Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by B208 »

Rockie wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:14 am 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".
Under your skin like a tattoo....

No Rockie, I'm not going to play your game because writing a good rubric requires input from more than one expert and requires more time than I am willing to commit to this forum.
-
Rockie wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:14 am Assessing pilots is extremely subjective and will always remain so regardless of efforts to make it more objective.
Now, now Rockie. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done. I have written rubrics that evaluate both motor and cognitive skills in great detail.
Rockie wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:14 am You do have vast experience grading pilots don't you?
I don't know how one would define 'Vast". I tend to be more of a numbers guy, so I'll default to that. I've got 20 years of evaluating pilots for everything from being safe for first solo, to being safe for aerobatics to MEIFR PPCs. I've got 32 years of evaluating everything from lifeguarding skills, to student teachers to advanced first aiders, to woodworking abilities. I've got 25 years of training educators to teach and evaluate everything from physics to aerobatics to MEIFR. I have enough experience to know what I'm doing, but when I look at how much more there is to know, and how much more experience some of the people around me have, I would not describe my experience as 'vast'. However, I have no hesitation is stating that the standards (rubrics) currently used for evaluating pilot performance are not as detailed as they could be. They lack 'discrimination', which is the ability to sort out the adequate from the truly talented. If you go and audit that Curriculum Development course I recommended, you will learn these things.
---------- ADS -----------
 
No Smoke, No Fire
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:31 am

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by No Smoke, No Fire »

FL007 wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:57 am
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?
900hr captain has way better hands and feet than an instructor limited to 15kt crosswinds and 5000ft ceilings.

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.

That’s a pretty big generalization. Sure, some schools have pretty ridiculous limits, but others like the school I worked at the mentality was the opposite. There were bills to be paid to keep the lights on, so it was fly or GTFO. I’ve flown with lots of people on both sides of the equation since, and in my experience there’s good pilots from both backgrounds, and lots of terrible ones too. Having a bit of time in a Navajo, having seen icing and been imc doesn’t qualify someone as being any good.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dockjock
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1007
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: south saturn delta

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by Dockjock »

I made a handy chart
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attachments
utility of various flight experience.png
utility of various flight experience.png (19.38 KiB) Viewed 1654 times
FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by FL007 »

No Smoke, No Fire wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:58 am
FL007 wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:57 am
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?
900hr captain has way better hands and feet than an instructor limited to 15kt crosswinds and 5000ft ceilings.

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.

That’s a pretty big generalization. Sure, some schools have pretty ridiculous limits, but others like the school I worked at the mentality was the opposite. There were bills to be paid to keep the lights on, so it was fly or GTFO. I’ve flown with lots of people on both sides of the equation since, and in my experience there’s good pilots from both backgrounds, and lots of terrible ones too. Having a bit of time in a Navajo, having seen icing and been imc doesn’t qualify someone as being any good.
The original question was whats going to save your butt. Instructors have 0 icing and essentially 0 imc time, 0 weather radar or storm experience, etc.

I read a lot about flying in all these conditions until my first multi turbine job, and oh boy, I had no idea how little I knew about all those things.

Coincidentally as well, as an airline guy now, all those things are the challenges of every day flying. Hydraulic rudder, rad alt calls, and autopilots flying approaches to minimums make landing the easiest part of the day. It's the en route decision making that separates good pilots, that can only be made with experience.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2471
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by Meatservo »

Maturity and the ability to think clearly in stressful situations will determine the outcome more than either of those things. But you can't even fit 900 Navajo captains into any cockpit, so I guess I'd choose the instructor.
---------- ADS -----------
 
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
User avatar
youhavecontrol
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:17 am

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by youhavecontrol »

JetSetter87 wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:33 pm Instructors don't do much stick flying. The student does. Ho captain any day...
We demonstrate maneuvers constantly that the students then practice as we watch. They have to be perfect. We also have to take control frequently when things go too far for the student to correct on their own. That takes quick thinking and near perfect control responses. I can demonstrate a power-off 180 from the right or left and make my spot within 10 feet in any wind condition the aircraft is certified to fly in. I can look out my window at the clouds and predict what airspeed we are flying at within 5 knots, and if the student forgot to raise his flaps or not, and if he's using too much or too little rudder. If that's not stick flying, I don't know what you're talking about.

That being said... why not both? Controlled flight into terrain is a thing that stick flying can't save.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"I found that Right Rudder you kept asking for."
Zaibatsu
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by Zaibatsu »

This is like one of those dumb facebook polls.

“Which would you rather wipe your ass with?”

Choose one:

[Steel Wool] or [Sandpaper]?

