Advice to New Commercial Students

[Shiny Side Up]

just recognizing the what you see on the map and finding it when you look out the window.

Ain't that already taught on the PPL as well?

If current "system" of navigation planning as taught in the CPL course is so important why do virtually all CPL's never, ever use it after their CPL flight test ?

First, there's a ton of programs out there that can do it for you, most of the better GPS sets can do it for you as well. Better yet, you have someone else do it for you. Secondly, if they're like me they usually end up flying only two or three routes and fashion a means of pluggin in whee all the there values remain constant. To get to the application level where one can do either of the above you have to be able - once again - to fill out that terrible big form. I'm not sure what the big deal is. In reality I can start from scratch and figure out all the related info for a new route in less than 10 minutes.

I do though get what you're after, the filling out of the form, has become an end unto itself when it comes to testing and thus how pilots are trained. The test supposes that we're still flying missions across the English channel with minimal accurate reference points (hence the drift lines). The unfortunate part is that since many pilots have but mediocre math skills - something I blame on our poor education system - they never get past a rote learned level of knowledge with the dreaded "form". Hence why many also can't get past a rote level of learning with the GPS without extensive training as our opening poster wishes for. They're learning the GPS from scratch rather than with the base requisite knowledge.

Out of curiosity, one of the things I distinctly remember learning about becomming a pilot was that I was told repeatedly by every pilot I talked to was that you needed to be good at math. Are they not telling the kids this these days?

[trey kule]

Interesting last comment.

In the last few years I would bet that in all the new CPLs that I have come across not one in five understands the 1/60 rule. Or how to use it. Or how it can be used to numerous other things while your flying. It boggles my mind.. But they will tell you anything you want to know about how a turbine engine works...even if they have never actaully started one in their careers.

[Big Pistons Forever]

just recognizing the what you see on the map and finding it when you look out the window.

Ain't that already taught on the PPL as well?

I would say hardly ever. Navigation at the PPL level, just like the CPL is all about filling in the boxes of the flight plan form and drawing lots of lines on the chart in order to pass the flight test

[Shiny Side Up]

Interesting last comment.

In the last few years I would bet that in all the new CPLs that I have come across not one in five understands the 1/60 rule. Or how to use it. Or how it can be used to numerous other things while your flying. It boggles my mind.. But they will tell you anything you want to know about how a turbine engine works...even if they have never actually started one in their careers.

Shouldn't a new CPL be able to do both? Wouldn't it be a boon to the industry if said individuals were more qualified than less? That's not the point you're getting at I know. To the point though, pilots don't often understand the 1/60 rule because their baseline math skills are poor. If you don't understand trigonometry, then you're just rote memorizing the 1/60 rule and thus have no application ability.

Getting somewhat off topic - though related since this affects how well people understand how the GPS works - most people are self proclaimed "bad at math" which is unfortunate since of all the things one learns in school, math is the most applicable to daily life. If you watch the show "Dogfight" on the history channel almost everyone of the old veterans makes mention of how he made a quick calculation on how much fuel he had vs how far he had to go to return to base vs how much he could use up at combat power to stay in the fight all the while with a MIG on his tail.... He's here today because of MATH! Now while we don't expect that every CPL be up to that standard, we can expect them to have at least a fraction of it.

just recognizing the what you see on the map and finding it when you look out the window.

Ain't that already taught on the PPL as well?

I would say hardly ever. Navigation at the PPL level, just like the CPL is all about filling in the boxes of the flight plan form and drawing lots of lines on the chart in order to pass the flight test

Then I must be teaching a different PPL than everyone else. BUT... I have seen people all too ready to discard any map/compass/clock skill when they have a device which will allow them to. Map and Nav skills like, any other (including MATH!) degrade quickly if you don't use them.

[trey kule]

Shouldn't a new CPL be able to do both?

That is one of those when was the last time you beat your wife questions!

