Pilot Simulator Study - U Wisc Madison

[SkyHog]

That's the whole key right there... "Effective use of all equipment."

I'm not perpetuating a myth, here. It's not from an ego or otherwise. I've observed currently certificated pilots with instrument ratings operating with virtually no proficiency but they are doing so because they are "current" under the FARs. That's all the law requires. Unfortunately, common sense does not prevail and such pilots are on track to hurt themselves or another.

Does the "magenta line" comment sound drastic? Yes, absolutely. But, rather than condemn someone for saying it, choose to become one of those pilots who either establishes a firm rule to stay away from flight in IMC or takes a very proactive role in remaining proficient. The latter is better because it will assist in all types of flying. Unfortunately, there are many pilots out there who are convinced they don't need it.

All I'm referring to is being proficient on use of all equipment. You're required to be "equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight" per AIM 1-1-19. This would be basic use of VORs for both en route and approach. The GPS-Dependant pilot will fly en route and do just fine. Suddenly, they come upon their destination and find a GPS approach is not available or RAIM is not available. Their only option is an ILS or localizer and it's back to basic needles.

Even with an authorized GPS approach, flying it on a needle is going to be more accurate than trying to stay on top of a magenta line on a moving map. Okay, so it's flown coupled. What if the autopilot fails? What if the bases are much lower than expected.

This morning, it was mostly OVC002. Now, it's FEW001 OVC011. What if those few clouds were laying right over the approach lights and you can't see those? Airports such as Austin have an ALSF that will show up a heck of a lot better than the runway lights and that's with our touchdown zone lights. Most airports your average GA pilot flies into does not have that available. So much for that extra hundred feet you were hoping to descend to so you could see the runway.

Being able to fly an ILS, LOC, VOR, ADF or even GPS on needles is key to being a proficient pilot. I'm not trying to scare anyone. But, I hope it makes folks think. I want pilots to be better than what they think they are. Most are not and takes constant practice to keep it that way.

Every chance I get to land with a longer approach I'll tune in the localizer just for that short bit of practice on needles. That's on top of full or vectored approaches. I have unlimited access to both analog and glass panels. I'll never be better than I think I am but I'll strive to as good or better than required to stay safe. That's what I want to see in others.

Next week, I will be meeting with a guy who is a current master CFI of the year. He has been published and is active with ASF. My goal is to learn about his program that brings pilots back once a month or so for proficiency training. He started the program for his school a few years ago to bring in more work for instructors. He was startled to learn those who need such a program most won't actively seek out such assistance.

Before anyone says the AIM is not regulatory, think back to its purpose. Its guidance is based on existing FARs such as 91.205.


Flight Service has improved drastically. There's still the issue of getting briefers not familiar with your area but I think that will slowly change for the better.

I take your challenge to improve myself, and I issue a counterchallenge:

Stop being afraid of technology, and come on board the newest electronics. They might actually help with situational awareness. That way you don't become a statistic.

 

[Ted]

I take your challenge to improve myself,

My observation is everyone on this forum perpetually challenges themselves to be better pilots, at least those I talk to

and I issue a counterchallenge:

Stop being afraid of technology, and come on board the newest electronics. They might actually help with situational awareness. That way you don't become a statistic.

Nick, you're using logic! Stop it!

 

[KennyFlys]

Not necessarily, if you've got WAAS. See AIM 1-1-20(c)(7):

Very true. But, a good thread might be one including a poll on how many aircraft owners here have WAAS capability. Or, how many have access to rental aircraft that are WAAS capable?

That's a pretty expensive conversion for many who already have IFR approved GPS receivers. To upgrade our G-1000 Skyhawk rentals, it will cost us $19,000 each. The demand isn't there so there's no rush to put the money into the avionics.

 

[KennyFlys]

I take your challenge to improve myself, and I issue a counterchallenge:

Stop being afraid of technology, and come on board the newest electronics. They might actually help with situational awareness. That way you don't become a statistic.

Good. Stay on top of it and use it once you get the ticket. Keep seeking out instruction to help improve that skill. It's those who don't think they need it who tend to need it most. 121 and 135 pilots stay constantly proficient or most do such as Mari who are very active.

I'll pass on to you the same challenge as Ted... WHERE have I ever said I was afraid of technology or opposed to technology? I haven't. As far as situational awareness, one of the things I've done on long flights is tune in the VORs as I fly along on a GPS direct course. It verifies my location on a sectional or instrument chart besides a moving map on an LCD.

No, GPS doesn't kill people. But, GPS dependent pilots will kill themselves given the time and lack of skill while still flying in instrument conditions.

