Sport Pilot "one of the worst things to happen to GA"?

[docmirror]

Lecture may or may not work -- really depends on the student.

Better to constantly provide opportunities while in flight, "So what are you going to do now...?"

Those lessons stick.

Well said. We're off topic here but this brings back an interesting flight from my training days. The CFI called me(what!), and said, 'meet the the airport at 3pm'. It was overcast, and drizzly. We got there, hopped in and took off. He made me do VOR nav to a nearby field that was in some hills. After stopping, we took off and he let me try to nav back by pilotage with some help. I turned up the wrong valley, and he said 'AHA!'. It led to IMC about five miles up. He could clearly see it, and we went in for a minute or so, then turned around.

I won't forget that mistake.

 

[alaskaflyer]

OK, I suppose if you mean "Had an Instrument checkride and passed one day" I'd agree -- the rating provides no inherent protection.

All my IFR flights have been VMC into IMC (I haven't had a reason to do a zero-zero t/o yet).

Check the database. Most VFR into IMC into cold hard granite flights here have been by thousand hour, instrument rated pilots flying equipment at least marginally equipped for IFR.

IMO you are only thinking of one dimension of VFR into IMC accidents.

 

[Anthony]

Check the database. Most VFR into IMC into cold hard granite flights here have been by thousand hour, instrument rated pilots flying equipment at least marginally equipped for IFR.

IMO you are only thinking of one dimension of VFR into IMC accidents.

By defintion instrument rated pilots tend to put themselves into more challenging weather than VFR pilots.

 

[Henning]

I think ADM coverage is lacking from ALL curriculums, so I don't think SP sucks any more at this than PP.

I'll freely admit that I don't have an easy answer to the problem. When I start teaching, my students (whether I'm teaching ground, flight, or both) are gonna get both a lecture and some interactive discussion on the difference between being a pilot and being a PIC. They want the signoff, they're gonna have to endure that, and prove that they are "worthy" - that they really do understand that details matter, and that you fly an airplane with your hands and feet, but you command one with your head.

Problem is one of exposure. You can talk about ADM all you want, fact remains, ADM is learned from extracting ones self from mistakes in ADM, and there's not many instructors out there willing to let a student put them in a real bind, so ADM is usually something that is self taught. I still don't see how lessening the training cirricullum serves this better since it reduces the opportunities for a student to get into a bind with a backstop onboard.

 

[dmccormack]

Check the database. Most VFR into IMC into cold hard granite flights here have been by thousand hour, instrument rated pilots flying equipment at least marginally equipped for IFR.

IMO you are only thinking of one dimension of VFR into IMC accidents.

You mean VFR flights that flew into IMC without proper planning, etc by pilots who happen to have an IR on their certificates?

There are those, certainly.

 

[dmccormack]

By defintion instrument rated pilots tend to put themselves into more challenging weather than VFR pilots.

True, but that wouldn't be "Continued VFR into IMC" as the accident cause...

 

[Anthony]

True, but that wouldn't be "Continued VFR into IMC" as the accident cause...

But I know that IFR pilots launch into marginal weather than VFR pilots. Instead of doing the 180, they file, proceed and sometimes have poor results in actual.

 

[alaskaflyer]

You mean VFR flights that flew into IMC without proper planning, etc by pilots who happen to have an IR on their certificates?

There are those, certainly.

I was just thinking that in terms of judgment. Most if not all are a due to a lack of judgment i.e. intentionally challenging those conditions in a VFR environment where you have no real IFR out, unlike in much of the eastern part of the country.

In other words, we have two kinds of IFR accidents in the mountains...conditions that exceed the capability of the pilot operating in IMC under IFR resulting in disorientation or mistakes and the resulting crash (such as crashes into houses near the airport in Sitka and Ketchikan on the ILS or LOC approach), or the highly trained, experienced pilot who chooses to continue into marginal conditions while operating under VFR because he/she has done it a thousand times before, has Capstone equipment, etc etc and loses the bet he made with himself and mother nature - CFIT.

The low time pilot who inadvertently enters into IMC and enters the "death spiral"? Don't see that around these parts too much.

 

[TMetzinger]

Lecture may or may not work -- really depends on the student.

Better to constantly provide opportunities while in flight, "So what are you going to do now...?"

Those lessons stick.