I think you missed my point. In my opinion the 1/60 rule , and being able to apply it is an essential pilot skill. The turbine knowledge for a new CPL, while good to know, is not necessarily required, and is not what I consider an essential skill. It is something that can be learned if necessary, on the first job, if it is on a turbine, and there is little chance of the new hire being given an immediate PIC position without a fair bit of training. On the other hand, they could well step into a PIC job where the 1/60 rule is a boon to their flying, and an employer should not be expected to be teaching them that.

My point was that a new CPL lacks in an essential skill, but has been given training, and knows a , typically unessential skill.
So to answer you question, of course both would be good, and better than one.
But one is essential and to not have the essential one , in my mind, means that the training was focused improperly.

You mentioned fuel calcualtions. One of my personal sore points. As long as FTU's keep spouting off those little cute ditsies about how useless air in the tanks is, or how the only time you can have to much fuel is when you are on fire, the whole attitude towards fuel management is never going to work. Once you new commercial pilot gets to an operator, it quickly becomes apparent that you do not take off with full fuel in the tanks very often, and it takes some real attitude adjusting to get that through to some pilots. They simply have never been required to think about fuel...or to manage it as the FTU margins "for safety" are so large.
And yes, fuel management can and should be addressed in commercial training, and practical methods taught. Ask anyone who has flown in the bush for awhile where weight is a constant issue, and they will tell you almost to the gallon/litre how much fuel they need to do a mission.
Compare that with the new commercial pilots who talk about fuel only in pounds. One of our first attitude adjustment techniques for fuel management is after hearing a fuel burn in pounds , is to walk with them out to the fuel pumps and ask them to show where the dispensor indicator shows pounds..Then onto the plane to ask them to show where the guages read in pounds..Usually gets the maessage accross, but you have to wonder how they got out of flight school without someone ever doing this......
oh wait a moment...Maybe its because that nice turbine sim has its fuel flow and guages in pounds, and the single point refueling guage in the plane works in pounds...and their instructor, who had never flown anything bigger than a 172 wanted to impress his airline knowledge on them.

Yes this is a rant. And I catagorically can say it, that fuel management training at FTU's is way below standards..And it can be simulated for training, and taught practically, but the simple truth is it takes people with experience outside the FTU to bring that practical experience back in, and that is simply not happening in most cases. Our class 4, who will become a class 3, 2, 1...never works outside the FTU in some cases and thinks that every takeoff can be made with the tanks full...la la la la.

[hz2p]

lacks an essential skill, but has been given training for an unessential skill

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 0o0101.asp

The two occupants were fatally injured ... while manoeuvring, the aircraft stalled and entered a spin at an altitude from which recovery was impossible

[Mustangranch]

Learnig GPS should be just another instrument to observe. Try to find an experienced line pilot to fly with you on a cross country and he can show you how and when and why to use the instrument.
Lots of line pilots will gladly fly with newbies, its fun for us and a wealth of knoweldge for the up and coming pilots.

[Cat Driver]

Learnig GPS should be just another instrument to observe.

Actually it is more than just another instrument to observe, it is one of the most valuable aids to navigation ever developed and should be thought of and used in that context.

Another important instrument is a fuel flow instrument, in conjunction with GPS these two really take the guess work out of navigating from A to B.

Try to find an experienced line pilot to fly with you on a cross country and he can show you how and when and why to use the instrument.

O.K. there is nothing wrong with taking a " line pilot " ( whatever a line pilot is. ) with you but the fact is learning to use a GPS is not rocket science.

[iflyforpie]

....... ( whatever a line pilot is. ) ..........

[Mustangranch]

How much flying experience do you have? You really don't know what a line pilot is?

[Mustangranch]

If you talk to a few Airline "Line Pilots" the main problem with new hires is they can't fly. They are great with the GPS but have no idea how to actually fly in very many situation. I could go on with examples but I am not on here to bash the new guys.

[Cat Driver]

How much flying experience do you have?

I have over 30,000 hours flying both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, all accident and violation free.

You really don't know what a line pilot is?