Folks, I'm not preaching anything you shouldn't already know. If you're getting upset, it's only because you choose to be. Tell ya what... I couldn't care less how you approach proficiency on instruments. All I ask is if you choose not to be proficient, please do it somewhere besides Texas.

Do I have a sample size? No, I don't. It's rather difficult to ask the dead pilots how proficient they thought they were before the spinning the plane into the ground on approach. But, I've watched "instrument pilots" with my own eyes and I've spent time talking with other instructors (those very experienced on instrument instruction and maintaining proficiency) and I've learned this is not a mild problem.

I haven't pointed to anyone on this board. Not one single person. But, the best thing anyone can do do whatever it takes to keep themselves proficient. That's a very proactive roll and demands effort. It takes very little to let the skills slide.

I botched my sentence this morning. Who here hasn't mis-stated their intended sentence?

What if those few clouds were laying right over the approach lights and you can't see those?

Should have been...

What if those few clouds were laying right over the approach lights and you can't see those but suddenly BEFORE the MAP you get a glimpse of a wide pattern of red and white lights?

Now corrected on my earlier post.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Is someone not singing...?

Come on -- everybody now!

Kum baaa yaaa

Now I wonder who's really at the bottom of this whole argument?
Now let's see, who could it possibly be?
ah, do you think, could it be....
SATAN?!?!?

 

[jesse]

Kenny--have you considered the possibility that your sample of pilots is limited and you only see those that don't know of a better school (as they aren't proficient)?

Perhaps the experienced proficient pilots in your area go elsewhere for their instruction--a school with instructors that know how to work with proficient students.

Every business has their own specialty.

 

[LearDriver]

There's nothing wrong with using all the newer technology devices. Just as long as you stay competent and current with all the older technology equipment in the plane.

You need to be able to fly a LPV just as well as an ILS, VOR, GPS step down or ADF. If your not current or competent to fly all of them then you are seriously limiting your options to get your neck out of the noose when things go bad.

I was on a flight yesterday, where we had to pull the CB for the FMS due to a FMS Overheat message, when on a approach transition. All we did was jump to VOR navigation straight away and re-brief the differences.

Being current and competent is what keeps you safe.

 

[ScottM]

There's nothing wrong with using all the newer technology devices. Just as long as you stay competent and current with all the older technology equipment in the plane.

You need to be able to fly a LPV just as well as an ILS, VOR, GPS step down or ADF. If your not current or competent to fly all of them then you are seriously limiting your options to get your neck out of the noose when things go bad.

I was on a flight yesterday, where we had to pull the CB for the FMS due to a FMS Overheat message, when on a approach transition. All we did was jump to VOR navigation straight away and re-brief the differences.

Being current and competent is what keeps you safe.

What?? You did not pull the red handle and let the BRS take you down safely?? You put everyone at risk if you do not having a BRS!

[/Sarcasm]

 

[LearDriver]

What?? You did not pull the red handle and let the BRS take you down safely?? You put everyone at risk if you do not having a BRS!

[/Sarcasm]

Well it worked pretty well on that new 162 that went in last week.

 

[wabower]

One of the all-time best training tapes was made for AA pilots after the Cali crash. Van Vanderburg was their standards guy at the time. He's now retired and the guy who deadsticked the PC-12 onto an airport after a night engine failure at FL260 last summer. His quote was that the airline had created a generation of pilots that he called "children of the magenta". His presentation stressed that it wasn't their fault, they had been sucked along by AA's emphasis on automation. His message was that the company had to reverse the thought process, and that the AA pilots had to stop managing the systems and start flying the airplanes again. I saw the same thing in GA. When the glass cockpits came out, the "king of the hill" at the sim centers was the guy who could make the boxes do the most tricks.

I'm not up for defending Kenny. On the other hand I've flown with at least nine different instructors at various times. With exception of a couple, the rest had something in particular screwed up that a student would have to figure out and unscrew.

A few examples include a claim that I was trimming incorrectly on final ( the DPE fixed that one for me - got me back to doing what I had been doing before the *&*%^# instructor told me I was doing it wrong). Another claimed the best glide speed I used was wrong when the POH said otherwise. Another didn't bother to check aircraft specs, just made declarations as to a particular aircraft's performance numbers. Another instructor didn't understand gyro instruments - specifically he didn't understand that a turn coordinator gyro senses only turn rate.

In other words, we're all human and all have our foibles. No big deal.

Now for the MOLD. Be real careful. I've heard most systems have "Direct-To" so if you're flying a "Direct-To" line then chances are somebody else is also flying "Direct-To" and you're both in danger! I used that joke on my instructor one day: "I'm not flying directly on that line, somebody else might be Direct-To also." It took him a few minutes to get the joke...too many episode of oxygen deprivation I suspect...

