Why the baroque flight school structure in Australia

[Ian]

Is there any fundamental requirement for the baroque flight school structure in Australia or is it simply a relic of the days of yore? I'm not sure of the approaches which other countries have taken however other  flight programs such as RAAUS appear to do without the structure so why hasn't it been reformed? You have people of talent bound to a structure which artificially limits their opportunities which is always a poor industry practice.

• From a learning perspective they aren't required, the instructor instructs depending upon his skills and qualifications.
• Flight examiners are effectively the delegates of CASA so they're not impacted.
• From a management perspective with the wonders of modern communications it doesn't appear to be required.
• With online technologies the physical classroom doesn't need to exist anymore. Of course new skills are required.
• The owners of flight schools may be impacted, however if the structure isn't providing any useful outcome that's a pure business risk.

 

I'm also curious about the concept of some programs being able to shortcut the hours required for commercial pilots. Are these programs better or is this simply the result of industry lobbying?

 

Anyway if you're aware of alternative approaches adopted in other countries I'd like to know.

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Ian

[facthunter]

I wouldn't read too much into the more directed and less hours Commercial. There's more significance in the Multi Crew licence implementation.  Operators will reduce training costs where they think they can get away with it. Same with Maintenance . People LIKE cheap fares and often purchase on price alone. Nev

[Ian]

In relation to the Integrated vs non-integrated for PPL and Commercial licences their appears to be a theory that schools operating "Integrated courses" can train people better with reduced flight time. It may be simply due to the fact that they acknowledge that a compressed, regular learning schedule is more productive however that has nothing to do with "integrated" nature of the package.

• Integrated courses require (amongst other things) 35 hours of flight time, including 10 hours solo, five hours solo cross country and two hours instrument time.
• Non-integrated courses require an additional five hours flight time (40 hours in total about 15% more hours).

For a commercial licence

• Integrated courses require (amongst other things) 150 hours of flight time for the aeroplane category rating and 100 hours for the helicopter category rating.
• Non-integrated courses require 200 (an extra 33% practical flying time) hours for the aeroplane category rating and 150 (an extra 50% practical) for the helicopter category rating.

Have there been any studies which suggest that Integrated courses of study develop flying skills better and faster than non-integrated or was this approach the result of lobbying by those running integrated courses?

 

Given that there are two components of the courses and that the theoretical knowledge is tested by an examination process it doesn't appear to make sense

 

 

[facthunter]

There's probably too many variables to definitively prove one or the other. People rarely sit/fly the test right on the min hours in practice. It was most likely proposed to suit SOME Flying schools who could show a saving  when done the NEW way and hopefully give them a commercial advantage.. You can't logically GUARANTEE every student He?She will pass the Course in a minimum time.  Nev

[poteroo]

On 03/11/2021 at 7:29 PM, Ian said:

r other  flight programs such as RAAUS appear to do without the structure so why hasn't it been reformed?

Actually, the RAAus syllabus is pretty much a very slightly pruned GA syllabus.

 

The answer to why we have this structure is illustrated by the fact that the US FAA Part 61 flight training regs are 90 pages long,  the NZ CAA  P61 regs are about 120 pages, and, (wait for it), the CASR Part 61 regs run to 580 pages, with 620 pages of çompetency' guidelines for instructors.  And, ours continues to grow, but according to Murphy - work expands to fill the available time in Canberra.

 

There will never be any reform while CASA believe the air is different in Australia, aircraft behave differently here,  the Yanks know nothing, and strict liability exists in our aviation laws.

 

happy days,

[facthunter]

Laws of strict Liability should be unlawful and I'm not trying to be funny. IF you want to fly HERE,you have to cop it because WE declare the upper hand to be OUR prerogative whether you like it or not. It's a stacked deck.  There's only two types of Pilots in Australia. Those we've grounded and those we are going to..  Nev

[Ian]

So from the above, there's no research demonstrating the advantages of either approach, so logically they should have the same baseline requirements.

