Which plane to learn in?

[motzartmerv]

Teck. Mate. I'm dumbfounded. First you express disappointment in the regularity of post engine failure accidents. Then you post the above. Why bother sitting in the plane with someone for a bfr? Here you have a chance to make a difference, and you palm the problem off to the next guy and hope he does his job. You have a duty of care mate, it's a flIght review. How's about staying with them and making sure they get it right. Wot the f are you doing sitting in the right seat with that attitude. God help the raa if there's instructors like that getting around.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Teck. Mate. I'm dumbfounded. First you express disappointment in the regularity of post engine failure accidents. Then you post the above. Why bother sitting in the plane with someone for a bfr? Here you have a chance to make a difference, and you palm the problem off to the next guy and hope he does his job. You have a duty of care mate, it's a flIght review. How's about staying with them and making sure they get it right. Wot the f are you doing sitting in the right seat with that attitude. God help the raa if there's instructors like that getting around.

 

 

[Teckair]

Teck. Mate. I'm dumbfounded. First you express disappointment in the regularity of post engine failure accidents. Then you post the above. Why bother sitting in the plane with someone for a bfr? Here you have a chance to make a difference, and you palm the problem off to the next guy and hope he does his job. You have a duty of care mate, it's a flIght review. How's about staying with them and making sure they get it right. Wot the f are you doing sitting in the right seat with that attitude. God help the raa if there's instructors like that getting around.

Firstly these people have come to me with this poor standard of training from elsewhere and mostly done BFRs elsewhere. I cannot be expected to fix up a system which has created this mess. These people think I am being unfair and tougher than the some other CFIs out there.

Anyone I teach to fly can do glide approaches and is safe. Why do think I make comments on here about more of a priority on this issue? I sat in the plane with a guy for 6 hours and could not stop him from doing powered approaches because that is what he was used to and just was not comfortable not using power. Trying to undo these sort of problems is way more difficult than some imagine.

 

It should be obvious from the flavour of the posts on here most people are happy to come up with excuses on why you don't need to do glide approaches. As far as I am concerned as part of the BFR if I demonstrate to the pilot they have weakness in that area and they need to address it, the ball is in their court I will help them if they choose. But essentially it is up to them mostly they just don't want to know about it.

 

I would never condone anyone flying over water or built up areas without being able to glide to an out landing area but we know from a previous thread plenty of others are OK with it.

 

Hell I read an article in the Sport Pilot magazine stating that with the advent of 4 stroke motors engine failure training is less of a priority. How are a handful of people supposed to rectify such a wide spread problem?

 

As I said before I am not interested in getting into a slanging match.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Mate. Don't give me the trained elswhere excuse. They sat in the acft with you. Your the last instructor to fly with them, it your sig on that bfr form. If best glide training Is what they need then you bloody well do it. Or not sign the bfr. For f sake mate. If it takes 6 hours then it takes 6 hours. If they Auger the thing in after an engine failure and you have signed them out then YOU have failed the bfr. If you don't want the responsibility then get out of the right seat. Ffs.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Fail them Teckair, that's what you are being paid to do. That's how RAA exists, although after this revelation it's future could be on very shaky ground.

 

I'm as dumbfounded as Motz to read this.

 

Surely you're having a lend of us?

 

 

[facthunter]

Every pilot should be able to do an "engine out" or commonly called a "forced landing", from a suitable position, with the motor at idle. You wouldn't pass a GA PPL / CPL BFR if you couldn't do it. The fact you normally use powered approaches is irrelevant.. All sequences should be practiced to be current and capable. If a pilot doesn't do this he is just an accident going somewhere to happen.

 

Similarly, at the other end of the equation, I read of pilots trying to land in very gusty conditions and dying because they couldn't keep the airspeed, and therefore the aircraft, under control .. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Firstly these people have come to me with this poor standard of training from elsewhere and mostly done BFRs elsewhere. I cannot be expected to fix up a system which has created this mess. These people think I am being unfair and tougher than the some other CFIs out there.

Then so be it buddy, if they cannot fly the required base competency, don't sign their BFR. If you don't raise the bar, you end up perpetuating the bad training and you become part of the problem not the solution.

 

Anyone I teach to fly can do glide approaches and is safe. Why do think I make comments on here about more of a priority on this issue? I sat in the plane with a guy for 6 hours and could not stop him from doing powered approaches because that is what he was used to and just was not comfortable not using power. Trying to undo these sort of problems is way more difficult than some imagine.

If you were trying to teach him to fly every circuit as a glide approach then you miss the point; you don't have to fly glide approaches every circuit for a BFR. You are required to prove you can do a glide approach from an engine failure. Any pilot must be able to do a glide approach from any engine failure, that is the competency requirement. If they cannot do a simulated engine failure and successful glide approach to land then for Pete's sake don't sign them off ... they are unfit to fly and could kill themselves and passenger.

