Jump to content

Low Level Training upgraded to full Rating under Part 61


Recommended Posts

References:

 

 

 

Subpart 61 Q Low Level Ratings

 

Manual of Standards Part 61 Unit 2.5.1

 

CAO 29.10

 

CAR 157

 

 

What was previously a course of training preparatory to on the job training for mustering or low level survey - is now to be a full blown rating in GA. It may eventually have some carryover effects to the RAAus low level endorsement. What it confirms is that CASA are concerned about low level accidents, and believe this upgrading of the LL training is the best approach toward reducing this accident trend.

 

I do not subscribe to this thinking. The pilots who undertake low level training will emerge much the wiser for the experience. They do now, and I'd be surprised if they were the culprits in the many senseless LL accidents. The pilots who believe they personally don't need any such training, that it's a conspiracy to extract more money from poor pilots, and that they won't ever have to fly low - will never undertake the training anyway. That's why the accidents will continue.

 

I believe that some low level training, at least 2 hrs of it, should be included in the body of the RPC and RPL training. If done vigorously enough, this will impress upon most pilots the higher risks they run at lower levels. It would possibly increase the numbers who later completed a higher level of LL training.

 

What do you think?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall on this forum that someone did the RAus low level training but was refused the endorsement on their certificate by the incumbent Ops Manager... certainly a disincentive to do the training.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall on this forum that someone did the RAus low level training but was refused the endorsement on their certificate by the incumbent Ops Manager... certainly a disincentive to do the training.

Yep me!

But still happy I did the training. It opened my eyes very wide to the HIDDEN dangers.

 

I have posted about this before , my old cfi had a strong belief that all students should do LL training as too open them up to these hidden dangers( number 1 being - never with a pax 2. the single phase rural wire- which I have in my paddock). Taught me pretty quickly it is safer to stick to 500 agl if I want to fly low and even then you want to be well aware of your surroundings including the air your flying in! Stay safe guys

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall on this forum that someone did the RAus low level training but was refused the endorsement on their certificate by the incumbent Ops Manager... certainly a disincentive to do the training.

I believe this won't be repeated. The reason that a recreational pilot undergoes LL training is to improve their skills and therefore become a safer pilot. The safety case is compelling.

 

In GA, it may lead on into mustering, or survey, or into a full blown ag rating and so is being done for commercial reasons.

 

happy days,

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and even if someone never intends to do low level flying I think the benefits of a minimum couple of hours would be great. After all every one of us does low level flying at least twice a flight and that extra skillset in an engine out scenario could only be a help surely.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no doubt whatsoever that my LL training helped me to get out of a very sticky situation when I stupidly got myself caught in bad weather and spent time scud-running to try to find somewhere to put down. I strongly agree that LL training should be a part of the pilot training curriculum.

 

Poteroo - when there are a lot more of them perhaps the comments on this thread might be used to strengthen the argument for having LL included in the syllabus.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely some form of limited LL training should be part of the basic syllabus for PC and PPL. The safety argument is compelling. I remember we did what was called a LL segment in our early PPL training, but it was not really LL, it was a significant Nav segment at 500' gal. But it highlighted the difficulties of navigating long distance at 500'.

 

We do at least two hours simulated Instrument flight for the PPL so why not several at real LL? We should be taught extensive LL ops around the precautionary approach and land aspect, but not going around at 500'; we should be taught all the precautionary techniques as we check not below 300' ( highest in valleys) for those bloody wires and do a real low level approach into a difficult field so there can be some real value I gained.

 

The next challenge will be where will the approved LL training areas be and what red tape will The CASA put the training operation through for approval.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The safety argument is compelling. I remember we did what was called a LL segment in our early PPL training, but it was not really LL, it was a significant Nav segment at 500' gal. But it highlighted the difficulties of navigating long distance at 500'.

Been a while since I have done PPL nav training but a low level leg was in the syllabus then - still in my copy of CASA's day VFR syllabus which I believe is current - who knows what is in the Part 61 MOS.

 

"C8.5 Navigate at low level and in reduced visibility

 

• Maintains aircraft in visual meteorological conditions

 

• Maintains separation from terrain and obstacles, allowing for wind

 

and turbulence (minimum height 500 ft AGL) ..."

