Increasing Standards

[MultiMediaWill]

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.

It usually has to do with breast implants. Women with breast implants do not like using seatbelts.

 

[JeffDG]

The answer is "Six Sigma"

What kind of monster are you that you're willing to accept 0.3% failure rate. I demand a Twelve Sigma approach (1 in 506,797,345)

 

[ClimbnSink]

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?

The reasons are not going to change and the rate is not going to change. You have two choices: Accept the carnage, or stop GA. Well there is a third variation: Slow boil stopping GA while cloaked in big words.
North Korea's GA safety record is admirable, they must love their children more then we love ours.

 

[Jaybird180]

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.

What if the pilot filed a plan? Do they put CRASH as the last line?

 

[JeffDG]

What if the pilot filed a plan? Do they put CRASH as the last line?

Well, you could file for the Lat/Long of your intended crash site, otherwise you've filed a false flight plan!

 

[dell30rb]

Bruce, if you wanted to grace us with a "What kills people" thread, I think it would be beneficial.

Not a bad idea.. I remember his article in AOPA

I also submitted a comment via the original link

 

[Ted]

The reasons are not going to change and the rate is not going to change. You have two choices: Accept the carnage, or stop GA. Well there is a third variation: Slow boil stopping GA while cloaked in big words.
North Korea's GA safety record is admirable, they must love their children more then we love ours.

None of that is based in fact. While I don't expect the reasons to change, the numbers should. Every other segment of aviation has been improving. Are we that incapable of learning?

 

[Jaybird180]

None of that is based in fact. While I don't expect the reasons to change, the numbers should. Every other segment of aviation has been improving. Are we that incapable of learning?

Dead people never learn

 

[e.pie]

What if the pilot filed a plan? Do they put CRASH as the last line?

I will have to remember this and edit my paper flight plan if I am ever in the unfortunate situation of an engine out emergency landing where I have some time to kill before someone shows up.


Have to keep to the flight plan you know.

 

[ClimbnSink]

None of that is based in fact. While I don't expect the reasons to change, the numbers should. Every other segment of aviation has been improving. Are we that incapable of learning?

What other segments of aviation? Airlines, sure, we can have airline safety in GA. It only costs money and freedom. GA with airline safety is simple, train all pilots to ATP standards and clear all flights with a dispatcher. Actually forget the extra training. Simply add a central dispatch authority over GA. No one flies without going over their route/weather/fuel status and getting permission from the central bureaucrats of GA safety. We can all be safe like student pilots.

 

[Ted]

What other segments of aviation? Airlines, sure, we can have airline safety in GA. It only costs money and freedom. GA with airline safety is simple, train all pilots to ATP standards and clear all flights with a dispatcher. Actually forget the extra training. Simply add a central dispatch authority over GA. No one flies without going over their route/weather/fuel status and getting permission from the central bureaucrats of GA safety. We can all be safe like student pilots.

Airlines all the way down to piston Part 135 are seeing improvements in sanety. If our 135 brethren flyiing the same planes we are with surprisingly similar rules from a practical flying perspective...

It's rather obvious you believe we're at the peak of all that is reasonably possible without turning things into a socialist regime. I would argue that it's quite possible to make meaningful impacts without increasing cost to pilots. But hey, if your preference is to run out of fuel and fly into a mountain, go for it. I honestly don't care if people who don't care kill themselves, other than the fact that people continuing to do so will result in society fighting to ban GA. What I do care about is not helping those who would listen to make better decisions.

 

[ClimbnSink]

What do the airlines and 135 have in common? Lack of pilot autonomy. You can't get the safety you want with the freedom you have. Choose one.

Airlines all the way down to piston Part 135 are seeing improvements in sanety. If our 135 brethren flyiing the same planes we are with surprisingly similar rules from a practical flying perspective...

It's rather obvious you believe we're at the peak of all that is reasonably possible without turning things into a socialist regime. I would argue that it's quite possible to make meaningful impacts without increasing cost to pilots. But hey, if your preference is to run out of fuel and fly into a mountain, go for it. I honestly don't care if people who don't care kill themselves, other than the fact that people continuing to do so will result in society fighting to ban GA. What I do care about is not helping those who would listen to make better decisions.

 

[TommyG]

I think we should lower standards to allow for more people to want to become pilots. I have personally talked to hundreds of people who would try and become pilots if the rules and regulations were less strict.