Usually the term " line pilot " is used to describe someone who fly's in a scheduled airline operation, I guess I was being facetious and you missed my sense of humor as there are many types of pilots besides line pilots who can pass on knowledge about how to use a GPS.

[trey kule]

Normally, I disagree with the posting of experience and hours etc, but , in this case, CAT, that is what was needed. Good on you. New poster here, so I dont think he has experienced your humor. forgive him his trespass, as it might just be he has soared from a lowly new CPL grad or instructor to the lofty heights of line flying, and wishes to use the term as often as possible. It might be that our "line pilot" could not write "experienced pilot", so they chose the term more appropriate to their own situation.. Just a guess. Maybe our new poster here is a zillion hour , space shuttle commanding guy with 30 years flying experience. What do you think the odds of that are?

BTW, I thought the very same thing when I read "line pilot", although IF for Pie clarified it perfectly I think.

[Shiny Side Up]

That is one of those when was the last time you beat your wife questions!

I think you missed my point. In my opinion the 1/60 rule , and being able to apply it is an essential pilot skill. The turbine knowledge for a new CPL, while good to know, is not necessarily required, and is not what I consider an essential skill.

The 1/60 rule is an essential skill at PPL level. Turbine knowledge isn't a skill its, well, knowledge. Knowledge I should point out which is considered essential by TC's opinion, see:http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... u-1264.htm

I would suggest you take up any further beefs with new CPL pilots having any sort of turbine knowledge up with them. Theoretically a new CPL should be able to step into almost any pilot job out there that doesn't require the ATPL. Straight out of school, despite what the experienced folk might say. This is really the root of the problem I feel in that if one looks through that study guide above there's a lot of stuff missing that should be considered more essential to working as a pilot.

It is something that can be learned if necessary, on the first job, if it is on a turbine, and there is little chance of the new hire being given an immediate PIC position without a fair bit of training. On the other hand, they could well step into a PIC job where the 1/60 rule is a boon to their flying, and an employer should not be expected to be teaching them that.

Hold on a moment. Are you changing your opinion on that it acceptable for them to do some learning after being hired? Previously this has not been your stance. Personally I would contend that anyone without turbine time who steps into a turbine job is going to need significant training, regardless of how much piston time they have, if only to satisfy the worries of the chief pilot and save some money on engines. Why else would every job out there that's advertises for turbine always list a required time on turbine? If the idea is that potentially any of our new CPL will sometime possibly step into such a spot, won't they be better equipped with some knowledge than none?

Personally, I think that flight training at the CPL level should be more tailored to specifically how the pilot is going to work when the training is done. As it is the system tries to make jacks of all trades and they end up being masters of nothing.

You mentioned fuel calcualtions. One of my personal sore points.

Lets back up the rant bus a bit here. This little bit outlines the source of the problem:

Compare that with the new commercial pilots who talk about fuel only in pounds. One of our first attitude adjustment techniques for fuel management is after hearing a fuel burn in pounds , is to walk with them out to the fuel pumps and ask them to show where the dispensor indicator shows pounds..Then onto the plane to ask them to show where the guages read in pounds..Usually gets the maessage accross, but you have to wonder how they got out of flight school without someone ever doing this......

First I hope that you have a reasonable means of attitude adjustment that doesn have the feel of the FISR technique you seemed to have outlined. Second, what difference does it make what unit the person refers to fuel in? Regardless of your operation don't you need to know how much that fuel weighs? The point is that any pilot should be able in terms of their thinking be able to think about the fuel/range/endurance/weight problem in whichever means they need to for the situation. If a pilot can't - its not because they went to a bad flight school - its because THEY'RE BAD AT MATH! The fuel/weight/range/endurance problem is one that they should be able to solve at PPL level, but unfortunately many can't. Often if they don't have the appropriate form to fill out they can't solve the problem (as it happens, aircraft manufacturers know that pilots are bad at math, hence they make all sorts of graphical aids in their POH's to help pilots out) They don't have a deeper understanding of how the variables work in the equation. Additionally I've become aware that they don't teach much about fractions in school anymore so a fuel guage which might indicate only in quarters of a tank, might as well be printed in greek to most people (one individual recently didn't believe me that 3/4 is larger than 2/3 until I drew some pictures of pies for him, not sure if it stuck)

Our class 4, who will become a class 3, 2, 1...never works outside the FTU in some cases and thinks that every takeoff can be made with the tanks full...la la la la.

