post instrument/pre commercial

[nosehair]

Speaking from the other side of the fence I just can't agree with that remark.

OK, you guys, I'm not sayin' the whole system is defunct. It's still the best in the world, and I'm proud of it, and to have been a part of it.

I got caught up in the discussion of the logic and reason behind the FAA regulations, and particularly, part 61 training regulations.

Thru the years, I have seen many such discussions and myths grow from the logical reasoning of smart men, so 'reasoned interpretations' arise from these logical conclusions.

But, in fact, most all government decisions are affected away from the most logical course by the nature of government - trying to make a regulation that covers an entire continent full of people and terrain that requires very different applications of a rendered decision.

Man, did I just say that?

Anyway, I enjoy the discussion.

 

[weilke]

Well, that's what I'm saying - about the bureaucrats. Yeah, they are not elected by me and you, but by the good ol boys in the FSDO.

I don't have any insight into the FAA, but this would be a very unusual organizational structure for a goverment buerocracy.

Revisions to FARs are written by someone at headquarters. They are put out for comment and different organizations and individuals will put in their objections or support. After disregarding most of the input and adding in some into the final rule, the FAA issues the updated regulation.

I don't think the process has any component that has the safety inspectors vote on it.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't think the process has any component that has the safety inspectors vote on it.

Well, the HQ folks actually writing the Part 61 rules are ASI's complete with badges and the authority to do ASI stuff including pilot certification rides, but field ASI's don't have a "vote," only the same right to comment in the NPRM docket that the rest of us have.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Well, the HQ folks actually writing the Part 61 rules are ASI's complete with badges and the authority to do ASI stuff including pilot certification rides, but field ASI's don't have a "vote," only the same right to comment in the NPRM docket that the rest of us have.

Sorta. Sometimes ASI's are consulted depending upon their expertise.

 

[nosehair]

Well, the HQ folks actually writing the Part 61 rules are ASI's complete with badges and the authority to do ASI stuff including pilot certification rides, but field ASI's don't have a "vote," only the same right to comment in the NPRM docket that the rest of us have.

So, ...my comment on ASI's being selected by the local good ol boys in that FSDO was general in nature, but as you can see, the field ASI's rise to their own level of incompetency by being promoted to write FAR's and PTS's and AC's and such.

That is called the Peter Principle. Is that not common knowledge here?

It is true. That is the basis of my comments. Not accusations, just comments on the obvious.

While I support the idea that we, the USA, have the best pilot training system in the world, I cannot lay on my fat ass and not see the blaring gaping holes in the system. Any flight instructor who has been instructing for twenty or more years as a full time instructor knows the system is bad.

Bad is relative. I live great compared to the people in (pick a 3rd world country), but that doesn't mean I should be content with living in poverty.

Our flight training system is broken. It is a model that worked in 1940 when GA was a top speed of 90 kts and no radio was required.

Anybody that thinks 1940 training models still work in today's environment is...well, I don't know, whadduya think? Ya think a 50plus year old system of training (in a highly technical area) is still applicable?

And no-body, I say nooo body in the FAA wants to change things. Except to make them more complicated and therefore create more power for the FAA guy in charge.

I mean, look at the system. Look at our congress. Unable to manage what they are elected to manage, and yet...still, there they are. Just like the "FAA". The FAA is as incompetent as our congress.

OK? That is what I was trying to inject into the conversation when I saw people trying to logic and reason why certain regulations were as they were. There is just as much incompetence in aviation regulations as there is in banking regulations.

To get down to the specifics here - nobody in the FAA cares that the 50mile minimum on X/C's for pilot certification might cause a hardship or poor training because a "good" x/c training airport might lie 45 miles from your airport, and that particular situation would be a good training flight.

If those kinds of things meant anything to any of the FAA people in charge of pilot training, there would be provisions in the regulations for local FSDO approval of slight deviations from the 'standards'. That would be simple to write into all the regs. And any FAA rule writer should be able to think of that if his/her true objective was to write good 'training regulations'.

The proof is that they are not doing that.

They are writing the regs to appeal to others. Not you and me, the users, but to others. Others with more power, like lobbyists, or other special interest groups.

