Is the number one cause of accidents/injuries low visibilty?

Wayne, I hear you. I went back and read what you have written. My question is what "specifically" do you want changed. More accountabilty is too vague. Let me ask it this way. (I no longer do any instructing so I have no dog in this hunt) Hours are approx.
Pilot A ( I will use my self) Comm, ASMEL, inst. 6900 PIC, 4500 ME, 600 inst. actual. I fly a Cheyenne IIIA with about 350 hours in make and model. Approx 100 hours per year. I do sim school each 12 months. What do you want my log book to contain over the last 5 years. I am appointing you king of the FAA and I want to know what training you want to see in my log book.

Pilot B ( I am useing a good friend) PPL, 500 hours TT. Flys and owns an RV that he built and owns and flys a Cherokee 140. Does the BFR thing. What would you want in his log book.
Be specific, how many hours of training, with who, what kind of training? What type of things would you cover on each pilots training?
 
Dan, from Waynes lack of a response, it appears he has no specific ideas.
 
Sorry to hear you were sick. A lot of bugs going on around here.
 
Now that I'm done with my working-for-a-living for today, I got caught up on this thread.

wabower said:
In either case, it's sad to see an airplane owner's eyes glaze over when given a blank piece of paper and asked to draw simple stick diagrams of the fuel and electrical systems on his fine piston single.

A recent post on another forum illustrates the point. The guy said he wanted to fly a cross-country trip but the battery was dead. So he jump-started the battery and took off. Do you think he had any idea if the battery would re-charge? Or if it should? Or if the battery relay required more voltage than the dead battery was capable of producing, would the charging circuit ever be opened?
Click to expand...

I do not agree that this should be any type of metric on how safe a pilot he is.

Very often, aviation (or stats in general) like to show a casual relationship between measurable quantities, to the disregard of non-quantifiables that do have an impact.

I am happy to see this discussion and hope that we can propose a workable solution. Perhaps it will be several things that need to change. On this point, Wayne and I agree.

Dan and I agree in a tiered requirements approach. However, I would state that the baseline may be too low. Perhaps a requirement that makes it clear to CFIs that they are mentors as well as guardians of the integrity and safety of GA, and that what they do really matters. Some have this instilled in their hearts, others need a kick in the pants.
 
Jay, you might be putting a little too much faith in CFI's. Do you really think a CFI with 300 TT is going to be much of a mentor? The CFI needs a mentor. I do not have any answers. I am not sure I even understand all of the question. It seems to me that part of the problem MIGHT be the low standards required to be a CFI or II for that matter. Just asking here. What if CFI's were required to have a minimum of cross country and night hours. Perhaps 1000 TT, with 750 PIC, maybe 250 Xcountry. If our CFI's were more experienced could they be better mentors and perhaps teach judgement a little better. A CFII with no actual? Many CFI's get the rating to just build time and have no interest in being a professional instructor. This is one reason I think standardized training has a place. Most of my sim instructors have been multi thousand hour pilots that have retired or perhaps had a medical issue. Just asking asking questions.
 
I only expect maturity and for the CFI to know more about aviation and to provide a learning environment with a high degree of confidence that I will go home afterward. Not too much to ask.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I only expect maturity and for the CFI to know more about aviation and to provide a learning environment with a high degree of confidence that I will go home afterward. Not too much to ask.
Click to expand...


No it's not, and there are thousands of them out there...

I put more faith in individual scruples than government mandates.
 
This is what is confusing to me. I think Wayne wants more training on a regular basis. He seems to favor the standardized training. BTW, standardize does not mean government. The market place will sort the good from the bad.
Jay, you seem happy with the 300 hour CFI as long as he is mature and won't let you kill yourself in the plane.
Dan, I just don't understand what your ideals are. Jay, Dan do you think the quality of initial instruction is adaquate? How about the more experienced pilot. I gave two pilot examples and welcome anybody to simply tell me what would be their ideal for either or both pilots.
Is the complaint that the new pilot has not be trained well enough. If not what changes do you want to see. What changes in recurrent training?
For the more experienced pilot, do you really think the 300 hour 19 year old instructor building time for the commuter job is going to give the 8000 hour corporate pilot much quality mentoring? What do you want for this pilots recurrent training? Even add a third pilot. Private pilot with IR, flys a Bonanza for his own use. Logs about 150 hours per year. Has 1000 TT. What do you want his recurrent to look like? Anyone?
I am just trying to flesh out some specific changes needed for each type of pilot.
 
