Flying Training Industry Review

The Review Committee has produced a document titled “Issues Questions and Options” which is designed to promote industry discussion by identifying those aspects of the industry’s operations and associated issues that may be considered to be in need of change. In its preamble the document outlines the historical background to the Australian flying training industry, pointing out that it has largely developed from the way the industry was set up following the end of Wwii. At the end of the war, a large pool of highly experienced military instructors was available to take on the then burgeoning task of meeting the post-war demand for flying training for the airlines and general aviation. War surplus aircraft were cheaply and readily available, enabling owner/operators to establish their own flying training organisations on the proverbial shoestring. This then was the ethos on which the industry was established.

However, many of those small operators lacked the business acumen to develop a viable business, only managing to survive because of the then relatively low cost, boom time era of the immediate post-war period. Unfortunately, the inappropriate costing structure established in the early years has persisted to the present time, and combined with an essentially unregulated market (too many in the game) has resulted in many flying training organisations not receiving an adequate return.

The document then goes on to outline how the high military training standards of the instructor pilots of the immediate post-war period carried over to their trainees, resulting in an overall high standard of safety awareness and airmanship throughout the industry. Since that time, however, it is argued that there has been a steady diminution in the standard of training in the industry due to the economic factors previously outlined, combined with a constant drain of junior instructors to the airlines. The Committee believes that to any observer, the current progression of pilot education and employment must appear inappropriate. To quote, “In this industry it is mostly the least experienced who provide the education for the rest of the industry”.

The Review Committee has identified a number of issues which are of concern to the Caa and indeed to large sections of the industry; the major points may be summarised as follows: A perception that the standards of pilot skills and airmanship have deteriorated over recent years. Airline dissatisfaction with Ga pilot applicant skill and aviation knowledge levels. The need for a minimum level of experience prior to commencement of instructor training. Current minimal qualifications and experience levels for the issue of pilot licences, ratings and approvals are too low. Theory components of the syllabus of training for pilot qualification are inadequate and inappropriate. Dissatisfaction with the licensing system. Lack of an industry or Caa system to improve standards in teaching. General concern over the inadequacy of instructor training and qualification requirements at all levels. Need for more effective surveillance of flying training organisations and prerequisites for the issue of Aoc’s to intending flying training providers. And finally the need to lift standards to National Training Board accreditation level. This is in recognition of the market potential for the provision of training for international aviation authorities, and the need to meet their requirements.

The above issues are recognised as not being exhaustive and the Committee expects other matters to be raised during the consultative process. The Committee has compiled an extensive list of questions covering a wide variety of issues and topics which will be canvassed during the consultative process. Matters for discussion relate to both fixed and rotary wing. Submissions to the review will be rendered anonymous, de-identified and treated in the strictest confidence.

The questions cover the adequacy of standards for the issue of licences for student pilots, private pilots, commercial pilots and instructor ratings. In addition there are questions relating to the issue of Aocs, and the possible need for improvement and standardisation of flight instruction methods. Other matters addressed include the Biennial Flight Review, possible deletion of the Atpl in lieu of an Air Transport Rating, and flight testing of aircrew vis-a-vis the present Ato system.

The Review Committee has developed a number of options for discussion during the consultative process; these are not seen as final solutions, the Committee recognising that other solutions may emerge. Clearly no one set of recommendations will be acceptable to all since commercial considerations must prevail, however the Committee believes that there is general agreement that there are two fundamental problems in the aviation training industry viz; The inability to maintain satisfactory levels of instructor expertise within flying training provider organisations; and The industry structure, which largely precludes it operating on an acceptable financial basis, and the impact this has on aviation safety throughout the industry.

A total of five options have been developed ranging from preserving the status quo through to the establishment by the industry of an Aviation Training and Service Institute with the statutory authority to administer and control all aspects of flying training. Included in the options are proposals for marked increases in hours and experience for initial entry to the flying training role and for subsequent upgrading. It is also proposed that instructor ratings revert to the previous Grade C, Grade B and Grade A with the inclusion of a senior Grade C.

