Increasing Standards

RotorAndWing said:
......
Another lacking area is standardization among CFI's.
Click to expand...

MAN! and I was starting to like you R&W :lol:

Because standardization has worked wonders in our public school system, just ask any teacher :nono:

We have all the standardization we need, the PTS

The deal is a few things should be added, like bringing spins back.
I said earlier on this thread the student should not be allowed to train with a moving maps GPS or any other type of "screened" device, if they want use them after they get their ticket thats fine, but not until then.

Heck I used to send my guys off in non-gyro-ed 7ECAs all the time.Just a chart and their nav logs, guess what... the ALL made it back and are ALL (minus one) gainfully employed pro pilots right now.

They were also taught spins, tailwind landings, grass and dirt landings, wing overs and spiral to lands, even made sure they got a few tenths of real VMC into IMC time before their check ride.
 
The business trips aren't the ones that cause the problems. More family members than business associates are killed each year, and by a huge margin.
If you think differently, scan the far right column in the NTSB fatals.

Dean V said:
Now the next question is why? Better technology, FAA initiatives, insurance standards, better training, less pilots flying single engine planes on business trips, removing the drunks, all the above?
Click to expand...
 
NineThreeKilo said:
MAN! and I was starting to like you R&W :lol:

Because standardization has worked wonders in our public school system, just ask any teacher :nono:

We have all the standardization we need, the PTS

The deal is a few things should be added, like bringing spins back.
I said earlier on this thread the student should not be allowed to train with a moving maps GPS or any other type of "screened" device, if they want use them after they get their ticket thats fine, but not until then.

Heck I used to send my guys off in non-gyro-ed 7ECAs all the time.Just a chart and their nav logs, guess what... the ALL made it back and are ALL (minus one) gainfully employed pro pilots right now.

They were also taught spins, tailwind landings, grass and dirt landings, wing overs and spiral to lands, even made sure they got a few tenths of real VMC into IMC time before their check ride.
Click to expand...


Sorry to disappoint you with the truth, but it is what it is.

The lack of standardization among the CFI community is appalling. I've seen CFI's that don't like teaching stalls, won't fly without a GPS, won't land at non towered airports, etc, etc. Some spend enormous amount of time teaching technology while skipping over basic airmanship.

One reason the professional pilots in the airline industry have lower accident rates is standardization. If we standardized our CFI's and they teach that way the accident rates would drop. How many CFI's have you seen that will sign off a BFR without actually doing anything that amounts to what a true BFR should be. More than I'm willing to count.

Sorry, "tough love". Sometimes the truth hurts.
 
NineThreeKilo said:
MAN! and I was starting to like you R&W :lol:

Because standardization has worked wonders in our public school system, just ask any teacher :nono:

We have all the standardization we need, the PTS

.
Click to expand...

Negative. We have NO standardization. None among FSDO's, none among training centers, none among crews fiying similar equipment, none among flight schools, none among CFI's and none among pilots.
 
How does taking a theosaurus to the pts standardize anything? How would you standardize cfis? One central gov run cfi training center? The problem is carnage acceptance, blood soaked twisted metal is down, but it isn't enough. What is the acceptable ga death and destruction rate? With accidents and moreso airplanes going derelict the ga fleet is declining, just give ga 15 years there won't be anything left to fly.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA, NTSB and AOPA ASF have a large stack of statistics which completely disagree with your statement. For example, over the last 20 years, the total GA accident rate per 100,000 flight hours has dropped from 8.5 to 6.5, and the fatal GA accident rate has dropped from 1.8 to 1.2. If you have statistics to support your statement, I'd love to see them.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is statistically way better than I thought it would be.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd agree with this. Not enough time is spent on teaching students what kills pilots just like them. Of course, many folks will rationalize themselves out of it, but I think that this is a part of the syllbus that's missing and should be there.

The other part being a flight review system that works a bit more effectively.
Click to expand...

+1

Due to an excess of interest and a deficit of cash, I spent several years as an AVID reader in college before I could afford to get my license. I had over 4 years of I Learned About Flying From That and Aftermath before I ever took a lesson. Learning all the ways a plane can kill you (or how you can kill yourself using a plane is maybe a better way of saying it) definitely had a major impact on my approach to flying.

As someone else said above, I think a careful and formal review of the top hitters should be a part of the curriculum. I got it simply by accident and am very happy I did.
 
RotorAndWing said:
...
How many CFI's have you seen that will sign off a BFR without actually doing anything that amounts to what a true BFR should be. More than I'm willing to count.
...
Click to expand...