The fact that they don't would indicate it is most likely to have occurred as part of a sweetheart deal to advantage section of the training community and disadvantaging others. 

 

The structure that I was alluding to was the whole requirement for a "school". The reality is that to fly a plane I need two things, an understanding of the theory and practical instruction. Theory can be imparted using a variety of methods using textbooks, classroom time, videos or other mechanism. A variety of mechanisms can be used to assess this knowledge however examinations are simple and accepted practices. Personally I prefer reading textbooks and journal publications however other learn most effectively using other methods. 

Flying instruction is performed by your instructor (who CASA agree is competent and up to the task) and assessed by a flight test and practical examination by an assessor, there's no requirement for a school per se.

With COVID the concept of what a school is has become far more fluid as more online resources have been used.

 

For instance one piece of knowledge which appears to be poorly understood by a number of pilots is fuel consumption optimization and how it relates to altitude.  I've attached a good paper on the subject, the issues is confused by turbine engines because these engines can't throttle efficiently.

 

 

 

Piston Airplane Cruise Performance.pdf

[spacesailor]

' Fuel management '.

So an ultralite aircraft consuming 5 Lph with a 20 litre tank, HAS to have 30 minutes  of reserved fuel to !.

Do what ?.  ( over-fill the tank ). Carry 22.5 litres.

spacesailor

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, spacesailor said:

' Fuel management '.

So an ultralite aircraft consuming 5 Lph with a 20 litre tank, HAS to have 30 minutes  of reserved fuel to !.

Do what ?.  ( over-fill the tank ). Carry 22.5 litres.

spacesailor

No, under VFR Rules you have gross fuel, Usable fuel and 30 minutes reserve fuel.

 

With a Gross 20 litre tank, there may be some low spots and you may not get the last litre out; you are required by law to have 30 minutes reserve fuel, say 5  litres, when you arrive at your planned destination (reduced from 45 minutes in 2018), which leaves you with 15 litres Usable Fuel which is what you flight plan for climb, cruise and descent of the planned route.

 

[Roundsounds]

16 hours ago, Ian said:

So from the above, there's no research demonstrating the advantages of either approach, so logically they should have the same baseline requirements.

The fact that they don't would indicate it is most likely to have occurred as part of a sweetheart deal to advantage section of the training community and disadvantaging others. 

 

The structure that I was alluding to was the whole requirement for a "school". The reality is that to fly a plane I need two things, an understanding of the theory and practical instruction. Theory can be imparted using a variety of methods using textbooks, classroom time, videos or other mechanism. A variety of mechanisms can be used to assess this knowledge however examinations are simple and accepted practices. Personally I prefer reading textbooks and journal publications however other learn most effectively using other methods. 

Flying instruction is performed by your instructor (who CASA agree is competent and up to the task) and assessed by a flight test and practical examination by an assessor, there's no requirement for a school per se.

With COVID the concept of what a school is has become far more fluid as more online resources have been used.

 

For instance one piece of knowledge which appears to be poorly understood by a number of pilots is fuel consumption optimization and how it relates to altitude.  I've attached a good paper on the subject, the issues is confused by turbine engines because these engines can't throttle efficiently.

 

 

 

Piston Airplane Cruise Performance.pdf 1.44 MB · 7 downloads

Ian, there are a couple of points worth noting. 
- reduced hours PPL / CPL courses are based on ICAO Annex 6 guidelines. The basis for the reduction of hours being based on a syllabus integrating theory with the practical components of flight training. ICAO guidelines require training organisations delivering the reduced hour courses to hold what we would know as a Part 141/142 certificate.

 
- the requirement to conduct flight training other than the shorter PPL / CPL courses under a Part 141/142 certificate organisation is not an ICAO recommendation. 
 

- ICAO Annex 6 privileges permit the holder of a flight instructor rating to deliver flight training without the need to operate under a Part 141/142 holder. CASA cannot let go of the old AOC big brother model. NZ and USA have embraced the ICAO guidelines. The holder of a flight instructor rating can deliver training, for courses other than the reduced hours courses in their own right. In NZ most small flight schools do not hold an AOC / Part 141 certificate. 
 

