CASA HF/NTS: effective communication under normal and non-normal circumstances
[NTS1 4(a), NTS2 4(a)]. Consistent phrasing here maps directly onto the recovery drills
rehearsed in the pre-flight brief.
**Headings.** This was the clearest single action from the last debrief, and both the
backseat observer and the self-review raised it: the instruction drifted into "turn left"
and "turn right" without a heading attached. IFF.2(c) — the only instrument performance
criterion CASA assesses at RPL level — is a rate 1 turn **onto a nominated heading**
within tolerance, so a turn without a nominated heading is not the exercise. Write the
headings you intend to use on the kneeboard before start (see the turning page) so you
are reading them, not inventing them under load.
Straight out of the last debrief: procedures were sometimes covered *after* the exercise
had started. If time in the pre-flight brief runs short, this in-air re-brief is the
backstop — but it is not a substitute for the ground rehearsal, because a first hearing of
a procedure under the hood is a first hearing under load.
Own-feedback item, and it has come up more than once. The fix is scheduling, not
technique: either the aircraft is available earlier, or the daily inspection becomes an
explicit, budgeted, student-visible part of the lesson. Absorbing it into the margin is
what produces the rush.
(Note "DI" is deliberately spelled out on this page — everywhere else in these notes it
means the Direction Indicator.)
CASA C2.1/C2.2 (pre-flight actions and inspection). Confirming the hood/foggles and the
safety-pilot lookout responsibility on the ground, before start, is a required part of
this lesson, not optional — it is the single biggest risk control for the flight.
CASA IFF.1: determine and monitor the serviceability of flight instruments and
instrument power sources; A1.2 (taxi checks). This is exactly the workbook's "instrument
checks & serviceability" topic — assessed here in the aircraft rather than re-taught.
Debrief action: tie the ground checks explicitly to the failures
taught in the theory brief — *this is why we test everything on the ground.* The check
list is already familiar; the reasoning behind it is what is new today, and it is what
makes the check stick.
The climb is a revision/assessment item this lesson (A3.1), folded into the transit
rather than treated as a separate exercise.
IFF.1: determine/monitor instrument serviceability — a last check with the actual panel,
not just the workbook diagram.
Debrief action: physically point at the instruments during the lesson. It is easy to
assume the panel is obvious because you have looked at it a thousand times — the student
has looked at this one a handful of times, and never with a hood on. Point, name, and have
them point back. Do it again briefly before the failure demonstration later.
IFF.2(a): interpret flight instrument indications and apply procedures to achieve and
maintain a specified flight path using the full instrument panel.
FIM Ch 17 background: when climbing, the ASI gives the most direct indication of pitch
attitude; when levelling off, the altimeter does. When descending, the ASI again gives
the most direct indication; the altimeter confirms on levelling off.
IFF.2(c): set and maintain power and attitude by reference to the full instrument panel
to establish a rate 1 turn onto a nominated heading within the flight tolerances. Note
that IFF.2(b) — straight and level, climb and descent to tolerance — is prefaced "except
for RPL", so **this** is the instrument performance criterion assessed at RPL level.
Underpinning knowledge A3 4(h): turning using a magnetic compass.
Fill the heading table in on the ground. Under load in the air, "turn left" is what comes
out when there is no heading already written down — which is exactly what happened last
time. Reading a prepared number takes the decision out of the moment.
This draws together everything so far — a good marker of whether the scan has become
genuinely continuous rather than instrument-by-instrument.
New this revision, and the main gap from the last debrief: the failure case was taught in
the workbook but never flown, so it stayed abstract. Underpinning knowledge IFF 4(c) —
instrument failure and warning systems fitted to the aeroplane — and IFF.1(c), monitoring
instrument power sources and reacting to unserviceability or erroneous indications.
The theory brief now teaches what a suction failure looks like (insidious, no flag on most
training aircraft, AI droops and DI drifts). This exercise is where those words get
attached to the panel in front of them.
Limited panel flown *to a standard* is a Night VFR rating competency with its own
tolerances — do not present this as an assessed item, and do not let it eat the time
budgeted for unusual attitudes. If the student is saturated, brief and demonstrate it
rather than handing over.
A second option if you have a cover for it: leave the AI covered but slowly *mis-set* the
DI instead of covering it, so the student discovers the disagreement themselves. More
realistic, but only worth doing with a student who is comfortable.
IFF.3(a,o): correctly identify upset situations and unusual attitudes under simulated
IMC; recover to controlled flight from a combination of high/low-nose attitudes, angles
of bank, power settings and configurations. Keep the entry attitudes mild and the
recovery instructor-flown or closely monitored — this is a first exposure, not an
assessed competency yet, and it can provoke motion sickness. Stop and reset to level
flight (looking outside) if the student feels unwell.
CASA "actions upon inadvertent entry into IMC" — this is deliberately a discussion and
walk-through, not a real cloud entry. Connects to today's assessed C3.1/C3.3 (radio and
transponder operation).
The IFF range of variables is specific for RPL: "day VFR simulated inadvertent entry into
IMC with a **level 180° turn** to re-establish visual flight". Use that wording — level,
and 180°, not just "turn back" — so the student practises holding height through the turn
rather than descending out of it.
These are consolidation/assessment items rather than new teaching — the new-content
focus of the flight is the instrument scan, unusual attitude recovery, and the
inadvertent-IMC actions.
The transition back to visual flight is itself worth a comment to the student — the
contrast reinforces just how much the instrument scan was doing the work.
Own-feedback item: the introduction to the next lesson was skipped last time. It is easy
to drop, because it comes at the point where everyone is tired and the aircraft needs
putting away — so give it a fixed home here at the end of the notes, and say it while the
paperwork is being finished rather than as a separate event.
Ordering comes from the RPL(A) sample syllabus, where lesson 26 is followed by lesson 27,
Consolidation. Do not take it from the flight instructor rating package — the Grade 3
aeroplane syllabus runs Basic Instrument Flight (TE3-51…55) straight into forced landings
and EFATO, which is where "circuit emergencies next" comes from and is a different
sequence.
The unreliable-airspeed link is the one worth making: today's failure was gyroscopic, next
lesson's is pitot-static, and between them the student has seen both halves of the panel
fail. If this student's programme has been reordered, keep the shape of the look-ahead
(what it is, how it links to today, what to do before then) and substitute the content.