General Competency Rule for Pilots

[DWF]

Have you seen the new CASA information sheet on "The General Competency Rule for Pilots"?

 

I know it is aimed at GA pilots but I suspect it will not take long to trickle down to RAAus.

 

 

 

At the very least it will mean more paper work but could get to the rediculous extreme where each pilot will need to be signed out for each individual aircraft they want to fly.

 

AND provide CASA with another Ramp Check box to tick.

 

 

 

While the general idea is sound it seems to me to be using legislation to replace common sense.

 

In many cases it may be difficult (impossible?) to find a flying instructor with the necessary experience (on the particular aircraft) who can do the required training and sign-off.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[facthunter]

Perhaps the CASA people can demonstrate just how competent they want us to be. Lead by example. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

Perhaps the CASA people can demonstrate just how competent ....

I invited CASA to demonstrate their required short field landing competencies for the tailwheel endorsement - but my insurer declined the use of my aeroplane.

[turboplanner]

I think they are fixing the stuff up of deleting the endorsements, and trying to put it back again without telling us. I liked the endorsement system; it was simple, and ensured you were competent to fly the aircraft by having an instructor supervise you until he was happy with your standard.

 

Sure there are aircraft that are very similar, but my experience with a Grumman Tiger was interesting. I'd been flying Cherokee only, for about five years, and knew it inside out, knew the feel of a correct takeoff/landing/cruise etc., when I went for an endorsement on the Tiger which had a MUCH steeper climb out - much the same angle as you'd pull the Cherokee up for a power-on stall.

 

For the first two or three times I felt alarmed at the steep climb out - it didn't feel right at all, but the gauges were right on what I'd been trained to hold.

 

Now reverse that situation pre this General Competency, and imagine you'd done a few years on a Tiger, and today all that was left to fly was a Cherokee, which everyone knows is as docile as your pet labrador.

 

It would get very interesting if you flew it off the runway at the Tiger gradient, the only question being whether your hand was faster than the ASI.

 

 

[facthunter]

It would be interesting IF you did those things, but surely one can anticipate the change same as when you ferry an empty plane at half it's normal operating weight. It will leap into the air after a very short run and climb like a homesick angel. Another day at a hot high aerodrome when you are full of fuel and Peeps as well it's a dead slug at getting into the air as the threshold marks pass underneath, and you are just airborne. Same plane. different scenario.. I think you have to mentally prepare yourself each time as you would for an engine failure that you don't know the time in advance for., but must still be ahead of it. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Isn't the new system less regulation, in that the pilot should make the call on whether they can fly the "new" aircraft rather then a set number of hours or boxes to tick.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It would be interesting IF you did those things, but surely one can anticipate the change same as when you ferry an empty plane at half it's normal operating weight. It will leap into the air after a very short run and climb like a homesick angel. Another day at a hot high aerodrome when you are full of fuel and Peeps as well it's a dead slug at getting into the air as the threshold marks pass underneath, and you are just airborne. Same plane. different scenario.. I think you have to mentally prepare yourself each time as you would for an engine failure that you don't know the time in advance for., but must still be ahead of it. Nev

I understand what you are saying; I particularly almost crapped myself on first pilot only takeoff in a Victa, but what I was talking about was attitude - the Tiger with 180 hp (139 kt) cruise is a completely different concept to the Cherokee, and climbs out in a very nose - high attitude, and that proves my point to a degree.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes Often comfort limits pitch used. Also you don't need to climb at a best rate or angle, provided you still have a good/satisfactory or even standard rate climb, depending on your circumstances.. I've always advocated handling notes that will alert pilots to certain characteristics such as you describe.. If you have a high power to weight ratio you have to control it. Nev

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Isn't the new system less regulation, in that the pilot should make the call on whether they can fly the "new" aircraft rather then a set number of hours or boxes to tick.

Yes I agree. Once you cut through all the BS they have written the final call is made by the pilot. It is actually very much less restrictive than the requirements in the latest version of the RAAus ops manual. I hope RAAus adopt the same system.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I think many of the CASA lawyers that write this crap would get a nose bleed if their feet got higher than their desks.

 

I can't understand how the many bow to the few.

 

 

[farri]

I can't understand how the many bow to the few.

Cause the few won`t be fighting you with their money!

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't see the big fuss really, If your not competent to fly the aircraft, go and get the training so you are. If you are competent, that's all the law require. Isn't this what we usually ask for, simple common sense?

 

 

[spacesailor]

I,de like some training in a WindWagon or Hummelbird, if there,s, Anyone with That competency.

 

Two cylinder is a must not a over powered four-pot of 60 hp!

