poteroo

Back to the subject of 'small flying schools' in the RAAus system. As far as I know, there is no intent to reduce school numbers. This will rise and fall with the economy - right now it's probably evident as a decline in 'active' flying schools, and a decline in hours flown at those still 'current'. It's most likely been raised due to a throwaway comment from Canberra about the difficulties, and cost, of annually auditing each school. Desktop audits are really of dubious value. It would really benefit most CFIs to have an RAAus Ops manager visit at least every 2 years, with the intermediate year done regionally. Re the SMS situation. yes, CASA wanted each school to have an SMS, and yes, RAAus organised a pro forma template for each school to produce its' own. I changed/added quite a bit of ours, and submitted it last July. Nothing heard to date, so I assume it has been accepted. When I see what has been required in our local Part 141 GA school, we are getting off lightly! Seems to always happen when CASA promise a 'simplification'. Reminds me of one definition of bureaucracy - a committee designing a horse but finishing with a camel!! happy days,

Correct on both points. However, to quote an oldie...... you can lead a horse to water - but it may not drink! I often see logbooks with less than 5-10 hrs flying - over the 2 year interval between BFR/AFR - and in one case, the pilot had a total of 3 renewals on a single logbook page. The instructors 'problem' with these pilots is complicated: if we suggest some retraining, then we are mercenary bastards, or, the pilot then 'shops' around for a less diligent instructor, or, they fly back home and continue to fly 'out-of-sight/out-of-mind for the rest of their days. Now let's be very clear: I'm not 'failing' pilots because they can't recite the latest blurb from RAAus or CASA about,eg, radio frequencies - I'm only asking them to improve their actual flying skills back to where they were at issue. Pilots are not killing themselves because of peripheral stuff - it's generally due to degraded aircraft handling skills, degraded decision making skills, and poor aircraft knowledge. Re the ABC story: Well, it's all very well for an ex RPT pilot to state the bleeding obvious. Annoying actually, when they arte not seeing just how drastically the economy and red tape is reducing the hours flown by most pilots. If pilots fly less - their skills will decline - there's nothing new about this. However, the issue is really, how to convince pilots to obtain recurrant training? Regardless of how it's done - there will be a large dropout of both RAAus and GA pilots - and mostly from the more 'senior' demographic. Is this a problem? On the other hand, it seems to me that it's not necessarily the more elderly pilots who are figuring in the recent accidents. Before CASA or RAAus impose all sorts of training requirements on pilots, I suggest they look carefully into the ages and experience levels in, say, the last 10 years incidents/accidents. The numbers may more accurately inform any future decisions. happy days,

Yup, he's very lucky to still be with us. As for serious 'bush' flying - well, there are many aspects to it. It's not just about flying low & slow: it's about flying the aircraft safely in the low level environment. To do that, get instruction from someone who knows what they're doing. DYO training has no place here.

Just past 78 yo and still hold a Class 1 medical with no restrictions. About 6 yrs ago, my cholesterol levels and ratios began to concern my DAME, and, as well, my BSL crept past 5.5, and my weight had been moving up (was 72 - up to 83 kg). No history of heart or diabetes in known family. So, I had to take control or my instructing days were over. DAME insisted on statins immediately, and I was on 40mg daily from then on. Then saw the Dr Michael Mosely 'fasting' or 5:2 eating approach story on SBS, and so both bride & I went for it. Helps to have moral support! Thought we'd die with only 600 cals/day for 2 consec days - but it began to have effects within a month or two. I thought - 'can't do this without serious exercise' - so bought a bike and began to grind out the kms early every morning. Try to burn at least 500-800 Cals per day. Reason for bike - bad knees, but no probs on wheels! So far, only 1 low speed accident of my own doing although I cringe when roadtrains pass on one nasty section of port road. Upshot of these efforts has been to wind my cholesterol total & good/bad ratios way back down to happy levels, get my BSL back below 5.0, and my weight down to 73kgs. (Can now wear 32 waist jeans instead of 34!). My knees are a little better too - at least I've gained another 5 years out of them, though a knee replacement looms in next year or so. The interesting thing with the fasting 'diet' is that, although the program states you can eat as much, of whatever you like, on the remaining 5 days............ you actually don't do that. Starvation for these short periods appears to trigger some form of learned response by which your body tells you that you really can survive without rubbish or lots of it. We have cut our wine intake to only 2 days weekly, and then to 1 or 1.5 standard drinks with dinner. Hard, but not impossible! The real problem is how to handle holidays because after only 2 weeks away from the bike, and with 'holiday' level eating & drinking - things begin to slide quickly, especially my cycling fitness. With my medical review falling in mid February each year, keeping the handbrake on all these health indicators has become quite a task over the Christmas/NY period. I know that CASA are 'talking' about allowing instructors to continue on just a Class 2 medical, or even a Basic 2, but it's a point-of-pride that I don't want to drop the Class 1 until it's impossible to maintain. (CASA usually backslide in these matters). I know it's costly, and often inconvenient to be constantly seeing an audiologist, an ophthalmologist, a cardiologist, a blood pathology lab, and my DAME - but I'm going to beat CASA Avmed if it kills me! Might too! And that's my story. Hope it helps lower your BEW too. happy days,

