Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? - Printable Version

+- AuntyPru Forum (https://auntypru.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Senate Inquiry - Unplugged (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Alphabet Soup (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=62)
+--- Thread: Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? (/showthread.php?tid=226)

---

Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? - Peetwo - 03-05-2026

Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century??

From P9 on SBG:

Quote:A nod, to the Gods (and Murphy).

Whilst it may be 'easy' for some to offer their little, but artfully pointed barbs, slick jibes from a privileged, (kissed on the arse by the Gods) position; there are some who learned the 'real' lessons of operational flying in the Alma Marta school of 'hard knocks'. Going through 'the hoops' of VFR to CPL and first multi engine (PA 30) was a breeze; thanks to the good and (historically) exceptional training  gifted and, in 'suitable' weather the young 'K' could afford the occasional 'attaboy' for a job done to 'standard'. Of course VFR was OK; but to earn ones keep, an instrument rating was 'de rigueur'. So, the Penny's were found and 'training' began. Luck; pure blind good fortune placed me in the hands of a man who 'knew' what IFR really was. Never was he one for 'forms' or 'systematic' clap-trap; he simply, borderline brutally, ensured that almost any maneuver could be performed; no matter what was occurring, be performed, without hesitation; damage to engine or airframe and to the unfortunates 'in-the-back'. It was 'tough love' and I have thanked the Gods many times over for his 'attention' to my many failing; and, importantly, for the 'gift' of being able to 'understand' the messages delivered from engine, airframe and instruments as a holistic picture. For example; three engines chocked with ice, inside 30 seconds +3” of clear ice, 1000 below LSALT @ Wee Jasper; or, a cylinder through the windscreen 'surveying' a monster thunderstorm at 20 odd thousand and an OEI approach to 'minima' to follow. There are more examples; double engine fail at F170 @ 0100 alongside the Diamndtina – SY to DN. The list goes on; the point is. that despite 'the stuff' which 'ticks-the-boxes' one simply does not know what one does not know. Experience teaches the rest (Murphy assisted).

This report – HERE – takes me back a ways to this report – HERE. The latter report caught the interest of a TV show producer. Nothing else would do but I was called out (from leave) to operate a Merlin on the exact track to the impact point. The GPS was our 'suspect'. Our GPS took us 'eerily' to the exact smoke darkened place. Yet, this was an experienced, fully qualified professional in command of the accident flight, 'in weather'. But there was evidence of tragedy, as stark and clear as if it happened 'yesterday'. Aye; a CFIT: - another one.!

“This isn't just 'the way things are.' This is the way you made them. This is the result of your choices, your actions. Yours.”

How many more I wonder? IF (big one) a competent, highly qualified, current, fit professional can be deceived by weather, mission and instrumentation, then what chance a new chum, on a VFR ticket surviving? My bets book would love to take your bet. This current 'laissez-faire' - 'no responsibility' approach from CASA is creating a false sense of 'security' (for wont of better) within the ranks of the 'private' operational set. Or; the blind leading the blind, if you prefer. I see this – developing across this planet; clever, experienced, highly qualified pilots have been brought to grief due to nature, terrain and bloody awful weather. Why? Oh, please tell me why a Mutt with minimum training and experience can believe that 'they' will win through; every time they declare war on Murphy, the Gods of weather and those who's sage advice is consigned to 'history' and deemed 'not applicable' to them?  It simply beggars belief. The most consistent event which claims lives (many) is simply left to the discretion of those with NFI and with zero accountability/ responsibility for the 'happening'. Always the 'blame' resides with the deceived. Oh!  BOLLOCKS (in Spades, redoubled).

Aye well; there's line up at the doors; shop floor is clean, beasts fed and watered; the wild wood awaits our nocturnal visit; best shut up and crack on I suppose. But the shame of the weather related CFIT deaths must, sooner or later must be accounted for – (IMO). By the regulator – perhaps??

Selah.

I chat with P9 regularly and I hear his frustrations loud and clear, that is why I am starting this thread in the hope to open up the conversation on how the flight training standards in Australia can hopefully get back to basics, because clearly they have drifted to beyond just complacency to a world of ignorance and blind bravado/Darwin award candidates, in the GA and in particular some of the RAA ranks of private pilot trainees and PPL licence holders (plus maybe, God help us, in the commercial pilot fraternity) .  

To begin can we possibly put this drift to a point in time? 