 

Trev Hinze, Or Dave King are the only two I know of.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't see the big fuss really, If your not competent to fly the aircraft, go and get the training so you are. If you are competent, that's all the law require. Isn't this what we usually ask for, simple common sense?

You might think that, but many people don't know what they don't know, and that's what provides the entertainment for the rest of us.

 

 

[facthunter]

Too much room for individual interpretation when you just make vague statements. Look at the "security aerodromes fiasco. Every aerodrome committee has their own idea of how structure and enforce it.

 

Flying schools will try to make money as they do if you move to a new area and you have to do a long X country before they will let you use a plane. A fairly short orientation flight and some on the ground questions and planning scrutiny will do as well without you spending over 1.000 dollars . Every instructor will have a different view of what competent is. This is all about passing liability away from CASA. to organisations and individuals. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

facthunter, they are two different things though. If you want to hire someone else's aircraft then you need to meet whatever requirements they want (Xcountry, minimum 100hrs PIC or "check flight"). However if you have your own aircraft and you feel you are competent after 3 ccts with an instructor then that's your decision as the pilot. The instructor may feel differently and should let you know but at the end of the days it's up to the pilot to make the decision and live (or not) with that decision.

 

Why should CASA hold the liability of whether you are competent or not to fly an aircraft? You've met the requirements of the license which should mean you are capable as PIC to make decisions regarding your abilities for each and every flight. This includes aircraft type, weather, fatigue, medical and the list goes on.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes and No.

 

I don't doubt that CASA's original action was public liability based, and this one appears to be an oily way of trying to eat their cake and have it too, but if the Pilot miscalculates his skills/knowledge of the aircraft to the point where an accident occurs, the question of who trained him becomes a very interesting issue.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Competency's all well & good, but a new pilot ( Jab/Foxbat), getting into an untried homebuilt is something different,

 

The new aircraft will be looked at, & looked over by all and sundry, but as soon as its going 100 klms down the runway it wont be the same as

 

your training aircraft, no experience & unknown handling character's, has I believe given one old pilot a heartattach in his HB.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm already very attach (ed) to MY heart. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

To be judged competent you have to have an AFR. I have just done mine. I fly an RV4, but can't do the BFR in it because it doesn't have dual controls, nor is the instructer current on an RV. So I do it in a C172, which I have flown in the past and I am judged to be competent, although Cessna pilots seem to be scared to see the nose so high on landing. I just wonder how competent I am.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Isn't the new system less regulation, in that the pilot should make the call on whether they can fly the "new" aircraft rather then a set number of hours or boxes to tick.

But if you make a stuff up they have another offence ready to hit you with if you survive.

 

Kaz

 

 

[dazza 38]

To be judged competent you have to have an AFR. I have just done mine. I fly an RV4, but can't do the BFR in it because it doesn't have dual controls, nor is the instructer current on an RV. So I do it in a C172, which I have flown in the past and I am judged to be competent, although Cessna pilots seem to be scared to see the nose so high on landing. I just wonder how competent I am.

I think BFR's are a waste of time and money for pilots with a bit of time up like yourself. People who drive cars don't have to be retested every two years.

When schools want to throw in long navs and crap, it's a blatant ripoff IMO. Luckily my BFR's for the last 8 years or so have been a 40 odd minute flight going through engine out failure drill ect. Which is good. I have never felt ripped off especially as my CFI doesn't charge his time for it. Thats right folks, no different to general hire rates. He likes to give back to the sport.

 

 

[poteroo]

In many cases it may be difficult (impossible?) to find a flying instructor with the necessary experience (on the particular aircraft) who can do the required training and sign-off.

Not wrong! A recent rash of enquiries re mustering endos, (GA), indicates that many oldtimers are calling time and there is already a scarcity of experienced pilots with authorisations. It's going to be the same with GA low level - calling the unchanged course of training a rating, and requiring annual competency checks by a Flight Examiner, (previously an ATO), will soon see a shortage of authorised LL trainers, and absolutely nobody able to check. And show me a GA instructor with substantial tailwheel experience. SAAA are trying to setup an instructor group to provide competent service to new Experimental aircraft owners, but unless something happens soon - there just won't be enough experienced people remaining to train the next gen. happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

We were right up with the best once. Now I can't be sure we will even train our own pilots for our own use internally. If you can't fly your ultralight you are likely to hurt yourself. A Cessna -172 you would have to be a dill to crash as it's almost foolproof, but no aeroplane is foolproof because fools are so ingenious at proving that. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

When I learned to fly - it was a matter of skills 1st and procedures last. Somewhere in between it has been reversed.