ronnieh said:
This is what is confusing to me. I think Wayne wants more training on a regular basis. He seems to favor the standardized training. BTW, standardize does not mean government. The market place will sort the good from the bad.
Jay, you seem happy with the 300 hour CFI as long as he is mature and won't let you kill yourself in the plane.
Dan, I just don't understand what your ideals are. Jay, Dan do you think the quality of initial instruction is adaquate? How about the more experienced pilot. I gave two pilot examples and welcome anybody to simply tell me what would be their ideal for either or both pilots.
Is the complaint that the new pilot has not be trained well enough. If not what changes do you want to see. What changes in recurrent training?
For the more experienced pilot, do you really think the 300 hour 19 year old instructor building time for the commuter job is going to give the 8000 hour corporate pilot much quality mentoring? What do you want for this pilots recurrent training? Even add a third pilot. Private pilot with IR, flys a Bonanza for his own use. Logs about 150 hours per year. Has 1000 TT. What do you want his recurrent to look like? Anyone?
I am just trying to flesh out some specific changes needed for each type of pilot.
Click to expand...

Ronnie- Why are you stuck on TT as a yardstick? TT<>maturity, nor it is a guarantee of experience. I will agree that it is not likely that a 19yo CFI has the maturity of a 40yo CFI, but I don't go to either for life experience, nor do I ask my plumber about my dental work.

I expect anyone who is a CFI (since I am not) to know more about flying than I do (or to at least not BS me when they cannot answer a question) considering they have more time and money invested into aviation than I, and have been stamped APPROVED (certificated as a commercial pilot and flight instructor).
 
ronnieh said:
This is what is confusing to me. I think Wayne wants more training on a regular basis. He seems to favor the standardized training. BTW, standardize does not mean government. The market place will sort the good from the bad.
Jay, you seem happy with the 300 hour CFI as long as he is mature and won't let you kill yourself in the plane.
Dan, I just don't understand what your ideals are. Jay, Dan do you think the quality of initial instruction is adaquate? How about the more experienced pilot. I gave two pilot examples and welcome anybody to simply tell me what would be their ideal for either or both pilots.
Is the complaint that the new pilot has not be trained well enough. If not what changes do you want to see. What changes in recurrent training?
For the more experienced pilot, do you really think the 300 hour 19 year old instructor building time for the commuter job is going to give the 8000 hour corporate pilot much quality mentoring? What do you want for this pilots recurrent training? Even add a third pilot. Private pilot with IR, flys a Bonanza for his own use. Logs about 150 hours per year. Has 1000 TT. What do you want his recurrent to look like? Anyone?
I am just trying to flesh out some specific changes needed for each type of pilot.
Click to expand...


My recommendation is for more frequent recurrent training for pilots in the first 500 hours.

The data suggest that pilots are most apt to do dumb things between 150 and 350 hours (see The Killing Zone for more on this). Looking back on my own history, this makes sense. You know enough to push, but not enough to realize all the potential outcomes. You also have time away from the restrictions of the training environment, have "gotten away" with some bad habits, omissions several times, and start to think, "This flying thing is easy -- why all that safety worry?"

I am NOT in favor of mandatory recurrent training at national centers (such as Flight Safety) since those facilities cannot address every type of flying we do in GA. In addition, mandates tend to skew pricing, and soon only the few will fly.

In addition, I do not believe any program, regulation, training, certification, whatever will eliminate fatal accidents.

I do think there are some changes we can make to the flight training pipeline that can alter the overall accident rate, but I'm also realistic enough to know that wholesale changes may be the last straw for a GA industry that is teetering on the edge of existence.

Requiring 1500TT for a CFI initial would be in a "stake in the heart" type of change.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I expect anyone who is a CFI (since I am not) to know more about flying than I do (or to at least not BS me when they cannot answer a question) considering they have more time and money invested into aviation than I, and have been stamped APPROVED (certificated as a commercial pilot and flight instructor).
Click to expand...
You might expect that but I would be careful about counting on it.