Hardly. Have you seen the size of training airplanes these days and the size of some of the students? Trust me, you don't want to be the skinny instructor at a FTU, you're going to be the one who gets to go with that teacup worth of fuel to go do spins.

[trey kule]

Are you changing your opinion on that it acceptable for them to do some learning after being hired? Previously

ah, shinester, I think you are misreading my opinion.
There is a big difference between basic knowledge (ie how to do a stablaized approach without jockeying the throttles, do a turn keeping the ball in the center, etc, or coming into land without having to spend 10 mins entering and flying a circuit) It is not the job of a 700 operator to be having to teach this type of thing. Experience comes as new CPLs explore their limits in a safe manner, and expand their abilities.
On the other hand, advanced type training and training applicable to a specifc operation...of course it is, and I have never suggested otherwise. Personally I would prefer to get a new CPL who has no knowledge and train them on turbine operation. It only takes an extra hour or two to do the basics, and one is not having to ulearn them the crap they learn at some FTU's.
I hope you can see the difference, because most people in FTU's and new CPL's can not.
It is the basic flying skills that are important. And attitude, work ethic, getting along well with others, being responsable that are important.

The whole problem is many FTUs are not only not providing a high standard of basic skill development, but they are not focussing on it as important, and are spending money (no their own, but their customers) on extras.
Ask yourself this question. Do you, or would you hire those with strong basic flying skills over those who are weaker in those skills but have taken a turbine sim course at their college?
And yes, both attributes would bee great, but we seldom see both in one person.

[Shiny Side Up]

I hope you can see the difference, because most people in FTU's and new CPL's can not.

Oh indeed I can, but the whole point of this thread in my mind indicates that many do not. Getting your CPL with the promise of having the best basic flying skills simply doesn't sell. Nor in the eyes of many is it seen is adequate to have to be a commercial pilot. Something that hasn't been explored here is how some of these expanded courses come about and it ain't your run of the mill only been in the FTU enviornment people comming up with them. In my experience its actually usually put together by someone with industry experience - or usually someone running a flying business who partners with a school to increase utilization of resources (like a fancy sim) to increase their own revenue, or at least mitigate some of their own costs. Often it is seen as win-win by both parties. School has something fancy that grabs student/customer's attention, charter outfit now gets more utilization out of equipment.

Fancy toys draw customers and that's the bottom line. Important sounding courses also sell (often people like them for resume padding). Basic flying skills do not sell - not at the commercial level, everyone who's a PPL holder is already an expert right? Beating on the same drum I have been for a while, delving down into the long chain problem that is the flight training world, this is I feel where some of the biggest issues are - the connection between PPL and CPL training.

And attitude, work ethic, getting along well with others, being responsable that are important.

These are things it was your parent's job to teach you. If you didn't learn them by the time you started learning how to fly, the relatively short span of your life you spend with a flying instructor isn't going to correct them - especially not if you take the role of the customer/student during your flight training.

Ask yourself this question. Do you, or would you hire those with strong basic flying skills over those who are weaker in those skills but have taken a turbine sim course at their college?

Well, if you come to me touting your excellent turbine skills (and some have - I love when resumes are prefaced by "turbine position preferred") you haven't researched who you're applying to work for very well.

[trey kule]

Just one quick point SSU. I did not mean to imply FTU's should provide the life skills . I agree, either they have them or they dont, but what I was trying to point out that those skills are more important that others.