 

[Ted]

Flying regulations, driving regulations. Yeah, flying regulations make a lot more sense.

FAA has a lot of problems, don't get me wrong, but as far as government agencies I've dealt with I'd have to say they're one of the more logical.

 

[RotorAndWing]

So, ...my comment on ASI's being selected by the local good ol boys in that FSDO was general in nature, but as you can see, the field ASI's rise to their own level of incompetency by being promoted to write FAR's and PTS's and AC's and such.

That is called the Peter Principle. Is that not common knowledge here?

It is true. That is the basis of my comments. Not accusations, just comments on the obvious.

While I support the idea that we, the USA, have the best pilot training system in the world, I cannot lay on my fat ass and not see the blaring gaping holes in the system. Any flight instructor who has been instructing for twenty or more years as a full time instructor knows the system is bad.

Bad is relative. I live great compared to the people in (pick a 3rd world country), but that doesn't mean I should be content with living in poverty.

Our flight training system is broken. It is a model that worked in 1940 when GA was a top speed of 90 kts and no radio was required.

Anybody that thinks 1940 training models still work in today's environment is...well, I don't know, whadduya think? Ya think a 50plus year old system of training (in a highly technical area) is still applicable?

And no-body, I say nooo body in the FAA wants to change things. Except to make them more complicated and therefore create more power for the FAA guy in charge.

I mean, look at the system. Look at our congress. Unable to manage what they are elected to manage, and yet...still, there they are. Just like the "FAA". The FAA is as incompetent as our congress.

OK? That is what I was trying to inject into the conversation when I saw people trying to logic and reason why certain regulations were as they were. There is just as much incompetence in aviation regulations as there is in banking regulations.

To get down to the specifics here - nobody in the FAA cares that the 50mile minimum on X/C's for pilot certification might cause a hardship or poor training because a "good" x/c training airport might lie 45 miles from your airport, and that particular situation would be a good training flight.

If those kinds of things meant anything to any of the FAA people in charge of pilot training, there would be provisions in the regulations for local FSDO approval of slight deviations from the 'standards'. That would be simple to write into all the regs. And any FAA rule writer should be able to think of that if his/her true objective was to write good 'training regulations'.

The proof is that they are not doing that.

They are writing the regs to appeal to others. Not you and me, the users, but to others. Others with more power, like lobbyists, or other special interest groups.

Your diatribes are becoming even more inane as you go along.

So, ...my comment on ASI's being selected by the local good ol boys in that FSDO was general in nature, but as you can see, the field ASI's rise to their own level of incompetency by being promoted to write FAR's and PTS's and AC's and such.

Where did you get that? While it's true some ASI's eventually get promoted into the regulatory process that department is made up of people with varying backgrounds. Any changes to the regulatory process is long and thoroughly researched and reviewed.

No one goes in one morning and says "Hey, I'll just rewrite these regulations today to suit me and incorporate them!"

It is true. That is the basis of my comments. Not accusations, just comments on the obvious.

This is only your opinion.

While I support the idea that we, the USA, have the best pilot training system in the world, I cannot lay on my fat ass and not see the blaring gaping holes in the system. Any flight instructor who has been instructing for twenty or more years as a full time instructor knows the system is bad.

As an Instructor who has been instructing for over 29 years I simply don't agree with you assessment. And if you look at the statistics it won't support you assertions either.

Our flight training system is broken. It is a model that worked in 1940 when GA was a top speed of 90 kts and no radio was required.

Anybody that thinks 1940 training models still work in today's environment is...well, I don't know, whadduya think? Ya think a 50plus year old system of training (in a highly technical area) is still applicable?

So be specific. Point out exactly where it is broken and which regulations don't apply to today's environment.

OK? That is what I was trying to inject into the conversation when I saw people trying to logic and reason why certain regulations were as they were. There is just as much incompetence in aviation regulations as there is in banking regulations.

To get down to the specifics here - nobody in the FAA cares that the 50mile minimum on X/C's for pilot certification might cause a hardship or poor training because a "good" x/c training airport might lie 45 miles from your airport, and that particular situation would be a good training flight.

If those kinds of things meant anything to any of the FAA people in charge of pilot training, there would be provisions in the regulations for local FSDO approval of slight deviations from the 'standards'. That would be simple to write into all the regs. And any FAA rule writer should be able to think of that if his/her true objective was to write good 'training regulations'.

