68volksy

I'd very much like to see some proof that standards are being maintained and that justice is being done. Even a simple statement such as "RA-Aus removed the training approval for 1 school during 2013 and suspended 1 L2 licence" would be great. I'm glad to hear they followed through with at least 1 school. I know on the whole that RA-Aus administration are a friendly bunch, as are many of its members. Would we describe it more as a "toothless kitten" or a "respected policeman" though.

There are rumours around but i haven't read anything about it. The same rumour says that RA were also in attendance during the audit (CASA was looking over their shoulder at the time to see how they did things). Yet while the GA side has shut down the RA side continues on...

Good to see some things happening motz. Nothing too scary though in your list? I was hoping for a few more examples like Maj mentioned and your point 4. With 30 years of history, 3500 aircraft, 162 FTF's and 10,000 members i'm hoping there's still a lot more out there. Anyone know of any L2's being revoked or flying school authorities/instructor ratings being suspended? The thought did just occur that most individuals/organisations probably give up their approvals or let them lapse prior to having them forcibly removed. Perhaps that's why i'm not reading much in the newspapers and magazines about such things? I feel for anyone trying to operate a viable school or maintenance business in RA-Aus if there's little to no oversight or protection of standards.

I know i'm probably getting a bit of a reputation as a grump around these parts and always having a go at RA-Aus but i must say the more i learn the more i'm utterly disappointed. In an attempt to assuage a level of despair that seems imminent i am hoping that someone can show me an example of where RA-Aus has taken enforcement action against an individual or organisation. I mean actually suspended/removed a pilot certificate or an individual or organisations training or maintenance approvals. It's all very well assuming that everyone on the planet will do the right thing and that's a lovely fantasy world in which to exist but it's a simple fact that not everyone will do the right thing. In order for an organisation to be "self-governing" one would think it necessary for some examples of individuals or organisations to be made by the "government" of the organisation in an effort to keep everyone doing the right thing. So hit me with those examples people!

Qantas took us for that ride a couple of years back. Cloud a bit higher on the day we went in though - just as we were about to enter the clouds i glanced out the window and could just make out the top of a mountain. The heart rate went through the roof!

I do have to ask the question of what airliner captains are left with when ultralight instructors are sporting 3 gold bars?

Read the last sentence - seems a perfect example of my point? I'd love someone to find me a single law in this country that caters perfectly for every minority group in existence.

My point was to try and direct blame away from CASA. They're trying to juggle "pressure" from so many angles and personal interest groups it really gets my goat. Everyone wants to change everything to get a perfect set of laws to suit themselves. Rather than adapting to work within the laws as they stand and waiting for change to occur.

Well having been to 2 of the CASA presentations on the new Part 61 I would have to say pilots would have to be grouped with some of the stupidest people on the planet. I'd like to think of myself as a stand-out however my grasp of the whiz-wheel technology drags me back down... The only real change that the recreational GA pilots were going to see immediately was they'll get a new licence in the mail. The amount of times I heard the CASA presenters making this statement was quite unbelievable. That and so many of the "but i'm a night-rated frozen ATPL and CPL holder with an american licence who only flies in the right-hand seat (because I prefer it and why doesn't everyone etc...) of my SAAA-registered RV7 but I get paid by my wife who flies in the left-hand seat so I can claim a tax break and you're taking away my right to fly" statements...

Yes indeed!

