1989 Pilot Training & Careers Update

That aside, Australia and the rest of the world is going to need a massive supply of new pilots over the next decade to cope with the demand, a situation which will be exaggerated with the coming of deregulation in Australia.

On the face of it, things look rosy for flight training. The need for pilots has caused Qantas to reintroduce an ‘in house’ flying training scheme aimed at producing more than 500 pupils over the next five years. Similarly, Ansett will be teaming up with the British Aerospace Flying College to set up a local operation of that institution in order to help satisfy its needs (Refer p. 54 May 88 AA & Newsdesk this issue).

In addition, the importance and the necessity to train future airline pilots is emphasised by Hawker de Havilland’s recent announcement (see Newsdesk this issue) that it has purchased the Australian Aviation College at Parafield and will develop it into “a major force in the training of international pilots”.

The key word here is ‘international’, the company clearly recognising the fact that it is not just Australia’s airlines which are going to need healthy numbers of new pilots in the foreseeable future.

One of the flying schools involved with the Qantas scheme is Navair, based at Sydney’s Bankstown Airport. An old established operator now run by Mr Frank Young – a vastly experienced instructor who served with the original Qantas Cadet Scheme of some years back – Navair is perhaps larger than most flying schools with some 70 aircraft on strength, but by the same token is indicative of the scope and professional organisation necessary to cope with the future demand for pilots.

As mentioned above, things look rosy on the surface but Frank Young is quick to point out some potential problems, most of which relate to the proposed deregulation and also to the change of civil aviation administration (CAA/FAC) recently introduced. Mr Young says the present boom situation is complicated by deregulation and differs from the American experience in that at the time of its introduction in the USA it was during a time of market depression when the airlines were in a state of financial difficulty and the there were not enough jobs to go around. In Australia the position is reversed and a carte blanch deregulation situation needs safeguards against cutting corners on safety and maintenance procedures. Another worry is the entrepreneur with little or no aviation industry experience who fancies himself as an airline operator. He will require staff to do everything from flying and maintaining the aircraft to taking care of the administrative side of the business and this staff will have to come from an already limited pool. People with the appropriate engineering skills are already at a premium in Australia, for example.

Putting further strain on the resources of pilots available is the fact that these new airlines formed under deregulation will tend to operate aircraft of smaller capacity than those used by Australian and Ansett at the moment. That will result in more pilots flying fewer people (per flight) and thus our ability to provide the numbers required will be severely stretched. The·real worry is that pilot standards in all areas will be reduced to cut costs, something that has already occurred in the United States.

A related problem is finding the numbers of appropriately qualified instructors to teach all these pilots to fly. Navair lost 11 of its instructors to Qantas in 1988 and several more to other commercial operations. This is an industry wide problem and young instructors are doing their time at the various flying schools before being rapidly snapped up by the airlines. This ensures a high turnover of instructors, which in itself is not a bad thing. The knack, however, lies in the ability of the flying school to maintain a high overall standard among its instructors and to ensure a core of senior, experienced instructors stay on.

At the moment, Navair has around 750 pupils on its books of which 45 are currently training for a Commercial Pilots Licence. Two or three CPL tests are being performed each week. Despite the airlines’ need for more and more pilots, it’s obvious the airlines are still in a position to pick and choose. For instance, the first course of eight Qantas pupils at Navair were culled from some 2,000 applicants, while one of the company’s senior instructors was rejected by Qantas on the grounds of a skin rash which he gets once every blue moon and despite the fact that his flying qualifications were beyond reproach.

Frank Young also sees the need for major administrative and licencing changes in civil aviation. His first call is for the Civil Aviation Authority to become a true corporation, much in the same way Qantas has been for many years. This will allow the right people to be hired, the wrong people fired and for the organisation to get away from the ‘public service’ attitude it has forced upon it by virtue of the simple fact that it is part of the public service. Too many decisions which affect the daily lives of everyone involved in civil aviation are being made by the wrong people (too many Sir Humphrey Applebys) for the wrong reasons and with the wrong advice.

The current licencing structure is overdue for an overhaul as well, according to Frank Young. He points out that the current Senior Commercial Pilots course as it now stands is “about 90% irrelevant” and proposes a simpler three licence system – Student, Private (with no restricted Private as now) and Commercial, the latter taking over as a whole from the current separate CPL and SCPL ratings, plus the Air Transport Pilots Licence.

The future Commercial Pilots Licence should provide a building block for pilots upon which they add specialist endorsements and ratings as they are required; rather than having to indulge in great amounts of time and expense in order to achieve a largely irrelevant standard.

Under Frank Young’s improved CPL, the newly qualified commercial pilot would be licenced to fly single engined VFR operations only and then add to this as he goes along and only on an as required basis. In other words, he would tailor his ratings to suit the job he intended doing saving time, trouble and expense by avoiding unnecessary levels of theoretical study.

