Safety & Training - RAAus are you listening?

[Stearman]

In recent times RAAus have employed a person specialising in safety. This new position has come up with such gems as sending out Hi-Viz vests & key rings that remind us pilots to engage our minds before flight. Does it really take someone specialised in safety to come up with such an un-original idea as Hi-Viz vests? How many RAAus members have been killed or injured in the history of RAAus because they were not wearing a Hi-Viz vest? Obviously there is plenty of money to be spent on safety initiatives.

 

Meanwhile our operations team either does not have the funding or time to get around to all our flying schools and conduct school inspections. How many of our members are aware that some of our schools are not being inspected, but instead are being requested to carry out a self assessment as per a mostly "tick & flick" questionnaire sent to them by RAAus?

 

Meanwhile when Operations get word of a pilot who is getting it wrong, they send these pilots to a school ( not the one they trained with ) for "remedial" training. Surely it would be more effective to try to fix the problem at it's source, which disappointingly in many cases is the school they learnt with? It is extremely difficult to re-train a pilot. Sure while the problem pilot is with another instructor they will try to do the right thing, but either over time or under pressure, all too often they will return to "first taught". Sadly this can result in things going completely wrong resulting in serious injuries or even death.

 

If RAAus really want to get serious about pilot safety we must start at the very beginning. Get our operations team the budget and staffing needed to conduct proper school inspections and checking of all instructors. RAAus needs to stop being a toothless tiger and allowing underperforming schools and instructors to continue to operate and turn out pilots not trained to the level they should be.

 

Now before all the instructors out there jump on me, hear me out. I acknowledge that there are plenty of good instructors out there, however we need to address the fact there are some who are not up to the task. For example I know of a student that recently "completed" his training without ever completing a real stall. They simply raised the nose until the aircraft slowed to the point of the controls going sloppy then lowering the nose to regain speed and recover. As a second example, a few years ago I was has having a discussion with another instructor ( from a different school from the first example ) about engine failures after take off. This instructor made the comment "If I think the student can handle it I give them a few, but if I think it will scare them I don't do EFATO's at all". This means that the students who needed it most were not getting this vital training. These are only two examples of substandard training that I continue to hear of. Sadly there are no doubt many more taking place than what I hear about, I am only one person in one location.

 

So how about it RAAus? Stop focusing our safety efforts on unoriginal, "warm & fuzzy" safety initiatives and get real about improving areas that will truly generate safer recreational pilots?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Meanwhile our operations team either does not have the funding or time to get around to all our flying schools and conduct school inspections.

Or maybe just don't want to leave their "primary business" interests at their respective locations unattended to complete RAA roles which should be the primary full time job.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

RAAus needs to stop being a toothless tiger and allowing underperforming schools and instructors to continue to operate and turn out pilots not trained to the level they should be.

I agree, you only need to view some of the online videos posted on various social media sites to gain an insight into the standard of instruction. What further worries me is the comments supporting the poor practices or praising the efforts of the instructor.

 

Perhaps a program of instructor development could improve the situation. Require instructors to complete a course of training or attend courses in addition to the renewal of their ratings?

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Of late, I have been watching youtube videos of various folks mainly RAA flying in Aus. The vids of people being trained are, on the whole, quite encouraging in terms of safety and technique (as I was taught, anyway). There has been the off duff landing or instructor having to take control - though nothing unexpected in a training environment. But, there have been a couple of things - in the small minority, that had me grimacing, including pumping the throttle on a stall recovery.

 

What is worrying is high-vis vests and keyrings.. seriously? On what basis do they make these recommendations as, in particular, high viz is usually very flammable - not a great combination with aircraft at the best of times. Also, I am not sure, but I have heard more of people walking into turning props than being mowed down - so on that basis, surely high-viz props would be better? Ah, but they would probably be flammable...

 

Gawd - thought it was just the GA mandarins in the UK that were being stoopid.

 

Although mandatory at many airfields, I have never worn one. I once had an irate jobsworth drive in the follow-me car to give me a dressing down. I politely explained if he could see me from the tower, then my normal clothes were high-viz enough.

 

 

[facthunter]

Once you create a position, the work will be created to justify it. This is the way empires start. ALL staff and participants should be safety conscious with an attitude that IT is always "part of the Deal". Cowboys and showoffs not exempted. Those who don't teach slow flight and recovery from likely bad situations are extremely irresponsible to their students. They are not being "considerate" . They are being criminally negligent. Nev

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Of late, I have been watching youtube videos of various folks mainly RAA flying in Aus. The vids of people being trained are, on the whole, quite encouraging in terms of safety and technique (as I was taught, anyway). There has been the off duff landing or instructor having to take control - though nothing unexpected in a training environment. But, there have been a couple of things - in the small minority, that had me grimacing, including pumping the throttle on a stall recovery.