I'm also of the opinion that it doesn't have anything to do with age. It does have something to do with experience but only recent, relevant experience. I'll use myself as an example. In a nutshell, I flew pistons singles and a twin for work for about 15 years then switched overnight to turboprops and business jets for 12 years. I also have a CFI and a helicopter add-on. I'm legal to go out and fly solo in a helicopter today but I would kill myself as it's been about 13 years and I only had about 125 hours to begin with. I also have been humbled enough in small airplanes over the past few years to know that it would take me a little while to get up to speed in them, let alone instruct in them. I would be far more comfortable instructing in the Sovereign. You occasionally hear of accidents where some professional pilot crashes in bad weather in a small airplane. I can see this happening because they may be subconsciously thinking that their recreational airplane is as capable as their work airplane which it normally isn't.

There isn't a one-size-fits all initial or recurrent training program that would work for everyone. However, if you look at the Part 135 Airman Competency form I posted you can see how it might apply to airplanes of all sizes. There is a block for "judgment" but I think it's pretty hard to judge real-life judgment on a checkride, besides which I don't think it's a constant thing. Some days we have better judgment than others. I'm not sure what Wayne is advocating. I don't think simulator training is necessary for singles. I can see how it is helpful for twins. My Cessna 320 training, done in the airplane, was pretty sketchy, especially since the CFI had never flown a 320 before. I think he was a surprised as I was at its lack of performance on one engine. It only reinforced my decision to treat it like a single if the engine ever failed right after takeoff. The first time I went to sim training was King Air 200 initial which was probably the most intense and difficult learning experience I have had. I already had 2,000+ hours in twins although only .5 or so in a King Air or any other turbine. Therefore, I can see what Wayne is saying about ad-hoc training which is how I had learned up to then compared to a real professional simulator school.
 
Last edited:
Jay, you may not look at experience (TT) as important but most do. I don't want somebody fresh out of dental school doing my denistry either. The amount of experience and type of experience means everything to me. If I am going to put my family in a plane I damn well do not want a 300 hour pilot calling the shots. That is just me. Though I am getting up in years I still partially remember how little I knew at 400 hours and a CFI-MEI.
Dan, actually we agree on the most part. If sim training were required for all advanced ratings there would be no pilots. Increasing the creditials for CFI's, I don't know. Maybe different classes of CFI. DPE's have different ratings they can check for. Maybe a certain level can teach primary. Perhaps the next level for high performance complex. Maybe another level for the ME. I just know that unlike Jay, I do not believe you can teach above your knowledge level. More recurrent training for pilots under 500 hours. Not a bad idea. Who does this training? Again the CFI that has spent 300 hours flying around the pattern in a 150? He is suppose to mentor the 450 hour IR pilot flying his Cessna 210?
Guys, I am making no suggestions. People want to scream how GA needs to be made safer. OK, how? I wish it could be made safer. If you are going to put instructors in charge of sub 500 hour pilots, you might want to take a close look at the instructor pool.
Just to set the record straight I do not have it in for instructors. I have known several professional, experienced, and very knowledgeable instructors. I am the product of a couple that come to mind. I have also known several of the 90 day wonders. It is a complicated situation. It may be that we just have to accept that flying small airplanes by inexperienced pilots cary a significant risk?
Edit: Indigo, you posted while I was typing. You hit the nail on the head. You experience and mine are quite close. Getting out of a Navajo into a Cheyenne IIIA was eye opening for me too, even though I had been to sim school on the Navajo. I have not flown a single engine plane in a couple of decades. I would not be the best person to check you out in an Arrow, even though I have several hours in one. Expereince does count. I suspect as Jay increases his hours he will someday concur.
 
Last edited:
In regards to CFI's:

To me if they have been FAA approved that is probably good enough, assuming we don't have some major personality clash and have good communication.

As someone (and I know many of you on here are in the same situation) who owns and runs good sized companies (over 120 employees) my biggest concern day in and day out is LIABILITY and you can bet in the boating world it is a HUGE concern.

I don't think anyone who is a CFI giving instruction isn't really trying to make you a safe pilot becasue it is their ass on the line. They have the potential to lose their career by teaching you to fly. A career they have most likely struggled to finance, and put years of time (sweat equity) into as well.

I also don't think that's the only reason. I think many, if not all, of them also want to see you learn to fly and do it safely.