 

We do at least two hours simulated Instrument flight for the PPL so why not several at real LL? ...

I used to think that you've been around as long as I have but perhaps not. My basic training included dual flying at "real LL".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.......I used to think that you've been around as long as I have but perhaps not. My basic training included dual flying at "real LL".

I missed out of that one Dave, yep almost as long as you, but just not quite ... LOL. I do vaguely recall my instructor saying that he wanted to do real LL, but there was no longer an approved area he could do it. But to be honest that memory is very vague.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are both doing well to remember anything specifically said during your training, I did mine just under two years ago and I can vaguely remember my instructor( What was his name again?) saying something about wishing he could do his LL endorsement with Kev Walters at Gatton, It was a torture test but he was feeling up for it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spend most days flying around well under 50 ft spraying crops. As an ag pilot we do not (well not ment to) go below 500ft unless we have a reason to be there aka spraying. And when we do it is not just a case of getting down low and doing it we actually plan every job and and research all known obstacles befor getting into the aircraft ant then do a thorough survey of the work area from a safe height befor going down to spray heights. Down low is not a place to be for a novice. However there are times when it may be nessasary to get low and for that reason LL training should be part of training but is not a license to get below 500ft for he thrill of it. A mate of mine was forced to ditch after getting caught below a low cloud base resulting in the loss of the ac and worse his pax he was lucky to live.

 

The other thing to consider is public scrutiny the other day I was at the beach and watched one of the local guys buzzing up the beach at 100ft. It only takes one person to complain to cause many headaches for everyone else.

 

I would be a bit cautious as to the ability and experience of may instructors to be able to teach LL.

 

Bottom line do the training as part of awareness it may save your bacon one day but stay safe and keep at a safe height.

 

 

  • Agree 4
  • Winner 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spend most days flying around well under 50 ft spraying crops. As an ag pilot we do not (well not ment to) go below 500ft unless we have a reason to be there aka spraying. And when we do it is not just a case of getting down low and doing it we actually plan every job and and research all known obstacles befor getting into the aircraft ant then do a thorough survey of the work area from a safe height befor going down to spray heights. Down low is not a place to be for a novice. However there are times when it may be nessasary to get low and for that reason LL training should be part of training but is not a license to get below 500ft for he thrill of it. A mate of mine was forced to ditch after getting caught below a low cloud base resulting in the loss of the ac and worse his pax he was lucky to live.The other thing to consider is public scrutiny the other day I was at the beach and watched one of the local guys buzzing up the beach at 100ft. It only takes one person to complain to cause many headaches for everyone else.

I would be a bit cautious as to the ability and experience of may instructors to be able to teach LL.

 

Bottom line do the training as part of awareness it may save your bacon one day but stay safe and keep at a safe height.

You have raised some valid points, and thanks for your support. Training and awareness improves safety. As to the 'public performers' - well, a few immediate suspensions plus the requirement to complete a LL course, with an irascible old instructor, might discourage the testosterone.

 

CASA did at one time, (Western Office),require any Gr 1 or 2 GA instructor to have held an ag rating - before being allowed to train pilots for the low level 'endorsement'. Recently, I've heard that this training has actually been conducted by instructors who have never been near an ag operation....which beggars belief. This, probably due to the scarcity of people holding both qualifications. This likely to create some angst under Part 61 because it will no longer be sufficient to just hold an ag or LL qualification - you will have to become a Flight Examiner, (previously an ATO). It's unlikely that many instructors will want to go through this tortuous pathway.

 

For RAAus it presents no such problem - because under RAAus - there are no 'ratings', and all endorsements can be freely taught by any Senior Instructor who holds the qualification themselves. However, there is a world of difference between having qualified yourself, and being able to competently and safely teach it. RAAus should really include 2-3 hrs of LL in its' instructor courses, over and above my suggested 2 hrs in the PC training. As other SI's and CFI's reach their BFR dates, I believe they should then be proficiency checked by a PE so as to upgrade the entire instructor numbers within 3-4 years. Who then checks the PE? OMG..... how now?

 

happy days,

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...