poteroo

Competency Based Training

CBT, and it's education equivalent of Outcomes Based Education,(OBE), are systems designed to produce a paper trail which can then be audited as part of the expanding compliance industry. Compliance is, of course, about protecting bums, and shedding responsibility. It has already created hours more paperwork for every GA AOC holder, for no discernable improvement in aviation skills. QA is another ill-conceived system designed to produce a paper trail, at great cost to industry, and usually for no premium on the product.

Clever 'learning' systems, paper trails, auditing, compliance, and liability concerns are all direct costs. As such, they reduce our efficiency and competitiveness.

Our bureaucracies are placing greater value on the process, rather than the result. (Heaven forbid that I use the dreaded outcome word!)

A pox on them all !!

But, the PC diseases are pervasive. They are already invading all fields of aviation.

To talk of CBT being good for aviation, when at the same time placing arbitary hours limitations upon licences and certificates, is inconsistent and hypocritical. If a student or pilot meets the skill levels - why then should they still have to meet a minimum hours figure? This is an artificial barrier, and has no role in a truly CBT system. We complain about the same principle being applied by a country like Japan,or the EU, where it's used to keep competition out of their marketplace - but overlook our own artifices.

A classic example is the 5 hours minimum for conversion from GA to RAAus. If this was done on skills alone, ie, using CBT, then many pilots should be through in an hour. Whats different when you change the rego numbers on the side of an aircraft?

Another example,somewhat parallel to the above, could well be the conversion of GA instructors over to RAAus. Is it about proven instructing competency or whether the hours were in GA or RAAus registered aircraft? The principles remain the same.

CASA have been talking up Reg 103 as being simple rules for simple aircraft - but will they really oversee this principle right through the industry? More to the point, perhaps, is whether the industry really wants to hold to a sensible 'KISS' principle, or will we be diverted into meaningless paperchases?

We need to be careful not to overcomplicate things in the training of RAAus pilots. Lets learn from the experience of GA. After all, that's why RAAus is being overwhelmed by student and pilot numbers.

In conclusion, I found a lot to agree with in Tony's posts.

poteroo

A good exercise in flying, without 'chasing' IAS numbers, is to 'learn' the power settings v's the attitude of your beast for climb, cruise and approach - and then blank off the ASI and go flying.

It's very character building, and you'll never again fear the visit of an itinerant wasp while you're out bush.

happy days,

Right Seat or Rear Seat as PIC?

Seems that this comes back to competency, as well as what your insurers, and authorities, would consider to be the level of prudence you've displayed.

Sure, most pilots can adapt to flying from the 'co-pilot' position - but the problem is that you will react, after only very low experience, to an emergency situation as if you were in the PIC seat. Crosswind situations come to mind as you could be 3-6 degrees 'out-of-line' at touchdown due to not looking forward on the correct line.

As well, if the wx is at all marginal, avoid flying anywhere but the LH seat, because it's not easy to fly 'cross cockpit' in lowering visibility.

In regards to 'practicing' rear seat, solo, in tandems - be aware that the POH probably disallows that because of W&B considerations. Also, in Cubs, you can't reach the flaps, or fuel selector or mixture.

I was also once told by a LAME that the LH side controls of C150 and C152 were built stronger than the RH side because they were the most used. Not sure if this is true !!

happy days,

You're only required to take the maps you'll need for the trip - not for the whole of Australia, so I'd say that you have a good arguement for being selective with your ERSA pages.

Depending on the quality of the GPS you have installed, much of the location data might be in the database for the GPS - certainly for all Navaid and RPT locations anyway.

happy days,

As you'll see from my details, I'm on a full security airport, but which has only 2 RPT flights daily.

I've been on the Airport Consultative Committee for 7 years, and in that time, have seen the City's attitudes toward GA and RAA changing - thankfully for the better. It very much depends on the councillors and the staff, and how we pilots and owners can relate to them. Unfortunately,some of them have preconceived predjudices towards aviation - and this is a challenge.

Things are on the improve though, with new staff and a more positive attitude toward using the airport to create opportunities for the city, rather than looking at it as a cost.

Landing fees are about to be abolished because of the cost of collection - which we told them at the time.

Hangar sites are being created - in 2003 there was a backlog of 18 applications,and that's increased as more retirees head for the coast.

Of course, there's the airpark approach, but there are some downsides to these as well. Even with committed aviation residents - training can be a nuisance, and if there are close neighbours - it's worse. Around here, with the price of land skyrocketing, building an airpark would be a very unprofitable exercise. A couple have been mooted, but I'll be surprised to see them open. You don't move to the coast, then live 20nm inland so you can be on an airpark with 10-15 degree higher temps.

I must admit to originally thinking that we had to get out of the main airport and 'do our own thing'. I'm now of the opinion that we need to work with the airport owners so that we enjoy good facilities, at modest cost, and close to town - while they have an asset which is beginning to earn it's way via the extra people going through the gate, rather than through inflated charges on existing users.

happy days,

Just a few suggestions.