People I have met dont mind the rules, they are turned off by the money it costs to get a ppl.

 

[PPC1052]

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.

Also, if they have a short torso, the seat belt can run across their neck, rather than rest on their shoulder. It's uncomfortable because the edge of the belt rubs and chafes the skin on their neck, and the neck isn't exactly where you want to apply the force in an accident to restrain the body's forward movement.

 

[signu127]

Bruce, if you wanted to grace us with a "What kills people" thread, I think it would be beneficial.

Is this going to happen? I would like to read it!

 

[Ted]

Is this going to happen? I would like to read it!

Doubly so if Wayne also participates.

 

[poadeleted21]

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?

Seems the PTS should sort that out after sending a "no flap'er" or two in for the checkride? Doesn't the DPE discuss any issues the student had post checkride?

I only remember a CFI telling me one thing that the DPE was going to expect me to do that he didn't teach religiously. That was to dog leg my flight path after a go around.

 

[bbchien]

....That said, over the last couple decades standards have been "raised' several times and have had no effect. Since adding a Flight review requirement, requirements for tail wheel, high performance, and complex endorsements there has been no reduction in accidents. None at all.

Never mind the facts! Just reinforces to the feds that we don't know squat....Love it. Not.

........Still waiting for the exemption, I guess.....
And I wonder why the loudest ones are usually the least informed ones.....

 

[wabower]

It's no mystery. Go teach sim at a 142 to see it in action. Those who ***** the most are those who fly the worst.

Never mind the facts! Just reinforces to the feds that we don't know squat....Love it. Not.

........Still waiting for the exemption, I guess.....
And I wonder why the loudest ones are usually the least informed ones.....

 

[bbchien]

I really like Kris Kortokrax's commentary:

Comment 1 - Area VIII Task A – Inadvertent IMC

In the existing PTS and in the proposed ACS, the skills contain language such as “timely cross-check and interpretation of instruments” and “establish a standard-rate turn”. This terminology is not appropriate for this task at the Private Pilot level. Chapter 16 of the Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3A) starting on page 16-13 describes the IIMC task as it pertains to a Private Pilot with no instrument rating. It does not mention scanning, cross-check and interpretation. It focuses on the attitude indicator. It also makes no mention of standard rate turns. On page 16-15, it states that “The smallest practical bank angle should be used – in any case no more than 10 degree bank angle. On page 16-16, it warns that turns should not be combined with climbs or descents. Do we really want to distract them with setting up navigation equipment, unless they have an autopilot and have engaged it?

By teaching and testing things like scanning, cross-check, interpretation and standard rate turns, we are giving students the false impression that they can handle instrument conditions.

Comment 2 – New technology

In the applicant’s checklist the applicant is given the choice to bring electronic current aeronautical charts. In Area VI, Task A – Pilotage and Dead Reckoning, mention is made of an electronic equivalent to be used in flight for comparison . . .

You have not defined what level of electronic substitution is acceptable. For instance, might an applicant arrive for the practical test with an iPad loaded with an application such as ForeFlight and when asked to perform Area I, Task D – Cross-Country Flight Planning, simply enter the departure airport, destination airport and let the computer do all the work? Or does he need to know how to unfold a chart, draw a line, measure true course, distance; compute magnetic heading, groundspeed, fuel required; and fill in a navigation log? If he brings an electronic chart, how does he draw a line and measure course and distance? If it is acceptable to allow the computer to do all the work, where do we draw the line? Would it be acceptable for an applicant to use an iPad and provide a YouTube video to explain Bernoulli and Newton? Could an applicant who has no iPad use a home computer and FltPlan.com to perform his flight planning and present it on the day of the test?

For Area VI, Task C and D, might an applicant use an iPad to perform the Diversion and Lost tasks?

If it is your intention to allow new technology, you need to spell out how it may be used and the extent to which it may or may not be used during the practical test.

He's THINKING about and reading it carefully unlike some blasting away, here.