The proof is that they are not doing that.

So on one hand you are complaining the regs were written for "1940's technology" and don't meet the demands of modern times, but yet now you're advocating reduction in training requirements because it makes it too expensive?

And you are also advocating that each individual FSDO have the ability to modify regulations on a case by case basis?

They are writing the regs to appeal to others. Not you and me, the users, but to others. Others with more power, like lobbyists, or other special interest groups.

Who are these others? Who exactly are these "lobbyist"? If they exsist it will be easy to look up on the internet.

Also who are these "special interest groups" and what are their goals"

Care to share this with everyone?

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, I gotta say a couple of Part 61 changes made/proposed recently were done to "appease" some "special interest groups." For example, flight schools pushed for the elimination of the complex requirement for Commercial Pilot-Airplane, and the folks in AFS-800 "caved in" to that "pressure." Personally, I think that was a good thing, like the elimination of the requirement for Second/First class medicals to get your CP/ATP, as it will encourage more folks to improve their flying skills, but maybe nosehair thinks otherwise.

 

[nosehair]

Well, I gotta say a couple of Part 61 changes made/proposed recently were done to "appease" some "special interest groups." For example, flight schools pushed for the elimination of the complex requirement for Commercial Pilot-Airplane, and the folks in AFS-800 "caved in" to that "pressure." Personally, I think that was a good thing, like the elimination of the requirement for Second/First class medicals to get your CP/ATP, as it will encourage more folks to improve their flying skills, but maybe nosehair thinks otherwise.

Ah! Good examples. I do think the elimination of the medical requirement for the ratings is a good thing.

But, on the elimination of the complex requirement, that's a little more complex. Sorry, couldn't resist it.

I think a requirement for all kinds of training should be in there - but in layers. A pilot who is going to be flying paying pax in a complex airplane should have quantifiable measurable training in complex airplanes - and the same with an instructor.

I also think it would be fantastic if a new instructor could get a commercial and CFI without the complex training - to obviously turn around and train new students in simple airplanes. Then get the complex training later, if they want to. Same with instruments and double-eye.

The new sport pilot instructor is the model of how I think it could be done within the current quagmire of regulations. If the sport pilot instructor could use the 152 or other similar 2 place trainers.

A new instructor should have to instruct a few hundred hours in primary training - solo'ing students before moving into complex and HP and instruments and so on. The progress should be gradual enough to absorb the experience. As levels of experience rise, commercial pilots and flight instructors would qualify for and get additional training and 'ratings', or 'endorsements'.

That's just sort of an idea of how the system would work better by trying to modify the training regulations already in place. And for the pilot who intends to fly GA.

Pilots who will only fly for the airlines do not have to mess with any of that graduated training experience because they will never be loose out there on their own. Like the military.

In the military, all pilots start out the same in Primary and Basic pilot training, but somewhere along the line, each pilot branches off to his/her specialty aircraft and mission type. And if the want to do other flying, they get a school on it. Not just a 'check-out'.

So , the problem with our system, the root cause of most accidents, is lack of pilot training.

But the FAA certification system causes us to try to cram a hundred hours of flight training into forty.

The 40 hours comes from a time when that meant 20 solo and 20 dual.
And the flight time was from take-off to landing - like the military does.

And there were no ATC procedures. Can you imagine that? Take out ATC and Airspace, and a hundred other details that have appeared and grown in the last 50 years, and it becomes closer to doable in 40 hours.

That varies a lot from place to place. Some localities are still living in the '50's, and a private pilot, and his instructor, does not need three fourths of the knowledge/experience requirements that some other places would.

A student pilot would need PIC knowledge and experience operating in that environment, but pilots operating in other parts of the country don't need to clog up their head with any of that kind of specific knowledge.

The FAA tries to cover it all in one easy to write and manage package by just requiring a private pilot to know all about everything so that it only takes one check ride.