That thought did occur to me as well. The accident 'rate' or 'number of' could be lower for many, many reasons. It's quite simplistic, and less than honest, to identify 'increased safety compliance' with lower accidents. RAAus HO need to take a more realistic approach to this matter. As far as I know, there are less total hours being flown, there are less aircraft actually 'serviceable' and in flying condition, and many incidents & accidents are not reported, (probably more so in recent times). As well, there is an ever higher % of our pilots who are not flying at all, due economics, limited access to a hire aircraft, or loss of interest. These, together with other factors, are very likely the reasons behind less 'accidents' being recorded. Our HO needs to be reminded of the great aviation truism : ' Learn from other pilots mistakes because you won't have time to make them all yourself' happy days,

Mick, Welcome to RAAus world. You should be able to convert your RPL for an RPC with the 5 hrs mandated time. Then, you could do your navs in an RAAus aircraft and get the RAAus nav endo. With what you have already done in GA, provided you're not too rough, it should only take you a couple short duals plus a good solo nav and then a test. The RPC nav endo can then be signed onto your RPL licence by a GA instructor because it is 'recognised' by CASA. The advantages of flying with an instructor who is both RAAus and GA qualified makes this all very neat. cheers,

Agree. It especially applies with the 'base-to-final' skidding turn. I'm a believer in training students to fly 'in balance' through each and every phase of flight. An aircraft isn't going to spin, (especially 'under'), if it simply stalls while in balance. As instructors, we are failing our safety duty if we can't produce pilots who fly with both feet and hands. And, (as Nev points out, above),it's much, much higher risk to lose control at low level. On that subject, I don't start any low level training until the pilot can vigorously manoeuvre the aircraft at lower speeds, in all configurations, and recover from incipient stalling with minimal height loss or drama. I'd go further on this, to state that IMHO, the industry problem with accidents due to R-LOC is due in great part to pilot inability to control and manoeuvre the aircraft close to the ground, which is itself in part due to the 'ground-rush' effect as mentioned by Nev (above). happy days,

We need to be very aware of the US 'rules' with LSA type aircraft where, besides the 1320lbs/600kg MTOW, they also have 120 KIAS as the upper limit. For some inexplicable reason, (one of omission by mistake IMHO), CASA didn't include any upper speed limit for LSA - just the 45KIAS stall speed. If there is going to be such a massive lift in both MTOW, and the max allowable TAS in the US is about to be lifted too - good for them. But, the last thing we want is for CASA to 'benevolently' give us the US version. That is a real worry - do we need such high limits on LSA? Why not just remove the numbers and instal 'VH-' on the aircraft? That's where this is heading. Then we won't need any RAA, or RPC - it will all be CASA and an RPL/PPL.

There are many factors conspiring against common sense here. The 1st is probably the company beancounters urging operations to carry as close to the absolute minimum reserves possible - in the interests of additional revenue. The 2nd is that with ever increasing longhaul flights - it's much more likely that either the en route winds will be different, or the destination weather will change and require an alternate, or that the destination traffic will become limiting... amongst a few other factors. The United flight must have been aware that they had used a few more tonnes of fuel prior to their LAX departure, but thought they'd 'make it up' during the cruise. Clearly they didn't make up enough. But, they flew past Brisbane, and could have ducked in there with adequate reserves. I think they might have just decided to chance their arm with getting a quicker approach into Sydney - which didn't happen either. The holes in the cheese begin to line up.

