– Steve Hitchen
Flight training has always been done in accordance with a syllabus handed-down by a regulator, whether that be the extant CASA or any authority by any other name. That syllabus, if followed, should lead to the minimum skill level required for a qualification.
But it was a skeleton around which flight training was built. The meat on the bones was extra learning that came from what the syllabus did not dictate: remedial flight training to help a student get to a safe skill level regardless of how many hours that took.
Today, things are very different. Although remedial training lives on at most Part 141 schools, it is under threat at Part 142 schools, which is being blamed on Vocational Education Training (VET) and the funding that makes it work.
The CASA syllabus is no longer the skeleton, it is now the whole body, and some areas of the training industry are lamenting a drop in standards that go hand-in-hand with reduced training hours.
Grade 1 instructor Mike Thomas, 2017 Flying Instructor of the Year, outlined the problem to Australian Flying.
"Most flying instructors do want the best for their respective students and will frequently go the extra mile to help them by spending time giving additional briefings etcetera," he points out.
"However, when it comes to actual flying training, instructors are acutely aware they must adhere to the syllabus and if a student requires any additional/remedial flying, then the Head of Operations [HOO] must first approve prior to commencement of any remedial flights.
"The majority of students enrolled in a VET course are not in a position to fund these additional-to-syllabus flights, and consequently the cost is usually borne by the flying training school."
The first question most students ask when beginning flight training was "how much is this going to cost?" Instructors generally point out that there is a minimum number of hours, but most students don't reach the standard in that time. It is not unknown for another 10-15 hours or even more to be needed for the student to hit the standard.
At today's VET-funded Part 142 schools, those extra hours are threatening the viability of the system.
Flying instructors are the bunnies caught between the needs of the student and the needs of the company ledgers, placed under pressure to get the student to the standard and through testing whilst staying within the limits of the VET funding.
"A significant emphasis is placed on instructors by flying training organisations to not exceed the syllabus flying hours," Thomas says. "Consequently, flying instructors strive to ensure their students complete all respective training within the syllabus.
"This could be considered a level of pressure on the instructor though most instructors want the best for their student and this will mean doing everything they can to ensure the student completes flying training to a competency level within the syllabus and hopefully within the allotted flying hours."
It's a problem that doesn't exist in old-school training organisations where the student learns on a pay-as-you-go basis. If more flying is needed then the student funds the extra lessons themselves.
In this environment, instructors have the luxury of scheduling extra flights if they feel the student's progress would benefit from more air time, without the concern that they may be issued with a "please explain" from the HOO.
According to the Australian Flight Training Industry Association (AFTIA), the VET funding model is producing minimalist training and putting the screws on flying schools to turn out qualified pilots in the minimum number of hours possible.
That has a knock-on effect to flying instructors who themselves were taught to fly under such a stringent training regime.
"They way VET funding works has skewed what flying schools have to teach and how they have to teach," says AFTIA's Maddy Johnson. "Everything in minimalist, and we now have instructors who have less knowledge teaching students, and because of that they're not taking students out on days that have clouds; everything is fair-weather flying now.
"They won't send students on navs unless the weather is perfect and they know they'll complete the program, because you can't let them go out and have a look and make a good decision to return because of the imperative to account for the funding."
According to Johnson, the tertiary training model is responsible also for a decline in holistic learning.
"This is a symptom of deterioration and dilution of training," she said. "It is now quite sanitised through the university system. Students aren't spending time at the aerodromes and having long discussions with the instructors.
"Twenty or 30 years ago, if you wanted to be an instructor, you'd be at the school five days a week and you got paid for when you flew. You'd be invested in your students and do heaps of time doing theory with them when the weather was bad.
"They wanted to be at the airport. It was a very holistic, immersive place of learning. Now, we don't pay instructors enough and don't recognise their skills enough, so instructors want to get out quickly.
"Somehow we need to come up with a better way to support our estuary with better instructors and to work out how education can support initial training so we can get students that aren't unteachable by the time they reach advanced training levels."
Talking only under the promise of anonymity, trainers at some of Australia's airlines have highlighted a lack of basic flying skills when candidates arrive on the line. The days when a CPL/ATPL guaranteed a level of skill and knowledge are gone, banished by the wide variety of training quality at school level.
Anecdotal evidence presented to Australian Flying has tower controllers at major airports noticing the drop in standards of students making their first solos, and some general aviation operators declining to employ students that have come through the VET scheme.
Although not all flying schools show evidence of the problem, several Part 142 operators who spoke with Australian Flying agreed that the VET system of funding is broken and not turning out droves of highly-skilled commercial pilots as it was designed to do.
Whilst some lay the blame for that at the inability to conduct remedial training, others point the finger at an inability to properly vet incoming students to see if they are suitable for flight training, particularly when the candidate comes from an educational institution that has already accepted the student.
VET funding is available only if a course of training ends with a recognised certificate qualification such as a Certificate, Diploma or Degree, and is completed with a tertiary institution such as a university or TAFE college, or a flying school that is a Registered Training Organisation (RTO).
Consequently, VET funding is not available for students who qualify for their CPL through a Part 141 or Part 142 flying school that is not an RTO, despite evidence that the quality of pilots being turned out that way is higher.
In an environment where VET training is supposed to prepare candidates for an airline job, there appears to be a obvious disconnection between intent and reality.
That disconnect could very well be the difference in remedial training possible under the VET funding scheme.