(1) Never learn on bitumin surface - it will prove very difficult. Grass is best to start on.

(2) Every aircraft 'sits' differently on the ground. Some have steep 'deck' angles, others sit very 'flat' due to having short main gear legs &/or, 'high' tailwheels. You need to flare into that angle before it stalls, or all 3 won't arrive together. Note where your line-of-sight cuts the windscreen,or cowling, when you are focussed on your end-of-runway aiming point.....take the aircraft onto the strip and sit in it there.

(3) Think about the flare in terms of several, deliberate, small, 'checking' inputs with your elevator. The 1st 'check' should be as the terrain rises in your peripheral vision, and it is simply to fly level with the surface. This is simultaneous with raising your eyes from the original 'aiming point' up to the end-of-runway aim point.

(4) I found it easier to use a glide approach to start with, because there are other effects happening when you reduce power in the flare.

(5) If the aircraft has flaps, use half or 2/3rds...which allows you a little more time to execute the flare.

There are books and books, and more books on tailwheel flying. David Robsons is an Aussie publication and certainly as good as any of the US stuff that I've read.

Btw, I'm talking from GA experience - have never flown a RAA t/w aircraft, so might just be completely off track !

happy days,

Airmanship.....Roadmanship ?? There's a % of road users who are just plain arrogantly dangerous, so maybe there's always going to be a % of pilots who'll short-cut procedures ?

The poor radio awareness situation is a concern though. And it's not just amateurs who get it wrong - have had one incident with the RFDS remaining on 'area' in the CTAF-R.

Audio selector panels are a common cause - they are high on the radio stack and often the switches get flicked into the speaker or mid-way position by hands on the panel coaming when in turbulence.

Radio volume is probably the most common fault - turned down to talk with pax, and not reset at initial inbound call. At CTAF-R's this is inexcusable because the taped identifier should be audible after your initial call.

I certainly agree that the existence of landing charges is associated with overt avoidance of radio calls. I'm pleased to advise that our city has agreed to scrap landing charges for anything under 2000kg - not because of any benevolence, but because (1) they couldn't record them all using existing airport staff, (2) Avdata is too expensive, and (3) the average cost of invoicing was 4x the landing fee. What they are loathe to admit is that aircraft movements halved after the application of charges - and never recovered !!

happy days,

Re: Compass's

Vertical card compass's are really good to fly off, but much more expensive.

Have also found the SIRS 'Pegasus' compass, (available thru Aircraft Spruce & probably others), to be more stable than the standard compass - but, double the price.

As in most things aviation - you get what you pay for !

happy days,

There's a current thread discussing whether to expand your CPL via Instructing or by a CIR on http://www.pprune.org - go to D & G GA and Questions to locate the it.

You might be best served by talking to a flying school which runs both GA and RAA operations under the one roof. This would help you to more 'seamlessly' shift from RAA into GA to do your CPL, but obtaining a lot of lower cost experience in the RAA side.

regards,

G'day Mangi,

The view of that Wau - Bulolo valley will be really something from a trike. I remember some very close looks at the terrain in the Black Cat Gap, and other gaps that I've long since forgotten the names of.

Was in PNG 1961-1970, first with DASF in Hagen,Madang,Kerevat, and 66-70 flew for SPAC, STOL and STOL/Patair out of POM.

Loved the place, but don't hear good news from there nowdays. Guess security is still OK in places like Wau.

Did you know Wau was once the steepest commercial airstrip in the world - since superceded by some strips in Nepal I think.

regards,

Over 50% of 'fuel related' incidents/accidents in Australia are due to fuel exhaustion.

Most accident investigations attribute this to 'fuel mismanagement', which is a technical term for ignorance of your aircrafts fuel system.

Once upon a time -charter companies required youto do a written 'engineering' test for each new type you were being endorsed on. At some aero clubs, I remember this was replaced by a very comprehensive briefing and aural quiz. And, both were big on fuel.

If the system only has an ON/OFF switch - you can bet that Murphy will ensure it's mishandled, eventually!

That's why we have vital checks as compared toexpansive checklists - but that's another story!!

happy days,

Flying Squad & Random Audits of Secure Airports

If a large twin rocks up to your local airport and begins to unload off to the side of the main terminal, and they are all wearing navy combat gear - you are being audited!

Interestingly, they seemed more interested in the terminal area - never going near the hangars.

It wouldn't be a good time to be wandering around the airside without your ASIC though.

Gates

For those of you having problems with press button keyboard gates - try the local CTAF code, to the 1st decimal place only. Works most locations!

