A Soar saga continues: Part II 
Via the Oz:
Student pilot training to end as diploma pulled at Box Hill Institute
![[Image: 1fe38b90b58d2e3ac218e41536d5b25c?width=650]](https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1fe38b90b58d2e3ac218e41536d5b25c?width=650)
Australia’s biggest recipient of taxpayer-funded student loans for trainee pilots has been stripped of its authority to offer aviation courses, leaving 400 students in the lurch.
Box Hill Institute was audited by the Australian Skills Quality Authority last year following a raft of complaints from students about course delivery and a very low graduation rate.
ASQA is the overseeing authority for VET student loans.
After the audit, flight training provided by Soar Aviation was suspended for a week and students informed of possible minor changes to their courses.
But in a letter distributed to students of Box Hill on Tuesday, aviation manager Adrian Lea said as a result of a decision by ASQA, the institute was no longer authorised to deliver the diploma of aviation from January 30.
“We understand this will be disappointing for you and we are urgently clarifying the ramifications of ASQA’s decision for our aviation students,” Mr Lea wrote.
“We are investigating seeking a reconsideration of the decision by ASQA however it is unclear whether such a request would be successful. In any case, the fact remains that the Diploma of Aviation (including its individual clusters) needs to be discontinued with effect from January 30, 2020.”
He went on to say that it was his “strong recommendation that students did not incur any further costs or fees in relation to enrolled units”, such as further flight training.
Department of Employment statistics for the six months to June 30, 2019, showed more than $7m worth of loans had been paid for 289 enrolments in the commercial pilot licence course at Box Hill.
In 2018, more than $11m in loans was paid for 402 enrolments, but only six students graduated.
A statement from Soar Aviation said its board “strongly refuted the findings of ASQA and the decision to revoke Box Hill Institute’s approval to provide third party practical training in conjunction with Soar Aviation.
“Many of ASQA’s conclusions are based on errors of fact and Soar Aviation is considering the appropriate avenues to maintain its registration,” the statement said.
“Soar Aviation and Box Hill Institute recently reviewed all procedures that are performed under Commercial Pilot Licence aviation training to ensure they comply with all relevant Civil Aviation legislation.”
The statement went to say 70 people had obtainted their Diploma of Aviation under the Box Hill program.
“A further 400 students are enrolled and part way through their course. We will do everything we can to ensure they have the opportunity to complete their training and successfully gain their qualifications.”
Soar Aviation and Box Hill Institute came under renewed scrutiny late last year after the second serious plane crash in 14-months.
On December 12, 2019, a student conducting a solo training flight was seriously injured when his Bristell S-LSA crashed during a “touch and go” manoeuvre at Moorabbin Airport.
On October 5, 2018, another student was left a paraplegic and his trainer injured when their training flight in a Bristell S-LSA went wrong near Stawell in Victoria.
Both incidents remain the subject of Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigations.
Mr Lea’s letter to students said Box Hill would do its best to support them through this period and navigate available options.
As an aside but also related to instructor &/or provider training standards; the following is a comment in reply by David Pilkington to this recent Oz Flying article on yet another possible CASA kneejerk overreaction to a ATSB identified pilot training safety issue:
For those of you who are not aware DJP is arguably overqualified to comment on the subject matters of pilot training and aircraft spin recovery etc..etc
Via AOPA Oz: https://aopa.com.au/aopa-australia-welco...-the-team/
Also from DJP's blog: A SPIN IS A SPIN
MTF...P2
Via the Oz:
Student pilot training to end as diploma pulled at Box Hill Institute
Australia’s biggest recipient of taxpayer-funded student loans for trainee pilots has been stripped of its authority to offer aviation courses, leaving 400 students in the lurch.
Box Hill Institute was audited by the Australian Skills Quality Authority last year following a raft of complaints from students about course delivery and a very low graduation rate.
ASQA is the overseeing authority for VET student loans.
After the audit, flight training provided by Soar Aviation was suspended for a week and students informed of possible minor changes to their courses.
But in a letter distributed to students of Box Hill on Tuesday, aviation manager Adrian Lea said as a result of a decision by ASQA, the institute was no longer authorised to deliver the diploma of aviation from January 30.
“We understand this will be disappointing for you and we are urgently clarifying the ramifications of ASQA’s decision for our aviation students,” Mr Lea wrote.
“We are investigating seeking a reconsideration of the decision by ASQA however it is unclear whether such a request would be successful. In any case, the fact remains that the Diploma of Aviation (including its individual clusters) needs to be discontinued with effect from January 30, 2020.”
He went on to say that it was his “strong recommendation that students did not incur any further costs or fees in relation to enrolled units”, such as further flight training.
Department of Employment statistics for the six months to June 30, 2019, showed more than $7m worth of loans had been paid for 289 enrolments in the commercial pilot licence course at Box Hill.
In 2018, more than $11m in loans was paid for 402 enrolments, but only six students graduated.
A statement from Soar Aviation said its board “strongly refuted the findings of ASQA and the decision to revoke Box Hill Institute’s approval to provide third party practical training in conjunction with Soar Aviation.
“Many of ASQA’s conclusions are based on errors of fact and Soar Aviation is considering the appropriate avenues to maintain its registration,” the statement said.
“Soar Aviation and Box Hill Institute recently reviewed all procedures that are performed under Commercial Pilot Licence aviation training to ensure they comply with all relevant Civil Aviation legislation.”
The statement went to say 70 people had obtainted their Diploma of Aviation under the Box Hill program.
“A further 400 students are enrolled and part way through their course. We will do everything we can to ensure they have the opportunity to complete their training and successfully gain their qualifications.”
Soar Aviation and Box Hill Institute came under renewed scrutiny late last year after the second serious plane crash in 14-months.