Also look at ALPA's Dave McKenny's commentary, and that of FAA's Dennis Byrne, below:

The ACS introduction discusses mastery of knowledge as a requirement for certification. I cannot find where “mastery” of any knowledge area is a requirement for airmen certification in the CFRs.
_
Referring to an earlier comment, the purpose of FAA certification is to “validate the applicant is entry level qualified to safely manage the risks of flight…”
_
This is a certification program, NOT a training program. Therefore, periodic recertification demonstrating continuing competence would also in the best interest of both the public and general aviation.
_
To accomplish this, the content domain must be consistent with entry level prerequisite knowledge and skills as identified in the CFRs. From what we have seen these have not been defined. If accomplished, recommend they be posted with these documents for review.
_
Lack of such an exercise invalidates this ACS.
_
Considering supposed safety components from FAA certifications, not adhering to approved national standards for educational and psychological testing, as they apply to certification programs, could result in dangerous consequences.
_
We may already be experiencing this by the blatant rote-learning in conjunction with the high accident rate in general aviation. Effects of rote-learning are diminished in advanced certifications by additional training mostly administered to limit individual and industries liability.
_
This is not just industries fault, over the last few decades the government has not only allowed but has encouraged this type of behavior to become a billion dollar industry. This is against all educationally sound rational for this type of certification program.

 

[Captain]

No GPS, Spins, and data bases.

I get the premise of disallowing screen based GPS prior to certification. Teach basics first. Okay, fine. But shouldn't we be traing how we fly and fly like we're taught? If iPads are going to be used then we should train iPads. I'm not suggesting we gloss over pilotage and ground based nav to get to ForeFlight. Just saying it should be all encompassing. A student can and should be able to do both.

Spins. How many should die to bring this nostalgia back? Who's going to teach them? How many planes are going to end up in living rooms while this idea ramps up? And what's the end benefit? Better pilots? Maybe. I hated spins and I consider myself the best pilot here. Maybe I am and maybe I'm not, but liking or not liking spins doesn't enter the equation. I also promise you my present ability is barely affected by the fact that I did spin training.

Data training. Not for it. Naming last years 10 most common crash causes is just promoting more rote learning, IMO. Im sure some numonic will be made so the applicant can remember it long enough to data dump it at the oral. Instead I'd like more scenario based ground training where concepts are introduced and reinforced with the instructor,

Btw, I am for more standardization among CFIs. Not sure how to do that though. We have a system where, by and large with few exceptions, the least experienced pilots teach. Good luck changing that.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce, if you wanted to grace us with a "What kills people" thread, I think it would be beneficial.

(1) Pilot needlessly flew into other than air.....(night VMC think Superstition mountain, mid air collision, and improper IFR, Runway LOC, and “hey watch this”)
(2) Pilot expected performance wildly beyond capability of the aircraft (high density altitude, Wintertime climbout from big rocks, four in a C172 with full fuel, Baron with five up and full Fuel and uphill runway eg. St. Ignace accident, etc).
(3) Pilot was cognitively impaired (drugs, fatigue, long duty cycle).
(4) Pilot departed with known deficiency (propped the B58 and geared it up, Y***** J***** accident in Newark).
(5) Pilot was a scofflaw (no medical, out of annual, no BFR, “What-did-you-expect”).
(6) Pilot ran out of go-juice (planes fly better with go-juice).
(7) Pilot fails to request help.
(8) Pilot FAIL in icing conditions (think TMB 850 accident at MMU).
(9) Pilot did a **** poor job with the planning and failed to abort the accident chain (get-there-it is, both fuel and weather).
(10) Pilot failed to perform adequate on-ground actions

 

[poadeleted21]

Why do I find it mildly amusing that ultra pilots like us are demanding more training to get to the standards that we arrived at...by using the current system.

 

[wabower]

(1) Pilot needlessly flew into other than air.....(night VMC think Superstition mountain, mid air collision, and improper IFR, Runway LOC, and “hey watch this”)
(2) Pilot expected performance wildly beyond capability of the aircraft (high density altitude, Wintertime climbout from big rocks, four in a C172 with full fuel, Baron with five up and full Fuel and uphill runway eg. St. Ignace accident, etc).
(3) Pilot was cognitively impaired (drugs, fatigue, long duty cycle).
(4) Pilot departed with known deficiency (propped the B58 and geared it up, Y***** J***** accident in Newark).
(5) Pilot was a scofflaw (no medical, out of annual, no BFR, “What-did-you-expect”).
(6) Pilot ran out of go-juice (planes fly better with go-juice).
(7) Pilot fails to request help.
(8) Pilot FAIL in icing conditions (think TMB 850 accident at MMU).
(9) Pilot did a **** poor job with the planning and failed to abort the accident chain (get-there-it is, both fuel and weather).
(10) Pilot failed to perform adequate on-ground actions

(11) Pilots are grossly under-trained and/or incapable of operating the equipment they are flying. At least four twin accidents when engine falled after takeoff. One of them was a 337 in which the pilot forgot to start the aft engine.