Now I'm not saying we couldn't ALL be safer and do it better, that IMHO is a given. I just don't think the system as it is now, is fundamentally flawed as some on here do.

There have been a lot of safe pilots turned out under this system, incl. most people on this site.

My opinion only.
 
rbhankins001 said:
Now I'm not saying we couldn't ALL be safer and do it better, that IMHO is a given. I just don't think the system as it is now, is fundamentally flawed as some on here do.

There have been a lot of safe pilots turned out under this system, incl. most people on this site.

My opinion only.
Click to expand...


Yes there have, but -- as usual -- it's the 20% that we let loose that aren't safe who are causing lots of grief.

Or is it the other 80% making dumb decisions 2% of the time...?
 
Rob, with due respect, that is a large part of the problem. A new CFI may be just fine to teach a primary student how to get a primary trainer up and down with a resonable expectation of success. But, you can not teach what you don't know. There is a lot more that a low time, new CFI does not know than what they do know. What Wayne, Dan, Indigo and myself are talking about is the next step. Primary traing is pretty much "monkey see monkey do". Two or three model of aircraft do most of the training duty. However once you leave this stage then it gets more and more varied. One instructor does not fit all. Dan's concern and rightly so is how to keep pilots alive the first 500 hours.
Just because the FAA says a person is qualified to give primary instruction does not mean he has the experience and knowledge to teach beyond that. Again, read what Indigo had to say. Even with a lot of experience in general he would not want to teach helicopter even though the FAA says he is qualified. Pilots with 400 hours don't suddenly become supermen when they pass the CFI checkride. Rather they met the minimum standards to do primary instruction.
 
ronnieh said:
What Wayne, Dan, Indigo and myself are talking about is the next step. Primary traing is pretty much "monkey see monkey do".
Click to expand...


That sums it up for the first 15 hours or so, but the rest of the PP prep includes more challenging flights 9short/ soft, crosswinds, Cross country, night, hood, etc) and less and less CFI input, thereby transferring responsibility from the CFI to the new pilot.

Or at least it should.
 
Dan, there was no offense intended. But really, short field and soft field in a 150 is not monkey see, monkey do? Cross country, how far do you get away from the home airport, any chance of weather changing before you get back? Night, TO and ldg in the pattern. Primary training is not preperation for flying a 747. It is teaching a reasonably smart person how to get a primary trainer up and back down with a reasonable expectation of re useing the plane. OK, OK maybe a little bit too much kidding here but you CFI's know what I am talking about. Again not all CFI's are equal. Many do take their role seriously. But, as I keep saying you can not teach what you don't know.
 
Ronnie- Agree that you cannot teach what you do not know (as I have no idea where you get the impression I was saying otherwise).

I do understand the merit of experience, but it is not the SOLE measure of quality of instruction.

I learned a lesson recently (and I had to learn this twice)- it is advisable to always have earned the confidence of AT LEAST 2 instructors before flying solo. Solves a myriad of problems for the person in my shoes or anyone transitioning to new airplanes.
 
Agree, experience teaching and experience flying would only be about 90+%. Personal atributes could account for the rest.
Any one of these CFI's the one you are talking about in post #127. What is the student to do at an airport with only one CFI?
 
Last edited:
Jay, I don't know. As I said before we may be bouncing a problem around that has no solution, it may very well be that we have to accept that low time pilots in small planes carries significant risk. A lot of activities carry risks. Take a look at aviation insurance. This is a pretty good guide as to what they think is risky and what actions they want participants to take to reduce those risks. I think this has been a good discussion. It might be well for <500 hour pilots and those instructors that have contact with them to take some of this to heart. Heck, 10,000 hour pilots would do well to consider their recurrent training.
 
ronnieh said:
do you really think the 300 hour 19 year old instructor building time for the commuter job is going to give the 8000 hour corporate pilot much quality mentoring?
Click to expand...
I'm not 19, but I'm not too far away from it.

I have quite a bit more than 300 hours but a lot less than 8000.

I have done a flight review and an IPC for a 8,000 hour corporate pilot that had been out of flying for about 5 years. He walked away learning a lot that he had forgotten about small aircraft and aviation in general. He also made follow up flights with me so he could continue to sharpen some things and recommended me highly to others. There was a lot I knew about RNAV, technology, weather products, and instrument flying in small aircraft that he did not or simply forgot.