Perhaps more so for the professional pilots but IMO very much related to the current flight training paradox, from Google AI : 

Quote:"Children of the Magenta" refers to pilots over-reliant on automated flight systems (specifically the magenta-colored navigation lines on displays), a term coined by American Airlines captain Warren Vanderburgh in 1997. It highlights the "automation paradox," where advanced, safer systems lead to de-skilling and loss of situational awareness when automation fails or acts unexpectedly.

So to begin this debate/conversation I want to go to the Oz Flying CASA Wings Award announcement, in particular the following:

Quote:
Col Pay Award for Lifetime Service to General Aviation

Phil Unicomb

With nearly five decades in aviation, Phil Unicomb has shaped Australian general aviation through advanced instruction, aerobatics and loss-of-control prevention training. A mentor to thousands of pilots and more than 40 state and national champions, Phil’s influence extends across instructors, examiners, corporate pilots and airline captains. His lifelong commitment to safety, professionalism and skill development makes him a fitting recipient of the Col Pay Award.

I have been following PU on FB and in particular his recent videos on stalling - Phil Unicomb Aviation Pty Ltd

Phil Unicomb also has a YouTube channel featuring the same excellent videos, so to kick this off here we go...







MTF...P2

---

RE: Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? - Kharon - 03-08-2026

From Grand Pa's workshop.

Gee; thanks P2; and me without a pocket full of Silver bullets, with which to beat off the baddies. However, you are correct (mostly). First thoughts; top of my head stuff; with apologies to those of a higher mindset from a dumb driver – airframe.

P2 “I chat with P9 regularly and I hear his frustrations loud and clear, that is why I am starting this thread in the hope to open up the conversation on how the flight training standards in Australia can hopefully get back to basics, because clearly they have drifted to beyond just complacency to a world of ignorance and blind bravado/Darwin award candidates, in the GA and in particular some of the RAA ranks of private pilot trainees and PPL licence holders”.

“The man who asks a question is a fool for a minute, the man who does not ask is a fool for life.”

Aye; fine words and an elegant solution – provided 'the fool' knows which question to ask. There are (IMO) two essential questions which should be answered by aspiring pilots; particularly when confronted by some of the daemons presented airborne. These questions demand 'honest' answers. These answers should have been welded into the mindset long before the in-flight confrontation.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.”

Let's say the 'battle ground' is located over the high ground; lets say the weather is low cloud, liquid, icy, turbulent and sunlight is patchy. Lets say you are a 20,000 hour professional, in a 'fit' aircraft carrying all the good toys. Even then, the old questions must be answered. Can the airframe and systems 'manage' this – yes (tick) have I seen this situation before yes (tick) in my heart and mind can I honestly win through yes (tick), am I current, qualified and legal to tackle this? Yes (tick). But, what if the 'No' boxes get ticked? What then? This is where 'Plan B' and its questionnaire becomes valid. Q1; did you look at the forecast, understand where the 'traps' may lay? Did you develop a battle plan on the ground before departing, did you seek advice, did you consider your own 'experience' level and evaluate the performance capability of the aircraft? Am I current, qualified, competent and legal to tackle this?

“The moment you become aware of the ego in you, it is strictly speaking no longer the ego, but just an old, conditioned mind-pattern. Ego implies unawareness. Awareness and ego cannot coexist.”

Ayup: Its about now that 'honesty' must kick in; ego and braggadocio must be governed by 'training' and tempered with 'real' experience. Was that training 'tick-a-box' or, were exams simply 'passed' and the 'book work' parked in the garage, forgotten? Or, perhaps, while you pre flight, the oldest of all traps are set – all proven killers just waiting for some Mutt to 'roll the dice'. The old, much valued 'Digest' carries may, many true tales (See Centaurus HERE) provides much thought for days when the weather is 'sketchy'.

“That was a day with a trapdoor, and we all fell through.”

Which brings me to the oldest conundrum facing everyone who takes to the air; the 'weather'. Or rather 'weather flying'; deuced tricky stuff. Gaining 'experience' is risky however without that 'experience' operating in any weather system becomes a potential hazard. One (IMO) of the risk elements comes from 'translating' the coded messages presented in 'forecast' and the % mark up (arse covering) presented. Decoding a forecast is an art form and applying 'that' forecast to the proposed route is only 'best guess'. Let me explain – Suppose you are operating a 'Rex' commuter service covering two ports, out and back. Over a period of say 12 months; you obtain a forecast, plan accordingly are operate the service; after a while, the forecast conditions begin to tell you where the pot holes are; where the traps are set, where ice is likely to affect; how long a fog hangs about. Experience and 'understanding what the forecast cannot tell you reduces the 'anxiety'. Start on a new route, then the 'tricks' must once again be learned. Good operations management usually provides a 'briefing' on route, aerodrome and procedures. The lonesome 'independent newbie' in a low power, VFR single light aircraft does not have this advantage. Those with an Aero club and experienced instructors have an advantage and should use it.

“Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it.”

Much has been written by wiser, older pens than mine countless 'old wives tales' have become unwritten law; thousands of 'Pub' stories and myths abound. But then Murphy is always in the cockpit; Lady Luck is a fickle, ruthless mistress and at the end of the shift, when all said and done; 'You pays your money and takes your chances”. I will stick my neck out here (pillory following) but my best advice to those beginning the 'cross country adventure is exactly the same as was given to me way back. “Find a map; mark your course; set six minute marks on the track based on 'assumed' ground speed; and make every mark decision 'gate'; Up, Down, Left, Right or Reverse; Go on or divert and always, always leave the back door open. In short; situational awareness and a true appreciation of your own limitations and experience is not a bad ally either. Here endeth the off the cuff stuff.

End note; would I like to see CASA reformed and the incubus removed bet on it: would I like to see ATSB returned to the 'Safety Digest' standards absolutely; the BoM returned to 'forecaster' rather than 'computer models' most certainly. But non of that will replace 'quality' experienced flight training of the old school methods of ensuring that pilots understood the base tenets of 'there are old pilots, there are bold pilots; but very few old bold pilots. Not really, we are a cautious profession; Murphy our mascot.

Selah....(Phew).

---

RE: Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? - Kharon - 03-08-2026

From Grand Pa's workshop.

Gee; thanks P2; and here's me without a pocket full of Silver bullets, with which to beat off the baddies. However, you are correct (mostly). First thoughts; top of my head stuff; with apologies to those of a higher mindset to that of a dumb driver – airframe.

P2 “I chat with P9 regularly and I hear his frustrations loud and clear, that is why I am starting this thread in the hope to open up the conversation on how the flight training standards in Australia can hopefully get back to basics, because clearly they have drifted to beyond just complacency to a world of ignorance and blind bravado/Darwin award candidates, in the GA and in particular some of the RAA ranks of private pilot trainees and PPL licence holders”.

“The man who asks a question is a fool for a minute, the man who does not ask is a fool for life.”

Aye; fine words and an elegant solution – provided 'the fool' knows which question to ask. There are (IMO) two essential questions which should be answered by aspiring pilots; particularly when confronted by some of the daemons presented airborne. These questions demand 'honest' answers. These answers should have been welded into the mindset long before the in-flight confrontation.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.”

Let's say the 'battle ground' is located over the high ground; lets say the weather is low cloud, liquid, icy, turbulent and sunlight is patchy. Lets say you are a 20,000 hour professional, in a 'fit' aircraft carrying all the good toys. Even then, the old questions must be answered. Can the airframe and systems 'manage' this – yes (tick) have I seen this situation before yes (tick) in my heart and mind can I honestly win through yes (tick), am I current, qualified and legal to tackle this? Yes (tick). But, what if the 'No' boxes get ticked? What then? This is where 'Plan B' and its questionnaire becomes valid. Q1; did you look at the forecast, understand where the 'traps' may lay? Did you develop a battle plan on the ground before departing, did you seek advice, did you consider your own 'experience' level and evaluate the performance capability of the aircraft? Am I current, qualified, competent and legal to tackle this?

“The moment you become aware of the ego in you, it is strictly speaking no longer the ego, but just an old, conditioned mind-pattern. Ego implies unawareness. Awareness and ego cannot coexist.”

Ayup: Its about now that 'honesty' must kick in; ego and braggadocio must be governed by 'training' and tempered with 'real' experience. Was that training 'tick-a-box' or, were exams simply 'passed' and the 'book work' parked in the garage, forgotten?  Or, perhaps, while you pre flight, the oldest of all traps are set – all proven killers just waiting for some Mutt to 'roll the dice'. The old, much valued 'Digest' carries many, many true tales (See Centaurus HERE) & provides much thought for days when the weather is 'sketchy'.

“That was a day with a trapdoor, and we all fell through.”

