Guide Dogs required - apply within.
Had the walk and the dogs good company not done the trick, dinner and good company with it certainly restored my battered brain. The dreaded ‘pointers’ discussion ended up with some of the funniest anecdotes I have ever heard being told. Quite restored and refreshed I decided today I would examine the modest 8 page ‘Guide to type rated aeroplanes’. You will need -THIS - to follow my rambles
Now this topic is of particular interest as one of the very best things CASA ever did was to bring in the ‘blanket’ cover on single engine aircraft as it provides a benchmark against which risk and accident rates may be measured. In short, the move has been a success and I am hoping that the philosophy will be applied, in so far as is practical, to multi engine aircraft.
Click page 1:- More decorative pictures demonstrating the approved method of turning on a switch, then the flatulence begins, the vexed question answered – “Who should read this .etc.” Tension rises in the houseboat study, the dogs casualy stretch and head out. I enjoy learning, happy to read stuff but I ducking hate been patronised. No matter, breathe in, exhale and continue.
I wonder will there be a published matrix of just how the ‘complexity’ or ‘handling’ assessments are made? for it is a highly subjective topic. I don’t have a problem with the concept, but I would like to understand how the benchmarks are to be decided. I have had the pleasure of operating two Mustang variants, both single pilot aircraft and about as different as two beasts could ever get. Both certainly deserving of a specific ‘type’ course, so far so good; then we consider complexity and handling. Both are truly lovely things to fly – in their own way, but the marked differences in ‘handling’ are found between start up and 500 feet; after that it’s up down, left, right, don't hit anything - as per. So we can accept an ‘engineering’ school as a good and essential thing but then we must consider the ‘operational’ training. Here is where we need to closely examine the methods by which CASA ‘approve’ a syllabus of training. One of our aircraft here needs about 20 hours of pre flight briefing on how to fly the thing, systems management about 30 minutes; the other needs about 30 minutes of discussion on ‘flying’ it, but about 20 hours on ‘systems’ management. It is in the area of how the ‘type training’ courses are structured that we should examine where our CASA ‘experts’ have set their benchmarks.
The reason for raising this is I hoped to see some guidance for those who design, frame and execute training courses. We shall see, as we add 61.055 and 60 to our reading list and note that we are to be provided detail on whether or not we need a rating and differences training within the Mark and model ‘group’. Page 1 finishes as it starts, patronising yet uninformative (apart from the switch operation lesson).
Click page 2:- Not self explanatory then, the guide, is it? Guidance on a guide emerges as the little warning bells tinkle softly. Shades of the truly, really dreadful CAO 40.1 lurk in the dark corners, sneering. You note the attractive young lady once again enforcing the approved method of operating a switch; yea verily shalt thou learn thy trade. Invigorated – we press on.
Click page 3:- The useless FAQ style is employed to state the obvious which is buried, hidden within the mangled pile of English, once you get past the if, and, but and maybe of it, you are still a way off comprehension. I resist trying to work out what the boys pictured are up to.
Click page 4:- I just smile as I read the Boeing ‘cells’; the table sort of works, in a left handed manner, but I doubt a Boeing operator would have it that complex; the differences certainly are not. But we can live with a clumsy, high school standard ‘table’.
Click page 5:-Click page 6:- Click page 7 – just an aircraft this time, clearly our button operation training is over.
Click page 8:- The plaintive though arrogant statement – “Do you want to no more – well do ya punk?” insinuates that the preceding pages should, if we weren’t as a thuck as pug pooh, have done the trick. But for those of us, mildly bemused and uneducated as to the intricacies of the CASR 61 type rating imbroglio we can, as we must tackle the reading list provided. For so far, apart from learning in very graphic manner how to operate a switch, I find very little value for money in the trite, little 'educational - 'explanatory' guide.
Don’t you love the ‘Divisions’ now we also have to track them down in the huge pile of paper and work out what they are all about; can’t wait. Fascinated by 61.205 ‘when training must not be conducted in an aircraft: there’s hope yet then.
You can sum up the educational value and gain an insight into the mind that drafted this this ‘guide’ very easily. Place your cursor in the centre the cockpit picture provided – read the pop up – ‘Airplane’s cockpit controls’. There now I’ve learnt something – you have controls for the cockpit of your ‘airplane’. Strewth, and here’s silly me all these years not knowing that.
Aye well, patronised, no wiser, insulted by a perfectly serviceable language being mangled, I catch the welcome smell of fresh coffee and, with any luck, there may be a tasty treat from the bakery left over (if I can beat the dogs to the kitchen)…
..
Toot toot.