- CASA argue they require training for the issue of a licence or rating to be conducted under Part 141/142 certificate to allow them to effectively conduct surveillance / maintain quality control. The CASA model does not provide this outcome. Most flight testing is performed by employees of the 141/142 holders with very little CASA surveillance. The ICAO / FAA / NZ CAA model has independent Flight Examiners conducting flight tests. This model provides better quality control outcomes than the in-house testing system adopted in Australia.

[Bruce Tuncks]

 That paper was very interesting Ian. Is it applicable to a Jabiru with a compensating carby and no mixture control?

[Ian]

Quote

- reduced hours PPL / CPL courses are based on ICAO Annex 6 guidelines. The basis for the reduction of hours being based on a syllabus integrating theory with the practical components of flight training. ICAO guidelines require training organisations delivering the reduced hour courses to hold what we would know as a Part 141/142 certificate.

Thanks for the input and information, I'll have to do some reading, It would be nice to see some research which indicates that there is actually a quantifiable benefit in this regard. From what I've seen there's the hypothesis that "Integrated training" provides an outcome however I haven't seen anything which indicates that this is actually true. If there's no supporting evidence it would be nice to see both sets of requirements aligned. Simpler, less paperwork for the bureaucracy to maintain and lower cost.

Quote

- CASA argue they require training for the issue of a licence or rating to be conducted under Part 141/142 certificate to allow them to effectively conduct surveillance / maintain quality control. The CASA model does not provide this outcome. Most flight testing is performed by employees of the 141/142 holders with very little CASA surveillance. The ICAO / FAA / NZ CAA model has independent Flight Examiners conducting flight tests. This model provides better quality control outcomes than the in-house testing system adopted in Australia.

Given the recent experience with building inspectors the separation of functions would provide a benefit, especially if testing the school didn't have the ability to cherry pick testers. For example CASA should provide a pool of independent examiners chosen at random based upon location and availability.

 

I also noted that ICAO Annex 5 is related to units. I'd really like to see this area progress and the imperial spagetti go down the toilet. I do understand that there's a lot of people who are used to dealing with these things however once that bandaid is ripped off things become much simpler. When I was at Uni many years ago I worked with a surveyor and had to deal with miles, feet, chains, links, inches, decimal inches and a whole other lot of rubbish. It still pains me when I seen calculations based on foot pounds, gallons and other rubbish. To me that all belongs in the "Vintage Aviation" category.

 

[Ian]

Quote

That paper was very interesting Ian. Is it applicable to a Jabiru with a compensating carby and no mixture control?

Yes, the principles are applicable to piston aircraft. If you need more range your best bet is  ground effect. :-) The pilots of WW2 knew this.

[facthunter]

I Must have missed the ground effect which  ceases at about 2/3rd wingspan and doesn't work if the ground has trees on it. I wouldn't

 like to give anyone false hopes.  A TEAL Sandringham used it over water when they had an engine out. Nev

[onetrack]

Quote

I also noted that ICAO Annex 5 is related to units. I'd really like to see this area progress and the imperial spagetti go down the toilet. I do understand that there's a lot of people who are used to dealing with these things however once that bandaid is ripped off things become much simpler. When I was at Uni many years ago I worked with a surveyor and had to deal with miles, feet, chains, links, inches, decimal inches and a whole other lot of rubbish. It still pains me when I seen calculations based on foot pounds, gallons and other rubbish. To me that all belongs in the "Vintage Aviation" category.

Well, on that basis, you will have to immediately cease dealing with America in any form or type - cease dealing with, or working on many products of American industry - and cease working on or dealing with, any "antique" or "vintage" item of mechanised equipment, regardless of whether it is aviation-related or not. You might note that a very large contingent of people enjoy, repair, restore, and use vintage equipment - and tools. In an ideal world, measurement standards would be universal across the globe, but despite the metrification dream, perfect standardisation of measures, weights and forces is as far away as ever.