Which brings me to the oldest conundrum facing everyone who takes to the air; the 'weather'. Or rather 'weather flying'; deuced tricky stuff. Gaining 'experience' is risky however without that 'experience' operating in any weather system becomes a potential hazard. One (IMO) of the risk elements comes from 'translating' the coded messages presented in 'forecast' and the % mark up (arse covering) presented. Decoding a forecast is an art form and applying 'that' forecast to the proposed route is only 'best guess'. Let me explain – Suppose you are operating a 'Rex' commuter service covering two ports, out and back. Over a period of say 12 months; you obtain a forecast, plan accordingly and operate the service; after a while, the forecast conditions begin to tell you where the pot holes are; where the traps are set, where ice is likely to affect; how long a fog hangs about. Experience and 'understanding what the forecast cannot tell you reduces the 'anxiety'. Start on a new route, then the 'tricks' must once again be learned. Good operations management usually provides a 'briefing' on route, aerodrome and procedures. The lonesome 'independent newbie' in a low power, VFR single light aircraft does not have this advantage. Those with an Aero club and experienced instructors have an advantage and should use it. The same hour a thousand time does not a wise line pilot make.

“Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it.”

Much has been written by wiser, older pens than mine countless 'old wives tales' have become unwritten law; thousands of 'Pub' stories and myths abound. But then, Murphy is always in the cockpit; Lady Luck is a fickle, ruthless mistress and at the end of the shift, when all said and done; 'You pays your money and takes your chances”.  I will stick my neck out here (pillory following) but my best advice to those beginning the 'cross country adventure' is exactly the same as was given to me way back. “Find a map; mark your course; set six minute marks on the track based on 'assumed' ground speed; and make every mark decision 'gate'; Up, Down, Left, Right or Reverse; Go on or divert and always, always leave the back door open. In short; situational awareness, forming a true appreciation of your own limitations and experience is not a bad ally either.  Here endeth the off the cuff stuff.

End note; would I like to see CASA reformed and the incubus removed bet on it: would I like to see ATSB returned to the 'Safety Digest' standards absolutely; the BoM returned to 'forecaster' rather than 'computer models' most certainly. But non of that will replace 'quality' experienced flight training of the old school methods of ensuring that pilots understood the base tenets of 'there are old pilots, there are bold pilots; but very few old bold pilots'. Not really, we are a cautious profession; Murphy our mascot.

Selah....(Phew).

---

RE: Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? - Peetwo - 03-11-2026

PU explores VMCA in Light Twin Aircraft


Via YouTube:

Quote:1,455 views  Premiered on 9 Mar 2026 

We explore minimum control speeds with one engine inoperative in our Beechcraft Baron and Beechcraft Duchess multi engine aircraft.

This is a brief look at how the aeroplane behaves in the air when VMCA is reached.

#philunicombaviation #multienginetraining  #beechcraft  #multiengine  #studentpilot  #vmca

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? - Kharon - 03-12-2026

Curse you P2.

P2 - “to open up the conversation on how the flight training standards in Australia can hopefully get back to basics, because clearly they have drifted to beyond just complacency to a world of ignorance and blind bravado/Darwin award candidates, in the GA and in particular some of the RAA ranks of private pilot trainees and PPL licence holders (plus maybe, God help us, in the commercial pilot fraternity”.

The excellent Unicomb series posted above brings back many happy memories; not of actual 'stall/ low slow' training received, but of the excellent men who patiently taught a young “K' the exact same thing – in every airframe listed on the licence. Back then an 'endorsement on type' was required, from Tiger to Mustang. Great fun – if approached with the right attitude from both parties; and, of great value later in life. Little 'paper-work' and definitely no 'tick and flick' and, once the basics were clearly stamped in the 'flying brain' - it became automatic. Great value in situations which demanded prompt correct action dealing with 'ice' and turbulence. The ingrained awareness of what the airframe was telling you and the 'good' habits of managing the same, prevented the adrenaline rush and 'panic'.

Of course, even way back the 'cost' of anything was a consideration; much the same as it is today. But; the 'paper-work' mattered much less; if it took an extra hour to reach the desired standard; then, like it or not, that hour had to be paid for. Personally, I don't like the 'tick-a-box' method, to me it seems to open the door to achieving a 'minimum' requirement of 'compliance' rather than competence. But it's a complex situation; legal and financial elements of operating a flight school can (could) collide with 'satisfactory' standards. That however becomes a matter of conscience for both 'student' and 'operator'. Which leaves the 'Authority' off the hook and blameless at Coroners inquiry.