Normally I’d say sandpaper because if it’s higher than 400 grit it would be easier on my rectum, but steel wool is more absorbant so I won’t just be pushing shit around everywhere. Truth is I just want TP. Even one ply is better, or paper towel, or napkins, or socks.

You’re rarely ever going to have a 900 hour Navajo pilot with bad hands and feet. No or very basic autopilot. Short and frequent legs. Turbulence. Crappy strips. Bad approaches. No beta or reverse. Substandard equipment.

A flight instructor isn’t going to have any experience except for VFR Flying in simple aircraft.

So supposun this is like the worse Navajo pilot in the world. Only flies when it’s calm, can’t handle a crosswind, can’t fly a stable approach, et cetera.

Well, I’d choose the Navajo pilot. Obviously his experience and decision making have kept him alive. Compare that to the flight instructor who’s lack of experience in all but the best weather will have them painted into a corner and the aircraft doomed minutes or even hours before it actually crashes.

Decision making always trumps hands and feet. Sometimes that decision is to not fly at all.

But the reports of the death of hands and feet are greatly exaggerated.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
youhavecontrol
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:17 am

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by youhavecontrol »

Zaibatsu wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:25 am
A flight instructor isn’t going to have any experience except for VFR Flying in simple aircraft.
Not saying I completely disagree with all you wrote, but this part is crap. Every tried to fly actual IMC with a student? We do it regularly and it's a lot of work when you have a weaker student. You not only need to know your procedures, but you have to fix his and explain why at the same time. The work-load can be quite high.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"I found that Right Rudder you kept asking for."
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8080
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by Rockie »

B208 wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:55 am I have written rubrics that evaluate both motor and cognitive skills in great detail.
Engineer right?

Even in a controlled simulator environment no two exercises are the same. There are always differences, some subtle, some not so subtle, that change the grading parameters. Not least of these are human factors which play at least as much a role as technical ability and are ever changing, and then there are crew concept factors outside one individual's ability to control.

In an airplane it's even more of a wild card making disciplined, consistent grading different from one pilot's exercise to the next. The only way to bridge that gap is to use subjective judgement, which circles us back to the word "good".

Is "good" a level 3? What if a guy gets a 3 in difficult circumstances but the next guy gets a 4 in ideal circumstances? Who's better? If you say the guy with the 3 you're applying subjectivity which is the bane of experts like B208. If you say the guy with a 4 then you make no allowances for circumstances which is hardly an accurate assessment of ability.

The best pilots I've ever seen mixed good judgement in all circumstances with hand flying skills commensurate with the job. Lack either and you shouldn't be flying airplanes. There are people who boast about being the best stick (and maybe they are), but I would never get in an airplane with them because they utterly lack judgement. Conversely great judgement won't help you if you can't keep the airplane going where it's supposed to.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by C.W.E. »

There is also another important factor that should be considered in this discussion.

We have listed hands and feet and experience and a few other things and I would like to add another one.

Luck.

That can play a large part between disaster and survival.

I carried a horseshoe in my flight bag and a rabbits foot in my pocket for my whole career and it would appear that it worked because I never damaged an aircraft fixed or rotary wing during the over half a century I flew them for a living.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Zaibatsu
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by Zaibatsu »

youhavecontrol wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:33 am Every tried to fly actual IMC with a student? We do it regularly and it's a lot of work when you have a weaker student. You not only need to know your procedures, but you have to fix his and explain why at the same time. The work-load can be quite high.
Sounds easier than being a new Navajo or King Air captain who’s with a new FO with hardly any more experience than your student flying a much more complex aircraft into much worse conditions.

Actual IMC seems to be an instructor fixation. The plane doesn’t fly any different with respect to instruments. All it gains is a couple hours in a log book that means almost nothing in the real world getting your first IFR job. Thus, myself and most other instructors I know primarily taught IFR in VMC. Going into stuff like known icing or down to IFR minimums is best left for on the job training and line indoc on more capable aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by C.W.E. »

Sounds easier than being a new Navajo or King Air captain who’s with a new FO with hardly any more experience than your student flying a much more complex aircraft into much worse conditions.
That sounds like it would be a bit exciting, are you saying this from your own experience, is that safer than flying it by yourself??
---------- ADS -----------
 
FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by FL007 »

youhavecontrol wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:33 am
Zaibatsu wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:25 am
A flight instructor isn’t going to have any experience except for VFR Flying in simple aircraft.
Not saying I completely disagree with all you wrote, but this part is crap. Every tried to fly actual IMC with a student? We do it regularly and it's a lot of work when you have a weaker student. You not only need to know your procedures, but you have to fix his and explain why at the same time. The work-load can be quite high.
Flying imc on a nice smooth, non icing day is a little different than in solid imc, icing up, looking at your airspeed decrease and threading the needle in embedded cbs.

