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

[ben87r]

The thing that I often think about is how do we know if we have been taught well or not. I believe that I have been taught well. But I have a lifetime of experience to fall back on. I have also taught different practical skill so I feel that I have some expertise in judging the level/quality of my training. But can I be certain and if so how so?

And Geoff nails it....

 

To answer you question there are a few very solid ways to find out, one is when around a pilot with better/proper/sufficient training you find holes in your knowledge/training/skill level. The second is whilst flying and finding holes in your knowledge/training/ skill level. The later being deadly..

 

Unfortunately you just don't know, what you don't know...

 

 

[Geoff13]

I had an opportunity yesterday to take someone for a flight to photograph the mud flats in a local river. It came out of the blue with about half an hours notice this guy wanted to go fly along the river at low tide and photograph the mudflats and water channels. There were aircraft available for hire but no instructors, so he asked me if I would take him. I thought about it for a few minutes and decided that I wasn't comfortable with doing what he asked without and forethought or planning so I declined to go flying at someone elses expense. I told him that I would look at it and possibly take him today. So I went home, did some homework and realised that he was poorly informed anyway as had we gone when he wanted yesterday we would have totally missed the low tide.

 

So today with a little bit of planning and the opportunity with the benefit of hindsight and still fresh in my mind the thread on this forum about the aircraft that crashed photographing the Sydney to Hobart I took him at low tide to photograph his mud flats. But before we took off I had a list of do's and dont's. I was comfortable with my plans and my decisions and made sure that he was as well before I took off. I was certain of how low I was willing to go (all legal) and I was prepared when he asked just go around and we will have another go at that to say no worries we will just fly straight and level gain a bit of height and distance and I will take you back. At the end of the day I had a great time flying an aircraft that someone else was paying the hire for and I got to see some things through someone elses eyes. For me it was fur and enjoyable and I have absolutely no regrets about saying no yesterday. Besides the weather was better today anyway.

 

The reason for posting this on this thread, is that I believe that this is a total reflection on my training. I also firmly believe that I continue my training by following forums such as this one. You do however need to sort the wheat from the chaff on forums.

 

 

[djpacro]

Charter flight?

 

 

[Geoff13]

No mate a bloke wanted to photograph something, he paid a third party for the aircraft hire, I flew the aircraft for free as is allowed within the regulations. I viewed it as the opportunity to fly an aircraft for free.

 

 

[Ultralights]

In RAA I've never heard of anyone actually failing a BFR, does anyone else know of someone who did? The nearest I came to hearing of one was that an instructor recommended the pilot take some extra training. They still passed him and he didn't take the extra training, in fact he was so offended he made a point of finding a different instructor for the next BFR - that was when I met this fella. When he told me the story - his comment was that he hoped the 'new instructor' wasn't so finnicky ...

and herein lies a big percentage of the problem... quite a few pilots assume that once they are trained, thats it, no more learning to be done, and in some cases, refuse the advice to take more training.....

 

another is pilots forget, or are never told or explained, that flying is a lost skill, they say riding a pushbike is something you only have to learn once, as you never forget how to do it, well, this attitude seams to pervade the aviation community. flying skills degrade rapidly over time... so constant retraining, or practice, is required.

 

A BFR should be structured like a lesson to reinforce emergency procedures?

 

How many of you do stalling practice during a BFR?

 

Some clarification on what i meant earlier about decent instructors,

 

M61A1 got it in one, a decent instructor is one that teaches you to understand the principles and theory.. and has the experience to back it up. who would you prefer as an instructor? a very friendly, person, you get along great, you get praised a lot.. encourage at every step regardless of how you perform? somone who becomes a friend, or could easily become your friend? but is only a young person themselves, and have had nothing in their flying career except, their own training to Instructor rating and a CPL... and just cant wait to get into the big shiney jet..

 

or an ex airforce fighter jet pilot or someone with countless hours flying charter in the outback in all sorts of weather imaginable in clapped out old cessnas, who has seen everything the sky can throw at you, who will not sugar coat anything, tell you straight up if your flying sucked that day, and demands you do better no matter how well you think you went? and is interested in seeing you be the best you can, even though you dont get along like a house on fire, and would not be the type of person you would invite for a BBQ..but you do finish a lesson feeling like you really understand whats going on....