 

It should be obvious from the flavour of the posts on here most people are happy to come up with excuses on why you don't need to do glide approaches. As far as I am concerned as part of the BFR if I demonstrate to the pilot they have weakness in that area and they need to address it, the ball is in their court I will help them if they choose. But essentially it is up to them mostly they just don't want to know about it.

Then you cannot sign them off as competent; that is what your signature says on the BFR ... I certify this person meets the competency requirement for a pilots certificate ... mate you are leaving yourself wide open. Lets raise the standard, not lower it. There is no shame in needing practice to maintain a competency in Australian culture.

 

Hell I read an article in the Sport Pilot magazine stating that with the advent of 4 stroke motors engine failure training is less of a priority. How are a handful of people supposed to rectify such a wide spread problem?

I don't believe for a minute that most people believe that to be the case, sure engine failure is less likely with a 4 stroke, but that is completely irrelevant to the required competency. Engine failure and glide approach is a critical competency for any pilot certificate or license holder regardless what some numnut writes in a magazine.

 

As I said before I am not interested in getting into a slanging match.

Tek, its not a slanging match, you need to be encouraged to stand up and tell these people they need to raise their competency standards. be a leader, not a follower.Please forgive me for being so direct but this is a very serious issue that you have raised.

 

 

[foxy]

Im in shock. Sorry guys but teckair, do your job or vacate the seat.

 

 

[foxy]

I suggest this thread be closed before its used against us.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The news will already be out foxy. This requires some fast and positive action from RAA.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

It's really simple Teckair... If he can't/won't demonstrate landing without power, then don't sign the BFR form and logbook until he can/will...... It really is that simple.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So unless my training was different to everyone elses, the only time I would do a true glide approach is when the engine really has died, otherwise in a glide approach the throttle gets a minor workout every 15-30seconds or so, on final, to make sure the engine wont bog down if I need it for a go around.

 

While it doesnt contribute a whole lot in the overall scheme of things it does add energy into the mix and as the PIC I need to manage that and dissipate it appropriately.

 

I personally struggle with this concept that a plane with a nosewheel is somehow inferior to a plane with a tail wheel... if you fly as the manufacturer intended then land safely you will, if you dont then you wont....Exactly how is that different to any other physical aspect of any aircraft that is documented in the POH???? I suspect its just a furtherance of the medical condition known as pilot superiority complex, "All pilots are equally superior...some are more equally superior than others" by virtue of a neverending propergated falshood. Clearly all ATPL holders are inferior pilots because every passenger aircraft that was designed in the last 50years is that failure approach with a nosewheel.........

 

If it looks like BS, smells like BS...then salute it!

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

I suggest this thread be closed before its used against us.

Rather than hide this problem I actually think this is a great opportunity to try understand what Teckair is attempting to tell us and see if we can contribute to a solution for him rather than beat the living crap out of him and have him go and hide in the corner.

If this is a RAA issue lets get it out in the open and start fixing the problem.

 

So Teckair if you are brave enough, try and explain what the real issues are that you are dealing with and we will see if we can offer some constructive suggestions.

 

 

[David Isaac]

So unless my training was different to everyone elses, the only time I would do a true glide approach is when the engine really has died, otherwise in a glide approach the throttle gets a minor workout every 15-30seconds or so, on final, to make sure the engine wont bog down if I need it for a go around.While it doesnt contribute a whole lot in the overall scheme of things it does add energy into the mix and as the PIC I need to manage that and dissipate it appropriately.

Andy whether the fan is idling or not is not really the issue. It is whether a pilot can demonstrate a planned powerless descent, to recognise his turn points and be able to recognise if he is going to glide short (undershoot) or long (overshoot) and what he does about it early enough whether short or long. If the pilot gets that part right, whether the fan is stopped or idling will make no difference, he will still respond to the same visual cues.

The point is the pilot must be able to demonstrate this competency to the satisfaction of the BFR examiner, if he has to do it once or many times is not the issue, as long as he can get there in the BFR. After all he is under instruction, he should take the opportunity to gain some extra skill while he is at it.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Rather than hide this problem I actually think this is a great opportunity to try understand what Teckair is attempting to tell us and see if we can contribute to a solution for him rather than beat the living crap out of him and have him go and hide in the corner.If this is a RAA issue lets get it out in the open and start fixing the problem.

 

So Teckair if you are brave enough, try and explain what the real issues are that you are dealing with and we will see if we can offer some constructive suggestions.

Damn it! You're doing it again David... You're introducing logic and reason into what could develope into an eggzillerating whomping...

 

 

[Louis Moore]

I thought technically you could not fail a BFR, as it is a review and not an examination or exam. My understanding was the only real power the instructor had was to suggest the weak areas the pilot needed to work on and if required suggest he book in for some flight training to brush those areas up. Either way the instructor still had to sign out on the BFR as it was conducted????

 

 

[djpacro]

From CAAP 5.81:

 

If a pilot is unable to successfully complete a flight review, their log-book must not be certified. In such a case the person conducting the flight review should provide guidance to the pilot on what action to take to achieve a safe standard.

