Part 141 Proposed Rule changes

[Bruce]

Comment was made in another thread about the proposed rule change to Part 141, approval of aviation training organisations.
I havent read the NPRM yet, but the overview of it I have read in Vector does have me concerned a bit.
I havent flown for a few years now as budget has been diverted to the homebuilt aircraft project, however as it is nearing completion it is time to get current again. The local aero club through which i got my license has had some personnel changes recently, and most of the instructers are fresh "sprogs". I have also had some personality clashes with the CFI, hes a good pilot, but I find I cant learn with him teaching. Everything is geared towards turning out airline pilots, and recreational PPLs (especially homebuilders) are treated as lower class citizens. The Aero club cessnas are also a bit shabby, and often carry annoying, but acceptable little defects. Up the road is another airfield where one of the former CFIs hangs out. he is a great teacher, and has thousands of hours of solid instructing under his belt. He currently instructs as a freelancer during his spare time (he has a "real" day job) using some of the locally based aircraft. These Aircraft are privately owned, and are in really good condition.
I realise that getting current again will not be cheap, but if I am going to spend mony on doing that, I do not want to waste it - I must be actually learning and getting value out of it. I have significant doubts about the quality of instruction I will get at the aero club, and I find the general atmoshpere doesnt help. I would far rather get my freelance friend to help, as he can adjust the programme and teaching style to suit the areas which will need work - his experience is invaluable in ths respect.
In terms of safety and turning out a better result, which is the best?
The Rule change will essentially remove all the freelance instructors from the system - the choice then goes to "approved Part 141 institutions". It assumes that there is a "one size fits all" way of instructing, which as we are dealing with humans, there obviously isnt.
This rule change is allegedly driven by industry - i.e. the training organisations who will benefit directly from the removal of the freelancers. There is no voice from the actual pilots, nor the freelancers.
I will be reading the NPRM and sending a submission - I'll get the local SAA chapter involved as well.

[DragonflyDH90]

As a freelance instructor, I agree with your points 100%. Just try and get an instructor at most flight training organisations who is able to teach you the do's and dont's about the following , Cessna 180/185, Piper Cub, Auster, Tiger Moth, Pitts, most homebuilt aircraft, the list goes on and on.
I spend a reasonable ammount of my time doing BFR's for guys who live out in the back blocks with a Cub, 180, Tiger and any number of other so called (by most flying schools) oddball machines, when these guys go to do a BFR from now what are they going to strike at the flying schools.
My guess is the following " Sorry we havnt got someone who can fly one of those" closely followed by "You could use one of our (insert generic trainer) at $(insert rediculous flying school fee)". Never mind the fact that the person doing the BFR has 800 hours in their own aircraft and hasnt flown trainer X in 20years if at all.

Second to this, who is going to pass on the skills learned over the years when the time does come to do a rating in a particular "oddball" machine. Some of the best guys to pass on the skills are those guys who have been operating them for years, not some pleb who has 3 hours on type.

There are accidents waiting in the wings here, as well as a general degradation of General Aviation due to lose of skills and knowledge.

Someone needs to be taken to task over this but I feel in the end it will fall on deaf ears.

The other reason I harp on this is it hurts my back pocket also.........but ultimately I'm far more concerned about the long term effects on GA and safety.

[Bruce]

Just had a thought as to a work - around should this ridiculous proposal get passed.
All the Freelance instructors form a national incorporated society (which has legal protection advantages) called (for example) Independant Flying Instructors of NZ Inc - IFINZ. IFINZ acts as a Large aero club, It hires an administrator to process returns and maintain the records required by Part 141. They become the Part 141 organisation that the instructors belong to. The instructors and the students undertaking flight instruction pay a SMALL annual levy ( a "membership" fee)to cover that admin - it wont need to be much as there wont be any capital assets etc, just admin and maybe liability insurance. As such it also becomes an entity with its own voice, able to hold its own against CAA. Each instructor is considered a "branch" of IFINZ so they can make thier own decisions and maintain independance. IFINZ Can also then advertise flight training and pass enquiries from prospective students on to the best local instructor. CAA are happy as they still have compliance, so they cant claim this effects safety standards.
Might be worth considering - spread the word around the freelancers and other interested people.

[DragonflyDH90]

Had already thought about this idea. Essentially it would work like the current flight testing companies around NZ (Aviation Services, Flight Test NZ). ASL send flight testing officers around whereas FTNZ have them based around the country in various regions.
There is potential in the rule re-write for them to make this difficult by saying that the 141 organisation must have fixed base and auditable facilities at each teaching venue but well see.

I have made a submission and hope that many others will as this needs to be stopped or at the very least reigned in to make it manageable.

[flyjoe180]

Instructors will have to align themselves with a Part 141 certificate holder. Some aero clubs already have some freelance instructors flying a wide variety of aircraft on their certificates, and the system works well. All they need to do is complete the volumes of paper work that go with ratings and renewals or endorsment removals, and any requirements from the 141 organisation. The trick, however, is finding a 141 holder which is ready to accept an freelancer onto its books. Aero clubs are traditionaly more accepting of these people than schools.