I've discovered that total time really doesn't have a lot to do with someone's performance. He hadn't flown a small airplane in a very long time and my 30 hours students would have done a better job at it. He'd probably have better judgement and would be more capable of dealing with bad situations because of his experience (maybe) but his ability to handle the airplane was certainly nowhere near theirs.

That's just one instance of this. I regularly fly with people who continue to fly with me and appreciate what they learn that have several times the total time that I do. But I take instruction pretty seriously and put a lot of thought into it.

ronnieh said:
What is the student to do at an airport with only one CFI?
Click to expand...
Come to Nebraska and fly with me. Quite simple, really. :)
 
Last edited:
Jesse, mentoring as in helping him with his main flying. Of course if you have been flying 747's for 10 years and you want to get back into flying a 172 he did the right thing. Our point has been what about the 1000 hour IR pilot flying his 210. Does he want to be mentored by a CFI whose largest plane has been a 172 with all hours flown with in 150 miles of the airport. perhaps not. Nobody is saying that CFI's can't teach.
Again, humor me as I use myself as an example. When I started flying the IIIA I had zero time in make and model and almost no turbine time. I went to initial sim school which is all the insurance required. I asked the owner to hire a baby sitter for the first 25 hours. I did. As far as I know he was not a CFI, he had no time in a IIIA. I chose him because he had multiple thousands of rescent hours in a KA 200 and prior to that had flown freight in a piston engine. I did not need somebody to show me how to start the engines, or extend the gear. What I did need was his experience in looking at weather from FL280. I could have hired a local instructor much cheaper. Does that mean our instructors here are no good. Nope, not at all. The CFI after your name does not come with a cape and tights.
The question is recurrent training to improve the skills in the plane you are flying. There are many good CFI's, doing a good job in many areas of flying. However, many are trying to teach things they don't know.
 
ronnieh said:
Jay, I don't know. As I said before we may be bouncing a problem around that has no solution, it may very well be that we have to accept that low time pilots in small planes carries significant risk. A lot of activities carry risks. Take a look at aviation insurance. This is a pretty good guide as to what they think is risky and what actions they want participants to take to reduce those risks. I think this has been a good discussion. It might be well for <500 hour pilots and those instructors that have contact with them to take some of this to heart. Heck, 10,000 hour pilots would do well to consider their recurrent training.
Click to expand...

I'm going to let the cat out of the bag:
Insurance companies are interested in making a profit.

I am in their high-risk category simply because of my TT and no other reason. We each place a wager. Either I survive to have more TT or I do not.

There is a saying that you are never more proficient than the day of your checkride. Some truth to it, but take it with a grain of salt.

I would argue that the riskiest pilot is the low-time pilot who takes 2-3 mos away from flying in his 1st 5 years after earning his ticket and just because he's still legal, assumes that means he should go flying solo. That information is not considered in the statistics when risk categories are discussed regarding risk vs pilot experience.
 
Jay, you are correct it is about profit. That is the reason they are good at risk management. They understand cause and affect. Every insurance form I have filled out wanted to know time last 12 months, and last 90 days. I think what you point out is considered. You may never be safer at that level but, I hope you become more experienced and more knowledgeable as you fly more thus becoming a safer pilot. At least that is the goal. I think this whole discussion has been mostly about how to continue working toward that goal without bending up any sheet metal.:dunno:
 
ronnieh said:
. I asked the owner to hire a baby sitter for the first 25 hours. I did. As far as I know he was not a CFI, he had no time in a IIIA. I chose him because he had multiple thousands of rescent hours in a KA 200 and prior to that had flown freight in a piston engine. I did not need somebody to show me how to start the engines, or extend the gear. What I did need was his experience in looking at weather from FL280. I could have hired a local instructor much cheaper. Does that mean our instructors here are no good. Nope, not at all. The CFI after your name does not come with a cape and tights.
The question is recurrent training to improve the skills in the plane you are flying. There are many good CFI's, doing a good job in many areas of flying. However, many are trying to teach things they don't know.
Click to expand...
Competely agree - if somebody asked me to teach them something I don't consider myself "expert level" at I'd tell them they've got the wrong guy.