But "everybody knows" a newly minted PP doesn't know it all - yet the FAA will take the stand that he did because that's what the certificate says. The instructor says it by signing the recommendation, and the examiner says it when he approves. Yet this new PP, with 5 hours of solo x/c which consisted of 2 'triangle' trips, each lasting 2.5 hours going to the same 2 airports he/she did his/her dual x/c and neither airport is more than 75 miles away and the weather was always good and the tanks were always full because the flight school was taking care of him/her, this new PP can buy an old Bonanza and get a good ol 'round the patch' check-out and load his family and take-off for anywhere in the country.

That just ain't right - there are some politics in there somewhere.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think a requirement for all kinds of training should be in there - but in layers. A pilot who is going to be flying paying pax in a complex airplane should have quantifiable measurable training in complex airplanes - and the same with an instructor.

Already required by 61.31 -- why add it to 61.129, too, especially since many CP's may not be flying complex planes?

I also think it would be fantastic if a new instructor could get a commercial and CFI without the complex training - to obviously turn around and train new students in simple airplanes.

The FAA agrees with you and already published that as an NPRM.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Ah! Good examples. I do think the elimination of the medical requirement for the ratings is a good thing.

But, on the elimination of the complex requirement, that's a little more complex. Sorry, couldn't resist it.

I think a requirement for all kinds of training should be in there - but in layers. A pilot who is going to be flying paying pax in a complex airplane should have quantifiable measurable training in complex airplanes - and the same with an instructor.

I also think it would be fantastic if a new instructor could get a commercial and CFI without the complex training - to obviously turn around and train new students in simple airplanes. Then get the complex training later, if they want to. Same with instruments and double-eye.

The new sport pilot instructor is the model of how I think it could be done within the current quagmire of regulations. If the sport pilot instructor could use the 152 or other similar 2 place trainers.

A new instructor should have to instruct a few hundred hours in primary training - solo'ing students before moving into complex and HP and instruments and so on. The progress should be gradual enough to absorb the experience. As levels of experience rise, commercial pilots and flight instructors would qualify for and get additional training and 'ratings', or 'endorsements'.

That's just sort of an idea of how the system would work better by trying to modify the training regulations already in place. And for the pilot who intends to fly GA.

Pilots who will only fly for the airlines do not have to mess with any of that graduated training experience because they will never be loose out there on their own. Like the military.

In the military, all pilots start out the same in Primary and Basic pilot training, but somewhere along the line, each pilot branches off to his/her specialty aircraft and mission type. And if the want to do other flying, they get a school on it. Not just a 'check-out'.

So , the problem with our system, the root cause of most accidents, is lack of pilot training.

But the FAA certification system causes us to try to cram a hundred hours of flight training into forty.

The 40 hours comes from a time when that meant 20 solo and 20 dual.
And the flight time was from take-off to landing - like the military does.

And there were no ATC procedures. Can you imagine that? Take out ATC and Airspace, and a hundred other details that have appeared and grown in the last 50 years, and it becomes closer to doable in 40 hours.

That varies a lot from place to place. Some localities are still living in the '50's, and a private pilot, and his instructor, does not need three fourths of the knowledge/experience requirements that some other places would.

A student pilot would need PIC knowledge and experience operating in that environment, but pilots operating in other parts of the country don't need to clog up their head with any of that kind of specific knowledge.

The FAA tries to cover it all in one easy to write and manage package by just requiring a private pilot to know all about everything so that it only takes one check ride.

But "everybody knows" a newly minted PP doesn't know it all - yet the FAA will take the stand that he did because that's what the certificate says. The instructor says it by signing the recommendation, and the examiner says it when he approves. Yet this new PP, with 5 hours of solo x/c which consisted of 2 'triangle' trips, each lasting 2.5 hours going to the same 2 airports he/she did his/her dual x/c and neither airport is more than 75 miles away and the weather was always good and the tanks were always full because the flight school was taking care of him/her, this new PP can buy an old Bonanza and get a good ol 'round the patch' check-out and load his family and take-off for anywhere in the country.

That just ain't right - there are some politics in there somewhere.

The FAA requirements are a minimum. There is nothing that states an instructor should only train towards the minimum requirements.

A competent Instructor will train a student until he feels the student has become proficient.

 

[weilke]

Nosehair, you sound angry. Go fly more, it works wonders to relax a bit.

