Training - Over or Under Regulated,or is it Adequate?

[SDQDI]

And that's the whole problem. Dutchy says it's easy to know the regs about our 8endos but you would have to do a few years of hard study to actually understand the nitty gritty of everything.

 

It is obvious I havnt read all the regs so most of my understanding of the rules comes from word of mouth and the basics from the likes of the VFG

 

 

[K-man]

Walk into a flying school and ask if something is allowed under the regulations and it is rare that anyone will actually get them out and read them - you're more likely to get an informal vote amongst the flying instructors about what they reckon. "3 out of 5 flying instructors reckon..." isn't much of a way to regulate aviation, but it's how it works...

Which is why we are probably being over regulated and possibly under trained. One classic case is my under hood training for my RPL. To save a few dollars ($100s) I asked if I could do it in my plane rather than a GA one especially seeing that if I ever need to rely on that training it will be in that aircraft. All the instructors initially told me I couldn't as apparently someone had spoken to RA and been told RA instructors couldn't supervise that training, (which I though was interesting seeing that all they are doing is giving instructions and keeping a lookout for other flying objects). So, I got on to RA and it was not a problem from their point of view to undertake the training in an RA aircraft. I got on to CASA and there was nothing in their regulations to say it had to be undertaken in a GA aircraft as long as there was a logbook entry to support the application. Final outcome, I did the training in my RA aircraft with an instructor qualified from both RA and GA. But the question is why was it even an issue in the first place?

 

 

[Ultralights]

Pretty much, every post on this page highlights my points about regulation saturation.... there simply should not have to be this amount of discussion over something so simple with regards to commercial ops, or cost sharing... sadly our regulations are so vague that they can be interpreted to mean completely different thing, sometimes in direct contradiction to each other.. (and im talking in general, not just the cost sharing situation)

 

this is the sort of regulation that needs to rewritten and defined in plain easy to comprehend and understand english. and doing so will remove much confusion, and allow easier following of the regulations improving safety.. confusion in rules, just as it does on the flight deck/cockpit, leads to unsafe situations.

 

 

[djpacro]

Part 91 is coming but I don't think that we'll like it any more than Part 61.

 

The current rules we've been discussing are stated in the VFR Guide http://www.vfrg.com.au/general/pilot-responsibilities/classification-of-operations/

 

 

[aro]

Agree about the confusion. I was on holiday and wanted to hire a C172 for a scenic flight. I had all required licenses and endorsements, however due to the busy area and proximity to CTA I decided that it would be good to have an instructor along for local knowledge.

 

I was told that an instructor was not permitted on a flight with a passenger. If there was a passenger and someone being paid it became Charter which I couldn't fly without a commercial license.

 

So I could hire the aircraft and take a passenger, or fly with the instructor without a passenger, but it was supposedly illegal for me to fly with both passenger and instructor onboard! Unless, that is, the passenger had a student pilot license which would somehow make it OK again.

 

Talk about confusion. This seems like bits of 3 or 4 different regulations badly combined and misunderstood. And yes, the instructors present did actually vote about whether they reckoned it was charter or not.

 

In the end we just booked it as a scenic flight with the instructor flying (same price).

 

Then after we took off the instructor says "Would you like to fly?" I did for a while but flying from the right seat wasn't really working for me so I ended up handing it back to him and enjoying the scenery.

 

 

[aro]

The current rules we've been discussing are stated in the VFR Guide http://www.vfrg.com.au/general/pilot-responsibilities/classification-of-operations/

That's the list from CAR 2(7). But that list overlaps the list of operations in CAR 206 that require an AOC, so what is the result for the items in both?

 

 

[facthunter]

Aro a few things there don't add up. For one, having a need for the passenger to have a student licence. They are not part of an operating crew. Why couldn't the Instructor just be be a safety pilot?

 

Pilots are trained on normal air routes for Airlines carrying passengers. This is one time a second class airline pilot licence holder can operate from the left seat in all Phases of flight. A qualified Training Captain does the right seat duties and supervises for over a hundred hours of line training. Nev

 

 

[aro]

Aro a few things there don't add up. For one, having a need for the passenger to have a student licence.

The whole thing didn't add up. I think the student pilot license thing came from students being allowed as observer/passengers on certain training flights so it must be OK somehow, even if they're not sure why.

 

 

[djpacro]

Safety pilot only applies to flights where individuals have such a medical restriction. An instructor is PIC or just a passenger.

 

From memory the rules allow passengers on training flights except where emergency procedures are being exercised.

 

 

[aro]

From memory the rules allow passengers on training flights except where emergency procedures are being exercised.

That is my understanding too. So my assumption was that it would effectively be a training flight (area familiarization etc.) with a passenger, obviously with no emergency procedures practiced.

 

I think their logic was that if the instructor was paid they were charging for the carriage of a passenger i.e. charter. I would have said that I was paying for hire of the aircraft and the services of the instructor, but there was no charge for carraige of the passenger.