(12) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The King Air ran out of fuel within 2 miles of destination because the pilot made a few cents per gallon if fuel bought at home base.

(13) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The Seneca pilot in the next hangar was a serial scud runner until the odds--and the fireball--caught up with him.

(14) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The pilot left Steamboat Springs for Houston in his 182 with family aboard, and with known weather issues over the front range. All aboard killed.

(15) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The Bonanza enroute from Dallas to a music festival in SLC stopped to refuel prior to crossing the divide in NM. After refueling he attempted to out-climb the rocks and almost made it. All dead.

 

[docmirror]

(11) Pilots are grossly under-trained and/or incapable of operating the equipment they are flying. At least four twin accidents when engine falled after takeoff. One of them was a 337 in which the pilot forgot to start the aft engine.

(12) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The King Air ran out of fuel within 2 miles of destination because the pilot made a few cents per gallon if fuel bought at home base.

(13) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The Seneca pilot in the next hangar was a serial scud runner until the odds--and the fireball--caught up with him.

(14) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The pilot left Steamboat Springs for Houston in his 182 with family aboard, and with known weather issues over the front range. All aboard killed.

(15) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The Bonanza enroute from Dallas to a music festival in SLC stopped to refuel prior to crossing the divide in NM. After refueling he attempted to out-climb the rocks and almost made it. All dead.

Excuse me but - so what? The dead are the operator, and anyone onboard. The public was not needlessly endangered although I admit they could possibly have been.

Can you legislate stupidity out of the flying public? Should you legislate stupidity out of society? Just a few months ago a seasoned pilot took off from Angel Fire in a Mooney with 4 up in 35-40Kt x-wind conditions. He was warned, by the ops manager, he was advised against by flight service, he checked, and rechecked his weather, and made his decision. All died.

None of them wanted to die, but all of them chose GA to do what they wanted to do, and made the decisions they made. Of course they could have made better decisions. Anyone can see that in hindsight, but how much oversight do you want?

This isn't about changing training, or making people more aware of potential failures, it's about living your life the way you want. Pilot want's to stretch his fuel cause he's cheap, so how are you going to fix that? Pilot knows the weather is adverse, but still launches anyway. Should the ops manager have closed the runway? Should he have that power, to shut things down because of the x-wind?

These are not rhetorical questions. If this is what you want to do to get to with the increase in regulation, count me out. I've made bad decisions too, and I've paid for them, thankfully, not with the full measure but I paid enough.

Comparing to wheeled transportation, will the feds be satisfied if we reduce the accident rate to the 135 level, like the commercial buses? NO! They will then demand we get to the ATP level, with the concomitant costs involved.

 

[wabower]

So we're not doing a very good job of training them, that's what. I know for a fact that training can change pilot behavior because I've seen it happen.

I don't pretend that it works every time, but that's neither the goal or the expectation.

Excuse me but - so what? The dead are the operator, and anyone onboard. The public was not needlessly endangered although I admit they could possibly have been.

Can you legislate stupidity out of the flying public? Should you legislate stupidity out of society? Just a few months ago a seasoned pilot took off from Angel Fire in a Mooney with 4 up in 35-40Kt x-wind conditions. He was warned, by the ops manager, he was advised against by flight service, he checked, and rechecked his weather, and made his decision. All died.

None of them wanted to die, but all of them chose GA to do what they wanted to do, and made the decisions they made. Of course they could have made better decisions. Anyone can see that in hindsight, but how much oversight do you want?

This isn't about changing training, or making people more aware of potential failures, it's about living your life the way you want. Pilot want's to stretch his fuel cause he's cheap, so how are you going to fix that? Pilot knows the weather is adverse, but still launches anyway. Should the ops manager have closed the runway? Should he have that power, to shut things down because of the x-wind?

