If I were in charge

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:43 pm

I agree and remember "Im in charge".

So carry on with useful ideas.

Cat

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:17 am

So can I have a raise?

sakism · Post by **sakism** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:28 am

Two ideas:

1 - To address the quality of aspiring pilots.

Some sort of test which must be written prior to commencing flight training. A very hard idea to nail down to specifics - but we all agree that not everyone should be taking lessons, let alone being licenced.

2 - To address the quality of instructors.

FTU's should have to provide some time in the aircraft to their instructors, on a regular basis. This would allow the instructors to work out their own weedy areas, develop different methods of teaching exercises and keep them sharper in terms of 'stick and rudder' skills.

Sure, all instructing time is PIC, but the time spent handling the aircraft is minimal (especially with post-solo students). How is one's 'feel' for the aircraft going to improve if they never get to touch the aircraft?

Knowledge and teaching ability definitely improve with instructing experience, but actual 'flying' skills are bound to deteriorate.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:50 am

Shiny Side Up wrote:
Secondly, like any good instructor knows, scare your students enough and they might not come back.

Good. I remember doing my 100nm, landing at the field having my door swing open on final(which shouldn't happen and no one believed me) scared the sh*t out of me. I did an overshoot because I was frightened, instead of landing.

I was clutching the door all the way back home. Once I did arrive, I didn't want to go back. Instead of my brilliant instructor saying "oh, I believe you" it was "lol, what a tale, that's not possible."

Luckily I had several friends in the industry. One suggested we go up without the doors. Issue resolved.

duplicate2 wrote:"I think it's a pretty callous, unprofessional, and disturbing that any pilot would shrug off potential deaths of other aviators with a "them's the breaks" type attitude."

A death now or a death later down the line is still a death.

" if you want a guarantee on something, buy a toaster"

Guarantee, the only guarantee I want, is one that states that buddy who can't enter a "stall" is worse than the guy who can enter a "stall." In which case, why do we have so many accidents?

Just cause you can stall the plane doesn't make you king sh8t.

"Guys, I think that yyz is just trying to yank our chains"

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:07 pm

Had a door pop open on me once, can't remember if I was licensed yet or not, just remember it scared the crap out of me. Then as a Class 4 on climb out I looked over and noticed my student's door hanging open in the breeze; playing the cool, collected instructor, I kept him talking while I reached in behind his seat and closed it with him none the wiser. God we instructors are masterful bullshitters!

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 12:16 pm

You're also forgetting what a good portion of the instruction is meant to do: prevent. While we teach a student how the aircraft gets into a stall and of course how to get out of it the main points of the lesson are recognition and avoidance. Monkeys can be taught how to recover from a stall with the appropriate stimulus - but since hopefully your average student is brighter than your average chimp they can also learn how to avoid it. Its the whole reason we do the slow flight lesson first. So the student can recognize and avoid that situation and recover if necessary. In other words hopefully a pilot gets themselves out of or maintains control in slow flight before actually getting to a stall.

Now the question here arises: do you happen to get into departure stalls all of the time? If you do I would assume that there is something wrong with the way you've been taught to fly. As we all know the lessons before stalls and slowflight usually revolve around climbing and decending, hopefully a student can execute these without getting into a stall after a lesson. If they can't - which might then necessitate further practice in stall recovery - I would suggest getting to the root of the problem In other words how they climb the aircraft.

Now what we've went through here is prevention, prevention, prevention. Now in all my flight experience I've never stalled the aircraft by accident. One would wonder why I would then need to take such hazardous training in the event that I might do so as you reccomend. Well lets look at stall/spin situations, especially departure type ones that have caused accidents. In probably half of them the no amount of recovery practice would have saved them: the a/c was overloaded, out of CoG, catastrophic structural failure, etc. In the other bunch you'll find such examples as light aircraft buzzing runways, farms, people etc. in which in the resultant pull up and climb the aircraft stalled, spun and became a ball of metal or flaming hole. Now you might say if these people might have had better departure stall recovery practice they might be alive. A better idea though would be to discourage them from gotten into that situation in the first place.

But that's just me.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:26 pm

Shiny side up,

I think we've got a little sidetracked here by yyz's posts showing us all that it is better to go into combat not knowing how to fire your gun.

The whole reason we should be teaching these advanced stalls and advanced manouvers is to teach a student how to fly a plane. No departure stalls aren't that common and we don't need to teach a student how to climb better. The point is that there seem to be a lot more accidents occuring in the areas of flight training where the pilot is suddenly required to have good stick and rudder skills (ie. float training, mountain flying). I can name four companies that have lost a total of five float training aircraft in the past two years.

If we want to stop this, then those pilots that are going to be taking a commercial test should be checked more thourougly with their piloting skills. When they get to that last 50 hours of their 150 that they need to build, they should have learned something more than what was taught in their private training. How do we do this? well by adding more stalls, manouvers, and stricter guidelines as pointed out before. A commercial pilot should be able to fly a plane and we all know that not all of them can.

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:39 pm

JPC
Good point. I always hammer home the prevention message. But that doesn't mean that you can't teach the student recovery technique also. Knowing both makes for a well rounded and knowledgable pilot.