[Louis Moore]

From CAAP 5.81:

Thanks djpacro, that clears that up! Guess I better make sure I can fly next time I have a BFR!!!! Joking!

 

 

[foxy]

Teckair....

 

The thing that I'm a little concerned about, is the fact that an instructor has chosen to walk away from a pilot, who may not be competent in an important safety aspect of their license. Regardless of whether or not they have been trained by another instructor and only come to you for a flight review..... You are an instructor!!!! Its your JOB to teach these people, already licensed or not, not only to fly an aeroplane. Its also your job, in their flight review, to ensure that they remain safe pilots.

 

How can you justify just washing your hands of a pilot who may be in need of help to keep safe and current, just tell them to practise in their own time knowing full well they probably wont, and then allow them to take a pax, possibly have an engine failure and not be able to land safely because one instructor just couldnt be bothered making sure they fixed an issue that clearly needed fixing.

 

Whdn you're on the stand at the coronors court..... What do you think the family and judge would think of the reasoning that you signed off a BFR even though the aspect that killed a pilot wasnt up to scratch... But you told him to go away and practise it himself.........

 

 

[facthunter]

You might start a new movement Louis.

 

Being serious, this has evolved from something almost informal, not even requiring more than an observation in many cases, to something potentially quite formidable.. The extent and depth of it is up to the School.

 

If there is a bit of a culture of "old mates" out there, they will do a good business and not achieve much and the "enforcer" types, who for want of a better phrase want to make it a big deal something akin to a command check- in an airline, will go too far the other way.

 

The BFR ( or whatever it is called this week) has to be entered in the log book and also communicated to head office, for the RAAus situation.

 

This exceeds the CASA, GA situation as only the log book entry is required there.

 

The LICENCES, as distinct from the "certificates, " are" perpetual" but to exercise the privileges of them you must have had a flight check within the stipulated time ( and passed it) and have a current medical.

 

I thought we had a policy of not requiring any thing in excess of what is GA practice. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

......I thought we had a policy of not requiring any thing in excess of what is GA practice. Nev

Correct Nev,

That is what was said recently in the Sport Pilot magazine when RA Aus removed the requirement for a L2 inspection on the sale of an aircraft, because that was in excess of what GA had to do.

 

We still have a way to go I think.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Nev, regardless of the paperwork, be it ga raa or airline, a standard must be demonstrated. How that's reported to the governing bodies is not the issue here. I do appreciate your attempts to diffuse ;)

 

 

[turboplanner]

You might start a new movement Louis.Being serious, this has evolved from something almost informal, not even requiring more than an observation in many cases, to something potentially quite formidable.. The extent and depth of it is up to the School.

If there is a bit of a culture of "old mates" out there, they will do a good business and not achieve much and the "enforcer" types, who for want of a better phrase want to make it a big deal something akin to a command check- in an airline, will go too far the other way.

 

The BFR ( or whatever it is called this week) has to be entered in the log book and also communicated to head office, for the RAAus situation.

 

This exceeds the CASA, GA situation as only the log book entry is required there.

 

The LICENCES, as distinct from the "certificates, " are" perpetual" but to exercise the privileges of them you must have had a flight check within the stipulated time ( and passed it) and have a current medical.

 

I thought we had a policy of not requiring any thing in excess of what is GA practice. Nev

RAA might in THEORY have something in excess of GA Nev, but clearly in PRACTICE there can be cases where the culture is deficient.

 

 

[facthunter]

We seem to be bagging Teckair, without really listening to what he is trying to tell us.

 

No instructor can force any pupil to do more flying with him.

 

I don't believe Teckair signed the pilot off.

 

. Some pilots at some point of their career will not make the grade. This may be because of age, illness, outside pressures, increasing demand for a higher standard or on new equipment that the pilot can not adjust to. ( or old stuff that is just too different). The pilot may be deficient in the basic skills or just lacking in ability., or been trained in the wrong technique and practiced to the exclusion of a variety of techniques.

 

Pilots can acquire bad habits. Some hide their practices on a check and then go back to doing them afterwards

 

There has been a view perpetuated for some time in some circles, that ANYONE can fly an aeroplane. This might suit the schools who subscribe to the view, or pretend to, but it is not correct in the real world.

 

The fact is, some people should not be flying aeroplanes, and part of the problem is that this is not realised or acted upon very often. Very few have the guts to do it, and keep on taking their money. Nev

 

 

[foxy]

Nev......

 

Because the raa dont have to have as high an aspect of ga pilots., does this mean to say that as instructors, we are well within our righrs to disregard complacency and safety??? We dont fly any different... There should be no reason that the training and checks for raa should be any different to ga.

 

I hold both an raa instructor rating and a ppl.... I still had to teach and perform practise engine failures for raa, as well as perform a practise engine failure to pass my ppl.... Why is it ok to not worry about it? Its not going above ga..... It still needs to be done. As far as being the enforcer type....well if it means that the pilots i train will lead a long and safe flying career...then im happy to be that enforcer type.