Without going into too many details of your rambling diatribes, I just want to say the following:

- the training system with all its warts works remarkably well.
- the FAA with all its warts works remarkably well. Beats pretty much any other model out there.
- pilots don't die because the training is too short. they die because they are human, do dumb stuff and here and there they die because they wheren't taught the right things during their initial training.
- for the most part the insurance companies govern what planes a newly minted PP will fly and how people progress through the hardware. while not regulatory, de-facto the graduated training is already there.

 

[dmccormack]

Nosehair, you sound angry. Go fly more, it works wonders to relax a bit.

Without going into too many details of your rambling diatribes, I just want to say the following:

- the training system with all its warts works remarkably well.
- the FAA with all its warts works remarkably well. Beats pretty much any other model out there.
- pilots don't die because the training is too short. they die because they are human, do dumb stuff and here and there they die because they wheren't taught the right things during their initial training.
- for the most part the insurance companies govern what planes a newly minted PP will fly and how people progress through the hardware. while not regulatory, de-facto the graduated training is already there.

If we honestly evaluate the fatal accident data, we see "Lack of training" isn't the problem, because there isn't a pilot flying that hasn't been told to check fuel, preflight, and not tangle with weather s/he's not capable of handling at least once.

Can we increase the overall competency of the pilot population? Of course -- but there is a price. Make the bar too high, and the only people flying will be a few well-heeled under 30, 20-20 vision types.

There's a tension between broad access and high standards. There always is and always will be.

 

[nosehair]

Already required by 61.31 -- why add it to 61.129,

Don't understand that response. I think you don't understand my intent. What do you mean?

 

[nosehair]

A competent Instructor will train a student until he feels the student has become proficient.

Oh! Well,..yes, a competent instructor will.
This whole 'diatribe' is about the incompetent instructor.

By incompetent, I mean not only the lazy time builders, but also the newly minted instructor who has absolutely zero experience, gets his first job, and practices on new students with absolutely zero supervision,..or mentoring, or guidance, or whatever you want to call it, but the process puts him in a position of authority and responsibility for which he/she is not trained and/or equipped.

So, with zero experience, you go with what the professionals say, right? And who is more professional than the FAA? Besides, as you go through your flight training, you get the impression that what they say is gospel, so, the regs must reflect a good level of safety, right? so whatever they put in the PTS must be good enough. and safe enough, I mean they are charged with safety first, right? so, any more training than necessary to meet PTS requirements, and double-dipping in the training requirements must be ok, since 'everybody does it'.

And all, ..well, most flight schools, especially the slick magazine ads, advertise and pride them selves on minimum training. They don't say in in the way that implies minimum training, because they show a pamphlet that shows the PTS and hour requirements all packaged up like a "program" and it's "approved" by the FAA, so it must be very good and safe.
So the individual mom & pop schools that would encourage more than minimum regulatory training cannot compete.

And what about the age old ego builder, how much time it takes you to solo? Right from the get-go we get the idea that supermen can do it in the least time - like it's a race. Who can solo in the least time?

And get your private in the least time? ...and so on it goes.

But the competent instructor does not
So competent instructors learn, after many years of experience what a student pilot needs to know for real world flying and check-ride passing.

What I'm saying is that there should not be such a distinct difference between the two. Passing a check-ride is like taking a drivers test -to show that you can operate the basic machine in a 'controlled environment' doing a standard number of demonstrations - like rehearsing for a play.

But then you don't jump into down-town big city traffic. If you do, you're one of those people that shouldn't be on the road - and in the air, you are an accident waiting to happen.
Same with an airplane and quadrupally so.

I don't like regulations, but if we have to have them, they should address real world problems and living, and it isn't rocket science.

My original post was to warn against supposing that regulations are always "sensible" and would hold up to logic and reason. The flight training regulations do not do that. They are a long line of initially sensible rules that have been subjected to so much nit-picking and legal analyzing and mis-interpretation that has become quasi-truth, that to think "The FAA must think this is the safest way" is actually a little bit dangerous.

Use all available information, and think for yourself.

 

[dmccormack]

What I'm saying is that there should not be such a distinct difference between the two. Passing a check-ride is like taking a drivers test -to show that you can operate the basic machine in a 'controlled environment' doing a standard number of demonstrations - like rehearsing for a play.