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 3:52 pm

By all means someone of the commercial level should have a greater degree of skill with the airplane -better stick and rudder of course. But where the CPL really falls down is in its requirements for PDM ability. While its nice to have the skill to recover a stall in fifty feet before the earth reaches up and smites thee, its better if they don't get to that spot in the first place. One of the best excersises required for the CPL is the 300 mile cross country requirement. Rather than the usual rip around the local greenery it for once requires a pilot to make better decisions base on weather, range and their own capabilities all in hopefully a strange enviornment - somewhere at least 300 miles away. This is the first chance some pilots have to get themselves in a bit of trouble to give them a wake up call on how their skills might need to be brushed up. Particularly in making the crucial go/no go decision. You're stuck at some strip in the middle of Hell's half acre and there ain't no airport LTD what do you do? Its the first time many might be subjected to some serious "get home syndrome" Sure you might be on a first name basis with the tower guy at Springbank, but what do you do if the guy at Regina starts giving you trouble? Decision making time!

Should there be better requirements for the old stick and rudder? Gods yes! But I personally think the part that needs work is a pilot's decision making capacity. Because if you really want to get to the root of why people crash airplanes - here it is.

When you say that someone piled in a plane into a cumulo-granite because they didn't have the appropriate steep turn or stall recovery skills. I'd counter that by saying that given that pilot's skill level, he/she shouldn't have made the decision to go there in the first place.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:39 pm

justplanecrazy wrote:Shiny side up,

I think we've got a little sidetracked here by yyz's posts showing us all that it is better to go into combat not knowing how to fire your gun.

Lol, maybe sidetracked. But I just copy pasted Shiny Side's post.. =) Once you hear students quoting Shiny you know who's to blame. =) Thanks Shiny.

But others had some good quotes too.

Oh, yeah.. We can go back to if CD was in charge.. =)

N2 · Post by N2 » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:49 am

Cat you should make it mandatory that every aspiring pilot read this article!

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185019-1.html

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:45 am

Excellent article N2.

We need a place to store all these links.(& yes I did add it to my favorites)

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:12 am

N2 :

Consider it done.

It is now manditory reading for everyone.

Failure to do so will result in me kicking the living sh.t out of those who fail to comply.

Cat

I'd Rather Be Flying · Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:33 am

Yes, that is a good article. I am by no stretch of the imagination a know-it-all, but the thoughts expressed there did not really teach me anything new. Nevertheless, I do recommend reading it. And then thinking about what was said.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:56 pm

Shiny Side Up,

The 300nm is definately a good thing to do. Might I suggest that they make it even longer though. 300nm is short enough that someone can easily make a flight plan in the morning with instructors and other students advices, ask for advice on go/no go and then fly it all that day. Myself, I used those 50 hours in the instrument requirement to do over 6,000nm in cross country over three trips. 300nm doesn't even take you out of your neighbourhood. You can do the whole trip without making a single descision on your own. I know of several students that did the 300nm once and then spent the rest of their 50hours x-country hopping from one district of town to the other, going to few airports numerous times. They learned nothing about x-country or descision making. There should be a requirement where you have to make a certain number of trips to different/new airports. Right now you could do your whole training with only flying into two different airports all within the same airspace. You aren't forced to leave your comfort zone.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:12 pm

I much prefer that a commercial student do his planning etc and have more experienced people around to ask their advice. In order to develop their decision making I prefer to answer any question about go/no go with another question; "what do you think?" I'll only step in if I think they've made the wrong decision.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:57 pm

Ya, safety wise in the short term, it definately makes sense shitdisturber. They should still be sent to airports where they are completely unfamiliar with the layout approach procedures etc. They should have to learn this on their own and fly it solo without a prior dual flight. Weather and flight planning can be double checked as well as their knowledge of what they're going to do when they get there. But really, the less they are told the more they will learn. If there is a risk of students not making it more than 300nm then they shouldn't increase this requirement. They should rather have 2 or 3 300nm required trips then.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:31 pm

No argument on going to different airports. Anybody who has a license should be going new places as often as possible; I see no purpose in spending all that money to fly in the circuit or the practise area. Some of the most fun flying i've ever done was in the days after I got my private, bebopping around to all the different little airports in southern Germany. All within a short distance and all having different procedures to approach due to the high population density. Then have lunch or even just a coke at the little Gasthaus located at every airport before flying home. It's experience that can't be topped, would that airports in Canada had a setup like that!

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:52 pm

Hey shit,

Just curious if you're from Germany why are you flying here? I was trying to go in the other direction as having a licence over there with a Europass sure looks appealing? The only downfall would be trying to fly the month after OctoberFest. Was it a family/ life style choice, or are the jobs over there just as slim and crappy? It must have cost a fortune to do your training there!!! I run into a lot of Europeans that always do a few hours over here when they're on holidays because its so bloody expensive back home. PM me if you don't want to post a reply.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:04 pm

Simple, i'm not German. Was overseas with the military and picked up my private and commercial through the flying club we had on the base.