Of course, it’s probably unusual to hear a flying school proprietor advocating a reduction in flying training – after all, the more hours a school flies the more money it makes – but it does indicate a possibly sensible and workable scheme.

Navair is not the only flying school with a the necessary facilities, organisation, fleet and quality of instructor to meet the pilot training demands of the late 1980s and beyond; many others are well placed to train pilots to the standards required by the airlines. The Civil Air Training Academy (CATA) at Cessnock NSW is the other organisation involved with the Qantas scheme, while Barney Fernandes’ highly regarded Australian Aviation College at Parafield SA and the various Royal Aero Clubs and others, are well qualified to take the student from raw beginner to qualified instructor/commercial pilot with multiengine and instrument ratings. Most use extensive ground training aids like simulators and audio/visual presentations to give the student the best possible training.

Specialist ground training organisations will also have an increasingly important role to play in helping provide the number of pilots required. As aviation becomes more and more high tech, the theoretical subjects become more and more demanding and an increased amount of emphasis is being placed on this area of training.

Up until now, the bulk of students who have separated their theory training from their flying school have attended courses at the various TAFE (Technical And Further Education) establishments around the country. But there is an increasing swing to specialist centres, one of which is the Airtex Aviation Academy which begins operations in January this year and may be regarded as typical of what we can expect to see in the future.

Airtex Aviation began general charter operations just over two years ago with a single Aerostar; their fleet has grown to ten twin engined piston aircraft, a Cessna Conquest II and a Lear while a maintenance facility is also now part of the company’s activities.

The Academy’s aim is to provide a better level of learning – “avoiding the trap of teaching students merely to pass the examinations at the expense of actually learning” according to the Academy’s manager, Mr Ron Bartsch, a former Qantas Cadet Scheme Flying Instructor and DofA Examiner of Airmen – whilst utilising the latest audio/visual aids and computer technology in the classroom.

Airtex’s training system is known as ‘ACES’ (Aviation Computerised Education System) and comprises a control terminal for the instructor and a small terminal for each student. This allows the instructor (all of whom will also fly for Airtex’s charter operation on their non teaching days) to regularly pose multiple choice questions to the entire class as a central part of their learning process. The students enter their answers (A, B, C or D) into their terminals which immediately displays whether they were right or wrong.

This method has obvious advantages to both student and teacher, in that it encourages two way feedback, provides interest and motivation for the student and allows the instructor to immediately zero in on a pupil with difficulties in a particular area.

Airtex has built a special two storey addition to their existing buildings to house the Academy, with separate rooms for PPL, CPL and SCPL students. Maximum class sizes will be 12, 18 and 24 respectively and the courses will be available on a full time, part time (evening) or weekend basis and there will also be IFR and Basic Gas Turbine courses.

But not everyone wants to make a career of flying and the majority of students are those who want simply a Private Pilots Licence for business or pleasure purposes. Despite the emphasis on training for_ eventual employment as an airline pilot, the ‘amateur’ is well catered for around the country at the numerous flying clubs and schools, whether he or she learns on an almost full time basis or – as applies to most people – learn as time and money permits. At the moment, the PPL syllabus is pretty much as it has been for many years, with 33 hours the minimum requirement for a Restricted PPL and a further 22 navigational/ cross country hours for an Unrestricted PPL. In addition, the APPL requires passes in the theory subjects of Radio Procedures, Pre Solo Air Legislation and Basic Aeronautical Knowledge, while the UPPL needs passes in Flight Rules and Procedures, Meteorology and Navigation.

Some flying schools offer selected specialised additions to their PPL courses. The Sydney Aerobatic School is a good example. Using the RAAF’s initial training syllabus as its basis, SAS students emerge not only with a APPL but also with a basic Aerobatics Endorsement. Anyone who has added even the simplest aerobatics to their list of flying skills knows how it sharpens and fine tunes their general flying abilities.

Last but by no means least is the Royal Australian Air Force, an organisation which is suffering its own severe shortage of pilots due to massive defections to the airlines in recent years . . . . an indication perhaps of the quality of training offered by the Service.

Would-be RAAF pilots need to have completed Year 12 at school with at least four subjects passed, including Maths, English and a physical science, the latter at either Year 12 or Year 11 level.

Providing the applicant meets the required medical and personality standards, there are two ways of eventually becoming aircrew. One is via the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra, which sees the student emerge with a degree in any of the arts/science/engineering disciplines (after three or four years, depending on the course), then nine weeks at the Air Force Studies School; the other is via the direct entry route, the student going direct to a 10 week Officer Training Course.