I don't know of a lot of trainers that are able to fly in known icing, or with weather radar, so 0 experience in those aspects is not a generalization.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
HansDietrich
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:33 am

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by HansDietrich »

What makes you think that a 900 hour Navajo captain does not have good hands and feet? I'd say the Navajo pilot would have more useful experience, flying operationally into small airports, more often than not with a basic auto pilot, IFR, etc. You don't need to teach slow flight, spins, spiral dives every day to develop what you call "good hands and feet". I think the skills you learn as a flight instructor are quite limited, IN REGARDS TO FLYING, but you do develop teaching methodology that can come in handy later in your career.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Das ist mir wurst...
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by C.W.E. »

I found the Navajo to be a poor IFR platform compared the the 400 series Cessnas, especially the 421 which was a delight to fly, nice and quiet and rock solid as an IFR platform.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by valleyboy »

Not sure where the 900 hours came from but in my experience a 900 hr ho captain has barely enough knowledge to get from a to b and instructors in this day and age are so low timed I can't believe they are allowed teach. In my humble opinion an instructor should not be allowed to start teaching until they have 1500 hours and detailed courses how to instruct. A "HO" captain should hold an ATP but it's the sign of the times and pilots with a new ATP think they should be in the money seat of a wide body --- time marches on, maybe full automation is the solution. :smt040 I'm not saying this generation of pilots are less capable. What I am saying the present situation is putting pilots into positions where they likely should not be for their experience level.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
MrTurbine
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by MrTurbine »

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?
I’d pick a ho instructor.
I’ve trained some ho guys that shiver when they see some ice on the boots. I’ve trained some instructors that have terrible hands and feet. Experience is good, but at 900 hours, it means nothing to me. It’s all about attitude. And yes, if you don’t have good hands and feet, go find another job please.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2984
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by digits_ »

Zaibatsu wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:04 pm

Actual IMC seems to be an instructor fixation. The plane doesn’t fly any different with respect to instruments.
It is a world of difference for the student.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by B208 »

Rockie wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:49 am
B208 wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:55 am I have written rubrics that evaluate both motor and cognitive skills in great detail.
Engineer right?
Nope. You're thinking of Headley, (who extends a cordial invitation to come over to ..'s for a chat).
Rockie wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:49 am Even in a controlled simulator environment no two exercises are the same.
By this I assume that you mean no two instances of the same exercise are the same. The only thing that changes between iterations of a simulator ex are the pilot, (either a different pilot or a pilot that has hopefully learned something from the previous iteration). Any changes in the outcome of the ex in a simulator are due to the crew. This is fortunate given that what we want to measure is the pilot's ability. Detailed, well defined standards and rubrics will provide accurate discrimination with regard to just how good the pilot is.
Rockie wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:49 am The only way to bridge that gap is to use subjective judgement, which circles us back to the word "good".
No. The first step in evaluating performance is to write a detailed description of ideal performance, and then to write detailed descriptions of increasingly less ideal performance. The number of levels of performance you want to describe is up to you. Once you have written all of these detailed descriptions you place them in a ranked table called a rubric. You compare the observed performance to the described performance in the rubric. The more detailed the rubric, the less subjective the evaluation is.

To put this into terms you can understand, the current flight training evaluation rubric is not designed to differentiate how 'good' someone is. It is essentially designed to differentiate between inadequate, adequate, good and perfect. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not knocking the current rubric. It does the job for which it was intended, determining if someone is safe to have a license.
Rockie wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:49 amIs "good" a level 3? What if a guy gets a 3 in difficult circumstances but the next guy gets a 4 in ideal circumstances? .
That's easy. If you want to determine how 'good' a pilot is have them perform the same exercise under increasingly difficult circumstances. The further they get before they fail is a direct measure of how good they are. As has already been pointed out, the current flight training rubric is not set up to do this, nor does it need to be set up to do this.

Rockie wrote: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:49 am The best pilots I've ever seen mixed good judgement in all circumstances with hand flying skills commensurate with the job. Lack either and you shouldn't be flying airplanes. There are people who boast about being the best stick (and maybe they are), but I would never get in an airplane with them because they utterly lack judgement. Conversely great judgement won't help you if you can't keep the airplane going where it's supposed to.
Well done. You finally arrived at the position where I started. This proves that you are, in fact, trainable.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by B208 on Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8028
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: Good Hands n’ Feet vs. Operational Experience

Post by photofly »

What about the Kobayashi Maru, eh?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Strike me down with all of your hatred & your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”