I think there's way too much "briefing" on the run. Trying to explain to a student even the most basic concepts while airborne, with them flying the aeroplane, is stupid. A recent video I watched included the student asking the instructor what sequences they would be flying during this flight when approaching the holding point, all a bit disorganised. The instructor made some of the RT and used incorrect terminology, funnily enough the student used the same incorrect RT. The "on the fly" briefing consisted of fly by mouth rather than any explanation or demonstration of what was being "taught" - ie turn now (which resulted in just that, no lookout at all!), reduce power, set this speed, rather than discuss the new sequence on the ground, then demonstrate it to the student, then allow them to practice and provide feedback (brief, demonstrate, direct and monitor)

 

 

[Roundsounds]

a bit of thread drift, but still relevant I feel. Yesterday I was waiting at a GA flying school for someone to return from a flight. I got chatting to a young student who was preparing for a Navex into class C airspace as part of his PPL, his instructor was running about 2 hours late and he had a few questions he wanted to ask before they departed. His instructor turned up, introduced himself and asked the student what was scheduled for them today, student duly explained. Instructor said "OK, I'll just sign us out, meet you in the aeroplane in 5 mins". Off they went, no discussion or briefing, my guess would be the best part of $1200 exercise with less than an optimum outcome. This is a school with a good reputation!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I've always thought the best way the RAA could move forward with improving safety is to have a "myschools" type ranking where prospective students can see the school's performance relative to other schools.

 

Every year you can see number of new students, number of new certificates issues, numbers of hours to reach various stages of training. You could even break it down to individual instructor statistics.

 

All this information exists and is recorded so compiling it and presenting it as a web based table wouldn't be a big task.

 

 

[P4D]

Instructors are (supposedly) overseen by a CFI. CFI's are overseen by .........You need to look a bit higher up the chain of command to rectify the trickle down effect.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I've always thought the best way the RAA could move forward with improving safety is to have a "myschools" type ranking where prospective students can see the school's performance relative to other schools.Every year you can see number of new students, number of new certificates issues, numbers of hours to reach various stages of training. You could even break it down to individual instructor statistics.

All this information exists and is recorded so compiling it and presenting it as a web based table wouldn't be a big task.

I would suggest this would be about as successful as it has been in the education system and would in fact result in a deterioration of standards. Prospective students will go for the minimum hours option.

 

I reckon a proper syllabus (not just a list of competencies currently referred to as the syllabus) supported by online long briefings would go a long way to improving standards. The briefings old improve both the instructor and students knowledge of various sequences. The instructor would then present a short briefing addressing the type / locations specific items. The incident management system could be used to identify areas requiring improvement, which could then be addressed by inclusion in the syllabus and / or flight reviews.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

why shouldn't students go for the shortest hours? the curriculum is designed to get people into the air as quickly as possible.

 

 

[facthunter]

A thorough briefing of the sequence is a must and it must flow on from the last flight. You don't compartmentalise learning into separate nodules in the flying real world. Something from the last session may be required to be reviewed /consolidated.. Going flying without reference to the training records is evidence of lack of professionalism by the organisation/individual instructor. Only a very small% of what's said in flight will be retained. Under stress of flying it will reduce in it's effectiveness/comprehension, more so anything said must be simple, short and necessary. If the student is confused the result will be poor. Confusion is your enemy. IF in doubt clarify.

 

Intense activity high stress periods should not be over one hour of actual flying to get results (value) for time expended.. Not all students are the same of course and some can take more but often performance in the early stages will drop off at about 50 minutes of concentrated activity. You are not getting value if you just press on as if you are at the gymnasium. Flying is not like that. This applies to something which is quite challenging, not just stooging around and looking at the countryside. You can do that till the fuel runs out.(almost)

 

A debriefing/review is an essential part of it also. and you should be given an indication of remedial study needed and what to prepare for the next session You should review your performance of every flight your entire life, if you are standards conscious. If something was partly by good luck rather than good management see that as a sign of some attention needed, and don't just say everyone makes mistakes. I'll have a better day next time. You might have a much worse one with that view of flying..Nev

 

 

[ben87r]

We have a massive safety department at work and the have also come up with such wonderful ideas as wrapping ourselves in loose, flammable material around the running aircraft.

 

RS, I never could understand why instructors were always late and seemed to think that was ok? You would see a gaggle sitting at the local subway/ Mc Jacks etc and then they turn up late...

 

 

[facthunter]

Loose sleeves have no place in the cockpit where they can catch on levers, particularly in U/Ls and tandem seaters, where you are close to things. In an open cockpit your suit can blow up like the Michelin man if the airflow goes up the sleeve. Nev

 

 

[Roundsounds]

why shouldn't students go for the shortest hours? the curriculum is designed to get people into the air as quickly as possible.

