[Peetwo]

For the record the only publicly available document from the Kathryn Sheppard inquest was the Coroner's recommendations:

Recommendations made in accordance with Section 82 (1) Coroners Act 2009:

To the Chief Executive Officer – Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

1. That CASA finalise the guidance material for CAAP 5.23 such that the guidance material is completed and released as soon as possible noting that the guidance material in question provides for multi-engine aeroplane operations and training to support the flight standard in Appendix A of s.1.2 of the CAAP relating to engine failure in the cruise;

2. That CASA undertake public consultations in order to assist CASA in the development of a legislative proposal enabling CASA to compel the attendance of persons at compulsory sworn interviews to answer questions concerning specific aviation and safety measures where a reasonable suspicion exists that;

a. a significant safety risk exists or existed in an aviation operation; and 2

b. evidence of a witness or witnesses likely to have knowledge of an aviation safety risk cannot be obtained in any other way.

   
Well I guess that's it until the Andrew Wilson inquest...
The reference to the CAAP 5.23 is very interesting because it has only recently been put to a DRAFT amendment - see here.
Here is an interesting perspective from Stan on part of that DRAFT document...

I have always found CAAPs to be informative and generally useful documents, that is until I came across this one. However noting the name of the contact it is now clear to me.

With the publication of this CAAP it appears that CAsA is now further subcontracting several important safety tasks to “the pilot”. Note also the reference to Part 23 FARs 23.65 as though we can’t write our own Australia specific requirements. We lead the world in our legislative inventiveness and quantity. What an affront.
I am thinking of starting a course to enable “the pilot” to be well informed to make [such] judgements.
The “nanny state” springs to mind. Or is it “control freaks”
  
DRAFT CAAP 5.23-1(2) Multi-engine aeroplane operations and training

4.6.1 Subpart 61.L of CASR includes the legislative requirements for aircraft ratings and endorsement as applicable to the aircraft type the pilot intends to operate.

4.7 Certification of multi-engine aeroplanes

4.7.1 An understanding of the weight and performance limitations of multi-engine aeroplanes requires an understanding of the performance of single-engine aeroplanes.

4.7.2 The Pilots Operating Handbook (POH) or Flight Manual for most single-engine aeroplanes provides for two requirements for climb capability:

• Take-off - the aeroplane in the take-off configuration at maximum weight with maximum power must have an adequate climb capability in standard atmospheric conditions.

For most light aeroplane types, adequate climb capability is defined as either 300 feet per minute (fpm) or a gradient of 1:12 (8.3%) at sea level. –

This definition is given in Part 23 of the US FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regulations (see FAR 23.65). Paragraph 7.1 of CAO 20.7.4 specifies a minimum takeoff gradient of 6%. CAO 20.7.4 is expected to be repealed when Parts 91 and 135 of CASR commence

5.3 Choosing a flying training organisation

5.3.1 Many FTOs offer multi-engine training. This CAAP emphasises the importance of receiving good training, particularly for a pilot’s first multi-engine endorsement, and the selection of a flight training operator will [sic] their decision. It is important for the pilot to be well informed when making such a decision.

5.3.2 A personal recommendation from another pilot is always helpful. However, the pilot should not consider a recommendation based solely on cost. It would be worthwhile for the pilot to research a number of operators across the market to see what they have to offer.

5.3.3 The first item to examine is the syllabus of training that all FTOs must have in their operations manual. (Shouldn’t such conform to the standard dictated by CAsA) It should detail in a logical sequence all the theory and flight training exercises involved in the course. For guidance, refer to the recommended syllabus at Appendix B and map the course against this document. The pilot should ask how many flying hours will be involved. Experience has shown that it is unlikely that all the flight sequences for an initial multi-engine endorsement can be adequately taught in less than 5-7 hours of flight time.

 5.3.4 The same time frame applies to the aeronautical knowledge training. A structured, well-run course should be the pilot’s goal. If they choose a flying instructor to conduct their training, they should ensure that the organisation has an appropriate written syllabus and training plan.

5.3.5 CASA requires training providers to supply adequate and appropriate training facilities before an AOC is issued. However, the pilot should examine the facilities and look for:
                • briefing facilities (lecture rooms and training aids)
• flight manuals and checklists • training notes
• reference libraries • comprehensive training records
• sufficient experienced instructors available at the time you require
• flight testing capability close to the end of training.

5.3.6 The pilot should then inspect the aircraft. It should be well presented and clean. The interiors should be neat with no unnecessary equipment or publications left inside. Windows should be clean and unscratched, and the condition of the paintwork is often an indicator of the care taken of the aircraft.

5.3.7 To ensure training is not delayed due to aircraft unserviceabilities, the pilot should also:
• examine maintenance documents to ensure there are no long-standing unserviceabilities
• review the maintenance release to ensure that unserviceabilities are entered (as sometimes this is not done).

5.3.8 The next component to review is the flight instructor. The value of a flight instructor who helps the pilot gain knowledge and skills and develop a positive and robust safety culture cannot be over emphasised. The pilot should ensure they are satisfied with the instructor’s performance and professional behaviour. (I always thought it was CAsA who needed to be satisfied)

It is important for the pilot to:
• discuss their aims and any concerns they may have about the flight training
• establish good communication
• determine that the instructor is available when they are. Some training operators will substitute flight instructors and this can cause time wasting while the new instructor reassesses the trainee to establish what training is required. (isn’t this why Australia has this unique requirement for AOCs and won’t allow competent rated instructors to provide training without being bound to an FTO)

5.3.9 The pilot should not just accept an instructor that they feel uncomfortable with or have doubts about

  
So is the DRAFT CAAP just coincidence or something else, like protecting CASA from any future potential liability?
c/o Cynical knuckle-dragger...P2