I think the MPL isn't 'usable' in Aussie airlines but may be, (?), as you said, used by foreign airlines. Certainly not into the USA, where the FAA has mandated min 1500hrs + ATPL for all F/O's. QF take S/Os into US, but I don't think the US minimums apply to them. I still can't accept the airline managements' crying poor about their lack of pilots when it's of their own making. The Feds should not be allowing use of 457 visas when there are plenty of Aussie pilots queued to get into the rhs. If the airlines hadn't been so miserable about internal training and promotion over the last 5 years, there would be a steady stream of F/Os being promoted to captains. Boom & bust mentality. But, it is, what it is. Congratulations to the Wagners for having the balls to push Wellcamp. It's going to be a busy bit of airspace on the DD in the next few years. happy days,

Yes, but CASA contradict themselves, once again, by 'recognition' of the RPC training as equivalent to that of RPL in a GA school. Further, they also 'recognise' the cross-country endorsement from RPC over into RPL. The full PPL is not included in these recognitions, and neither should it be, because of the CTA/CTZ experience. There's also issues over the transference of design feature and flight activity endorsements from RAAus to GA, and also the use of an RAAus registered aircraft for joint RAAus/GA BFRs. happy days,

And therein lies a challenge. Finding enough Grade 1 instructors is the next step. And, some of them will also need to be MECIR, and with FE privileges. Getting them to re-locate will require incentive, ie, well above the 'award' payscale and on longer term contracts. Given the current senior instructor shortages - I can't see senior instructors accepting the lousy T&C's of the past. But, the ripples will spread: the instructor ranks will thin at existing schools, and the costs of instruction will rise right down the line - even into RAAus.

Your short distance requirement really doesn't call for an RV - even a 160HP model would be wasted. However, if you planned to do a little more extensive touring, then an RV6A, 7a, or 9A is hard to beat for all round numbers. Purchase: $50k - 120k. Operating: 32 LPH for 150KTAS Couldn't recommend either Cessna or Piper because of SIDS, many timex costs, corrosion issues, unforeseen with old aircraft. RAAus types? Low wing or high wing? Low better for blue sky hangarage and for crosswind ops. A couple Brumby 600 low wings for sale recently which are good for 110 on 18-20 lph. For blue sky hangarage - any high wing is going to cause you sleepless nights. In regard to trailer storage - why not consider a much reduced rate to still hangar your folding wing machine. It fits into a very small spot. What about the Eurofox - 100+ speeds using 18-20LPH? A big improvement on the Skyfox/Gazelle. With a current PPL, you can convert over to hold an RAAus ticket in a few hrs. The PPL allows CTA/CTR access, and you can legally use that in an RAAus rego aircraft fitted with TXP. Until the whole biz of CTA access is sorted at CASA level, I'd recommend you keep your PPL current by medical & BFR, which will also keep your RPC current so you can legally use the RAAus rego aircraft. happy days,

Qantas doesn't have any real problem with attracting the 'bottom' end of the pilot tree. World-wide, most ATPLs would like the QF gig on their CV, and that regardless of whether the T&Cs are a bit below some others. They are, reportedly, a bit short at the C&T level because some of the near retirement captains are heading o/s to top up their super in a foreign bank account. QF doesn't really 'need' to operate a huge 'cadet' scheme. A read through the press announcement today that Wellcamp/Toowoomba will build a complete infrastructure from bare ground is proof that QF isn't going to put too many dollars into these schools. It will be OP dollars, but QF will take the credit.

There are many and varied interpretations. With each Instrument issued under 61, the numbers increase. The existing GA schools have pressured CASA into this obfuscation, and I'm getting too old to go into bat for sorting this out. AOPA might get somewhere with it, but ........