 

 

[spacesailor]

SEE!, :CAR 206 defines when an AOC is required, CAR 2(7)(iv) defines private operations that can be performed with a private pilots license. So I don't understand how these interact.:

 

:this is the sort of regulation that needs to rewritten and defined in plain easy to comprehend and understand english.:

 

ALL.: jibberish from CASA, if it wasn't this post would be very short:

 

And perhaps I could pass my general aviation exam. Then fly.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I've flown with quite a few instructors in quite a few schools now, after I moved away from Sydney with a fresh bare RPC and 25-30 hours on the clock. I've seen different styles and I've come to appreciate the benefits and deficiencies of my ab initio training. However, none of the subsequent instructors thought that I was incompetent or deficient. (I essentially did straight and level flight, and coordinated 30 degree turns in my TIF, then did about 5 hours of circuits, a few stalls, emergency procedures, another 5 hours of circuits, then went solo. So I'm really good at flying circuits....)

 

How do I go to an instructor and say: I can already fly a plane, but I don't trust myself in these situations, can you help me rectify them?

 

Also, I'd like to do the FAA commercial pilot maneuvers, but I don't trust myself to do them solo straight up; what's the best way to get trained in these (since they're not part of CASA CPL training)?

 

http://flighttrainingcenters.com/training-aids/commercial/commercial-manuevers/

 

Anyhow, in retrospect, I got through my flight test with what I regard now to be possibly inadequate training. I don't know how you protect against that. It's only since I took two years off flying and I've gone back that, through reading, I've gotten insight into this.

 

 

[Camel]

I've flown with quite a few instructors in quite a few schools now, after I moved away from Sydney with a fresh bare RPC and 25-30 hours on the clock. I've seen different styles and I've come to appreciate the benefits and deficiencies of my ab initio training. However, none of the subsequent instructors thought that I was incompetent or deficient. (I essentially did straight and level flight, and coordinated 30 degree turns in my TIF, then did about 5 hours of circuits, a few stalls, emergency procedures, another 5 hours of circuits, then went solo. So I'm really good at flying circuits....)How do I go to an instructor and say: I can already fly a plane, but I don't trust myself in these situations, can you help me rectify them?

 

Also, I'd like to do the FAA commercial pilot maneuvers, but I don't trust myself to do them solo straight up; what's the best way to get trained in these (since they're not part of CASA CPL training)?

 

http://flighttrainingcenters.com/training-aids/commercial/commercial-manuevers/

 

Anyhow, in retrospect, I got through my flight test with what I regard now to be possibly inadequate training. I don't know how you protect against that. It's only since I took two years off flying and I've gone back that, through reading, I've gotten insight into this.

Ada, you are like many others, after passing the flight test is the time to learn, you were only ever given the basics, not recognising this would be dangerous and you need to know your limits, worse still most GA pilots that change to RAA are the hardest to deal with at times as they think they have nothing to learn and have forgotten the basics. They say the danger times are 100 hours with a little confidence and 800 hours with a lot of confidence. Go and fly gliders, trikes and anything you fancy and you will learn and enjoy. Those who sit and say won't do that and don't learn anymore and may not be able to deal with an emergency.

 

Most car drivers who get their licence are probably not capable of handling a car in wet slippery conditions unless they go have a go under supervision or in an area that is safe from collision.

 

As an instructor I sometimes doubt my abilities and duty to teach enough as an accident that was my fault would be unbearable, but when I fly with others (including instructors) who I didn't teach I feel confident I'm doing the right thing. Any instructor who wants to show you how good he is and show off is not woth wasting time with,

 

 

[Eric McCandless]

With competency based training there is no incentive for schools to try and achieve excellence. The schools want to push pilots through the system as quickly and as cheaply as possible which means getting to the lowest standard possible to qualify as pilots.

Fortunately that was not the experience at the school I trained with. There is no way my school would allow this.

I really hope it is not the case with other schools either, as I share the skies with their graduates. Eric.

 

 

[Aldo]

Interesting comments but mostly irrelevant etc

Geoff

 

I understood what you were trying to get across with your initial post, lesson from this is be very careful what you post as it can end up very messy.

 

Aldo

 

 

[Geoff13]

Aldo

 

I think the messy part simply highlights how little a lot of the posters on here actually know. (Or should I say how different peoples understanding of what they know can be). Not that I profess to know a lot more but to get so many differing opinions on such a trivial matter highlights

 

1. The gaps in a lot of the training.

 

2. The difficulties in understanding the regulations.

 

3. The passion that everyone tends to show when they think they are right.

 

 

[K-man]

AldoI think the messy part simply highlights how little a lot of the posters on here actually know. (Or should I say how different peoples understanding of what they know can be). Not that I profess to know a lot more but to get so many differing opinions on such a trivial matter highlights

 

1. The gaps in a lot of the training.

 

2. The difficulties in understanding the regulations.

 

3. The passion that everyone tends to show when they think they are right.

Is that really the case? Most gaps in training are pretty obvious unless you avoid mixing with other pilots or students. Even though I didn't sit a PPL exam, I still read the PPL training books. How many people if they recognised a gap in their training would ignore it?