I'm usually pretty sensitive about this. I pay my money and I expect to be challenged and to learn, not to take a few laps and get a signature. That said, back in 2003 I had moved to a new city immediately before my BFR was due. I went to local FBO and they arranged the BFR. My instructor was 10 years younger than me and had at least a hundred fewer hours. My hours were spread over quite a few years so I thought, what the heck lets see. It was a really pleasurable time. She was a lot younger, absolutely gorgeous and refused to wear the shoulder belt. I'm fairly dense at times and at first thought it was a test of some sort.

Me: "Please buckle up."
Her: hooks up lap belt
Me: "No, you need the shoulder belt too ... it's back behind the seat."
Her: "No, I don't use the shoulder belt."
Me: pondering, is this a test or something, "No, you really need it to avoid head impact if anything happens."
Her: "No, I don't use the shoulder belt."
Me: glance over at her in confusion, glance down and realize that she is extremely well endowed but hides it with a baggy shirt ... "Uh, okay".

The BFR was useless, but she was really pleasant company. She was putting in hours towards the big league. Since then though, I've pondered the situation and realized I caved. Now, yon't follow my safety rules, you don't get to fly in the plane with me. So, I did learn at least at least something of value from that particular BFR.
 
bbchien said:
What I think is that we need to mandate teaching of the accident database. All mgmt. tools and ADM done in an informational vacuum are exercises in futility.

PTS Standard: Knowledge of the ten most common root causes of accidents.

DPE guide:
Applicant can adequately cite examples of root pilot failures in six of the ten types.
Click to expand...

I agree with ya 100%
 
NineThreeKilo said:
I said earlier on this thread the student should not be allowed to train with a moving maps GPS or any other type of "screened" device, if they want use them after they get their ticket thats fine, but not until then.
Click to expand...

Disagree for a variety of reasons, one of which is that there simply will not be the equipment in the future to conduct said instruction. There are very few new planes made without glass. Chances are, the trainee of today will be flying behind glass in the future.

The use of the technology is an important part of instruction. Among other reasons, too many folks get distracted by the toys. Integrating it into instruction early is important. Otherwise, might as well make all pilots learn instruments on a radio range & ADF since that requires more math and more attention.

RotorAndWing said:
Agreed. This is the root cause.
Click to expand...

Show me how that conclusion was reached. It is not, by any means, THE root cause. It might be a contributing factor, but it's no root cause. One could point to video games as a contributing factor as a death or wreck need only hit the "reset" button to fix it. Not so in real life.

Until and unless you standardize every piece of equipment in the training fleet, nationwide, "standardization" is ****ing in the wind. Airlines standardize equipment (including sims). Such standardization is nigh on impossible in the training/rental/owned general aviation fleet. Much as I love to fly a PCATD, it isn't even close to the configuration in the plane I own.

There's an element of personal responsibility/accountability here: a good pilot should seek out CFIs that challenge them, and situations that challenge them. It's why I like to fly a PCATD or Frasca periodically since it's easier to do partial panel or unusual failures there w/less risk. But it's not the same as flying a plane.

I'd second Bruce's suggestion that study of failures (NTSB accident data) is important.
 
It's already well-known that there won't be many pilots left to fly them, so it might might maintain equilibrium until the last guy (or probably gal since they live longer) leaves the room and turns out the lights.

ClimbnSink said:
How does taking a theosaurus to the pts standardize anything? How would you standardize cfis? One central gov run cfi training center? The problem is carnage acceptance, blood soaked twisted metal is down, but it isn't enough. What is the acceptable ga death and destruction rate? With accidents and moreso airplanes going derelict the ga fleet is declining, just give ga 15 years there won't be anything left to fly.
Click to expand...
 
Read the thread and others on the subject. How many posts contain opinions about how and what should be taught that differ from the current PTS standards? Should everybody just teach it like they think it should be taught?

The threads about the 172 collision with a car raised the issue of no-flap landings being SOP with the flight school operator because of some half-ass theory held by somebody in management about go-arounds or some such. Is that the way it should be?

bartmc said:
Root cause of what? You guys are arguing in a circle based on your premise that standardization is going to fix something.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As far as what's an acceptable death rate for GA, the answer is "We're not there." Certainly not as long as people are running out of fuel and having such basic failures as refusing to maintain airspeed on final.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Return the xc to the pre gps 300 miles and bring spins back...
Click to expand...

We aren't allowed to use GPS at my school for XC.


We can use VORs though (without DME) but only in combination with charts and pilotage/dead reckoning.
 
wabower said:
Don't we already know them?
Click to expand...

I am sure you do. But if they are known to everyone, what is the point of Bruce's recomendation? Also, what about the student pilot who comes here looking for information who may not know?
 
