Proposed Utility Endorsement

[poteroo]

Refer: p18 of November Sport Pilot

 

 

I'd like to hear comment from all of you on the pros and cons of this proposal.

 

Lets begin by my stating that I'm opposed to it - unless the pilot has already completed a comprehensive Low Level endorsement. I'd then suggest that if the pilot has been adequately trained in low level operations - that they really don't need any add on operational endorsement. A thorough LL endo will cover most things that an owner/pilot will want to do with their aircraft.

 

Remember that in GA, the LL 'course' (CAO 29.10) has been replaced with a LL Rating under CASR Part 61. From this course, pilots go on to fly low level photography, low level animal tracking, low level stock spotting, low level pipeline inspection, low level powerline inspection, low level tank, trough and bore inspections, firebreak inspections, and low level SAR - generally without much need for on-the-job training. However, for highly specialised survey work, and stock mustering - they do need further training.

 

If you feel strongly about this proposal - rather than flame this post - may I suggest you contact your local Board member with your response.

 

happy days,

 

 

[fly_tornado]

This seems like a questionable path to be taking the RAA down, encouraging more pilots flying low can only end in tears.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Ok I must admit that I havnt read any of our latest sports pilot mags, since the paper one stopped I read the first digital one and then havnt bothered so am a bit out of the loop but going off what you have said Poteroo and what hitc mentioned in another thread I think I agree with you. The ll should already cover this so why extra hoops? I am part way through my ll, just need to get time to line up so I can get stuck in and finish it, I am enjoying it and think more people should do it but I wonder if this utility endo will have the opposite effect. How many will look at it and think doing the two endos is too hard (surely to do ll utility work you still need the ll endo!) and just go and break the law and eventually themselves? If the ll endo isn't broken why complicate it?

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Not to criticize anyone here, but I am curious about the syllabus. It seems to me that the theory part ( types of obstruction and the effects of wind as it interacts with them and the surface, plus the stuff about wind shears and density altitude effects ) is well known and the main thing is to maintain awareness and concentration as the day wears on. I dunno how teaching can help much with this.

 

What am I missing here?

 

 

[facthunter]

Any lengthy reply from me will contain too much cynicism. How many more QUALIFICATIONS do we need to identify and treat that should be basic?. IF the weather goes bad ( Under a low overcast with drizzle), you will need all the low level skill that you haven't been allowed to have unless you are mustering etc. I TAUGHT it in GA... It's endorsed in my log book. Qualified at 400 ft bad weather circuits in a B 727. Couldn't have it issued on my certificate in RAAus? Must be BS really. Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

Perhaps a revenue raiser for FTF's?

 

 

[facthunter]

I can't say NO, with certainty, but I personally don't think it as a significant factor. All this stuff is creeping up on us and getting more complex all the time. It's time we put a stop to it and included most of it as normal training. How do you do a precautionary check on an outlanding area's suitability without low flying?. Even if you don't do a precautionary, every approach has some low flying in it and there are trees and things in the vicinity of aerodromes, and you should always be ready to do a go around if needed, without it being a hairy operation. Nev

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I would strongly oppose the continuation of low level operations for anyone other than those requiring a LL endorsement. LL for pure "fun" has proven to be deadly....... repeatedly. Unless you're flying up a valley there are very few obstructions that reach 500'AGL, if they do they are usually easy to spot.

 

For a person who uses the qualification for day to day operations (farmers etc), they remain current and often know the land like the back of their hand.

 

 

[M61A1]

Not to criticize anyone here, but I am curious about the syllabus. It seems to me that the theory part ( types of obstruction and the effects of wind as it interacts with them and the surface, plus the stuff about wind shears and density altitude effects ) is well known and the main thing is to maintain awareness and concentration as the day wears on. I dunno how teaching can help much with this.What am I missing here?

I think that the practical side is very important. Most people are aware of the theory. I found the fear factor of being close to the ground rather significant initially when I did some LL training, and it took some getting used to. I really would hate to have an engine out and not be very familiar with low level handling. BasicLL should be part of the basic syllabus in my opinion.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I practice low level flying at least twice every flight. Seriously though, I would have thought there were very few qualified instructors for LL flight in RAAus. Will an instructor be able to get the endorsement and then teach it or will they need 75 hours of LL, similar the ridiculous requirement on float instruction?

 

 

[facthunter]

Was taught in the GA syllabus before dual and solo cross country. (after aerobatics? ) I've seen and read many reports of people come to grief in a totally preventable way by not being able to handle the plane near the ground in less than perfect conditions. By not training them you are negligent, and have only done half a job. Not being trained won't stop those who will fly low anyhow. A significant number of them contact wires, and not all low hour pilots either. Nev

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I would have thought a significant number of very well trained crop duster pilots contact wires.

 

 

[facthunter]

Usually late in the day. I would say if they weren't well trained there would be more of them come to grief. They work in an unsafe environment where there are small margins for error. They usually carry what some would call an overload, but is permitted in the interests of being profitable .Nev

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Not sure about this endorsement. Might encourage more low flying. Will involve low flying for training. Type in "wirestrike" on the ATSB web site. Lots of ag and survey aircraft involved plus the usual cowboys. Didn't see any that came to grief because they were low flying due to stress of weather. This endorsement might cause more problems than it solves.

 

 

[M61A1]

I practice low level flying at least twice every flight. Seriously though, I would have thought there were very few qualified instructors for LL flight in RAAus. Will an instructor be able to get the endorsement and then teach it or will they need 75 hours of LL, similar the ridiculous requirement on float instruction?

Go and find an instructor who teaches LL and do a lesson or two, may change your mind, it changed mine.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Go and find an instructor who teaches LL and do a lesson or two, may change your mind, it changed mine.