The 'remedial' training, if necessary, does not require a Part 141/2 School AOC because it is not for the issue of a licence, rating, or operational rating on a licence. This re-training falls under 61.385 and can be done by an independent instructor. I know that CASA have written into Part 61 that an AFR can only be done via a Part 141/2 school, but they then contradict themselves in the 141/2 requirements. I have been forwarding Form 61-afr with the flight school box simply marked 'independent instructor' or 'FIR-G1' to them for years now and nothing has been refused. I think they know full well, that remedial training is covered under 61.385, and have chosen not to create more hassles for themselves over the unholy mess they've created of Part 61. happy days,

Only when the major airlines can no longer pick & choose from a queue going around the corner do they cry poor about 'pilot shortages'. And, they wouldn't be losing their experienced 'check & training' captains if they paid them what they are being offered in China. The shortages are of their own making: yet they whinge to the government of the day to allow them to import pilots on special visas. What hypocrisy! If the majors put their money where there mouth is, and spent up on genuine Aussie pilot training, consistently - then there wouldn't be a supply problem. Asking Aussie aspirants to cough up $125k - $150k and then struggle to survive in a low paid flying job isn't going to work any more: there are other options.

My earlier reply to you needs some correction and explanation> You only need 100 hrs PIC to start your instructor training - not 120 as I quoted. However, the Ops Manual says you need a minimum of 30 hrs ground training - not 20 as I quoted. The junior instructor requires supervision by the CFI or senior instructor up until they become an SI. To sit for the SI, you need a min 150 TT, of which 75 must be instruction, during which time you should have presented 3 students to the CFI as ready for solo. Now, here's the numbers you need to progress through the RAAus instructing ranks. 1. You must pass your PC - min hrs here is 15 dual + 5 solo 2. Then, you need a further 5 hrs for passenger carriage. 3. Then, you need a further 90 hrs of PIC to reach the instructor course minimums of 100 PIC 4. Then, you do 20 hrs dual in the course. 5. Then, to progress to SI, and be out of supervision - you need 75 hrs instruction 6. So, by now you will have flown 210 hrs TT 7. If you could fly those 75 hrs instruction in 90 days, you'd only need 1 CFI check flight - my guess is that you'd be looking at 6 mths, so there'll be 3 x 90 day linechecks for you to undergo = another 3 hrs, but probably paid for 100% by the school. 7. All of the above numbers assume you are Kingsford Smith re-incarnated, ie, they are the bare minimums. The system runs on competency, so I'd think any budgeting should be done on +10-15% above the minimums. cheers,

OK, my guesstimate was on the back of the proverbial matchbox. But, based on my schools' pricings: 20 hrs flight time* @ $220/hr dual (GST incl) = $4400 20 hrs briefing practice & classroom time @ $44/hr = $880 Total = $5280 * this assumes that the trainee requires 1 hr of brief/debrief to go with each 1 hr of flight. So, in effect, the trainee is paying $44/hr for this CFI's time. All of the above assumes that, not only do you have 125 hrs PIC of an RAAus aircraft, but, you are able to fly the aircraft very well from the RHS. Unless you have this skill, then it's not easy for you to both fly and 'patter' the lessons simultaneously. Your patter must be closely linked to the control manipulations - bloody hard to achieve when you start. It also assumes that you are well versed in your BAK theory. As well, you'll have to develop 'public speaking' skills so as to avoid freezing up when you stand up in front of several students in a classroom. The pre-flight briefing is probably as important in the learning-to-fly process as is the training flight itself. Therefore, it must be understood by the student and you don't bore them to death... (metaphorically that is). Now, if a pilot was to front up with their own aircraft, which would necessarily have fully functioning dual controls and brakes, and be fully insured to cover me for training, then you'd only need to pay the instructor charge out rate of $88/hr, but this would be for every hour involved in ground and air training. Remember that the schools' aircraft is sitting idle while the CFI is conducting your briefing and flight training, and 'eating its' head off!' One of the items not included here is the one of 'mutual' practice by trainee instructors. They cannot take out anyone else other than an instructor, but if there were 2 trainees doing the course together, it's possible for them to conduct practice flights after they have completed the dual component for each section. This pretty much doubles the total in flight practice instructing that trainees do. IMHO, this is one of the better points of the CASA GA instructor rating. As a newly minted instructor, you have to be supervised by a CFI initially, and for this purpose, the CFI needs to be on site and readily 'available.' This isn't too well defined in Ops Manual, but if the CFI understands their responsibilities, particularly in respect to safety matters, then we are all very, very careful about employing instructors. So, the new instructor becomes, in reality, a 'cost' to the flying school until such time as they are 'out' of supervision. Don't expect to be paid $88/hr for your efforts while the CFI is just supervising. I'm not sure about other locations, but in WA we seem to have very few available 'junior' instructors about. There are times when having one available would be handy. I can't think of a single school which has sufficient flying for it to fully employ the CFI, let alone several junior instructors - so perhaps that explains the apparent shortage of juniors. However, for the new instructor to be truly involved, then they should make individual efforts to attract students - not just sit back in the lounge and expect to be fed a stream of grateful students. I don't think much has changed in this respect in the last 50 years: junior instructors 'hustle' for trade as has long been the case. Trust this goes some way to your understanding of the instruction process, happy days,

