Jump to content

Roundsounds

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,021

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Roundsounds

  1. Roundsounds
    I'll happily do the analysis, it's not rocket science to do a high level review. As someone else has indicated attributing the cause to "Human Factors" is not detailed enough - was it decision making, comms or maybe a deficient skill? The new instructor manual does not link the stall recovery to bounce or mislanding recovery. I'm sure these incidents are frequent, yet we don't train them properly - it's all about lowering the nose then applying power! Hardly think that's appropriate at 20' AGL!
  2. Roundsounds
    It would be of great value to review the data and identify the most common accidents and the causes. Based on the findings of this review create training programmes to address the issues. These training programmes could be a multi facet approach: - include in flight reviews for say a 2 year term - incorporate into abinitio / conversion training - appropriate online material (eg: fact sheets, case studies, videos) Providing a whole lot of incident reports online is not likely to improve safety outcomes.
  3. Roundsounds
    Ditto
  4. Roundsounds
    There are J3s at Luskintyre, Scone, Dubbo, Rylestone, Camden and Temora. Champs at Temora and Wangaratta.
  5. Roundsounds
    My dad taught Nick to fly at Camden NSW when Nick was living in the Sydney northern beaches. I remember him quite well, I was only a kid at the time.
  6. Roundsounds
    The 747-400 doesn't have a stick pusher
  7. Roundsounds
    My comment was very much tongue in cheek.
  8. Roundsounds
    Any day now........
  9. Roundsounds
    Gotta love the MT prop' on the Husky - 6 years between overhaul at $8K a go on the three blade version.
  10. Roundsounds
    When you've got the ops and tech managers investigating accidents, attending coronial enquiries and developing new rules they simply do not have the time to attend to FTF inspections. The accident investigation process should be dealt with by an independent organisation, this would free these people up to promote the sport and address what is likely the cause of a high percentage of the accidents - flight training. Under a proper Safety Managment System you cannot have the people responsible for a department investigation incidents which may have been caused in part by the dept they head.
  11. Roundsounds
    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.
  12. Roundsounds
    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.
  13. 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!
  14. Roundsounds
    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)
  15. Roundsounds
    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?
  16. Roundsounds
    I agree with you to a point, but if all airspace users make up their own version of what to say and constantly seek clarifIcation of instructions there will be constant RT chatter and a breakdown in the system. Pilots should strive to use standard phraseology, but this does take time and practice. I prefer to think of them as ATS rather than ATC. The S being for Services, as you stated they are there to provide a service and at times some need reminding of that fact.
  17. Roundsounds
    Places like YSBK (former GAAP) are refered to as Metropolitan Class D, the genuine Class D (Sunshine Coast) are the procedural Class Ds. Request Rejected
  18. Roundsounds
    Unless you're operating into an original Class D airport like Coffs, Albury or Tamworth then you'll find the procedures substantially similar to class C.
  19. Roundsounds
    (Edited by Mod) The procedures used at former GAAP airports are nothing like the standard class D procedures used at places like Albury or Tamworth. Why not simply stick with GAAP or adopt Class D? Camden has a tower operating 7 days/week with hardly any traffic, I don't understand why it cannot be G midweek and D weekends, save operators yet another fee.
  20. Roundsounds
    None of this is about security, it's all about the so called security experts creating work for their industry. With modern technology there's no reason ASICs need expire, if someone holding one becomes a person of interest their ASIC status can be changed and scanners would track their movements / deny access to security sensitive areas.
  21. Roundsounds
    has anyone tried to use their ASIC as a form of identification? Even CASA will not accept it. A complete waste of time, effort and money.
  22. Roundsounds
    What is the justification? No doubt the Govt responded to calls for a review of the ASIC system, they contract a Security expert. The expert then finds numerous deficiencies in the system and "fixes" these deficiencies so his security company can screw the aviation industry further!!
  23. Roundsounds
    Maybe a chat with the board, if no suitable response the maybe a chat with CASA? Without making it a threat, indicate your planned approach should no suitable response be forthcoming. The only long term solution to these problems is to establish the process I suggested in an earlier post. Don't lose sight that this is all about accountability, sound processes leading to improving safety. Increasing regulations and introducing restrictions does not improve safety. Effective education improves safety. Education may involve the written word, mass presentations, online training, 1:1 training, demonstrations and many other forms. There is little education being delivered by the organisation.
  24. Roundsounds
    Given the requirement to have an effective Safety Management System their appetite means nothing. A concerted effort by a wise group of members could easily force this process to be adopted.
  25. Roundsounds
    Any proposed changes to regulations should be safety based and risk assessed. I can hear the groans, but honestly the only way to beat the creep in regulations is to baffle the authors with their own red tape. Step 1 - ask why the change is necessary? Not someone's pet thing or gut instinct, hard and verified statistics which are made available for review. Step 2 - Identify affected parties and involve them in fixing the problem. Step 3 - complete a proper hazard identification process, risk assess the hazards, develop mitigators for any significant hazards, then review them looking for hazards they may create. Step 4 - plan the introduction of the changes - including training affected personnel and a post implementation review and refine/withdraw changes depending on the effectiveness. This is very roughly the process required by a sound SMS. At best the work involved might make the rule changers think twice before putting pen to paper, worse case it might actually produce some good outcomes. Simply changing or introducing rules does not improve safety! In other words, make them accountable and as a bonus bury them in their own BS.
×
×
  • Create New...