The FAA, NTSB and AOPA ASF have a large stack of statistics which completely disagree with your statement. For example, over the last 20 years, the total GA accident rate per 100,000 flight hours has dropped from 8.5 to 6.5, and the fatal GA accident rate has dropped from 1.8 to 1.2. If you have statistics to support your statement, I'd love to see them.
Click to expand...

I wonder if there is a stat for fatal accidents in cars per mile driven. I'm guessing 100,000 flight hours is something like 15,000,000 million miles flown.

Edit: The auto fatal rate is 1.5 per 100,000,000
 
JeffDG said:
The Navy tried that:
http://goo.gl/DZvtS
Click to expand...

HAHA! Awesome. Love their instruction notes: "Needs practice ejecting.":rofl::rofl:

angels_clip_redo_jpg_600x1000_q85.jpg
 
steingar said:
The FAA, as usual, utterly disregards its own data. Hardly a surprise.

If ad initio training were insufficient newly minted pilots would by falling out of the skies. The fact that they aren't would suggest that the training within the PTS standards is sufficient to produce safe pilots, and it is recurrent training that needs the boost. Given that the requirement is a mere hour every two years, clearly there is room for improvement.
Click to expand...


I know it's rare, but I agree with Steingar on this one! :D

Rather than revamp the initial training, which I think is pretty comprehensive, I think there needs to be more recognition of experience levels and set the review standards based on some related criteria.

For instance, maybe we should have a six month follow-up review after getting a license. This would be a good time to see if any post-checkride bad habits have been forming. The CFI could review their logbook and discuss some of the flights they'd made and talk about any issues that may arise.

Perhaps the Flight Review should be required annually until 500 hours of experience is obtained?

Ultimately, we need to get more people into aviation rather than create more roadblocks to entry. But I think we could do better on the follow-up, on-going education components as new airmen build their experience.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
As far as what's an acceptable death rate for GA, the answer is "We're not there." Certainly not as long as people are running out of fuel and having such basic failures as refusing to maintain airspeed on final.
Click to expand...

We've always had those, we have less of them now. And if we didn't tolerate the carnage then we wouldn't be as far along as we are now. Stopping people from killing themselves stops progress. Small sacrifices must be made, as the man said.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
As far as what's an acceptable death rate for GA, the answer is "We're not there." Certainly not as long as people are running out of fuel and having such basic failures as refusing to maintain airspeed on final.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't we apply this logic then to all aspects of private transportation? How many people get killed on the highways by perfectly preventable accidents? It's in the thousands I'm sure. Can you imagine the hue and cry and vicious political backlash that would happen if the USDOT started mandating more driver training for people?

What is the "acceptable death rate" from the govt? Well, if we go by their past actions on this kind of stuff, it is zero. The regulations and controls on personal risk will be managed to the acceptable level. If that means that no one gets to fly ever again, so be it.

Fatality rate for GA in North Korea:
2013 - 0
2012 - 0
2011 - 0
2010 - 0
....

See, they have a perfect record!
 
wabower said:
Negative. We have NO standardization. None among FSDO's, none among training centers, none among crews fiying similar equipment, none among flight schools, none among CFI's and none among pilots.
Click to expand...

Teach to the PTS.. whats that called again? Practical Test Stan...
 
How about the guy who owns and flies a 340 but shows up for his FR in a 150? Anything fishy about that deal?

LDJones said:
I know it's rare, but I agree with Steingar on this one! :D

Rather than revamp the initial training, which I think is pretty comprehensive, I think there needs to be more recognition of experience levels and set the review standards based on some related criteria.

For instance, maybe we should have a six month follow-up review after getting a license. This would be a good time to see if any post-checkride bad habits have been forming. The CFI could review their logbook and discuss some of the flights they'd made and talk about any issues that may arise.

Perhaps the Flight Review should be required annually until 500 hours of experience is obtained?

Ultimately, we need to get more people into aviation rather than create more roadblocks to entry. But I think we could do better on the follow-up, on-going education components as new airmen build their experience.
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
As far as what's an acceptable death rate for GA, the answer is "We're not there." Certainly not as long as people are running out of fuel and having such basic failures as refusing to maintain airspeed on final.
Click to expand...

I suspect if one could rationalize similar rates of fatal accidents between light aircraft and automotive transport that the battle would be won. The problem is simply that you can't. Light aircraft are far more dangerous and are likely to remain so. Too damn many ways to ball it up.
 
Somehow "she lost control of her car" seems to be much more accepted and not nearly as newsworthy as "the crash was attributed to pilot error."

steingar said:
I suspect if one could rationalize similar rates of fatal accidents between light aircraft and automotive transport that the battle would be won. The problem is simply that you can't. Light aircraft are far more dangerous and are likely to remain so. Too damn many ways to ball it up.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Somehow "she lost control of her car" seems to be much more accepted and not nearly as newsworthy as "the crash was attributed to pilot error."
Click to expand...