You'll find instructing is very rewarding, but onerous at the same time. You'll be more nervous than the 1st student that you send solo: believe me, you'll be sooo happy to see them back safely on the runway. btw, here in Australia, the minimum TT for instructing is 125 hrs of in command flying in an 'ultralight'. This, plus a 20 hrs flying course done with a senior instructor, and a test by a Pilot Examiner. Included with that 20 hrs flying is at least 20 hrs of briefing practice and theory presentation, including what we call 'Principles & Method of Instruction'. Your cost to do the instructor course is not less than A$5000 at most schools. But spare a thought for the student instructor in GA in Australia - 30 hrs dual flight + 20 hrs 'mutual' practice with another student instructor, plus much more than 50 hrs of theory & briefing presentation. Takes at least 6 weeks full time and runs out closer to A$18,000. Then, you are tested by our CASA - and the failure rate for 1st try is very high (66% I think). happy days,

An applicant for the RPC must have sat and passed the 'Radio' theory exam as provided by RAAus Ops via their CFI. Then, the CFI assesses the applicant on practical radio use during the flight test for the RPC. The CFI then completes the RAAus form 'Pilot Certificate Issue', which includes, (at the top of p2), aircraft group choices, and below that, boxes under the heading of 'endorsements'. The CFI should tick the radio box if satisfied the applicant meets requirements. Failure to meet radio requirements means a FAIL in the RPC test. Then, should the RPC pilot decide to shift over to GA, and apply for an RPL, their radio competency will be recognised as equivalent to that of any other RPL applicant. Of course, the GA CFI is going to be assessing the pilots' radio work during the test for the RPL issue. I haven't heard any feedback that RPC pilots have lower radio competency than other RPL applicants. It could be the case that RPC pilots who have never operated out of busy CTAFs with RPT/RFDS/RAAF traffic may be a bit wobbly on radio if they were doing their RPL at that location. However, it's usual that the RPC pilot needs at least 2 hrs of IF, and if this is flown at the CTAF where they will be tested for RPL: then there should be no worries with radio. happy days,

Quite possible. There's a history of Machiavellian decisions from our regulator. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether RAAus are selfishly trying to ensure their longevity, by undermining the entire industry effort to reduce regulation in every matter. Is our executive and Board exceeding their brief? Possibly, and I'd like to hear how they explain their position. Disclosure: Member of AOPA for 55 years, SAAA for 20, and RAAus for 12.

Why bother with the 'lining up' call? Its quite superfluous. You should be 'entering and rolling 27' - with no delays. In fairness to the PC12, he may well have made his ' joining' call on the upwind or crosswind leg, and so had you in clear sight for minutes before you began your take-off roll. Most commercial GA aircraft are happier to allow the smaller aircraft to get flying and out of the circuit: it leaves them in some uncertainty when the aircraft on the holding point procrastinates. I don't think you have a valid case. Just sayin'

How true! The teaching of real safety begins before the prospective student walks out to the aircraft to begin their TIF. The Board are seriously deluded if they believe that they are major contributors to flying safety in RAAus. Some effort toward actually helping flying schools with a no-bullsh video on flying safety, backed up by well thought out 'safety' cards for students, pilots and aircraft might ease our scepticism about HO 'safety' efforts. Until then, it's, once again, those at the coalface who are instilling common-sense safety in new pilots. happy days,

When the owner is leasing the block, but owns the hangar - then they provide hangarkeepers insurance because they assume the liabilities when your aircraft is inside. What happens if the hangar 'owner' is also the local Council - I'm not sure. Probably is their responsibility if you are renting the space, but a Council probably has some sort of 'umbrella' coverage of all its' properties. Ask them.