[Peetwo]

Friday Arvo Fax.

There are some equally ‘silly’ reports on the RA Oz reporting card, but the one which jumps off the pages is this one:- HERE -. I asked P7 to give it a gentle ( five minute) once over – just to make sure that once the laughter stopped, there were indeed not only several very serious breaches of basic common sense ‘flight safety’ and a certain disregard for the rules which govern both. The whole thing was fraught with peril from before even the engine was started. The manner in which the final approach to landing was conducted is not only reckless, but a danger to any other aircraft operating within the aerodrome precincts and the very airport infrastructure.

There are many parallels to be drawn between this episode and the Angel Flight fatal at Mt. Gambier. The most obvious being deliberately persisting into non VFR conditions, then continuing an approach in less than prescribed minimum visibility conditions. One led to a fatal accident, the other just got lucky.

CASA brought the boom down on AF after Mt. Gambier and yet the RA Oz crew have been allowed to present a ‘signed confession’ of dangerous operational practice and neither St. Commode nor his henchmen have raised an eyebrow, ATSB have simply filed the thing in the ignore bin.

The report provided speaks of some piss poor training – across the spectrum. Glen Buckley gets a severe hammering while the idiot posing as minister sings the praises of SOAR and their wonderful CASA sanctioned training systems.

St. Commode said this:

If; as he claims, all the gods bestowed the right to be responsible for “keeping Australians safe” does this refer to only a select group or to all? Seems to me it is time CASA accepted that responsibility and took a very close look at the incident cited in relation to rules being broken, poor airmanship through training and the possibility of a mid air; or, collision with an aircraft on the duty runway or even a CFIT. Alternatively, have CASA questioned RA Oz in relation to this matter and shown them some of their famous ‘tuff-luv’?  Told ‘em to straighten it out – or else. Did ATSB run some statistics? 31 'incidents' reported by RA Oz since Dec 2019 (6 weeks worth). Time someone paid attention I’d say…..

Nah to all of the above. Why no?. Why has the patron Saint of aviation safety not swooped in, cleaned up the mess, drafted some new onerous, restrictive rules to make RA Oz a compliant citizen of the land where St. Commode rules as the supreme doyen of aviation safety? Because it’s not his responsibility is it. Course its not, that has been ‘delegated’.

It’s not only a farce, an insult and a cop out, it betrays the very standards CASA have set but fail to enforce. Stall and spin training is now being diluted because many of the ‘cost effective’ - ‘bar-code’ aircraft ain’t tested and not certified as fit for task. What a brilliant start to a professional career that makes.

Sooner or later, the RA Oz system needs to be discussed. In principal it is a fine idea for
‘Recreational pilots’.  Personally, I have no quarrel with it, in it’s rightful place. Seems to me to be a really good thing for many folk; those who just love to fly, recreationally potter about, tour the country side: those on the land who use an aircraft in much the same way as a ute. It is a blessing for those who can safely drive a vehicle but just fall short on CASA medical standards. The benefits are many, the ‘risks’ when sensibly addressed acceptable and the restrictions placed not too draconian at all – considering.

But – (there’s always a but) as a pathway to a Commercial pilot licence and higher? In theory there is a cost saving. In reality the savings are marginal, when you do the numbers – for real. Then, there is the ‘quality’ question. I know many of the RA instructors hold a CASA IR; but many do not. No doubt these are well intentioned and properly mentored by the CASA approved senior crew; but I wonder; if there is a ‘gap’?

It is a truism, that one may teach Granny to ‘fly’ a simple aircraft in a very short period of time – up, down, left, right - try not to hit anything. Does this create a sound basis for progression to the jet command most of those (in debt) ‘training’ aspire to? It is a fair question for open, friendly discussion. BRB opinion to follow…I raise the issue because (IMO) the ‘basic’ training a pilot receives is very, very important. Essentially, that period is of very short duration – the time it takes between first lesson and first solo is the only time a pilot is actually ‘taught’ to ‘fly’ an airframe. After that it becomes a matter of further education, the basics the platform on which advanced training, ‘experience’ and operational knowledge is built. If the foundations are flawed, sooner or later the cracks will begin to appear

With the crew involved in the incident cited (above); the cracks seem o have appeared at a very early stage. Is this a good enough platform from which to build an airline career? The minister seems to think so – but then…………..

Anyway, I ramble. The whole thing is going to a full house (IOS and BRB) - - session (no darts). The agenda is far reaching, beginning from the blatant CASA misrepresentation of a 1999 ministerial directive to the current day legislative mess. Should be interesting –

Toot – toot.

Oops! Bristell plastic fantastics back to bite - 

Via the CASA:

---

---

Hmm...I wonder where the Hooded Canary's ATCB back up to that is? - Certainly not HERE as yet??   

Soar - Going...going...going??

Via the Oz:

Soar Aviation still training pilots during review

ROBYN IRONSIDE
Follow @ironsider




The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has issued a warning for Bristell light sport aircraft due to their inability to recover from spins. Picture: ATSB

A decision on Soar Aviation’s future as a registered training organisation is expected within two weeks.

The flight training school had its registration cancelled in mid-December following an audit by the Australian Skills Quality Authority, which is responsible for Vocational Education and Training courses and VET training providers. The audit found Soar was not compliant with the standards for RTOs and had not supported the needs of individual students or met the requirements of the aviation training package.

At the same time, training partner Box Hill Institute was informed its approval to offer Commercial Pilot Licence courses was being revoked.

Both Box Hill and Soar sought reviews of ASQA’s decisions, which meant they could continue to recruit and train students.

An ASQA spokesman confirmed that while the review progressed, Soar could continue to “operate without restriction”.

“Should the cancellation decision be affirmed by the internal review, it would take effect 35 days after Gobel Aviation (trading as Soar) is notified of the decision,” the spokesman said. “In that instance, the provider could also seek an external review of the decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.”

Similarly, the decision to amend Box Hill Institute’s scope of registration would not take effect while the review was ongoing.

Latest statistics from the Department of Employment show 193 students were enrolled in the CPL course at Box Hill in the second half of 2019, for whom $4.3m worth of loans were paid. In that period, no one graduated despite the data suggesting the course had a 93.6 per cent completion rate.

In a further setback, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority this week issued an urgent safety notice in relation to Bristell light sport aircraft.

According to CASA’s aircraft register, Soar owns 12 of the single engine, two-seat aeroplanes.

The CASA notice warned pilots to exercise extreme caution when conducting any manoeuvre in the Bristells that may lead to an intentional or unintentional stall.

“Bristell NG4 and NG5 operated in flying training should not be used for stall training,” said the notice. “Available information shows the aircraft may not comply with relevant international standards relating to the ability to recover from a spin.” The lack of compliance was due to the fact some countries allow light sport aircraft manufacturers to make a self-­declaration that their aircraft met accepted standards.

“This system has been put in place to lower compliance costs, reduce the time to bring new aircraft to market and allow new technology to be introduced more easily,” said CASA’s statement.

Two investigations are under way into crashes involving Soar-operated Bristell aircraft, one of which was observed to enter a spin from which it could not recover.

A spokeswoman for Soar Aviation confirmed the training school was continuing to fly students “who are reaching their goals of achieving licences”.

---

Comments:

Jock
1 HOUR AGO
I would suggest that this article is well due. Caveat Emptor

David
3 HOURS AGO
Fasten your seat belts.

Turbulence ahead.

If it is not already the Soar saga definitely needs to be on the good Senators radar...

MTF....P2