In my opinion hours have no place in flight training, competency is the name of the game. The number of hours to obtain the required level of competency will vary depending upon a lot of factors, including, but not limited to:

 

- Aircraft type

 

- Instructor(s)

 

- Weather

 

- Student's ability and application

 

- Student's background

 

- Frequency of lessons

 

- Location

 

I'm not supporting schools who might try and rip off students, but I also don't support training to a minimum number of hours.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Students pay by the hour, if they are paying more hours its usually because the school can't teach. If you can't see whats wrong with this you missing the obvious.

 

 

[ben87r]

Students pay by the hour, if they are paying more hours its usually because the school can't teach. If you can't see whats wrong with this you missing the obvious.

You don't buy a licence you learn a skill, that comes with variables in aptitude. I don't think RS has missed anything at all. As the saying goes you can teach a monkey to fly an aeroplane but you can't teach a $&@%head.

 

 

[Yenn]

What amazes me is the lack of knowledge of some RAAus trained pilots, compared to what GA pilots have to have demonstrated knowledge of to pass their PPLs.

 

Recently at a meeting of mainly RAAus pilots, questions were asked about weight and balance and it was apparent to me that some had no idea of what was involved. I asked the qustion was W & B taught as part of the training and the answer seems to be it depends upon the instructor. Most of the talk was about actual weighing, but it was also apparent that the basic principles were unknown to a few. How do they check that their flight will be within the correct parameters?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The course is designed to teach that skill in a set amount of time. If students aren't learning that skill in the allotted amount of time that's an issue with the curriculum. Schools shouldn't be using it to milk students.

 

 

[ben87r]

The course is designed to teach that skill in a set amount of time. Schools shouldn't be using it to milk students.

No the corse is competency based. No where at all does it state times apart from Minimums.

 

I agree that they shouldn't misuse their students trust and milk them.

 

Even professionally there is a wide range of times that it can take a pilot to get checked to line. Sometimes as large as x5.

 

 

[Geoff_H]

Having been in the business of Commissioning Manager on large sites for many years I was responsible for site safety procedures and enforcing them. I found that it was impossible without accountability and trace ability. Persons that transgressed the safety rules were sent for retraining, several transgressions resulted in banning from site. Documentation was essential. Everybody had to complete check sheets, these sheets were not tick a box, all too easily done and not traceable, a value whether it be a number or a quality were required at all times. These values were subject to frequent spot checks. The end result was commissioning without any errors, seems impossible but true, the cost of documentation was large but the overall cost was cheaper than previous methods. For safety we should be looking at the management of safety, not the Hi Vis jackets etc.

 

 

[P4D]

If students aren't learning that skill in the allotted amount of time that's an issue with the curriculum.

Or the Students learning ability or The Instructors Methodology or the Method of Assessment or The Key Indicators or many other variables that cannot be written into or out of a curriculum.

Much like surgeons, spacecraft and ultralights, pilots are individually hand made and no two are the same or respond in the same way to identical stimuli.

 

 

[DWF]

The course is designed to teach that skill in a set amount of time. If students aren't learning that skill in the allotted amount of time that's an issue with the curriculum. ..........

I don't think so!

 

The RAAF pilot course is designed that way but scrubs a lot of students. Many of those scrubbed go on to become safe, reliable commercial pilots.

 

If you only allow a given time for a student to reach a competency standard you are ignoring many of the variables noted in previous posts and will have many who cannot reach the standard in the allotted time whereas, given a bit of extra time and encouragement they can become safe, competent pilots.

 

It is a case of horses for courses - or maybe that should be courses for horses.

 

DWF

 

 

[Happyflyer]

In general in Australia you get what you pay for. Flight instructors are at the bottom of pay scale in aviation. Most do it for the love of flying or for hour building. I know of no one who is doing it to get rich. If you want better, more professional instructors, pay them more. If you do, you will get less pilots who can afford to learn. All in all I don't think our system is too bad. I do think less money on Hi Vis vest type promotions and more ops people just going for a flight with an instructor would be helpful.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Out of interest, what is the average rate an instructor will get in Aus. I see from various GA school sites, it looks like the school gets $90/hr for the instructor (maybe less in a dual flown with a club a/c). When I did training in Aus, the briefing and debriefing time was included in the flying time rate - i.e. no extra was charged outside flight time for the instructor's time. In the UK, GA schools charge about £20/hr on average for an instructor and the instructor gets around £12.50 or so... In today's money, that's around $32.50 to the school and about $20.50 to the instructor - but the student pays for the briefing and de-briefing time for the instructor.

 

Definitely not something someone will get rich on and I have always thought it is ironic that those who will teach people to fly safely are paid the least...