Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:04 pm
Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
What’s going to save your butt? 900hr flight instructor with super hands and feet? Or 900 Navajo captain who isn’t very coordinated, but experienced with storms, icing, wind shear, and crosswinds?
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Depends on the situation. For example, Dead sticking onto a abandoned logging road, hands and feet. Getting home after getting caught in unexpected crapy wx with challenging terrain, I'd take the experience. That being said, with 900 hrs in a ho you won't really have much experience. And with 900 hrs instructing in vfr with strict wx and wind limits you won't have good hands and feet.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Ideally one should start out with good hands and feet and a solid understanding of the physics and rules of flying...then with that as a starting point build experience with time.
That will give you the best opportunity to develop good decision making skills to know when to say no.
That will give you the best opportunity to develop good decision making skills to know when to say no.
- JetSetter87
- Rank 1
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:52 pm
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Instructors don't do much stick flying. The student does. Ho captain any day...
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Perhaps... but when they do demonstrate their skill it has to be a 4 or at least damn near it everytime.JetSetter87 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:33 pm Instructors don't do much stick flying. The student does. Ho captain any day...
- CL-Skadoo!
- Rank 8
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 6:41 pm
- Location: Intensity in Ten Cities.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Shouldn't everyone have good hands and feet? What the hell?
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Absolutely! And everyone should always honour commitments, respect others, never lie, and never cheat.CL-Skadoo! wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:16 pm Shouldn't everyone have good hands and feet? What the hell?
Being stupid around airplanes is a capital offence and nature is a hanging judge!
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Mark Twain
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Mark Twain
- CL-Skadoo!
- Rank 8
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 6:41 pm
- Location: Intensity in Ten Cities.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
We're talking about a surgeon that can't operate a scalpel, a triathlete that can't swim or a writer without any command of their native tongue. Good hands and feet or GTFO of this industry.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1989
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Wind shear and crosswinds takes decent hands and feet to deal with.
The question is pretty vague, what are we trying to save my butt from? For example, if we're in a 152 and the engine just blew up, I'm hoping the instructor is there to judge the glide into that small field ahead. Unforecast bad icing, approach to mins, and a nasty crosswind, well that's still pretty scary for a 900 hour "experienced" Navajo captain.
The question is pretty vague, what are we trying to save my butt from? For example, if we're in a 152 and the engine just blew up, I'm hoping the instructor is there to judge the glide into that small field ahead. Unforecast bad icing, approach to mins, and a nasty crosswind, well that's still pretty scary for a 900 hour "experienced" Navajo captain.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
The last two commercial guys I trained had the worst hand/feet coordination that I’ve ever seen. Took them 40 hrs plus to get them ready for a vfr ppc. Worst part was they thought they they were awesome pilots. They couldn’t understand why I was not recommending them for the ride.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Yup.Worst part was they thought they they were awesome pilots. They couldn’t understand why I was not recommending them for the ride.
I have trained (attempted to train) a few pilots who thought they were ready for the next type - nope, they weren't ready for what they'd been flying. Most notably, I have seen pilots who were unable to fly a visual approach from a mile back with the aircraft never straying laterally beyond the apparent width of the runway, and once over the runway remaining straight, and within a few feet of the centerline. Sure, the enroute flying skills one can develop in a "less hands and feet" flying role are good for going onward toward flying the big iron, but if you can't visualize the runway, and fly the plane along a straight and aligned approach, you will be perpetually challenged to end your flights with grace!
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
A good pilot needs a minimum level in both areas. I'll illustrate this with a few extreme examples; A pilot that can do airshow level formation aerobatics but routinely decides to fly under a heavy rain shaft is eventually going to meet a bad ending. Conversely, a heavy iron driver who has shot approaches into mountain fields and crossed the equator, but who can't judge a visual glide path or do effective x-wind control, is eventually going to make the CADORs.
Beyond the minimum skills it all comes down to the situation (as others have pointed out).