The problem is that a lot of these instructors have little choice - they need to get time in some of those larger aircraft and it's a tough hop going from the 172 instructor into a turbine. Many get there by pretending to be what they're not and luck carries them through safely.
 
I don't know about the solution, I am still trying to determine the problem.

Dan thinks we need more mandatory training during the first 500 hours. I think that is a good suggestion. Who do you want to do the training and what is the lesson plan?
How about pilots like myself who has only had one or two BFR's in 30 years? I was always getting new ratings, 135 check rides or CFI renewals. Does this count. Who decides?
I think Wayne is OK with the training but thinks the cost of standardized training is too expensive for the gain. Do you want to pay $5K per year for sim training in your 182?
Jesse thinks the CFI's are doing fine and any CFI is qualified to mentor any pilot. Jay agrees. (This is over simplified Jesse so don't be offended).
I think degrees of CFI might be workable. Perhaps based on experience. Perhaps 100 hours in HP complex before giving BFR to commercial pilot as an example. This might get too complicated as you go up the ladder.
I am making no suggestions nor putting forth any answers.:dunno:
Edit: I was typing. Jesse, now you have nailed a major problem. I was reluctant to be that blunt. It is what it is. I said it before, too many instructors see instructing as a stepping stone rather than a career. They will do what ever it takes to continue on their chosen path. Many students think the CFI after your name does indeed come with a cape and tights.
 
Last edited:
ronnieh said:
I don't know about the solution, I am still trying to determine the problem.

Dan thinks we need more mandatory training during the first 500 hours. I think that is a good suggestion. Who do you want to do the training and what is the lesson plan?
How about pilots like myself who has only had one or two BFR's in 30 years? I was always getting new ratings, 135 check rides or CFI renewals. Does this count. Who decides?
I think Wayne is OK with the training but thinks the cost of standardized training is too expensive for the gain. Do you want to pay $5K per year for sim training in your 182?
Jesse thinks the CFI's are doing fine and any CFI is qualified to mentor any pilot. Jay agrees. (This is over simplified Jesse so don't be offended).
I think degrees of CFI might be workable. Perhaps based on experience. Perhaps 100 hours in HP complex before giving BFR to commercial pilot as an example. This might get too complicated as you go up the ladder.
I am making no suggestions nor putting forth any answers.:dunno:
Edit: I was typing. Jesse, now you have nailed a major problem. I was reluctant to be that blunt. It is what it is. I said it before, too many instructors see instructing as a stepping stone rather than a career. They will do what ever it takes to continue on their chosen path. Many students think the CFI after your name does indeed come with a cape and tights.
Click to expand...

Not correct.
 
Jay I stand corrected. I thought you said that any CFI with the approval stamp (commercial, instructor and BTW instrument) knew more than you did. I inferred (incorrectly) that all pilots seeking recurrent training should see the instructor rating the same way. Perhaps at your stage any instructor should know more than you but, would you agree that is not a very high bar to set for an instructor.
Anyway, I think Jesse has hit on a major flaw in the chain. I simply do not believe many instructors are up to the task that both Wayne and Dan want them to be. They are a few, I suspect some are on this board. I personally know one or two. I just happen to know more that are not. It is pretty easy to "wow" a 30 hour student. It gets harder when you get a few thousand hours and a few decades of "but by the grace of God"...
 
You don't understand. In order to meet the test of the pilot population and their advocacy groups, any changes to status quo must meet the following requirements:

1. No training.
2. No accountability
3. No changes of any kind.

Even then we're not sure we would like them and will object on general principles and continue to spout the hackneyed "it won't matter what you do, nothing will change."

And then we wonder why the non-pilot population thinks we're idiots.

Jaybird180 said:
If a solution solves a problem for 99% of the people, do we complain about the 1%?
Click to expand...
 
I believe that the major cause of aviation accidents is due to the aircraft hitting the ground.
 
I sure hope Wayne is wrong. Me thinks he is correct.
 
I'm not sure if Wayne is READING all the posts before he replies.

I'm done hogging all the electrons in this thread. Someone else can have some.
 
I'm a CFI and am very comfortable in the right seat of any single.

But I won't give TW instruction just yet (even though a fellow CFI who checked me out in TW says I fly it as well as any).
 