Swipe Cards

Usually you need to obtain these from the airport owner, and you need an ASIC to do this. There has been discussion about whether the opening and closing of gates will be 'logged' onto a PC via a wireless connection - but so far I've not seen any evidence of this. Shades of 'big brother' should this ever happen.

happy days,

Downwind or Pre-landing Checks?

If we're going to keep to GA checks, particularly in faster 3-axis aircraft, then shouldn't we try to standardise on 'pre-landing' - because it's not always going to be an into wind landing?

If there's any slope, and the winds light - then I'm for the uphill landing direction. Anything over 3-4% and you cancel out 5-10 kts of headwind.

With the NAS 2c changes now adopted, using a mid-downwind join of the circuit doesn't leave you much time for the full 'pre-landing' checks before needing to turn base. I'm now more inclined to teach, and use, doing the pre-landings before making the turn onto the downwind leg.

You can always consciously omit the carby heat if still powered up, but apply it on the base leg, once you've reduced to 'approach/descent' power.

And, being of the 'old school' - I'm for the short memory checklist.

happy days,

Vigilant,

This subject comes up every 2nd day on pprune.org, and it's worth a search on that site to see the numerous and varied replies.

Briefly though, it depends on what your aspirations are. If you'd like to make a career out of instructing - there's plenty of time to get up to this level from late 30's age,and there are jobs for the dedicated career instructor. Being older isn't an impediment for instructing - it can be very advantageous.

From this age group - you'veonly a very limited chance of getting into either regional or mainline RPT, or business flying.

But, you have to fund your training for any aviation career, so you'll need either a rich uncle or a really well paid job. In WA, you could pick up a $100k pa job in the mines, with a 2 weeks ON/ 1 week OFF schedule - which would facilitate flight training. It may not have to be up in the Pilbara either - the BHP Ravensthorpe nickelproject, and the Grange Resources iron ore project are all within an hour or 2 drive of major (cool) south coast towns.

Have heard of many ex coppers getting into the security and OHS areas with resource companies.

It's said that you need $50k for a CPL with Instructor Rating, but this can be reduced lots by sourcing aircraft at the right price.

If you fund your training via a 'mines' job, you'll come out with a fully paid up qualification, and might then be able to take on some part-time instructing to upgrade. Remember that you are starting at the botttom of the pole as a Gr3 instructor, and have to work under supervision for several hundred hours - which is costly to a flight school.

Just a few thoughts, and good luck if you decide to progress the flying career,

happy days,

The biggest problem for VFR pilots is in recognising that you are losing your in flight visibility. Clearly defined clouds such as TS/Cb are easily seen, and most pilots consciously avoid them.

But, when flying into light rain - then slightly heavier rain - then with wisps of stratus - then with cloud below........you progressively lose your visibility, without really noticing it - because you are toobusy checking maps, asking for forecasts on radio....etc.

It's a good idea when training to practice your distance estimation -with the instructorgiving the 'actual' after each of your calls.Do this at different heights above ground...(not QNH altitude).Become proficient at estimating distances 'from' various ground features.

So, when you eventually get into the situation of decreasing forward visibility, you have a much better idea of what is 3nm,5nm, for any height agl, and are then psyched up to make the 180 turn, and get out of there!

Remember too, that in rain, the distortion through the perspex means your are actually closer to features than you think you are.

The early 180 decision is always the wisest.

Happy days,

I hate 'touch-&-Go' because it imposes a make haste atmosphere on the pilot. As others have noted, this leads to mistakes.

'Stop-and-Go' has always been the best value practice for pilots, because directional control is most difficult as speed decreases,the '3rd' wheel comes into play, and larger control inputs are required,sometimes with differential braking added in.

Provided that the touchdown is within 150m of the threshold, and the landing roll isn't unduly long - at most airports there is usually more than enough runway remaining for a take-off from stationary.

Traffic permitting of course! Nominate the intention to S-&-G at the turning final radio call, as circuit traffic will be well appreciated then.

happy days,

Understood that the 720/750kg AUW proposal was driven by the fact that several European designs were already certified under JAR for the 750 weight. The intention was that they could be flown at the same weights under factory or kit built in RAA, as they can be in GA.

The thinking pilot will use the increased AUW to legally carry more fuel, up to full tanks,rather than pax and baggage - which must be a positive.

happy days,

Lots of GA PPL's do less than 20 hrs annually. I've had a couple where they have 4 AFR/BFR stamps on the one page - doesn't leave much room for the hours!

Testing instructors have to maintain the standard, and if that means some proficiency improvement, then we have to pluck up the courage to tell them we'd like another hour or 2 dual. If the review is comprehensive, they'll probably have recognised the fact of their diminished proficiency anyway.

happy days,

Poteroo

G'day Everyone

Have just converted from GA to RAA licence in Jabiru 160, and very pleased with both the process, and the Jab's performance.

I'm located in the SW of WA at Albany, which is now a full security CTAF®......for better or worse!!

happy days,

poteroo