[walrus]

Ian, if you want to metricate everything, give up flying. The aviation world is owned by America and virtually everything, al least in light aircraft, revolves around the A.N standard system “AN something”, or mil spec “ms something” or ‘BAC”, “BMS’ Boeing standards.

 

‘By way of example, my Rotax had metric fuel and oil connections. Do you think I could find ANYONE in Australia who could supply metric fittings and metric braided Stainless/teflon hose? After a month of looking I gave up and bought metric to AN adaptors for the engine. AN hardware is ubiquitous, some of it even locally made.Fuel system is all AN - 6, Oil is AN - 8.

Edited November 15, 2021 by walrus

[Student Pilot]

It makes too much sense for everybody to use the same system.
In reality it makes no difference if your speed is knots, MPH or K's.

The Yanks have a hatred for anything metric, using furlongs, bushels, rods, ounces, acres, chains makes so much more sense 😁 

Makes hard work and room for error in the likes of Canada where they are supposed to work with the metric system but the rednecks want to be Amerrycarn and have a mixture of US and imperial measurements and the products like fuel and chemical are supplied as metric recommendations. 
I wouldn't have any problem with using K's for speed, metres for height. 

[Thruster88]

1 hour ago, Student Pilot said:

It makes too much sense for everybody to use the same system.
In reality it makes no difference if your speed is knots, MPH or K's.

The Yanks have a hatred for anything metric, using furlongs, bushels, rods, ounces, acres, chains makes so much more sense 😁 

Makes hard work and room for error in the likes of Canada where they are supposed to work with the metric system but the rednecks want to be Amerrycarn and have a mixture of US and imperial measurements and the products like fuel and chemical are supplied as metric recommendations. 
I wouldn't have any problem with using K's for speed, metres for height. 

The metric altimeter manufacturers association is probably lobbying government all round the world as we speak. It would create a lot of employment opportunities. 😁 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Thruster88

[onetrack]

Whoa! Metric altimeters are a step too far! We have to start off slowly, how about dual measurements, like the car speedos of the '70's? 

[pmccarthy]

Ian I have been waiting for someone else to ask what baroque means in this context. Now I have asked!

[spacesailor]

It,s a bit much if your landing Below 1 km, ( as in picture  ).

Are you guessing the last quarter km.  ( Bankstown. 34ft /  10 mtr )

spacesailor

[Ian]

Quote

Ian I have been waiting for someone else to ask what baroque means in this context. Now I have asked!

I'll use one of the online dictionaries definition which probably aligns with what I was thinking, "characterized by grotesqueness, extravagance, complexity, or flamboyance", I could l have used baroque, byzantine, complex, complicate, complicated, convoluted, daedal, elaborate, intricate, involute, involved, knotty, labyrinthian, labyrinthine, sophisticated or tangled but you get my drift. 

It appears to be significantly more complex than it needs to be to perform the function which is required, especially given modern technology.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

That last sentence is the truth of CASA Ian......................things will never change until CASA makes flying safe, that is no aircraft flying.

[facthunter]

RAAus call schools FTF's (Flight Training Facilities). They form a critical part of the way the training operates. A single (qualified to CFI) can run an FTF. and it can service an out field. Mega schools ? Run properly can have advantages  of scale by having extra equipment like simulators, Ground instructors  Australia wide charts , Reference library and a 24/7 presence if needed.  There should NOT be a large variance of WHAT is in the course. It's prescribed as to  content. Some Instructors are "different"  and that can be a good thing or.a disaster. like Oh HE taught you!   I'll have to start all over to correct what you've been taught. Big EGO Competitive... Avoid unless you can cope and usually you can't.  Also YOU are paying so the patience of the Instructor can be insisted on if it has to.  A good instructor has UNLIMITED patience and will answer all questions you have the need to ask. Put another way who is silly IF YOU don't bother to ask when.YOU weren't sure? YOU are an active art of the learning process.. Nev