But then you don't jump into down-town big city traffic. If you do, you're one of those people that shouldn't be on the road - and in the air, you are an accident waiting to happen.

Oh come on. A week after getting my NJ DL I was driving in Manhattan.

Days after passing my Private, I took my wife, my kids, and my in-laws up for sightseeing.

A week after passing my PP I flew the family to Ocean City.

A month after the IR I flew the family to Northern NY.

Was I flawless, capable of handling every eventuality in those early days and hours?

Of course not. But ya gotta start somewhere.

 

[nosehair]

Nosehair, you sound angry. Go fly more, it works wonders to relax a bit.

No argument there!

- the FAA with all its warts works remarkably well. Beats pretty much any other model out there.

I said that.

- pilots don't die because the training is too short. they die because they are human, do dumb stuff and here and there they die because they wheren't taught the right things during their initial training.

Your opinion. Mine is that most are not taught enough to prevent doing the dumb things. Most guys I teach are not dumb people, but flying requires specialized focus and not just recognition enough to demonstrate a practiced routine called a check-ride. BTW, does anybody know that a check-ride is not the FAA's only thing that certifies the pilot. It is also the instructor's recommendation, which says the instructor certifies that the applicant has demonstrated consistent performance in all areas of operation as a private pilot. The check-ride is just a 'sampling' and confirmation of that training. So actually, just training to PTS minimums is not sufficient.

- for the most part the insurance companies govern what planes a newly minted PP will fly and how people progress through the hardware. while not regulatory, de-facto the graduated training is already there.

Not your concern - or mine, as an instructor.

Besides, I have known many private owners who just don't do the insurance. Neither would I, on a 172 or similar 'easy' airplane.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I don't like regulations, but if we have to have them, they should address real world problems and living, and it isn't rocket science.

Ah, now we get to the root cause of all this inane rambling. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[nosehair]

If we honestly evaluate the fatal accident data, we see "Lack of training" isn't the problem, because there isn't a pilot flying that hasn't been told to check fuel, preflight, and not tangle with weather s/he's not capable of handling at least once.

Oh, so 'being told' to do all that stuff is sufficient training, huh? Yeah, well, I might as well quit here - but I won't. "Lack of training" isn't usually listed except in documented cases.
A person who possesses a Private Pilot certificate has been certified as having all the required knowledge and training as required for that certificate. So, no, you won't see lack of training as a usual cause of the accident. What you see is "Pilot error".
Yes, many accidents are truly an error, such as a brainf**t at the wrong moment. We've all done it. I have, many times, and forces other than my own acted to keep me alive.

But I've also gotten myself into situations beyond my complete control by trusting in my elders, including the FAA regs, back when I was inexperienced. And so has most everyone else that I have talked with.
And these situations don't make it into the statistics.
I'm just saying, use all available information, and be very cautious with statistics.

Can we increase the overall competency of the pilot population? Of course -- but there is a price. Make the bar too high, and the only people flying will be a few well-heeled under 30, 20-20 vision types.

There's a tension between broad access and high standards. There always is and always will be.

See, that's just not true. "Always has, always is, always will be." That's the kind of thing old people say. Don't wanna move, or change.

The bar is too high already, it needs to be 'gradient'. There needs to be a
more gradual rate, don't know if this is communicating - I mean a more gradual process of getting from a guy off the street to private pilot.

Or more specifically, a person from a rural area to flying a Bonanza into Atlanta.
This person would need a lot of training as opposed to a person raised in the city and driving a cab for a living.

The bottom line is that federal regulations cannot encompass the totality of the individual requirements that vary so much in the person and locality and type of equipment. The regulations are an attempt to cover everybody without regard for individual differences. The instructor, or school, is supposed to do that - in a way that promotes pilot competency and safety.

It can be written into the regs. A blanket rule to cover the majority, with a regulatory provision for local FSDO's to approve 'deviations' which do not compromise safety, such as approving an airport 47 miles away as a "xc for training" route when it is obvious that the intended xc training would occur. And many other rules like that could be left up to the local FSDO's.

It would be that way if we had an FAA concerned about training, but they are not. Not their concern. Their concern is enforcement of the existing regs, not making more work for them - they're understaffed as it is - like all our govt. inspections systems.