Now, after giving your argument some thought, I have to agree. It is what sells, and basic flying skills are not sexy as all the CPL's are convinced they have them. Sigh.......No sense in trying to flog a dad horse I guess.

As to the resume. I have read some really bizarre ones, but never that preference.
I assume the canidate had several thousand hours of turbine time to include that.
Someone should actually start a thread about "resumes I have received", but I amnot sure people would actually beleive some of the resumes ofr cover letters. At one time I actually was keeping them with the intention of publishing them (names ommitted) in the future.

[Shiny Side Up]

CPL's are convinced they have them.

Right on the mark at the heart of this. Few CPL candidates feel that they need to improve their basic flying skills... though oddly enough that's what the flight test focuses on. They want to be on to stuff like, well, mad GPS skillz. Like I said there needs to be a shift in the current mentality - both in the instructors and the student/customer base.

As to the resume. I have read some really bizarre ones, but never that preference.
I assume the canidate had several thousand hours of turbine time to include that.

Oh, hell no! These were usually sub thousand hour pilots, and a few fresh CPL owners. Suprised you hadn't seen that one, there were (and probably still are) a few schools who's graduates were notorious for handing out these types of resumes.

Anyhow, I guess we've tortured this thread enough.

[rob-air]

Ok.....lets not fool ourselves..to be a pilot you dont need to be good at Math. The most chalenging math problems any pilot will face are high school level math.
As far as understanding the science and Mathematics beihind the G.P.S to use one thats is overkilling it.
The G.P.S is a bit more complex than Trigonometry. I think you guys are being hard on the low timers....And yes I am one....Saying that we sould manage fuel like an experience bush pilot....come on we get out of school with 200 hrs of flying over civilized ground. Reading your posts it seems like you old dogs were born with thousands of hrs. I do agree that some young pups lack a bit of basic knowlege and are going straight to some more ''advanced stuff'' but how can you blame them they think all there is to piston mono is going in and out of the training area and most instructors are saying that 150s and 172s are shitty airplanes but turbines are cool and all.

[Shiny Side Up]

Ok.....lets not fool ourselves..to be a pilot you dont need to be good at Math. The most chalenging math problems any pilot will face are high school level math.

Maybe I'm overstating the level of math capability we're talking about here. If most of the students actually had high school level math, we wouldn't have a problem.

[rob-air]

Right on the mark at the heart of this. Few CPL candidates feel that they need to improve their basic flying skills... though oddly enough that's what the flight test focuses on. They want to be on to stuff like, well, mad GPS skillz. Like I said there needs to be a shift in the current mentality - both in the instructors and the student/customer base

´

Well thats it, for as long as instructing is at the botom of the pyramid, Instrructor with poor flying skills will keep on forming CPL with poor flying skills. Here is the ultimate advice to new commercial students....Find yourself a career class 1 instructor to do your CPL, I know this can be really hard, but you would not be wasting your money on a class 3 showing you canyon turns slowed down with flaps and skidding to get arround...true story

[Cat Driver]

.Find yourself a career class 1 instructor to do your CPL,

Even if this career class 1 has never worked in any flying job outside of instructing?

[gaamin]

it is already being incorporated in the IFR flight test

For some reason it still isn't mandatory.

Some ideas for any pilot, not just commercial students :
- never settle for what you can do, push yourself to improve your skills and knowledge, always be up for a challenge
- don't be in a rush, otherwise you will waste your time
- fly a glider, they're good for attitude, for practical weather, for your feet, among other things
- fly a taildragger
- learn your aircraft, get exposed to its limits by a skilled pilot
- fly aerobatics
- don't push the weather, but learn how to fly with some weather
- the only gauges you really need are your fuel and engine ones, don't chase needles

[rob-air]

Even if this career class 1 has never worked in any flying job outside of instructing?

Good point. But most likely they will.

[Cat Driver]

Good point. But most likely they will.

From my experience in aviation there are few pilots who go back to flying for a flight school once they have been flying in the industry for a number of years mostly because the pay is so low at flight schools.