PilotDAR, Sunk;
I've noticed the same thing. My explanation for the problem is that all of the experience was diluted out of the instructor cadre some time ago. Many of the current batch of instructors, through no fault of their own, have not been properly trained. As a result many don't know what good flying looks like, (they have attained the same level of skill as the people that trained them, therefore they think that they are pretty good.) The process is at work within the current student body. This is not a swipe at today's students or instructors, the vast majority of which pick up on how to improve their skills once they've been shown. Rather, this is a lamentation of today's environment where there are very few people in the training system with the skills/knowledge to pass on to the new generation.
Beyond the minimum skills it all comes down to the situation (as others have pointed out).
PilotDAR, Sunk;
I've noticed the same thing. My explanation for the problem is that all of the experience was diluted out of the instructor cadre some time ago. Many of the current batch of instructors, through no fault of their own, have not been properly trained. As a result many don't know what good flying looks like, (they have attained the same level of skill as the people that trained them, therefore they think that they are pretty good.) The process is at work within the current student body. This is not a swipe at today's students or instructors, the vast majority of which pick up on how to improve their skills once they've been shown. Rather, this is a lamentation of today's environment where there are very few people in the training system with the skills/knowledge to pass on to the new generation.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Define “good” in a way that clearly tells an examiner thumbs up or thumbs down. You give it a shot B208 since you’re all about clarity. No extremes either, clearly describe that fuzzy borderline between “good” and whatever grade lies just below.CL-Skadoo! wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:38 pm We're talking about a surgeon that can't operate a scalpel, a triathlete that can't swim or a writer without any command of their native tongue. Good hands and feet or GTFO of this industry.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
ru f'in kidding me -- neither --
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
http://www.blackair.ca
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
I'd structure it like the flight test guides, but with greater detail. For example, "Candidate spent no more than x number of seconds more than y number of degrees off of centreline during final approach." It would take a fair bit of work to describe 'good' in sufficient detail, but it is doable.Rockie wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:18 amDefine “good” in a way that clearly tells an examiner thumbs up or thumbs down. You give it a shot B208 since you’re all about clarity. No extremes either, clearly describe that fuzzy borderline between “good” and whatever grade lies just below.CL-Skadoo! wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:38 pm We're talking about a surgeon that can't operate a scalpel, a triathlete that can't swim or a writer without any command of their native tongue. Good hands and feet or GTFO of this industry.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
There are already IFR tolerances and other parameters stipulated. I'm talking about what defines "good", who makes that determination, and what allowances are made for other than ideal conditions.
How do you B208 objectify what is by nature a subjective assessment?
Be accurate.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
900hr captain has way better hands and feet than an instructor limited to 15kt crosswinds and 5000ft ceilings.mixturerich wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:25 pm What’s going to save your butt? 900hr flight instructor with super hands and feet? Or 900 Navajo captain who isn’t very coordinated, but experienced with storms, icing, wind shear, and crosswinds?
Imagine betting on someone to fly you somewhere who only read about icing and flying in cloud in a book, never flew imc ever, yet has a license to.
I wouldn't bet on that person at all and I certainly don't want to be in a plane with that person if they were single ifr for the first time.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
It would appear that I've gotten under your skin.
As to your comments; Yes, there are already tolerances published, but they are not as detailed as they could be. Detailed standards and rubrics are how one grades how 'good' someone is.
As was stated above; use detailed standards and rubrics. If you want further details head over to your local Faculty of Education and ask to audit a course on curriculum development. The course is only about 30 hours and gives one a solid grounding in how to do such things.
Cheers.
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Pie in the sky B208. You say it can be done so explain in detail, don't refer me to someplace to do it for you. Pick a topic, say severe windshear recovery with established levels of turbulence and vertical shears, and explain in just that one circumstance in objective detail what makes one "good".
Assessing pilots is extremely subjective and will always remain so regardless of efforts to make it more objective. You should know that with your vast experience grading pilots. You do have vast experience grading pilots don't you?
Assessing pilots is extremely subjective and will always remain so regardless of efforts to make it more objective. You should know that with your vast experience grading pilots. You do have vast experience grading pilots don't you?
Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience
Ultimately, it all resolves to what's in your head.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.