But:: we do have a 'chicken and egg' puzzle; one supported by 'accident' statistics. Events during the 'training' stage (pre-licence) are rare; not too many first solo prangs, few incidents of solo students stalling and loosing it; very few 'major' shouting matches after first solo nav etc. The 'biggest' number of 'fatal' events are deliberate penetration into weather. Why has always been a puzzle to me. It would be easy to lay blame on auto flight and GPS providing an 'incentive' to push on; but that would be a stretch, handy tools are they. There is a school of thought which believes finding a paddock and landing if trapped by weather; but that don't signify. Not many arguments pass the 'Pub'' test.  Not too many 'silver bullets' either.

Aye, many, many tall tales and fables and bull-shit stories exist; the only ones worth a squirt are from those who 'survived' and vowed, most solemnly, to never, not ever again push their luck.  Why? Well, take time to read and consider this excellent report from the ATSB – HERE -. IMO it is worthy of a 'night' at the aeroclub for the messages, lessons and conclusions demand discussion and careful consideration.

Not even Murphy could be blamed for this event; not CASA for their problems are 'political' and 'internal'. BoM blameless; the forecast was pretty much spot on; ATSB did a fine job on an event which should never have occurred. The event pilot, like any other pilot had several options. The puzzle is why choose the most potentially lethal one, given the forecast? Toss a coin or figure it out; well, that's up to you, on the day ain't it?

Toot – toot.

---

RE: Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? - Peetwo - 03-14-2026

Sandy Reith - 'FLYING TRAINING IN AUSTRALIA 2026'

Courtesy the AP emails:

Quote:FLYING TRAINING IN AUSTRALIA 2026

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s extreme over regulation of flying training has contributed to a far less than optimum training environment. Over regulation, combined with the split in the whole system by separating off the low weight category of the semi-autonomous body Recreation Aviation Australia (RAAUS), has reduced the overall standard, and in part frozen the natural improvements one could expect in a more flexible regulatory framework.

For example in the USA there is no compulsory syllabus but there is comprehensive licence testing. A newly qualified USA instructor may commence training without a compulsory, and very expensive ($50,000+?) and time consuming CASA approved Part 141/142 organisation, unlike the case here in Australia.

The latter factor has been the main reason we have lost hundreds of flying schools all over Australia. See the disgraceful case of Glen Buckley and how CASA destroyed his umbrella system of a centralised oversight and compliance model for small schools to cope with CASA’s extreme over regulation of flying training.

With the loss of flying schools also comes the loss of experienced instructors.

CASA, after some years, belatedly came to recognise the impracticality of its extreme requirements it had imposed, in order to establish a flying school, by allowing a single instructor to instruct with a special dispensation.

However this system denies the single instructor, as a flying school business proprietor, to employ another instructor and therefore this creates a severe curtailment to establish or grow a viable business.

Contrast to the former no cost Australian system or the USA where many schools without Part 141/142 approval operate as businesses with numbers of instructors. In the USA Part 141/142 approval allows some lowering of total hours required for some ‘straight through’ special courses to higher licence qualifications.

On top of the in-built additional expenses, delays and Part 141/142 organisational fees, plus CASA’s heavy ‘tick a box’ requirements, is the fact of having migrated all the regulations into the criminal code instead of being treated as misdemeanours, inline with the norms of standard British justice.

This creates a debilitating background of fear, a fear of inadvertently crossing one of the innumerable ‘criminal’ acts as per the CASA book of incredibly complex and sometimes contradictory regulations. This is against balanced decision making and causes aversion to any form of improvement through innovation. The Australian ‘crime’ of not filling out one’s log book is a case in point. In the USA for a private pilot this omission may be no transgression in any way, though may be needed to show recency etc.

Only by a concerted effort to bring notice into the political arena will we have any hope of rectifying the very poor realities of flying training in Australia. Flying training is the backbone of any aviation activity. The Nation will benefit greatly from a healthy aviation industry. With increased training comes demand for aircraft, therefore manufacturing, airports, maintenance and a variety of specialist services, all benefit.

Towards strength in aviation bears not only on our prosperity, but also on our defence posture in a more uncertain world. Media and direct MP engagement is necessary.

Sandy Reith, former Chief Pilot & Chief Flying Instructor Phillip Island Air Services/ Philip Island Air Charter established 1969.