I believe RNZAC are preparing a proposal for a Part 141 umbrella for aero clubs, so that the 'one man band' clubs in remote areas can comply with the certificate rules. The auditing of 141 holders is expensive, however, CAA charge an hourly rate and spend hours scouring records of training and maintenance. Also, did you know that it will soon be against this training rule to operate an aircraft with an engine on condition?

Even 'casual' organisatoins such as the ATC Aviation Course and Walsh will have to comply with the new rules. The ATC have already done some investigation and it's not that big a deal to get approval from CAA.

[DragonflyDH90]

Unfortunately I have very little interest in being "on the books" of an aeroclub, for two reasons.
I have very little time outside of what I currently do to complete more paperwork than the mountains I already have.
Secondly, what about the flying schools and training organisations that dont have 141 certs. There are several that I know of that have been operating successfully for quite a time, battling against the squeeze of flying schools offering that airline career launch (which more than 80% of the time never comes anyway), the extra cost of having a 141 cert will essentially destroy them. Why should they have to ally themselves with an aeroclub, RNZAC or flying school and lose their business.
Legislation for the sake of it, not in the name of safety or anything else of intelligence, is just plain wrong.
I will be interested in the seeing the RNZAC's proposal but I would like to know why it has come so late in the process. The submission process is nearly closed and if we wait for the RNZAC to release what they propose it will most likely be to late if it doesnt fit a workable model. There has been a huge ammount of time for this to be done yet nothing...

[Dave Homewood]

This seems to be an important and emotive issue, so I have made this thread 'sticky', meaning it will stay at the top of the board for the time being.

Feel free to invite other part-time instructors, etc to join the discussions here and give their opinions too.

Not being a pilot and knowing nothing about CAA regulations, etc, this is a little confusing and all new to me, so please be gentle if I'm way off the mark here. But I cannot understand why there is a need to make this proposed change. What harm is being caused in the current situation - are some of the independents not trustworthy or something?

I see Ryan's poiint fully that an Aero Club or Flying School is not going to be able to instruct someone on a one-off rare type - like a warbird - whereas he works in an environment where many one-offs are restored and pilots converted onto them by him. It makes little sense to take that responsibility away from him and entrust it to someone miles away who only flies Cessnas.

This whole thing smacks of the big boys trying to muscle out competition. Am I right? As many of the flying schools seem to be foreign owned and run now too, it seems to be taking away a Kiwi right and freedom in a way.

[flyjoe180]

Basically Dave, Part 141 started off as a testing certificate, any organisation doing actual initial flight tests, endorsements, or in the case of fligh ttesting companies renewals, had to be certified accordingly. As time went on, CAA have realised that most organisations or even individuals, could issue endorsements for, example, aerobatics, without any CAA involvement.

The CAA are now taking this to a whole new level. The initial propsal was to spread the certificate requirement to organisations or individuals who conduct training for licences and ratings other than PPL level, ie not ab-initio. Now they are proposing all training be conducted under a 141 certificate, giving CAA direct control over the way training is to be conducted, and some control over the way maintenance is done (the engine on condition case being a point of interest). It also means two audits a year using a Quality Assurance system. One by CAA at a horrendous hourly rate, and another internally at the expense of an employee's or owner's time and productivity. Failure to pass an audit or failing to conduct an internal audoit, means possible suspension and more cost. A major flying school was recently stripped of it's 141 certificate but it continues to operate under another organisation's 141.

CAA are attempting to control the training industry more tightly, why I dont know, surely the worst accidents and incidents we have seen in this country have mostly involved light air transport aircraft. More paper and fancy certificates don't make for better training or even necessarily safer skies, nor does more direct CAA control over the industry ensure compliance and proper conduct by everyone involved. A bit like putting more police on the street, you just will never catch all the baddies.

[flyjoe180]

As for the big boys trying to squeeze the little guys out, I don't think this is the case, at least not at industry level. It simply comes down to the bigger organisations having time and resources to get the necessary certification completed to CAA's standard. The smaller ones, especially individual freelancers, will probably have to pay someone else to write their manuals and maintain their systems ($$$$)

[Dave Homewood]

Cheers Joe, I'm comprehending it a bit more now. I don't envy you guys who're affected by this.

[flyjoe180]

For those of you who are concerned about he changes, have a read of AC141 under the CAA website NPRM. It clearly states what is expected under the proposed changes.

[John L]

It seems to be control for controls sake.
It sounds like the hassles to get a steam ticket suffered by the Traction Engine crew - most of the required ticket as laid out, was about Westinghouse brakes and very little about the actual real day to day useage and safety of the boiler. Traction engines don't have Westinghouse brakes - steam engines do - some bright spark made a 2+2=3 decision.......