My real point related to the original question - ie why can't we all simply be taught by someone with experience. My point was that in RA-Aus especially there is not as much difference as people generally believe between someone with experience and someone with an instructors rating. Generally it's simply a course taken over a couple of weeks. Yes some may find that course hard but I haven't found anyone yet that's given it a go and not got through. And that is probably the way it should be in RA-Aus to keep costs down and passion high. I was in no way having a dig at instructors generally. I'm not one to give insight into my life beyond the keyboard but let's just say that instructors contribute a lot to my way of life. The dodgy instructors with their cornflake packet ratings and the schools that take their money undermine the very fabric of my aviation world. They also keep money out of the pockets of the truly capable and dedicated pilots who'd contribute a lot more to the aviation world if they could afford to do so. Everyone in this industry loves it with a passion however I do not believe it is everyone's god-given right to become an instructor. The amount of young kids I see out there willing to work for next to nothing are ruining aviation in my eyes and taking jobs from the 20 year veterans who have so much more to contribute. Since when did instructing become the domain of the 19 year old! No other industry in the world that I can think of promotes the training of fresh new students by those who've only just graduated themselves. I don't think many universities or colleges would employ a newly minted graduate to a lecturing position. It's even more rife in GA. It turns my stomach to see so many CPL's with 250 hours who've been trained by CPL's with 250 hours who've been trained by CPL's with 250 hours who then get an instructors rating and off they go teaching new pilots themselves. I am very fearful that the general and recreational aviation industry, in removing age and experience from its very footings, is doomed for collapse.

Same reason not everyone has learnt to fly I suppose. Some people love flying, some don't. Some people love teaching, some don't. Personally I'd make an atrocious teacher due to my impatience and tendency to get distracted by shiny things... Just out of curiosity (and seeing as you've made this personal) how many people have undertaken an instructors course with you and have not then gone on and passed their test?

For goodness sake! A 30 hour course cannot be difficult in any sense of the word. Even if it takes you 120 hours to pass it's not exactly a phd in advanced physics! Yes it would take some hard work and some learning but really? Trying to make it out as being attainable only by those with the grit and determination of Mawson is really stretching the limit. Taking the rating and actually building on it to make a good instructor is the challenge. Unfortunately the new student knows not the true difference between a 20 year or 20 thousand hour veteran and a 1 year or 100 hour kid.

I think i'll have to correct the spelling of my avatar! Thanks FH.

So we should probably be comparing the minimum hours for grant of an instructor rating then rather than the minimum hours for the CPL? I don;t have my CASR's here but from the amendments regulation - just to compare apples with apples.... 61.1185 Requirements for grant of flight instructor ratings 2 (d) (ii) in any other case: (A) at least 200 hours flight time as a pilot; and (B) at least 100 hours flight time as pilot in command. But again this is not my point.

From your post motz - 70 hours PIC plus 20 hours cross-country as PIC = 90 hours total. Not sure why everyone keeps asking if i live under a bridge? Not the nicest name to be calling someone and something that I honestly thought the members of this forum would have been above. Teckair - read my post again that included the line you ripped out of it. You'll realise that is not my opinion in any way but rather an attempt at trying to rationalise the 75 hours that was decided upon. They were simply the only two aircraft I could think of that might have been around at the time the decisions were made. If however you're arguing that the guys that decided on the 75 hour minimums were wrong (as the aircraft that were around back then were very difficult to fly) then that's a different matter and would go a long way to support my argument.

Learned is a bit of a leap... RA - 75 hours as pilot in command Integrated CPL - 90 hours as pilot in command Non-integrated CPL - 120 hours as pilot in command Am i missing something? I really didn't want this to turn into a GA versus RA discussion though. I simply wanted to point out the minimums to people. The GA minimums are also not as high as many people would think. Hence the reason there are dozens of unemployed junior Grade 3's with shiny degrees wandering around the country willing to sweep the floors and fly for free just to get some hours up.

I haven't belittled the trade in any way. All i've done is state some simple facts. If stating the facts undermines the authority of the instructor gods then i'd argue they shouldn't be on such a pedestal to begin with. The whole point of RA-Aus was to reduce the cost and red-tape of flying and to get people into the air doing what they love with minimum fuss. I believe the 75 hours came from a realisation that you could quite easily teach someone else to fly a Thruster or Gazelle after that much time. Further it was a simple fact at the time that the RA-Aus certificate was not in any way to be considered a stepping stone to flying 747's. Again i point out that this is a good thing! As i said above though there is a massive difference between accumulating epaulet stripes and actually being any good at what you do. That's the same in every industry around the world. A lawyer or accountant isn't good at what they do simply because they passed their exams. A mechanic isn't good simply because they passed their apprenticeship. It's their approach and years of continued learning and experience that makes them truly valuable.

And the relevance of that is? I don't see why we need to make this personal. I'm simply discussing the current state of play with the facts as they stand. Let's call me simply an invested observer for the sake of this discussion.