 

ask your instructor these questions, what causes a stall? if their answer involves speed, consider another instructor.. (its AOA, and can be exceeded at any speed)

 

and whats hotter? Lean or rich of Peak EGT? if they say either, again, reconsider.. find an instructor that understands engines and systems. (both lean and rich of peak are colder, as the peak is, well, the peak)

 

and ask yourself this, HONESTLY, how much height loss will you tolerate when recovering from a stall?

 

in my case, i initially was happy with 300ft, but now after some aerobatic flying, with a decent instructor, im not happy until i can recover with less than 50 ft. im really happy if i can do it in less than 20.

 

(the CPL requirement in the flight test is 150ft)

 

As for regulation, we have way to much, compared to growing general aviation sectors in other countries such as the USA and NZ. not only that, theirs is written in plain english, not lawyer speak designed to make sure you can be prosecuted no matter what.

 

a recent example i was dealing with was aircraft certification for ETOPS approvals, CASA, Via Comlaw pages ran to nearly 800 pages. all of which required a law degree to understand. but the FAA documents on the same certification was a single PDF of only 38 pages... written in plain easy to understand english.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I agree with "Ulralights"

 

How cam a person with limited education understand the sort of Jibbarish thats in most Casa comunications.

 

And the LAW says ignorance is no excuse.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[poteroo]

No mate a bloke wanted to photograph something, he paid a third party for the aircraft hire, I flew the aircraft for free as is allowed within the regulations. I viewed it as the opportunity to fly an aircraft for free.

One of the major gripes we hear in this industry is where inexperienced CPL's fly-for-free so as to gain experience. So, in effect, the charterer of the aircraft is only paying for the 'hire' of the aircraft. But the aircraft is operated under a charter AOC, and so the operation is legal in CASAs' eyes. You can see where this is heading........? happy days,

 

 

[ben87r]

Are you talking about EGT temps only there UL?

 

and whats hotter? Lean or rich of Peak EGT? if they say either, again, reconsider.. find an instructor that understands engines and systems. (both lean and rich of peak are colder, as the peak is, well, the peak)

[Ultralights]

yep.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I would be very careful about that one Geoff. There is a big difference between 'cost sharing' and what is often referred to as a "rattle snake" CHTR. Just something you might like to consider for future reference, it can get very untidy.

 

 

[Kiwi303]

True above. Just because you are not being paid does not mean you are not recieving a benefit or a reward from the flight.

 

Here in NZ as I understand it the wording is the same as for the P endorsement for the car licence. You cannot carry a passenger in your car "For Hire or Reward" and the same wording is used for differentiating commercial pilots from private pilots.

 

While you may not have recieved Hire, since the aircraft was hired from a third party, you did recieve a reward in the form of "free" hours you did not have to pay for which could be logged in your logbooks.

 

It seems a minor thing, but any third rate lawyer could rip you up on that technicality.

 

Now if you had gone halves on the fuel, leaving the plane fee to the other guy, you would have incurred a cost, albeit a lesser one than flying by yourself. enough to invalidate the "reward" wording.

 

 

[Ultralights]

but if you payed $1 for aircraft hire, then its a cost share... all good.

 

 

[aro]

Seems pretty clearly to be flying for the purposes of aerial photography which is a commercial purpose (airwork) under CAR 206.

 

Who paid what doesn't make any difference in this case as far as I can see.

 

 

[turboplanner]

but if you payed $1 for aircraft hire, then its a cost share... all good.

Great, the message just never gets through to some people!

 

 

[djpacro]

And I think you will find that CASA's view of the reg is that it must be approx equal cost share.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Aro alluded to it. It was my understanding that if any of the photos are for sale or gain (even/especially if taken by the pax) then it is illegal even if you foot most or all of the cost of the flight yourself and even if it is not you getting the money for the pics.

 

It is my understanding that no pics from an Raa plane can be sold or used for gain but we can of course take pics for ourselves.

 

If geoffs pax just wanted those pics to hang in his lounge room there would be no issue, if he was in any way selling them then you have trouble

 

 

[aro]

And I think you will find that CASA's view of the reg is that it must be approx equal cost share.

The circumstances where cost sharing is relevant are actually quite limited. It is basically saying that if you ask for a payment for the flight everyone including the crew must share equally, and the number of people must be no more than 6.

 

Curiously, it seem to prohibit asking for less than the equal cost of the flight, e.g. if you hire an aircraft for $300 and take a mate if he contributes $50. No one said this all makes sense.