 

[KennyFlys]

Next week, I will be meeting with a guy who is a current master CFI of the year. He has been published and is active with ASF. My goal is to learn about his program that brings pilots back once a month or so for proficiency training. He started the program for his school a few years ago to bring in more work for instructors. He was startled to learn those who need such a program most won't actively seek out such assistance.

...and I've spent time talking with other instructors (those very experienced on instrument instruction and maintaining proficiency) and I've learned this is not a mild problem.

Kenny--have you considered the possibility that your sample of pilots is limited and you only see those that don't know of a better school (as they aren't proficient)?

Perhaps the experienced proficient pilots in your area go elsewhere for their instruction--a school with instructors that know how to work with proficient students.

Every business has their own specialty.

By all appearances, that isn't the case. The observation I've had is no different from other instructors at this school and two others at Austin, alone. The guy I'm seeing next week is at an airport fifty miles away. So, that's just two areas. Ya think it's limited? You'd lose the bet.

 

[skyflyer8]

Holy thread-creep.

I'll pass the word along about the simulator study.

 

[LearDriver]

Kenny--have you considered the possibility that your sample of pilots is limited and you only see those that don't know of a better school (as they aren't proficient)?

Perhaps the experienced proficient pilots in your area go elsewhere for their instruction--a school with instructors that know how to work with proficient students.

Every business has their own specialty.

That was a little harsh.

 

[Juliett]

NON-Instrument rated pilots!

Pilot Simulator Study - Volunteers Needed
Notice Number: NOTC1604

Attention General Aviation Pilots!
Help promote GA safety by participating in a Pilot Simulator Study!

The University of Wisconsin-Madison is conducting an FAA-supported research project to evaluate pilot flight skills and decision-making during cross-country flights. They are currently seeking private pilots (single engine land) that are not instrument rated to participate in a brief simulator session.

Participants will be asked to “fly” an advanced PC-based flight simulator located on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. Participation in this study would require you travel to the campus for a 1½ to 2 hr session. This session would involve filling out a questionnaire about your flight experience and completing a short cross-country flight in the flight simulator.

Participants will be compensated $10/hour for their participation and reimbursed for some travel expenses. Your participation will be kept completely confidential.

If you are interested, please contact Professor Douglas Wiegmann at (608) 890-1932 or via email at dawiegmann@wisc.edu We would appreciate it if you pass this information along to your flying colleagues even if you do not wish to participate or don’t qualify. Thanks!

For more information, please visit http://tinyurl.com/cvb3le(document opens in PDF format)

I'll do this.

 

[ScottM]

I'll do this.

Let us know how it goes.

 

[jhausch]

I just sent him and email, too

I'll let you know what happens.

Maybe they'll have the guys simulating the ATC side of things control the shock-collar the pilots will be wearing. . .

 

[flyingcheesehead]

private pilots (single engine land) that are not instrument rated

Dagnabit!

 

[gprellwitz]

Dagnabit!

And THAT'S why I put it in the first line of my post, nut buried toward the bottom like it was in the email I received!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, I have too many ratings, but I forwarded it to my flying club which has a lot of VFR pilots. And we're conveniently located right here in Madison. Hope that helps 'em out. I wonder if the FBO has heard about it yet...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Under normal circumstances (excluding practice) I don't know anyone who would choose a GPS approach over an ILS to the same runway, but I'm sure someone will chime in to contradict me.

Yeah, I always go for the ILS first, but I like vertical guidance regardless so I'll take GPS before LOC any day.

 

[jmaynard]

I sent the prof an email when this thread was first posted, and haven't gotten a reply yet...dunno why, but maybe they're done already.

 

[astanley]

One of the all-time best training tapes was made for AA pilots after the Cali crash. Van Vanderburg was their standards guy at the time. He's now retired and the guy who deadsticked the PC-12 onto an airport after a night engine failure at FL260 last summer. His quote was that the airline had created a generation of pilots that he called "children of the magenta". His presentation stressed that it wasn't their fault, they had been sucked along by AA's emphasis on automation. His message was that the company had to reverse the thought process, and that the AA pilots had to stop managing the systems and start flying the airplanes again. I saw the same thing in GA. When the glass cockpits came out, the "king of the hill" at the sim centers was the guy who could make the boxes do the most tricks.

Wayne,

Do you know where someone can get their hands on this tape? I'd love to see it. The Cali crash is one of the great lessons in aviation safety...

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Juliett]

I just got an email back saying they'd contact me to work out a suitable schedule.

 

[gprellwitz]

I just got an email back saying they'd contact me to work out a suitable schedule.

Cool. Let us know what it entails!