The minimums are there for a reason and no doubt in my mind there are some instructors out there who were capable of getting there in the minimum hours. There are also schools offering the instructors rating for a fixed fee with the minimum hours. I know for a fact that graduation is often guaranteed from some of them once you pay the funds. That's a whole other argument though...

You forgot to mention that the integrated CPL courses (the ones that allow CPL in 150 hours) are the integrated courses run only by the larger flying schools and universities. In many of them after 3 years of flying and theory you also walk away with a Degree. I don't see why the premise that a GA instructor has to have had more training than an RA instructor is hard to accept? The facts are really quite clear. The facts also support the whole rationale behind RA's self-governing culture which is a good thing. I'm not saying RA should have any more training so no need to get worried about extra study - I'm just pointing out that there is really not as much of a gap between an instructor and a pilot as many believe. The gap is even less in RA was why i mentioned the GA hours. The saddest part of it all is that the gap between a pilot and a good instructor is even harder to spot as the student pilot is generally swept off their feet by the first instructor they meet.... Lastly - please do not try to to make it sound as though doing an instructor course (RA or GA) is all that difficult. For RA you only have to apply yourself to reading or classrooms for anything from 20 to 60 hours worth of theory and get the 20 hours of flying in. The major difficulty comes from trying to juggle it in between a full-time job and family. If you're capable of getting a licence to begin with then you can be pretty sure you'll get through. And don't get me started on bloody epaulet stripes!

Looks like people's opinion of what makes an instructor is a long, long way from the truth! RA-Aus Instructors only need 75 hours and to have passed a simple instructors course in order to instruct. That's probably a lot less than most people would consider "experienced". Any kid of 18 with 75 hours flying time can instruct RA-Aus. GA is a bit different as they need their 150-200 hours and a CPL prior to getting the instructors rating. What you mention is actually what is occurring in RA-Aus.

I wouldn't think that insurance is necessarily voided by breaking a law? I'd be checking the policy wording very carefully. There would however be some sort of disclosure agreement whereby you would certify to the insurer that the aircraft was airworthy prior to taking out insurance. This might be where things could get hung up and the whole policy could be null and void - especially in the RA-Aus world where everything really comes down to self-assessment. If you have a LAME signing off then you're good to sue if something's not right. I think you'd be mad to step into any aircraft that's exceeded the max crosswind at any time though. Evektor may have a good checklist of items that he may be able to go through every time the crosswind max is exceeded but failing this you'd be stepping into a one-off experimental each time you get into it. For some reason I often get the impression that many "pilots" see the max crosswind figure as more of a guide rather than a hard and fast rule? If you run an engine at 9000 rpm when redline is 8000 rpm everyone would all expect it to fail catastrophically but for some reason not many seem to feel the same way about the max crosswind figure? It's funny because engine failures we'd all have some chance to deal with but structural failures really don't leave you with many choices...

Council has wiped their hands of it entirely. Sounds like the solution for most landholders out there is to continue to keep their doors shut. Vast majority of the haven't opened their doors in the last two years so they will most likely continue as sarcophagi to the decomposing aircraft within. The smallest hanger out there has been told they have to pay $2,600 per annum if they want to step over their threshold onto the taxiway. The largest hanger owner has been asked for $54,000 per annum! Then there are the parking and landing fees on top of that and a main runway that's so full of loose gravel and weeds it's avoided whenever possible. Everyone's trying to avoid a legal stoush due to the costs involved and i'm not sure there would be enough takers to make a class action affordable. Goulburn aviation will continue to plod along in some form so long as people still want to fly.

Well the deal is finally done. New owner of the airport is now going to start "kicking arse" (to take his words to the local paper in the post above) in regards to collecting fees and charges that have been levied by him to landowners. My feeling is it's going to get very messy indeed if the law suits start flying. Not one landowner has paid his "neighborhood tax" as they believe (and I must say I agree) that no-one has a right to charge their neighbors a tax simply for being their neighbor. No matter where their properties are located. It certainly sounds and feels like the hostility is going to worsen even further...