 

 

[aro]

It is my understanding that no pics from an Raa plane can be sold or used for gain but we can of course take pics for ourselves.

That seems to be the usual interpretation although I think the regulation reads differently. The CAR 206 says flying, for the purpose of aerial photography is commercial. It doesn't say anything about payment.

 

If I read strictly I think it says any flight where the purpose of the flight is to take photos from an aircraft (air to ground or air to air) is commercial according to CAR 206. It doesn't matter what happens to the photos afterwards. Conversely, it seems like if the purpose of the flight was not photography, i.e. you were flying from one place to another you should be free to sell photos taken along the way.

 

Making it more murky and confusing is CAR 2(7)(iv) which says "aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted" is a private operation.

 

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 - does it mean that operations under CAR 2(7)(iv) can be performed by a private pilot, but require an AOC???

 

I'm not sure which definition of commercial/private is used for RAA - CAR 206 or CAR 2(7) so the original statement might be correct if RAA is exempt from the requirement for an AOC?

 

 

[turboplanner]

CAR 206 gives the blanket definition - making this flight illegal.

 

CAR 2(7)(iv) gives and exemption when NO MONEY AT ALL changes hands either for the pilot or aircraft - again confirming this flight was illegal.

 

Nothing murky about that.

 

CASA's interest in ensuring Private Pilots and RPCs don't charge, or take more than a 50% share, is to ensure commercial flights are carried out by people who are trained and skilled to Commercial Pilot Licence level.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Interesting comments but mostly irrelevant. The guy used and iphone to take a few photos of some mudflats in the river. He lives on a boat he has been building for years and wanted to see if there was a useable channel through the mud flats. Now I dont think that would in any way class as a comercial purpose. As for any gain for me, I have an RPC, I fly for fun, there is absoloutly no benefit to me to build hours. In fact I had to give up an hour and a half of my day so this bloke could get a half hours flying. At the rate that I normally bill my time had I spent that hour and a half at work ole mates half hour aircraft hire doesn't come close.

 

But then the level of different opinions shown on this very small matter actually highlights the wide variety of standards and levels of training and understanding within our community doesn't it. My post was meant to highlight that I was uncomfortable with the thought of going for a simple half hour flight without a least some degree of prior forthought and planning and my reasons for thinking like that. Others may have been happy to jump in the plane and do it. I wasn't.

 

 

[aro]

CAR 206 gives the blanket definition - making this flight illegal.CAR 2(7)(iv) gives and exemption when NO MONEY AT ALL changes hands either for the pilot or aircraft - again confirming this flight was illegal.

Where does it say that CAR 2(7) etc. is an exemption from CAR 206?

 

CAR 2(7) are definitions for the purposes of the (Civil Aviation) Regulations i.e. general blanket definitions

 

CAR 206 are definitions for subsection 27(9) of the (Civil Aviation) Act i.e. very specific - and also referenced in part by CAR 2(7)

 

So CAR 206 should override CAR 2(7), for the specific sections to which it applies.

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot of people take "pictures" of everything these days, even out of all kinds of aircraft. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Where does it say that CAR 2(7) etc. is an exemption from CAR 206?CAR 2(7) are definitions for the purposes of the (Civil Aviation) Regulations i.e. general blanket definitions

 

CAR 206 are definitions for subsection 27(9) of the (Civil Aviation) Act i.e. very specific - and also referenced in part by CAR 2(7)

 

So CAR 206 should override CAR 2(7), for the specific sections to which it applies.

If you want to read it that way Aro, fine, that makes any photograpy flight commercial.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Now I dont think that would in any way class as a comercial purpose.

What's going to count Geoff, is not what you think, but what CASA thinks if they decide to prosecute, or in a civil court, where there has been a crash, what the court decides, so it's well worth going through the Civil Aviation Regulations we all have to comply with.

 

 

[aro]

If you want to read it that way Aro, fine, that makes any photograpy flight commercial.

That's what it says (or to be more specific, requires an AOC which is what CAR 206 is about).

 

Although as I also said, that's not how it is usually interpreted.

 

The problem with the regulation we supposedly follow is that they are so complex and badly written that no-one actually follows them at all. They follow a version that has been passed down and interpreted by generations of flying instructors who have learnt what is required to pass the test.

 

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...