyway but the point I was making is that it was always unenforceable. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Turbs I think you miss the point that I was making. I personally think it is a good idea to remove the minimum age for students as it gives people like me the chance to allow our kids to learn 'legally'. Of course we all know about the 'let pax touch controls breaks the law!' Thingy but as Marty said who wouldn't be tempted to let your kid have a feel of the stick? At least this allows me to be able to say "no dear I can't let you do that but come with me to meet my instructor and he can take you for a few lessons" This seems to be a good thing, at least for me in my situation as it will provide me a legal way to let my kids enjoy learning to fly (only if they want to of course!) without me being tempted to break some laws. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Turbs. What you posted is correct, but how many people stick to the strict letter of the law. We all know the law is an ass and most of us act accordingly. I can see no reason for not allowing someone to learn to fly because they are too young. Before they can solo, they will have to have demonstrated ability to be safe, therefore age is not a barrier. I notice that the better car drivers usually started driving in the paddock, way before legal driving age. The more experience you get at any endevour and the younger you are the better the outcome. I can't think of anything that would negate that statement, but no doubt somebody will point out the error of my ways. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I'm convinced there are instructors out there who just don't bother to teach pilots their obligations under the Civil Aviation Regulations.Here's what CAR 228 says about teaching your kids how to fly (unless you are a qualified instructor): CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 228 Unauthorised persons not to manipulate controls (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person manipulates the controls of a registered aircraft during flight; and (b) the person is not: (i) if the aircraft is a balloon--authorised under Part 5 to fly the balloon or perform an activity essential to the balloon's operation during flight time; or (ii) for an aircraft other than a balloon--authorised under Part 61 of CASR to pilot the aircraft. Penalty: 50 penalty units. (2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability. Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code . Current Commonwealth Penalty Unit is $180.00, so that's a fine of $9,000.00 if someone posts a photo etc., but if you can't recover the aircraft and one of them is killed, you are looking at culpable negligence and a manslaughter charge, just like the guy who flew low level and hit wires. Don has mentioned the reasons behind this CAR, or are we now saying we don't need Instructors? But riddle me this ... is an RAAus registered aircraft a 'registered aircraft' for the purposes of Reg 228? I know that RAAus aircraft are aircraft but as they not required to be registered under the CASA regulations then I think that our aircraft do not fall within 'registered aircraft' for the purposes of Reg 228 so therefore fall outside the area of even the strict liability sections of this ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 On an aside (but related to Yenn's comments above), when I used to fly R/C there was a world of difference between the young kids and the older folks when it came to learning. A 9-year old would be flying perfectly and doing aero's within a few weeks, whereas some of the retirees would be unable to land (nicely) a few months in. Any way you cut it, without getting too hung up on whether we let the kids touch the controls or pack them off to an instructor (will flying schools now have to have a "working with children" police check or do they have them already?) if the interest is there when they're young we should encourage it. Saw an article in the news yesterday about the "next Einstein" - 22yo Sabrina Pasterski who apparently has a brain the size of a planet, she built her plane at age 12 then got FAA approval to learn to fly. Not sure what the plane is, the journalist didn't see fit to include that vitally important bit of info, but from the photos I could find it's a low wing with bubble canopy along the lines of CH 601 or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I simply copied the relevant CAR from the Comlaw site; it's unambiguous, but I note all the clever little techniques used to try and avoid it. If you want to put the $9000.00 on the table and take the risk of getting caught, or if you think you can argue your way out of a manslaughter charge is up to you, but tell me this Marty, SQDI, and Kasper, did your Instructors ever train you and test you on the Civil Aviation Regulations? Yenn, I have no objection to training children to fly, just that it has to be with a qualified Instructor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share Posted January 19, 2016 A 9-year old would be flying perfectly and doing aero's within a few weeks, whereas some of the retirees would be unable to land (nicely) a few months in. When I point that out, "some" accuse me of being ageist! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I'm guessing you're not 9 years old F_T... I think on reaching adulthood the ability to learn new stuff quickly, plateaus out a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share Posted January 19, 2016 That might have to do with kids being full time students and extreme social pressure to conform Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 That's interesting Turbs....I always thought it was the PIC that was guilty, not the 10 yo child (The 10 and 11 yo are both doli incapax so there is a presumption they are unable to differentiate right from wrong in criminal matters. The 9 yo can't be convicted at all http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/101-120/cfi106.html) Sent from my iPad Kaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 but tell me this Marty, SQDI, and Kasper, did your Instructors ever train you and test you on the Civil Aviation Regulations? It's a while ago now Turbs but I seem to remember quite a big slab of reading and being tested on the cars and the caos. I will admit though that since getting my cert I haven't exactly been flipping through them each night to keep current. I do remember the basics though and rely mainly on my version of common sense (some have said I've a warped sense but I think that was my humour not my common!) to keep me out of trouble. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Aeroflot 593..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 It's a while ago now Turbs but I seem to remember quite a big slab of reading and being tested on the cars and the caos.I will admit though that since getting my cert I haven't exactly been flipping through them each night to keep current. I do remember the basics though and rely mainly on my version of common sense (some have said I've a warped sense but I think that was my humour not my common!) to keep me out of trouble. That's OK, it at least means you've been made aware of the CARS. I'm probably as rusty as you, but people keep posting as if they'd never heard of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 That's interesting Turbs....I always thought it was the PIC that was guilty, not the 10 yo child(The 10 and 11 yo are both doli incapax so there is a presumption they are unable to differentiate right from wrong in criminal matters. The 9 yo can't be convicted at all http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/cfi/101-120/cfi106.html) Sent from my iPad Kaz Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 If a kid is taught how to fly they will want to do it any time they can. There has to be a law whether people regard it as an ass or silly or unenforceable. If nothing happens, it's academic. Generally, doing the teaching yourself has the risk of giving your young student some incorrect ideas, that may remain hard to eliminate. Once your "normal" pilot is out there in our system (recreational) not all erroneous techniques will be picked up. A good instructor should be part of the plan. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I simply copied the relevant CAR from the Comlaw site; it's unambiguous, but I note all the clever little techniques used to try and avoid it.If you want to put the $9000.00 on the table and take the risk of getting caught, or if you think you can argue your way out of a manslaughter charge is up to you, but tell me this Marty, SQDI, and Kasper, did your Instructors ever train you and test you on the Civil Aviation Regulations? Yenn, I have no objection to training children to fly, just that it has to be with a qualified Instructor. No, but my law school taught me to read the damn laws and work out what you are and are not subject to ;-) 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