 

[poadeleted20]

Don't understand that response. I think you don't understand my intent. What do you mean?

What I mean is that 61.31 already requires CP's to obtain training and certification of their competence in complex airplanes before acting as PIC in them, and CFI's to obtain training and certification of their competence in complex airplanes before instructing in them -- why force them to take their CP/CFI ride in one? We don't do that for the other 61.31 endorsements (high performance, tailwheel, or high-altitude), so why do it for complex? And if you're going to do that for complex, why not make CP's and CFI's take their initial rides in a complex, HP, high-altitude tailwheel airplane? Viewed in those terms, the arbitrariness and absurdity of requiring initial CP/CFI in a complex airplane becomes apparent.

OTOH, allowing the initial CP to be done in a simple airplane would encourag folks to obtain that advanced training which focuses on more precision in aircraft control and operation -- and based on what I see every weekend at GA airports all over the place, I think that would be great.

 

[dmccormack]

See, that's just not true. "Always has, always is, always will be." That's the kind of thing old people say. Don't wanna move, or change.

The bar is too high already, it needs to be 'gradient'. There needs to be a
more gradual rate, don't know if this is communicating - I mean a more gradual process of getting from a guy off the street to private pilot.

Or more specifically, a person from a rural area to flying a Bonanza into Atlanta.
This person would need a lot of training as opposed to a person raised in the city and driving a cab for a living.

Now I know you really are clueless -- what makes you think a NYC Cab driver is more advanced along your "gradient" then someone from the farmland of [flat state name here]?

I know folks from each population -- each has certain advantages, but neither is ahead at the aviation starting gate.

Are there incompetent CFIs? Sure...but we don't all need advanced degrees in psych to instruct, fella.

 

[nosehair]

What I mean is that 61.31 already requires CP's to obtain training and certification of their competence in complex airplanes before acting as PIC in them, and CFI's to obtain training and certification of their competence in complex airplanes before instructing in them -- why force them to take their CP/CFI ride in one? We don't do that for the other 61.31 endorsements (high performance, tailwheel, or high-altitude), so why do it for complex? And if you're going to do that for complex, why not make CP's and CFI's take their initial rides in a complex, HP, high-altitude tailwheel airplane? Viewed in those terms, the arbitrariness and absurdity of requiring initial CP/CFI in a complex airplane becomes apparent.

OTOH, allowing the initial CP to be done in a simple airplane would encourag folks to obtain that advanced training which focuses on more precision in aircraft control and operation -- and based on what I see every weekend at GA airports all over the place, I think that would be great.

Yeah, Ron, that's what I'm saying. Exactly. Throughout the whole training and certification process. Start simple and progress to complex.

I guess I'm trying to make too broad of a sweep with too little explanation.
The concept of 'endorsements' via 61.51 is right idea, but it does not have enough specifics. We need more quantifiable measurable training and experience requirements to 'train up' a potential commercial (part 91-GA) pilot.

You know how quick and incomplete a 182 gets a HP sign-off. Or a 172RG gets a complex sign-off. This is not rally HP or complex training in preparation for commercially operating really high power rally complex machines.

I think (I hope) everybody can see that, and agree on the principle, and the only real squawk is the cost.

And, in principle, I don't care about cost. I cannot agree with compromising safety and pilot proficiency because of cost.

But there are lots of ways to restructure the training model to provide more training and experience in more gradual layers. Simple to complex. That's a basic teaching/learning principle, and it has disappeared from the system.

Getting a PP cert in 6 weeks or even 90 days is ...not in accordance with basic teaching/learning principles.

It is a good time frame for doing the training, and would be good for flying simple 2/4 place airplanes with pax within a hundred or so miles from homebase.

The trouble begins with all PPs going on their first x/c beyond 300 miles.

All kinds of things happen, mainly the weather changes about the same time the gas is getting low.

Never happened in training, so...we all have been there and the fact that we are still here is,..well, it is not due to our skill and knowledge at that time. Some of us weren't so lucky.

So, if the 'quickie' PP would be limited until gaining further experience, ...yeah, I know, nobody responding to this wants to hear about it, but I've been watching it for 50 years, and ...this is my opinion, FWIW.