Regulations? It's not hard to understand regulations. The difficulty arises when there are conflicting regulations and herein lies the problem from my point of view. Every time a problem or potential problem is encountered some one writes a new regulation to cover their arse. As a result we have a plethora of regulations that do not mesh seamlessly but instead can cause confusion.

 

The passion people tend to show is maybe a tad of exaggeration. I would suggest that it is more an attempt to clarify an anomaly rather than a position set in stone. Any legal document if not framed correctly is hotly debated by solicitors. Why should we as pilots be any different when we look at poorly framed regulations? Then, of course, you have the situation where regulations have changed and not everyone is current with those changes.

 

There's a lot of discussion on regulatory confusion on other forums as well.

 

 

[M61A1]

Some of the regulatory confusion may arise because sometimes the way it was written allows it to be abused. An example may be, in QLD, laws were made to stop motorcycle stunting on public roads, seems fair enough, until cops started booking people who were just stretching their legs. Legally they could fine someone for that, but it was never the intent of the law. I suspect that many of our regs about things like photography may be the same. Someone made a law to prevent shoddily operated air operations, then some bellend decided that because of the way it's written, you could fine anyone taking a pic. It's ridiculous.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Legislation is easier to follow if you look at it with a view of understanding the "intent" of the legislation as opposed to finding a loop-hole in order go against the intent.

 

There is always plenty of "opinion" about but in the end it is "your" money/licence involved. Tread carefully.

 

 

[K-man]

Legislation is easier to follow if you look at it with a view of understanding the "intent" of the legislation as opposed to finding a loop-hole in order go against the intent.There is always plenty of "opinion" about but in the end it is "your" money/licence involved. Tread carefully.

The intent of the direction on radio calls at uncontrolled airports was to reduce radio traffic. At busy uncontrolled airports, especially those used for training, it isn't mandatory to call final. I would suggest that does nothing but reduce safety. The fact that the regulation goes on to state that you should use radio calls at other times when necessary makes a mockery of the regulation in the first place.

The intent of the regulation regarding radio calls at airstrips which are not shown on the maps was to clarify the situation (ie area frequency instead of 126.7) but it is at odds with what most people would call common sense. Now instead of discreet calls at out of the way fields we should be broadcasting on centre frequency, adding more radio congestion, even if that strip is within the area of a CTAF and other local traffic are using the local frequency.

 

Nothing there to do with loop-holes. Just regulations that haven't been properly thought through that can now lead to confusion and increased work load.

 

 

[frank marriott]

The intent of the direction on radio calls at uncontrolled airports was to reduce radio traffic. At busy uncontrolled airports, especially those used for training, it isn't mandatory to call final. I would suggest that does nothing but reduce safety. The fact that the regulation goes on to state that you should use radio calls at other times when necessary makes a mockery of the regulation in the first place.The intent of the regulation regarding radio calls at airstrips which are not shown on the maps was to clarify the situation (ie area frequency instead of 126.7) but it is at odds with what most people would call common sense. Now instead of discreet calls at out of the way fields we should be broadcasting whaton centre frequency, adding more radio congestion, even if that strip is within the area of a CTAF and other local traffic are using the local frequency.

 

Nothing there to do with loop-holes. Just regulations that haven't been properly thought through that can now lead to confusion and increased work load.

Although you may not agree with it, and I don't for that matter, 166 is clear it what it says. My point was understanding what is written - not whether it is desirable/correct, that is a totally different matter.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Some of the regulatory confusion may arise because sometimes the way it was written allows it to be abused. An example may be, in QLD, laws were made to stop motorcycle stunting on public roads, seems fair enough, until cops started booking people who were just stretching their legs. Legally they could fine someone for that, but it was never the intent of the law. I suspect that many of our regs about things like photography may be the same. Someone made a law to prevent shoddily operated air operations, then some bellend decided that because of the way it's written, you could fine anyone taking a pic. It's ridiculous.

That law is now changed. You can take a foot off the peg and stretch your leg now and the rozzers can not book you for it.

 

 

[M61A1]

Ye

 

That law is now changed. You can take a foot off the peg and stretch your leg now and the rozzers can not book you for it.

Yep, aware of that, it took some well publicised pics of cops doing it, and I bet no-one was reimbursed.

 

 

[spacesailor]

SEE! , Again, total confusion!, I don't think its the trainer's, BUT if the administration can't get their wording to mean the same, to ALL & sundry.

 

If RAA only interprets what CASA says, and the training school only Interprets what RAA says, and the school instructor puts his/her slant on what they were told.

 

YOU will have answers to questions like the one I failed.

 

"What causes icing? " answer = moisture in the air!.

 

Very bad for Darwin with 80 per cent moisture, but great for the Antarctic with a valley that's less then 5 per cent moisture.

 

spacesailor