These are not rhetorical questions. If this is what you want to do to get to with the increase in regulation, count me out. I've made bad decisions too, and I've paid for them, thankfully, not with the full measure but I paid enough.

Comparing to wheeled transportation, will the feds be satisfied if we reduce the accident rate to the 135 level, like the commercial buses? NO! They will then demand we get to the ATP level, with the concomitant costs involved.

 

[ClimbnSink]

So we're not doing a very good job of training them, that's what. I know for a fact that training can change pilot behavior because I've seen it happen.

I don't pretend that it works every time, but that's neither the goal or the expectation.

Plenty of current, experienced, continously training airline types that come to their demise in GA airplanes. The next step in GA pilot decision making is having someone else make the decisions. Will be fun to watch.

 

[wabower]

Really? Got some examples or more knee-jerk speculation?

Plenty of current, experienced, continously training airline types that come to their demise in GA airplanes. The next step in GA pilot decision making is having someone else make the decisions. Will be fun to watch.

 

[bbchien]

....Data training. Not for it. Naming last years 10 most common crash causes is just promoting more rote learning, IMO. Im sure some numonic will be made so the applicant can remember it long enough to data dump it at the oral. Instead I'd like more scenario based ground training where concepts are introduced and reinforced with the instructor...

Trouble is, the 300 hour instructor with the same 300 hours over and over can't really create a relevant scenario (no experience from which to draw). We already know what good judgment is. But we can't train it, and we can't quantify it. Nor can FAA.

But you can't have judgment without base data.

All of the efforts to teach ADM is NOT teaching judgment, either. ADM presumes the pilot perceives (say, the 5P model). But that's not judgment.

Right now we're letting Murphy do the selection. And we dare NOT allow FAA to determine who had judgment and who does not. See the very arch commentary from ALPA's rep (McKenny) posted prior.

As for:

(11) Pilots are grossly under-trained and/or incapable of operating the equipment they are flying. At least four twin accidents when engine falled after takeoff. One of them was a 337 in which the pilot forgot to start the aft engine.

(Can't fix stupid)

(12) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The King Air ran out of fuel within 2 miles of destination because the pilot made a few cents per gallon if fuel bought at home base.

Can't fix a cheapskate.

(13) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The Seneca pilot in the next hangar was a serial scud runner until the odds--and the fireball--caught up with him.

...but it worked every previous time....!

(14) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The pilot left Steamboat Springs for Houston in his 182 with family aboard, and with known weather issues over the front range. All aboard killed.

....bu....buu....buuu....but it had a glass panel!

(15) Pilots make incredibly stupid/irrational decisions. The Bonanza enroute from Dallas to a music festival in SLC stopped to refuel prior to crossing the divide in NM. After refueling he attempted to out-climb the rocks and almost made it. All dead.

Now imagine a 300 hour guy trying to come up with these scenarios?
I don't think so....the only guy in the community who usually has the breadth to make this happen is the DPE. Some CFI exceptions.

I mean, you can't hardly make this stuff up!

 

[poadeleted21]

Really? Got some examples or more knee-jerk speculation?

First three that popped into my head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Scott_Crossfield
http://www.mountainflying.com/Pages/the-author/the-author.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/mississippi-plane-crash_n_2128303.html

 

[docmirror]

Really? Got some examples or more knee-jerk speculation?

If he doesn't I do. In our lifetime:

BFR
ADS-B(out)
SP/LSA regs

The last one is kind of interesting. The FAA in a fit of pique decided to rein in the ultralight crowd because they were getting too dangerous. So, out of the UL regs they carved out the SP/LSA stuff. One can still fly a UL, solo, and have almost no regulation. But - you can't take anyone, you can't go anywhere, you can't fly over Dallas or suburbs, you can't fly at night, or for more than about an hour or so.

Then came SP/LSA. Increased regs that had the unintended consequence of helping a struggling segment of aviation. Note - it had nothing to do with benefiting GA, it had to do with restricting UL flying. It is the unintended consequence that the SP/LSA market had grown so that now the FAA is possibly going to revisit it because -- get this, it was too popular!