 

[nosehair]

Now I know you really are clueless -- what makes you think a NYC Cab driver is more advanced along your "gradient" then someone from the farmland of [flat state name here]?

That's just a metaphor. Are you a NYC cab driver? I noted your earlier comment about getting a NJ DL, then driving in Manhattan, and how quickly you took your family up and so on.

That's you. You are a unique individual who got unique individual training and you may be able to absorb quickly and retain long and have a natural eye-hand coordination that allows you to execute and apply the knowledge.

That's you, and when we have good students like you, much more training could occur rather than "meet the minimums", but pilots like you are not what this is about.

It is the pilots like you, who learn quickly, and whose background and social structure encourage and enhance learning, that do not want more certification costs. Understandably so, and I am just proposing that we restructure so that individuals can progress at their own rate of learning.

 

[dmccormack]

Getting a PP cert in 6 weeks or even 90 days is ...not in accordance with basic teaching/learning principles.

Quite frankly, one of the worst assumptions in any learning environment is training to time, not to task.

If a trainee can perform within the conditions to the standard -- who cares how long it takes?

 

[dmccormack]

That's just a metaphor. Are you a NYC cab driver? I noted your earlier comment about getting a NJ DL, then driving in Manhattan, and how quickly you took your family up and so on.

That's you. You are a unique individual who got unique individual training and you may be able to absorb quickly and retain long and have a natural eye-hand coordination that allows you to execute and apply the knowledge.

That's you, and when we have good students like you, much more training could occur rather than "meet the minimums", but pilots like you are not what this is about.

It is the pilots like you, who learn quickly, and whose background and social structure encourage and enhance learning, that do not want more certification costs. Understandably so, and I am just proposing that we restructure so that individuals can progress at their own rate of learning.

I still don't see what the problem is...

Minimal success in aviation requires a minimum intellect, physical capacity, money, motivation, and time.

Couple that with an instructor, airplane, and space.

Test the applicant's knowledge, skill, and judgment to some standard, promulgated and adjusted based on experience in the field.

Quite frankly I find aviation training and progression far more capable of predictable outcome then let's say, software "engineering," which is about as filled with baloney-dom as any profession since carney barker.

 

[nosehair]

Quite frankly, one of the worst assumptions in any learning environment is training to time, not to task.

Right. I'm talking to task. The task has to be more inclusive of experience. One of the big pilot killers is weather, and weather changes by seasons. A pilot who learns the control of the airplane is really learning to control that airplane in a given environment, which includes weather, but also a wide variety of other variables in equipment and location. The task needs to somehow address a wider range of demonstrated skill and experience requirements that can be added as the new pilot gains these more specific requirements that he/she did not get or need to fly friends locally in a 172.

Like night. Didn't use to be a requirement, but now it is. The FAA added 3 hours night and 3 hours instrument to the PP requirement, but did not add any thing to the total 40 hour requirement. That is the way of the government system. They have been adding skill and knowledge requirements to the basic PP cert, but have never upped the time requirement, so, in real life, the "school", or competing instructor, waters down the basic skill and knowledge training in an attempt to do the extra training in the same time. And this leads to "double-dipping".

I'm not saying the current system isn't good for everybody - works fine with me and most people who can work it and realize the limitations, but there people who are not so capable and should not be given such all-encompassing authority with such little training.

I would bet there are some controllers who would love to see a Class B endorsement requirement for non-instrument rated pilots.

No, I don't mean a requirement of a certain time, like 40 hours. I would like to see most time requirements eliminated and replaced with specific tasks, but time does enter the learning process.

If you cram a subject and learn rote responses in quick time, you may be able to repeat the required responses very accurately when tested immediately upon memorization, but the knowledge and skill will rapidly diminish, plus the knowledge is 'memory', not 'correlated' conclusions that become permanent long-range knowledge that can be continually correlated to continually enhance your decision making skills.

The current written test system is an embarrassment to me. Well, if I could still be embarrassed, it would. I don't like telling any person that the test questions, and answers, are available in a book he can buy and memorize.

A written test you can memorize, and a flight test as well, that you can memorize, and prep for, like a high-school play.

You're right. We need more tasking.