Dan, this is an extreme example but are you saying you think you could have give some quality mentoring to the pilot in the TBM 700 that rolled it up into a ball in NJ? I wonder where his skill level came up short. How about the 172 in Denton TX, never mind that one had an instructor on board.
OK, I am being unfair and facitious. Obviously you mean you feel comfortable to give instruction in most any SE. To what level of instruction would you feel comfortable? Would you feel comfortable going with a low time new IR pilot in his turbo 210, with on board radar and give him some experience in picking his way through thunderstorms? How about a T210 equipped FIKI to experience a little ice? These are the things that are killing pilots. Where do we find those kind of mentors? I don't read about many pilots killing themselves doing S turns or soft field TO in their 172. Maybe a little help to a pilot wanting to fly in the Wash DC area? The list goes on and on.
There is a huge amount of information required in flying. I have finally got to the point I can almost see what I don't know.
 
After all that mumbo-jumbo do you think a pilot should know whether or not his battery will charge if he jump-starts the airplane? :D Do you know?

Jaybird180 said:
I do not agree that this should be any type of metric on how safe a pilot he is.

Very often, aviation (or stats in general) like to show a casual relationship between measurable quantities, to the disregard of non-quantifiables that do have an impact.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I wrote an answer to your initial question, and after about nine paragraphs recognized that I was writing the "scope of work" section for a consulting engagement letter, so I pitched it. Then I got the crud and didn't give a rats.

As to your scenarios, short version from here is I wouldn't require anything from you. The combination of your logs and the training center records are sufficient if needed, which they probably won't be. Even though pro pilots screw up from time to time, I don't think they are the problem we should address first.

Your friend is a different story. When did he get the 500 hours? In what plane? How much recent time? How much recent training? How much in the RV? By who? Is he diligent about all that stuff, or is he the typical "cheapest-quickest-cheat-if-necessary" guy?

The guy with the Bonanza falls into the same category as the guy with the RV. If ongoing training is part of the guy's MO, I see no reason to make him do more. If not, I want him to have it, but with some latitude. If he wants to fly with the ABS guys, that's obviously good training. If he want's to brush up on IFR, that works too. I don't want to shove training at a guy who doesn't need it, or make him do something that's of no value, but having seen the sorry state of our current crop of pilots, I know something must change if we want different results.

I think the results from the type-specific training now required for MU-2 pilots provide some valuable information we've never had before, simply because we've never had such recurrent training requirements for any other airplanes. I don't know if the FAA had any expectation that the judgement-related accidents would show such a significant decline as a result of the trainng, as reported in Hopkins' article, but if it's true then I think it could be a game-changer.



ronnieh said:
This is what is confusing to me. I think Wayne wants more training on a regular basis. He seems to favor the standardized training. BTW, standardize does not mean government. The market place will sort the good from the bad.
Jay, you seem happy with the 300 hour CFI as long as he is mature and won't let you kill yourself in the plane.
Dan, I just don't understand what your ideals are. Jay, Dan do you think the quality of initial instruction is adaquate? How about the more experienced pilot. I gave two pilot examples and welcome anybody to simply tell me what would be their ideal for either or both pilots.
Is the complaint that the new pilot has not be trained well enough. If not what changes do you want to see. What changes in recurrent training?
For the more experienced pilot, do you really think the 300 hour 19 year old instructor building time for the commuter job is going to give the 8000 hour corporate pilot much quality mentoring? What do you want for this pilots recurrent training? Even add a third pilot. Private pilot with IR, flys a Bonanza for his own use. Logs about 150 hours per year. Has 1000 TT. What do you want his recurrent to look like? Anyone?
I am just trying to flesh out some specific changes needed for each type of pilot.
Click to expand...
 
Wayne, well said. The problem you describe is what I don't know how to deal with. The pilot population is so varied, their needs are so varied. IMO primary training is not adaquate for the most part. I don't think my training schedule keeps me as current as I should be however it is hard to convince a boss that more than required by insurance is needed.
Perhaps, and I repeat perhaps the place to start is with the CFI. Maybe if we expect more or even demand more in the way of general experience, that experience might trickle down. I do know that the SFAR for the MU2 does seem to have made considerable difference in the safety record of that plane.
I do see the problem and agree with you, Dan, and Indigo. I just don't know the answer. Maybe some of ya'll out there in the professional training world will develope the answer and perhaps someone will listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top