Easier to loose control of an airplane, there's a third dimension involved.
 
wabower said:
How about the guy who owns and flies a 340 but shows up for his FR in a 150? Anything fishy about that deal?
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, Wayne. I think you review the logbook and decide what the most appropriate type in which the review should be conducted.
 
wabower said:
Somehow "she lost control of her car" seems to be much more accepted and not nearly as newsworthy as "the crash was attributed to pilot error."
Click to expand...

Maybe we need to develop a system where drivers can file a "Drive Plan" before going out on the roads. Then the reporters could at least add the line, "No drive plan was filed" to their breathless reporting of an accident.
 
ClimbnSink said:
We've always had those, we have less of them now. And if we didn't tolerate the carnage then we wouldn't be as far along as we are now. Stopping people from killing themselves stops progress. Small sacrifices must be made, as the man said.
Click to expand...

When the same group is dying for the same reasons and is advocating doing nothing to combat it when all of their peers are improving, how is that progress?

docmirror said:
Shouldn't we apply this logic then to all aspects of private transportation? How many people get killed on the highways by perfectly preventable accidents? It's in the thousands I'm sure. Can you imagine the hue and cry and vicious political backlash that would happen if the USDOT started mandating more driver training for people?
Click to expand...

Driving is another area where people are grossly undertrained and lack basic skills.

Here's the difference:

-The death rates for cars are still much lower than planes
-It's easier to design a car that will save you upon impact
-Required inputs in cars for standard maneuvers require minimal finesse and practice. Required inputs in planes for standard maneuvers (think crosswind landings) require finesse and practice.

Flying requires a much more active participation and also requires far more speed to work. The BRS is the closest we have to the aviation equivalent of what airbags were for cars (yes I know planes can have airbags now), but with the average age of the GA fleet being older than me, it'll take a while to penetrate the market.

But I do think Steingar is right. If we got the rates at least closer to automotive, then people would be more accepting. Or if the media would just shut up about it.
 
Bruce, if you wanted to grace us with a "What kills people" thread, I think it would be beneficial.
 
docmirror said:
Shouldn't we apply this logic then to all aspects of private transportation? How many people get killed on the highways by perfectly preventable accidents? It's in the thousands I'm sure. Can you imagine the hue and cry and vicious political backlash that would happen if the USDOT started mandating more driver training for people?

What is the "acceptable death rate" from the govt? Well, if we go by their past actions on this kind of stuff, it is zero. The regulations and controls on personal risk will be managed to the acceptable level. If that means that no one gets to fly ever again, so be it.

Fatality rate for GA in North Korea:
2013 - 0
2012 - 0
2011 - 0
2010 - 0
....

See, they have a perfect record!
Click to expand...

I've been noticing this overly risk-averse mentality slowly creeping in to the lexicon of our culture seemingly everywhere. Most recently with the tornados in Oklahoma and the outrage over the "lack of protection" the kids in the schools had.

To quote my friend who lives there: "When you can build a 800sq ft room that can withstand a 6000lb truck hitting it at more than a hundred miles an hour, I'll listen to your opinions about Oklahoma construction standards."
 
iflyforfun said:
I'm usually pretty sensitive about this. I pay my money and I expect to be challenged and to learn, not to take a few laps and get a signature. That said, back in 2003 I had moved to a new city immediately before my BFR was due. I went to local FBO and they arranged the BFR. My instructor was 10 years younger than me and had at least a hundred fewer hours. My hours were spread over quite a few years so I thought, what the heck lets see. It was a really pleasurable time. She was a lot younger, absolutely gorgeous and refused to wear the shoulder belt. I'm fairly dense at times and at first thought it was a test of some sort.

Me: "Please buckle up."
Her: hooks up lap belt
Me: "No, you need the shoulder belt too ... it's back behind the seat."
Her: "No, I don't use the shoulder belt."
Me: pondering, is this a test or something, "No, you really need it to avoid head impact if anything happens."
Her: "No, I don't use the shoulder belt."
Me: glance over at her in confusion, glance down and realize that she is extremely well endowed but hides it with a baggy shirt ... "Uh, okay".

The BFR was useless, but she was really pleasant company. She was putting in hours towards the big league. Since then though, I've pondered the situation and realized I caved. Now, yon't follow my safety rules, you don't get to fly in the plane with me. So, I did learn at least at least something of value from that particular BFR.
Click to expand...

I've observed more then one female pilot that refuses to wear shoulder belts. I don't think it has anything to do with being well-endowed. It usually just comes down to them being small and not being able to reach things in some airplanes with a shoulder belt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top