Introduction of the turboprop Pilatus PC-9 to the flying training syllabus from 1989 has resulted in a revised flying training programme in the RAAF and ultimately the dropping of the Macchi MB. 326 from it. The student will spend his first 21 weeks and 50 flying hours in the CT-4 Airtrainer at Point Cook, during which he will learn the basics, including aerobatics, formation flying, instrument flight and high and low level navigation. From there it will be to Pearce in Western Australia for the next 38 weeks, for advanced training on the PC-9. ‘Wings’ will be awarded at the completion of this 160 hour course.

Then it’s a posting to an operational squadron or OCU, the criteria for postings being based on the new pilot’s performance on the course and, of course, where he wants to go. Basically, the higher a student finishes his course the more chance he has of getting the posting he wants. At the moment, the newly commissioned officer is obliged to stay in the RAAF for eight years.

It can be seen from much of the above that the prospects of making flying a career are perhaps better now than they have been for some time. But rapid change and boom conditions can create their own problems and the situation will have to be handled professionally and administered well if everybody is to benefit.

The Art Of Simulation

“Climb to 1,000 feet, maintain straight and level on a heading of 10 degrees” said John Hindmarch, proprietor of Flight Simulators (Australia) Pty Ltd. Sounds simple enough, even for a VFR pilot in instrument conditions. I can fly an aeroplane, no worries What followed was about 35 minutes of acute embarrassment as my single engined aircraft cavorted around the sky, often passing through 1,000 feet whether going up or going down – and rarely pausing at that height – even more rarely maintaining level flight and hardly ever seeing a heading of 180 degrees, at least for not more than a few seconds. Height ranged from 500 to 1,200 feet speed varied considerably . . . my flying was a mess. It was perhaps lucky that my ‘aircraft’ never got off the ground.

It was firmly attached to the floor at FSA’s Bankstown facility and was called the GAT-1 simulator. And it was a real eye-opener.

The statistics speak for themselves. A study undertaken by the University of Illinois revealed that of 20 VFR pilots subjected to IFR conditions, 19 went into a ‘graveyard spiral’ on the first attempt to fly by instruments and the 20th put his aircraft into a whip stall attitude. The longest flight before getting into trouble lasted eight minutes, the shortest 20 seconds and the average was just 178 seconds. Maybe my 35 minutes wasn’t as bad as I thought, except that the pilots tested were in real aeroplanes. As I said, a real eye-opener.

The GAT-1 is an interesting device. It has three axis movement, is configured to represent a typical single engined light aircraft (although John Hindmarch also has one modified as a twin) and for all the world feels like the real thing. When things got tight on my ‘flight’ the clammy hands, dry throat and portent of doom felt pretty real as well! Various failures and circumstances can be dialled into the machine, including winds and other factors. There is even an engine sound humming along with you.

Of course there are simulators and simulators. the Singer Link GAT-1, as used by FSA and many of the other similar operations around town, is about as basic as they come without resorting to the so-called ‘desk top’ types. Then there are the full blown models used by the airlines and so on. The bottom line is that whether it be a GAT-1 or one of Qantas’ multi-million dollar units, a flight simulator provides realistic training at a fraction of the cost of the real thing – and provides substantially less mess when things go wrong. As it is, the current requirement for a Command IFR rating in Australia is a minimum 40 hours of which at least 20 must be carried out on a real aircraft. That allows substantial scope for saving money by using a simulator for the rest.

The standard accident involving a VFR pilot, who wanders into instrument conditions, usually follows a course something like this. Shortly after entering instrument conditions, the aircraft starts to turn; the pilot fails to note the turn or if he does, fails to correct, usually because of vertigo.

Then the bank increases, causing the nose to drop which results in increased airspeed; the pilot recognises the increased airspeed and applies corrective measures in the form of increased back pressure on the stick. This increased back pressure tightens the turn, the nose heads further downwards, the airspeed increases and then more back pressure is applied in an effort to slow the aircraft. The bank angle soon reaches 60 or 70 degrees, the airspeed soon reaches the redline and the aircraft soon reaches the ground! The crucial thing that upsets you, of course, is that on immediately entering the cloud, you encounter unexpected turbulence which quickly throws your instruments into something akin to a cha-cha! Few VFR pilots expect this.

Although three hours of instrument flying is required before a Restricted PPL is issued, the statistics prove that this is usually insufficient to allow a VFR pilot to get himself out of trouble should he wander into instrument conditions. Following my experience in the simulator, I for one am going to enrol in a basic instrument flying course, which in the case of FSA is their Night VMC course. For just a few hundred dollars I’ll get 20 hours on the GAT-1 (ten of them under supervision) and therefore an ‘insurance policy’ which just might save mine and other lives should I ever be stupid enough to get caught in instrument conditions. Perhaps it should be made required reading.