MTF...P2

---

RE: Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? - Kharon - 03-15-2026

Bog Standard – Is?

What Sandy said – plus:-

Superficial surface stuff before we dig down into the 'way things really are' being obliged to cover all corners. Regulatory reform and CASA responsibilities are in desperate need of serious attention, no argument about it. RA Aus could do with a tune up, its a great notion but wide open to abuse.  CASA have spent, literally, millions of tax payer dollars developing a 'system' which loads responsibility anywhere but on their system. The 'system' also protects the government of the day, welcomed and blindly espoused out of 'political' self interest. The 'effects' of the CASA approach and system demand some serious inquiry and reform; but, before that we must address P2's question below, as it is pertinent to the 'safety' conundrum.

P2 - “on how the flight training standards in Australia can hopefully get back to basics,”

Wow! A one line conundrum, one which could see a vast hall, filled by 'experts' (in their field) ending up in a riot. I guess the conflicts could be resolved (maybe) if the 'standards' required were melded into 'Basic, Better, Best'. Which, in reality, is how the 'system' works. The variable elements in the equation are the 'person' the requirements, the standards and the 'expectations'.

However, this 'event' in Tasmania – HERE – begs questions of 'the system'. A fit, young pilot, holding an ATPL, instrument rating, multi engine, operating scheduled services; experienced, checked and familiar with the route, the options and the weather. The decisions made, one by one, led to tragedy. Why? All the boxes ticked, airline quality qualifications and yet despite that; decisions were made that a freshly minted VFR pilot would never make. Why? The ATSB report covers nearly every aspect, except the Why? Had the pilot survived it would be beneficial to examine the 'thought process' which led to the decisions made. Did the 'training' system fail or was it simple human error? What was the motivation driving the thought process? The answer to that may assist in preventing future pilots in low performance aircraft tangling with high performance weather systems.

“Ah, but my dear sir, the why must never be obvious. That is the whole point.”

Now I have really digressed – So, reset and back to 'systems'.  'Basic' -(IMO) is the 'toughest row to hoe' - for the regulator, the operator, the instructor and the 'student'. Where to set the basic bar? The time honoured 'rough but safe' standard is difficult to cast in law, even harder to quantify. There is a complex 'collision' of expectations at this juncture, which involves all parties. How to define a 'standard'?– Take 'stall and recovery' for example. In the training area: a bright, windless day, student briefed (properly), area checked clear, gentle approach to the stall and recovery as per the book. Tick. Three times with improvement – all good (rough but 'safe') – sign off, all done and dusted. Never to be practiced again outside of commercial operations. It begs a question; is this good enough? Percentage wise, in ruthless probability calculations -  yes. In 'theory' - VFR Private operations have no business tangling with cloud, ice and darkness; or, any other situation which may demand 'advanced' training or 'skill'. But, they do, and so, with Statistics in support, the basic system works well, provided all operations are conducted according to 'the standard' as scripted. Legal, tidy with no 'blame' allotted to the basic 'training'.

The regulator has produced documented 'standards', the Flight School has met those requirements, has a 'license' to protect and a business to manage. The 'student' has a budget and 'expectations'. No matter the 'expectations or ambitions' the foundations must be built. The airline 'wannabe' is no problem because the commercial operators will knock off any rough edges and skill decay, as they must. But, the 'private pilot' is a whole different animal. Once licensed the checks and balances become a matter of 'personal' preference. The vast majority, particularly those who own aircraft are solid, sound, sensible folk, operationally 'plugged in'. But there is an element which habitually 'bites off more than they can chew'. This is not the 'fault' of basic training, although any 'rough' element sketched around or 'let go by' will eventually, return to haunt as the accident reports often relay. Basic qualifications demand a personal interest in 'developing' very basic skills and honest self assessment. Nothing wrong with that; nor the standards set. The 'best' of the basic crowd have passed 'scripted' examinations and they have progressed to be first class (mostly).

So, where is the base line to be drawn? That depends don't it. The rates and rules at entry level must encompass many disparate elements: for once qualified there is no telling how, or even if the individual will 'honor' the teachings, the rules, common sense and weigh in any lack of experience – with say (for example) weather flying. This (again IMO) defines the under laying 'fault' in 'tick-a box' training, which can be exploited. Stalls – 3 required – 3 done – tick. Steep turns 3 required – 3 done tick. This ain't 'basic' not by a long shot it ain't. It is Russian roulette: the student either can or cannot 'manage' a situation to a competent standard. Masters stalls in three; bravo – shows any sign of getting it wrong; then more training required and sod the 'minimum' demanded.

“Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”

Regarding aircraft, weather, and the immovable planet earth colliding, there's not too much a training outfit can do – bar instrument rating – to prevent it all happening again. This becomes a matter between the two options any pilot must acquit – 'Go or Don't go'. Pay your money and take your chances. But if 'Go' is your choice, then at least plan an escape route or diversion point; or, pray that you survive that one bad experience and vow to never, not ever do it again. One dose of the very real dangers and a fright should cure the urge for a reckless repeat performance.

“I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than fatally disappointed.”

Ramble over, nearly. Pilots and aircraft operations are but one element; the Authority which governs the industry and the motivation for the current muddle must be examined. It seems to have devolved into a 'protection racket' excelling in obfuscation, iron clad alibis and ever increasing cost. But that will keep for another day.  Ramble courtesy of P2 who will forfeit his Tim Tam ration for a 12 month at least and no beer at the indaba.
Toot – bloody - toot. 

---

RE: Aussie Flight Training in the 21st Century?? - Kharon - 03-17-2026

Sandy and the Elephant in the room.

“It is a predisposition of human nature to consider an unpleasant idea untrue, and then it is easy to find arguments against it.”

Sandy makes some shorthand comments related to 'the way things are' – which correctly identifies the 'regulations' as counter productive, expensive and burdensome, which they undoubtedly are; no quarrel with that concept. However: the incredible cost and the tangled 'mess' is for government to sort out. Without a 'minister' who see's, cares and is game to take CASA on; (McKenzie for example) then there's sod all 'industry' can do; not short term anyway. The 'body count' don't signify, nor does 'standards', not even the 'fiscal' cost seems to trouble any of the ministers or their minions we see at Estimates. Well and carefully protected are those bastions (with your money). 

To explain the ramblings of the fool; lets take a look at the 'road traffic' accident rate. Take a drive through any city and count the number of times you shake your head; or curse or even resort to the horn. As with aviation, there are requirements and skill levels which must be demonstrated and Standards to be examined before any from of licence may be issued. Once that licence is issued, there are no further barriers and the potential for accident is created simply by 'attitude' developed toward the 'rools'. How many folk drive in the manner demonstrated during the driving test? How many progress to an advance driving course? 

I wonder; on a pro rata base, how many pilots, outside of a company system, fit into the passed the test and forget those parts which 'don't suit 'em'. The classic is the VFR deliberate penetration into 'illegal' weather. This seems to claim many lives on a regular basis. Is this a system fault? I don't believe so. You see it on the roads every day; particularly in wet weather. Spend a half hour on a 'Dash Cam' video – all there; despite training, warnings and regulation. This is not the 'regulators' problem; this one 'belong you'. Nothing to do with standards, little to with the training outfit, much to do with 'options'. The regulations are clear enough, the warning stark enough, the body count well documented and the ATSB reports clear as day.

The word 'inadvertent' is often bandied about. This is a screaming misnomer, nothing 'accidental or inadvertent about it; nothing. The rules for VFR are almost universal, distance and visibility set in black and white, no defence at law. The majority can 'read' a forecast, apply it to a proposed route, scheme and wiggle to avoid getting 'trapped' and always leave a back door open. Then there are those who insist on pushing their luck. Nothing to do with standards set, got away with it 100 times, so roll the dice and believe 101 will be the same.  One of the underpinning reasons for the many rules and restrictions imposed is because #101 comes to grief on a regular basis. What cannot be managed by the 'authority' is the attitude – no amount of regulation will prevent the 'Oh, that's just bullshit' mindset. IFR operations have set in stone 'limitations' which very, very few pilots ignore; for many bloody good reasons; its considered highly unprofessional and dangerous to play at Silly Buggers when the chips are down, and even then, events can happen. Perhaps those operating under VFR minimums could adopt the same approach. Or, as the song says - “you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em” at lifes big roulette wheel.

Don't know – perhaps it is the 'lack' of connection to human nature portrayed within the official approach that is, (IMO) in need of some 'adjustment'. 

“You may talk o' gin and beer
When you're quartered safe out 'ere,
An' you're sent to penny-fights an' Aldershot it;
But when it comes to slaughter
You will do your work on water,
An' you'll lick the bloomin' boots of 'im that's got it.”

Toot - toot. (Just like that poem - a whim).

---