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:24 pm

Was it a Canadian/American Licence? How did that work? Can you say jealous?? I'd love to fly in Europe, maybe someday it'll all work out.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:28 pm

justplanecrazy wrote:They should rather have 2 or 3 300nm required trips then.

Sounds like a plan.. Or why not just "visit a minimum of 15(# just pulled out my arse) airports"*

Blah.. Speaking of Airport hoping.. =( .. I guess I missed Poker Flight?

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:01 am

Yeah, it was a Canadian license, Canadian registered airplanes, we brought over somebody from TC to do the writtens for us and the Hornet drivers doing their ATPLs. Got my PPFT from an AWAC driver and CPFT from a guy from TC in Ottawa; one of the good guys at TC actually.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:21 pm

I have been neglecting my position of being in charge.

Time for another suggestion to improve flight training.

I would have all instructors use camcorders for recording the flight training exercises, they can be turned on and off as needed using the remote control for recording what is taking place.

Best training device I ever used, can not be beat for debriefing.

Cat....your if I were in charge person,,,,,,,,

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:10 pm

Whew! Came on this one a little late, and had to struggle just to get caught up. Despite some of the usual forum based stupidity (., memories of some kid telling you to go back to the construction site-HA!

), there is some valid discussion going on here.

I just want to touch on a few issues that jolted me a bit, starting with you, CD. I believe in the 5 hours of instruments. It is a LIFE SAVING technique only. Just look at what the standards say about it: Fly straight and level for two minutes, execute a 180 and fly for 2 minutes. Also need to recover from unusual attitude. This says to me that as an instructor, I am teaching you how to get out of an inadvertant IMC encounter, a situation that happens way more often than we would hope. To say that we should omit it at the peril of those who make the fatal VFR mistake is akin to stating that we should teach departure stalls without a safety margin for recovery; those unable to accomplish the task are better off dead.

The five hours of instruments is generally taught at the very end of the program for exactly the reason you have railed against it: VFR pilots need to be taught to fly visually. The plethora of "Flight Simmers" who now walk into a FTU make the job of instructing MORE difficult nowadays because that habit has to first be broken in order to teach it right. This may be one of the reasons the PPL is taking longer on average these days. My personal take is that the average person who pursues flight training is different than in the past. This generation of folks who have seen Top Gun

once too often is a far cry from previous generations of kids who grew up on farms driving tractors, and other assorted machinery. Flying an aircraft was more a logical extension of an already existing skill set unlike starting candidates from scratch like we do now.

N2- How much 'operational' flying experience does one need to teach someone else how to fly an aircraft for recreation? Let's face it, flying recreationally is basically what you are qualified to do with a PPL, regardless of what you actual intentions are further down the road. By the time you are a CIV, you have completed the PPL course FOUR TIMES!!

I think that is more than enough experience to teach someone the same skill. Of course, to teach a CPL, the instructor should have not only instructing experience, but operational experience as well. This is why I believe so strongly in the operation we have here, and why I think a school that is also 702/703 will produce a better entry level CPL every time over a college program. The instructors DO THAT WORK EVERY DAY.

NDB- Good call on not limiting 'advanced training' to tail-draggers only. There are lots of ways an instructor can go about gaining experience and refining their abilities, and glider flying and floats are but another two. Flying multi-IFR seems to be getting discounted here in favor of more 'traditional' flying. It all depends on the type of training you are most likely getting called upon to complete. Personally, I don't know ANY class I instructors who have spent their entire careers flying ONLY training aircraft. Not only that, but there are still a handfull of 'training' aircraft that are, well, a handfull. Ever flown a Grumman Trainer?
Before people start getting their panties in a knot, understand that I REALLY am a HUGE believer in the need to develop and teach good hands and feet; it is the aspect most lacking in newly minted PPL, CPL, and Class IV, but it doesn't take time in a Champ to develop that- it takes a concerted effort on the part of the instructor to identify and correct poor yaw control habits.

CAPGEN- Some good points, and legit concerns for the state of Genav if things should indeed transpire this way. Trouble is you are focussing too much on those pilots whose intention it is to do this for a LIVING ie.: CPL. Why should Joe (Jane) Blow PPL have to pay more for his/her training just because the competition for seats got too tough for CPL, and artificial restrictions were placed on FTUs to reduce the number of schools/instructors/candidates and Commercial pilots? Truth is, free market capitalism economics will reign, and THAT is the root of the training situation we find ourselves in now. The 'backwards' scenario postulated by Ahramin cannot happen without serious intervention on the part of the one who is 'in charge', and as a pop in one of those 'mom-and-pop' operations, I would rapidly become a thorn in the side of . as big as . is in TC.

So, what is CD supposed to do now that he is in charge? Start by being honest with your CPL candidates about the realities of this industry. Make them read the link supplied by N2 and others like it that are out there. Maybe this will dissuade some folks from pursuing this aviation thing as a career. Give back to aviation when you are done. I posted a thread on pprune asking how many experienced airline types would consider instructing when they are done. Guess what? NONE! That's right, not even if they were the owners. If you know of any who are different, please let me know.

Enough from me.