Had the walk and the dogs good company not done the trick, dinner and good company with it certainly restored my battered brain. The dreaded ‘pointers’ discussion ended up with some of the funniest anecdotes I have ever heard being told. Quite restored and refreshed I decided today I would examine the modest 8 page ‘Guide to type rated aeroplanes’. You will need -THIS - to follow my rambles
Now this topic is of particular interest as one of the very best things CASA ever did was to bring in the ‘blanket’ cover on single engine aircraft as it provides a benchmark against which risk and accident rates may be measured. In short, the move has been a success and I am hoping that the philosophy will be applied, in so far as is practical, to multi engine aircraft.
Click page 1:- More decorative pictures demonstrating the approved method of turning on a switch, then the flatulence begins, the vexed question answered – “Who should read this .etc.” Tension rises in the houseboat study, the dogs casualy stretch and head out. I enjoy learning, happy to read stuff but I ducking hate been patronised. No matter, breathe in, exhale and continue.
Quote:[specified] single-pilot certificated aeroplanes that have performance, complexity or handling characteristics that (warrant pilots completing a type-specific training course).
I wonder will there be a published matrix of just how the ‘complexity’ or ‘handling’ assessments are made? for it is a highly subjective topic. I don’t have a problem with the concept, but I would like to understand how the benchmarks are to be decided. I have had the pleasure of operating two Mustang variants, both single pilot aircraft and about as different as two beasts could ever get. Both certainly deserving of a specific ‘type’ course, so far so good; then we consider complexity and handling. Both are truly lovely things to fly – in their own way, but the marked differences in ‘handling’ are found between start up and 500 feet; after that it’s up down, left, right, don't hit anything - as per. So we can accept an ‘engineering’ school as a good and essential thing but then we must consider the ‘operational’ training. Here is where we need to closely examine the methods by which CASA ‘approve’ a syllabus of training. One of our aircraft here needs about 20 hours of pre flight briefing on how to fly the thing, systems management about 30 minutes; the other needs about 30 minutes of discussion on ‘flying’ it, but about 20 hours on ‘systems’ management. It is in the area of how the ‘type training’ courses are structured that we should examine where our CASA ‘experts’ have set their benchmarks.
The reason for raising this is I hoped to see some guidance for those who design, frame and execute training courses. We shall see, as we add 61.055 and 60 to our reading list and note that we are to be provided detail on whether or not we need a rating and differences training within the Mark and model ‘group’. Page 1 finishes as it starts, patronising yet uninformative (apart from the switch operation lesson).
Click page 2:- Not self explanatory then, the guide, is it? Guidance on a guide emerges as the little warning bells tinkle softly. Shades of the truly, really dreadful CAO 40.1 lurk in the dark corners, sneering. You note the attractive young lady once again enforcing the approved method of operating a switch; yea verily shalt thou learn thy trade. Invigorated – we press on.
Click page 3:- The useless FAQ style is employed to state the obvious which is buried, hidden within the mangled pile of English, once you get past the if, and, but and maybe of it, you are still a way off comprehension. I resist trying to work out what the boys pictured are up to.
Click page 4:- I just smile as I read the Boeing ‘cells’; the table sort of works, in a left handed manner, but I doubt a Boeing operator would have it that complex; the differences certainly are not. But we can live with a clumsy, high school standard ‘table’.
Click page 5:-Click page 6:- Click page 7 – just an aircraft this time, clearly our button operation training is over.
Click page 8:- The plaintive though arrogant statement – “Do you want to no more – well do ya punk?” insinuates that the preceding pages should, if we weren’t as a thuck as pug pooh, have done the trick. But for those of us, mildly bemused and uneducated as to the intricacies of the CASR 61 type rating imbroglio we can, as we must tackle the reading list provided. For so far, apart from learning in very graphic manner how to operate a switch, I find very little value for money in the trite, little 'educational - 'explanatory' guide.
Don’t you love the ‘Divisions’ now we also have to track them down in the huge pile of paper and work out what they are all about; can’t wait. Fascinated by 61.205 ‘when training must not be conducted in an aircraft: there’s hope yet then.
You can sum up the educational value and gain an insight into the mind that drafted this this ‘guide’ very easily. Place your cursor in the centre the cockpit picture provided – read the pop up – ‘Airplane’s cockpit controls’. There now I’ve learnt something – you have controls for the cockpit of your ‘airplane’. Strewth, and here’s silly me all these years not knowing that.
Aye well, patronised, no wiser, insulted by a perfectly serviceable language being mangled, I catch the welcome smell of fresh coffee and, with any luck, there may be a tasty treat from the bakery left over (if I can beat the dogs to the kitchen)…
.. Toot toot.