Jump to Content

Recommendation issued to: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Recommendation details
Output No: R19980039
Date issued: 14 January 1999
Safety action status:
Background:

See report `Advanced Technology Aircraft Safety Survey'

Output text

The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority:

1. Consider the need for:

(a) simulator and flight instructors to be trained in instruction/teaching techniques at a recognised educational facility;

(b) ground, simulator and flight instructors to undergo regular refresher training in instructional/teaching techniques at a recognised educational facility; and

(c) ground, simulator and flight instructors to demostrate their ability as a instructor/teacher on a regular basis.

2. Assess the quality of printed and electronic training/reference material with respect to advanced technology aircraft.

Initial response
Date issued: 13 April 1999
Response from: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Action status: Open
Response text:

The BASI recommendations to CASA are pro-active ie not based on an identified failure but rather a potential failure. The following are the responses to recommendations affecting Flight Crew Licensing.

R980039

CASA is proposing to review all licensing requirements, including those for all types of instructors, as part of the process of writing the new Part 61 licensing regulations. Included in the review will be the need for licensing simulator instructors and providing for ratings and approvals for both simulator and flight instructors on all types of aircraft including advanced technology types. The proposal for training in instructional/teaching techniques for all instructional personnel will come under consideration as well as the recommendations concerning refresher training and regular demonstrations of competence.

A fundamental concept accepted by CASA is that all such training requirements in the future will be competency based.

This is a long term project but CASA expects to have a proposed licensing structure, including some of the concepts contained in the recommendations, in a form where consultation with industry can occur during 1999.

Part 2 of R980039: "Assess the quality of printed and electronic training/reference material with respect to advanced technology aircraft".

Not a licensing issue. To be considered by Airline Operations Branch.

 

ATSB response:

The following correspondence was forwarded to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 November 1999:

R980039 - The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority:
1. Consider the need for:
(a) simulator and flight instructors to be trained in instruction/teaching techniques at a recognised educational facility;
(b) ground, simulator and flight instructors to undergo regular refresher training in instructional/teaching techniques at a recognised educational facility; and
(c) ground, simulator and flight instructors to demonstrate their ability as an instructor/teacher on a regular basis.
2. Assess the quality of printed and electronic training/reference material with respect to advanced technology aircraft.

Response classification: OPEN

The Bureau does not consider that the CASA response adequately addresses the recommendation. In addition, the response was dated 4 April 1999, and stated that "this recommendation is being addressed by Personnel Licensing Branch". On 4 August 1999,[Manager Flight Crew Licensing] advised that he was unaware that FCL was addressing the recommendation, and was unaware of the CASA 4 April 1999 response to BASI.

Notwithstanding, the Bureau proposes to keep R19980039 OPEN until it can be reviewed following the promulgation of the proposed CASRs. The Bureau understands that CASR 61 is at discussion stage only and has not yet been published as a draft.

Further responses, as indicated, to the above recommendations are requested at your earliest convenience. In addition, for the purpose submitting a clear indication of whether CASA accepts, partially accepts or rejects recommendations made by the Bureau, it would be appreciated if a clear statement to this effect could be made on each recommendation before any further comment is offered. Guidance on this protocol can be found in the current Memorandum of Understanding between CASA and the Bureau."

 

 

Further correspondence
Date issued: 16 April 1999
Response from: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Response status: Monitor
Response text:

Before responding to specific recommendations, the following general comments are offered.

As a result of the survey, BASI has made numerous recommendations to airlines and aircraft design authorities as well as CASA and Airservices. Some seem to be rather utopian, in that they may be beyond current capabilities in automation. Nevertheless, it is important that perceived deficiencies are documented and that the various agencies concerned are alerted.

As far as the recommendations made to CASA are concerned, I am having difficulty as to CASA's ability to come to terms with some of the fundamental problems identified. One of the drawbacks of CASA's move more towards an auditing function is a lessening of the intimate knowledge that we previously had of particular operators. Further, as the CASA legislative framework moves towards less prescriptive legislation, it may be more difficult to manage to the degree suggested in some of the BASI identified issues. The content of simulator exercises along with the detailed qualifications and recency of instructors are examples.

Recommendation R980039

"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority consider the need for:
(a) simulator and flight instructors to be trained in
instructional/teaching techniques at a recognised educational
facility;
(b) ground, simulator and flight instructors to undergo regular
refresher training in instructional/teaching techniques at a recognised educational facility; and
(c) ground, simulator and flight instructors to demonstrate their
ability as an instructor/teacher on a regular basis".

This recommendation is being addressed by Personnel Licensing Branch.

 

Further correspondence
Response from:
Response status: Closed - Partially Accepted
Response text:
 
Share this page Comment
Last update 01 April 2011