Your probably right but I think I'll just stick to avoiding it. I think for me it is a case of leave it to the professionals who have to do it for a living.

 

 

[red750]

When I trained for my GA PPL back in 1968, LL training was included. Moorabbin had a low flying area near Cranbourne, and my instructor was an ex BOAC Britannia pilot. I clearly recall flying at about fencetop height to look for rabbit holes, logs, etc as part of precautionary search training, and forced landing practice went as low as 100 - 150 ft AGL. before power on, in the LL area. As Nev said, this was in the restricted PPL training, prior to cross country training.Restricted PPL allowed you to carry pax but only in the training area, and there was always the possibility of engine failure. I also had a demo by another instructor when doing my Bonanza endorsement of a steep descent from 1000 ft to tree top level (they were sparse). Driving along the Dandenong - Frankston Road, it was common to see aircraft at short final height.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Not sure about this endorsement. Might encourage more low flying. Will involve low flying for training. Type in "wirestrike" on the ATSB web site. Lots of ag and survey aircraft involved plus the usual cowboys. Didn't see any that came to grief because they were low flying due to stress of weather. This endorsement might cause more problems than it solves.

Probably didn't see the wirestrike due to bad weather show up but how many bad weather forays ended with a prang because of loss of control before they could find wires?

I have only done a little ll training and have a lot more to do to get my ll endo but in the little that I did I was surprised at just how extremely dodgy my flying became once close to the ground and it was a big eye opener to me. Sure ll straight and level wasn't too bad but once doing steeper turns with a nice little breeze I started doing the worst unco turns I have done since my start of my RPC. It took me a couple of days of doing it before I was getting to a relitively decent coordinated standard and I can't stress enough just how ridicously inadequate I realised I was at low level manoeuvres before I started.

 

I was pretty happy with my piloting skills before starting the ll endo, I was flying weekly so was nice and current and was totally adequate at altitude and doing straight ll flying (approaches and takeoffs were always balanced and safe) but my eyes were certainly opened and I can't recommend it highly enough and think that it is certainly well worth the time and money to do.

 

There will always be cowboys but that shouldn't stop the rest of us getting a few extra tools in our skillbox which IMO could prove priceless.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's pretty hard to argue (say in a court) that you neglected to provide skills in a training course because it would encourage people to behave carelessly. The whole emphasis is on improved safety and you can't teach it or be taught it without being aware of the hazards. That is what you are teaching. The people who will fly low when no one is watching will do it anyhow without the skills and awareness of the danger(s). It isn't a sustainable argument. IF RAAus don't do it they have failed a duty of care. You can't dumb flying down without running a risk, or paying a penalty. Nev

 

 

[Happyflyer]

It's pretty hard to argue (say in a court) that you neglected to provide skills in a training course because it would encourage people to behave carelessly. The whole emphasis is on improved safety and you can't teach it or be taught it without being aware of the hazards. That is what you are teaching. The people who will fly low when no one is watching will do it anyhow without the skills and awareness of the danger(s). It isn't a sustainable argument. IF RAAus don't do it they have failed a duty of care. You can't dumb flying down without running a risk, or paying a penalty. Nev

So by the same argument we should teach every one high speed driving. People are going to do it anyway so they may as well do it safely. I would have thought the hazards of low level flight are fairly obvious without having to do a course to appreciate them.

 

 

[facthunter]

You don't have to do high speed driving to park your car. You have to fly low to land your plane. Your car is on the road in contact with the earth's surface, and you can stop it almost anywhere and get out. Your plane is in the air subject to turbulence and visual effects that may cause loss of control . You are misquoting me. knowing the hazards is not encouraging it. Read SDQI's post. The hazards of low level flight are NOT obvious I've taught it and seen the performance of those who haven't done it before..Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

I would have thought the hazards of low level flight are fairly obvious without having to do a course to appreciate them.

Actually...the obvious obstacle hazards are, but it's the lesser known or appreciated hazards which trip people up. Losing airspeed in slow speed turns, flying steep turns instead of minimum radius turns, loss of horizon reference, and loss of SA per se will all contribute to an accident. The fact is ....... you don't know what you don't know!

 

 

happy days,

 

 

[Roundsounds]

It's pretty hard to argue (say in a court) that you neglected to provide skills in a training course because it would encourage people to behave carelessly. The whole emphasis is on improved safety and you can't teach it or be taught it without being aware of the hazards. That is what you are teaching. The people who will fly low when no one is watching will do it anyhow without the skills and awareness of the danger(s). It isn't a sustainable argument. IF RAAus don't do it they have failed a duty of care. You can't dumb flying down without running a risk, or paying a penalty. Nev

No issues in training LL skills, just questioning the need to "qualify" a person to go do it for fun.

 

 

[facthunter]

I have never made that proposition. EVERY instructor should be qualified at LL. Currently that isn't a reason to hold the qualification. How that situation can be justified eludes me .Those who are trained will appreciate the hazards. Those who want to do it for "FUN" won't be worried about having it on their certificate and having it on your certificate doesn't make you less dead. You are making the assumption that having been trained they will be more inclined to try it. Who really knows? IF the training is done properly it will make them more aware of the danger and less likely to do something stupid. Does that justify keeping it from all the other sensible pilots ? ALL skills flow over to other areas. Low level skills will make your approaches , landings and go arounds more safe as well as downwind landings. Emphasis on balanced flight ( Utterly essential in LL) will aid in preventing manoeuvering stalls and wing drops.. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

So by the same argument we should teach every one high speed driving. People are going to do it anyway so they may as well do it safely. I would have thought the hazards of low level flight are fairly obvious without having to do a course to appreciate them.

That would probably go a long way to addressing some of the driving issues we have..........good idea