In addition to a general upgrading in theoretical knowledge, the following increases in flying experience have been put forward by the Committee for consideration; Prior to commencing instructor training, 400 hours aeronautical experience, presently 200 hours. Grade C – direct supervision for first 300 hours. Grade C (Senior) — indirect supervision. Grade B – held Grade C for three years, 2000 hours flight time, 1200 hours instruction time, presently 200 hours instruction time. Grade A – held Grade B for two years, 3000 hours flight time, 1800 hours instruction, presently 750 hours instruction time.

It should be noted that the increases proposed are really a return to the standards that existed several decades ago, before they were whittled away under financial pressure.

Comment

There is no doubt that there is a widespread feeling within the Ga community that a review of flying training in Australia is both overdue and necessary. Submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure into Aviation Safety, included inter alia, criticism of the low hours and qualifications requirements set by the Caa for flying instructors. It is generally considered that 200 hours is insufficient to qualify a person to become a competent instructor; equally 750 hours is considered to be not enough experience to fill the important role of Chief Flying Instructor. There is more involved in being a good Cfi than mere stick time; maturity and experience in management, particularly in projecting the necessity for personal discipline in flying, in all its forms, is essential.

Most military flying training organisations throughout the world require at least one tour in a frontline squadron before a pilot is considered experienced enough to undertake the important role of teaching others to fly. The only exception to this occurred during Wwii when on occasions, due to a severe shortage of instructors, the cream of graduates from flying training courses found themselves posted for instructional duties.

However, there is one major essential difference between military and civil flying training and that is who pays the bill? Whilst it is highly desirable that instructors have an appropriate level of experience before undertaking flying instruction duties, the vital question is how they are to achieve that experience. The figure of 400 hours proposed in the discussion paper would appear impossible for the average young pilot to achieve at present-day costs. Even at a very conservative figure of $100/hour this amounts to $40,000. Should they achieve employment say with a charter organisation, why would they leave that for the lowly pay of approximately $23,000 of a Grade Three instructor?

In addition it is well known that many flying training organisations pay their junior instructors well under the award allowance, knowing that it has to be accepted by the latter as it is the only way they can accumulate the hours to hopefully make it into the airlines, and ultimate big money. This deplorable situation will persist until the question of adequate remuneration is properly addressed. But therein lies the rub; pay junior instructors more and up go the costs of flying training with yet a further paring of profits for the many barely viable providers in the industry. Whilst on the question of commercial viability, the problem appears to be that there are too many providers in the industry all fighting to survive. This in turn has led to cost cutting in order to meet the bare minimum licensing requirements of the Caa. Perhaps some form of control, in commercial terms, over those wishing to enter the industry is required.

As to the drain to the airlines, one young Grade Three put it to me that the answer to that problem is to cut the high salaries of airline pilots to reduce the attraction to that form of employment; not really a practical proposition! Perhaps a more realistic proposition, if the Government is really concerned about the deteriorating standards of pilot skills and airmanship in this country, would be to introduce some form of subsidisation for those undertaking the vitally important national task of teaching the next generation to fly. Many groups and individuals seem to be able to get grants for the most outlandish “arts” and other projects, why not grants to undertake flying instructor training?

On the question of options, whilst an Aviation Training and Service Institute would have much merit, being not dissimilar to the Raaf Central Flying School, it is doubtful that it would be accepted by the industry because many would see it as taking the bread out of their mouths; yet another blockade of Parliament could be the result!

In summary, it is apparent that the Committee’s solution to overcoming the deterioration in flying training standards is to raise the status of the flying instructor at all levels, vis-a-vis other professional vocations. To achieve this will require a substantial rethink on remuneration. Finally, there is no doubt that the Committee will have a difficult task ahead of it to find acceptable solutions to the real problems that exist. Perhaps the answer is not to attempt immediate change, but to aim for the long term, with any proposals for change to be implemented say five years down the track. This would give the industry time to adjust to the radical surgery that appears necessary.