On December 12, 2019, a student conducting a solo training flight was seriously injured when his Bristell S-LSA crashed during a “touch and go” manoeuvre at Moorabbin Airport.
On October 5, 2018, another student was left a paraplegic and his trainer injured when their training flight in a Bristell S-LSA went wrong near Stawell in Victoria.
Both incidents remain the subject of Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigations.
Mr Lea’s letter to students said Box Hill would do its best to support them through this period and navigate available options.
As an aside but also related to instructor &/or provider training standards; the following is a comment in reply by David Pilkington to this recent Oz Flying article on yet another possible CASA kneejerk overreaction to a ATSB identified pilot training safety issue:
Quote:..The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) today opened consultation on a proposed new advisory circular (AC) covering stall and spin training.
Plans for the AC have come after a series of accidents over the past 10 years in which aircraft have crashed during apparent stall/spin training, highlighted most recently through the crash of a Diamond DA40 near Toowoomba in September 2017.
"The induction of spins in aircraft not certified for spinning has been occurring in the flying training context," CASA states in its introduction. "It is possible this is due to the confounding of the definitions of the words 'wing drop' and 'incipient spin' in training and practice and has resulted in loss of control in the air (LOC-I) incidents and fatalities.
"It is possible that instructors may be conducting training beyond the limits of their aircraft to meet training needs without proper consideration of potential outcomes.
"This AC provides information and guidance regarding the conduct of advanced stalling exercises; in particular, stalls with a wing drop. Definitions of wing drop at the stall and spin at the incipient stage are clarified, certification standards providing margins of safety in specific modes of flight are discussed, and methods of training and practice are provided."
The final version of the AC is expected to cover the phases, recovery and avoidance of stalls and spins as well as definitions and certification requirements for stall and spin training.
The draft AC is on the CASA consultation hub, with feedback open until 27 January 2020.
David J Pilkington • 4 days ago
"Plans for the AC have come after a series of accidents over the past 10 years in which aircraft have crashed during apparent stall/spin training ..." quite a bit different than what is in the draft AC: "Recent fatal accidents involving spins in training aircraft suggest a lack of instructor and flying training organisation understanding of aircraft limitations ..." Well, actually what prompted this was an ATSB report on one of a number of serious spin accidents with flight instructors and students since CASA introduced Part 61.
Plus in reply to Oz Flying article: http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...n-training
David J Pilkington • 3 months ago
In: “I would be looking at the instructors training in fully developed spin recovery technique.”
DJP’s response: I disagree although training and/or knowledge of the specific spin recovery procedure in a type different to the one they did spin training in could well be a factor. There is a relevant ATSB report on a Chipmunk spin accident a few years ago.
A type not approved for intentional spinning is designed just to be safe if recovery from a stall is delayed. It is not intended to be used for intentional incipient spins. I look forward to the next ATSB report on a spin accident with an instructor and student doing incipient spin training.
In: “Un-commanded fully developed spins do happen and sadly most instructors do not have a log book entry certifying that they have been tested and found to be competent in fully developed spin recovery techniques. Nor are they required to do so.”
DJP: A spin endorsement is mandatory for a flight instructor rating per Part 61. Previously it was imbedded in the instructor course although the CAO did not mandate a spin endorsement. I would be surprised if there was more than a handful of GA flight instructors did not have a spin endorsement. Spin training is coming for all RAA instructors.
In: “If a flight training organisation uses aircraft that are not approved for spinning they are not required to do more than an incipient spin in training.”
DJP: An aircraft not approved for spinning may not intentionally enter a spin. Spin as used by people who write flight manuals is defined as “a sustained autorotation at angles-of-attack above the stall” hence the CASA alert of 23 May:
“The conduct of an incipient spin in an aeroplane that is not approved for spinning places the aeroplane outside the normal operating envelope into the safety margins provided by the aeroplane certification standards for airframe structural integrity and demonstrated ability to recover from the manoeuvre.
CASA is developing further guidance material in relation to the conduct of incipient spins and advanced stalls and how to meet the flight training and testing standards in the Part 61 manual of standards. We expect to finalise these over the coming weeks.”
DJP: Those “coming weeks” have turned into months with still nothing from CASA!
For those of you who are not aware DJP is arguably overqualified to comment on the subject matters of pilot training and aircraft spin recovery etc..etc
Via AOPA Oz: https://aopa.com.au/aopa-australia-welco...-the-team/
Quote:David J Pilkington started flying in 1966 and commenced aerobatics a few years later. He specialises in tail-wheel and aerobatic instruction and is a Flight Examiner for spin and aerobatic instructors. He was twice Australian Advanced Aerobatic Champion and was leader of a formation aerobatic team flying Pitts Specials. Over the years he has owned a variety of aerobatic aircraft including an Airtourer, Decathlon, Laser and Pitts S-2A. The Laser was built by David and two friends. He currently owns a Pitts S-2C (shared with two friends) as well as a Super Decathlon which is used for training.
David has been a flight instructor since 1995 and prior to that was approved to teach advanced aerobatics and test for low level aerobatic approvals. In 2011, David was awarded the Paul Tissandier Diploma by the FAI for his services to sport aerobatics over many years.
David has a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering from RMIT and a Master of Science from Cranfield University in the UK. His early career was in aircraft aerodynamic design, flight & wind tunnel testing, flight performance, handling qualities and flight loads including work with the NASA Spin Research Center.
He was Vice President, Engineering and Test Pilot at Aviat Aircraft, Inc (USA) in the mid-nineties working on the Husky and Pitts designs. Later Chief Engineer – Air Vehicles at ASTA Components (Boeing Australia) prior to joining GKN Aerospace Engineering Services in 2001 where he worked on projects such as the F-35.
Also from DJP's blog: A SPIN IS A SPIN
MTF...P2