 

[bbchien]

IS nobody else here actually reading the commentaries? (Docket Number FAA-2013-0316)

 

[poadeleted21]

IS nobody else here actually reading the commentaries? (Docket Number FAA-2013-0316)

Sooo tell me why it is again that you think new government paperwork is going to matter?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Then came SP/LSA. Increased regs that had the unintended consequence of helping a struggling segment of aviation. Note - it had nothing to do with benefiting GA, it had to do with restricting UL flying. It is the unintended consequence that the SP/LSA market had grown so that now the FAA is possibly going to revisit it because -- get this, it was too popular!

 

[bbchien]

Sooo tell me why it is again that you think new government paperwork is going to matter?

Because if you have high detail knowledge, some very important things are being changed. I just posted three of them. But I see you can't tell the difference.

They're gonna be able to flunk you if you they don't like your thought process....you didn't bother to read the ALPA guy's comment, did you? (Hint, attachment in post #101, hint hint...)

I thought not. That's being pretty useless....
I think I'm just gonna give up on this "community". The only thing it can produce is a hilariously misinformed federal comment from the likes of jbarass..... ....get some real learning, you might see what's possible...

 

[TriGear28]

Bazaar post at best. Referring to no spins, ipads, etc. Not docs. Forgot to quote.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[poadeleted21]

Because if you have high detail knowledge, some very important things are being changed. I just posted three of them. But I see you can't tell the difference.

They're gonna be able to flunk you if you they don't like your thought process....you didn't bother to read the ALPA guy's comment, did you? (Hint, attachment in post #101, hint hint...)

I thought not. That's being pretty useless....
I think I'm just gonna give up on this "community". The only thing it can produce is a hilariously misinformed federal comment from the likes of jbarass..... ....get some real learning, you might see what's possible...

I hope you picked up on my tongue-in-cheekiness of the post. I tried to put the smiley face there, sorry if my attempt at humor wasn't to your taste.

I just don't don't see how you're going to get rid of "Hold my beer and watch this" type folks. I just posted 3 links, 2 of which were well known and regarded in the aviation community who managed to kill themselves in very uncreative ways. We all know the recipes. You can't legislate people's self preservation instinct. Well, unless you start giving DPEs the freedom to pass/fail based on the applicants thought process, even then questionable.... some folks put on a good show.

I was hoping their "change" would be replacing the RMI questions with GPS questions on the test... :wink2:

 

[TriGear28]

Because if you have high detail knowledge, some very important things are being changed. I just posted three of them. But I see you can't tell the difference.

They're gonna be able to flunk you if you they don't like your thought process....you didn't bother to read the ALPA guy's comment, did you? (Hint, attachment in post #101, hint hint...)

I thought not. That's being pretty useless....
I think I'm just gonna give up on this "community". The only thing it can produce is a hilariously misinformed federal comment from the likes of jbarass..... ....get some real learning, you might see what's possible...

Read 101 and that is a concerning prospect to be judged in subjective means for sure!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[moonshine]

I thought the FAA stopped publishing the questions a while back?

I remember ASF (I think) having interactive decision making "stories" - you start off with certain conditions of flight, then here's a development of evens and you can do the following a-b-c-or-d, here's what happens now etc branching leading you to certain results - not only "good" or "dead" but also grey areas like "ok, you made it, but only because the runway is over 5000 feet. Have it been any shorter, landing your Mooney with iced up wings and no flaps would result in you departing the runway".
No need to come up with bogus stories, NTSB is full of them. However it would still cost money to develop the scenarios and semi-decent visuals and would require a separate "practical understanding of how things are" test - with most of the test center computers being too obsolete to display any kind of picture on the screens.
That could work for decision making test - but then again, there'd be those who'd memorize the "right" sequence of choices.
Alternatively standard branched out scenarios could be a part of the checkride (oral part) with choices having "points" to arrive at "dead" or "good" or something in between.
Problem is, it would still accomplish nothing. Studying and understanding, saving your bacon in an emergency and taking a checkride for a piece of plastic are all different mindsets and are mostly unrelated.

 

[azure]

They're gonna be able to flunk you if you they don't like your thought process....you didn't bother to read the ALPA guy's comment, did you? (Hint, attachment in post #101, hint hint...)

I thought they already could. During the oral, my instrument DPE announced from the get-go that he would be using scenario-based questions to test not only my knowledge but also my thought processes. At the risk of heresy, I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing. If someone can't think clearly under pressure, or demonstrates hazardous attitudes when the stuff hits the fan, they probably shouldn't be flying in the system.