I'm gonna REALLY look hard at what I can do in MS flight sim - if you've seen the VFR-into-IMC ASF minicourse, all those animations were in FSX. While it wouldn't be loggable, I think there can be some real value in putting a student through some LOFT scenarios with Flight Sim. Or if the weather is too bad to fly one day, tell him to come out/over anyway, and "let's look at what we'd have found if we'd TRIED to go today". Nothing like hitting a mountain, or losing control in a sim to make you think.

I really envy the things you can do in a real sim. I've "died" five times in sims, all due to subtle malfunctions. I remember following a flight director down an ILS and not cross-checking with the raw data - it seemed to agree just fine at the beginning of the approach. But the flight director was giving me too much "nose down", and I hit terrain under full "control". There's an RNAV STAR into Las Vegas that when flown correctly puts you maybe 2000 feet over a ridge. I got some sort of ATC Vector that turned me off the STAR, and hit a higher part of the ridge because I just accepted the ATC instruction and didn't THINK about the terrain. SPLAT!

In all cases, I was unsettled for quite a while afterwards, and the lesson was really seared into my soul. That's the kind of experience I'd like to be able to give GA students.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In all cases, I was unsettled for quite a while afterwards, and the lesson was really seared into my soul. That's the kind of experience I'd like to be able to give GA students.

Tim,

I've tried to think up scenarios to do the same, but I realized that I'm gonna have to do something to avoid scaring people away too!

Kent

 

[TMetzinger]

Kent,

You're right. I'd envision this kind of stuff in the last phase where all the X/C work happens. By that time the student should be pretty much committed.

If we end up scaring someone in that stage away, I'm not (yet) sure that's a bad thing. I had a student I was mentoring do very well but just couldn't psych herself up for solo X/C work. Much better that she doesn't fly with that phobia.

 

[dmccormack]

Tim,

I've tried to think up scenarios to do the same, but I realized that I'm gonna have to do something to avoid scaring people away too!

Kent

You don't do this to a 4 hour student pilot, of course -- you wait until the hook is set and the guy/girl is Uber-pilot and thinks they've got it all down...

 

[dmccormack]

I'm gonna REALLY look hard at what I can do in MS flight sim - if you've seen the VFR-into-IMC ASF minicourse, all those animations were in FSX. While it wouldn't be loggable, I think there can be some real value in putting a student through some LOFT scenarios with Flight Sim. Or if the weather is too bad to fly one day, tell him to come out/over anyway, and "let's look at what we'd have found if we'd TRIED to go today". Nothing like hitting a mountain, or losing control in a sim to make you think.

I really envy the things you can do in a real sim. I've "died" five times in sims, all due to subtle malfunctions. I remember following a flight director down an ILS and not cross-checking with the raw data - it seemed to agree just fine at the beginning of the approach. But the flight director was giving me too much "nose down", and I hit terrain under full "control". There's an RNAV STAR into Las Vegas that when flown correctly puts you maybe 2000 feet over a ridge. I got some sort of ATC Vector that turned me off the STAR, and hit a higher part of the ridge because I just accepted the ATC instruction and didn't THINK about the terrain. SPLAT!

In all cases, I was unsettled for quite a while afterwards, and the lesson was really seared into my soul. That's the kind of experience I'd like to be able to give GA students.

I agree -- the sim (even the desktop kind), can very very effective training.

As the quality of the equipment increases, there needs to be some sort of recognition of the utility of these desktop trainers, in certain controlled scenarios with supervision (doing loops in an Extra over your hometown doesn't count).

MSFS helped me immeasurably in preparing for the IR.

But you have to take it seriously and not mess around one day and then fly "for real" the next. You have to approach it suspending reality and immersing yourself in the actual task at hand, despite the lack of various sensations.

In the Army we used MILES for force on force training. When that beeper went off, soldiers with half a brain took it very hard.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Kent,
If we end up scaring someone in that stage away, I'm not (yet) sure that's a bad thing. I had a student I was mentoring do very well but just couldn't psych herself up for solo X/C work. Much better that she doesn't fly with that phobia.

Agreed. I don't think it's a good idea of too much coaxing along of students that don't reach a competent and confident level in a reasonable amount of time. Most people weren't meant to fly PIC and never will.

 

[dmccormack]

Agreed. I don't think it's a good idea of too much coaxing along of students that don't reach a competent and confident level in a reasonable amount of time. Most people weren't meant to fly PIC and never will.

And reasonable is...?

People learn at different rates, but even though one may be a quick learner, doesn't mean the CFI should be doing spin training in the second hour to "see if he's got it."

The idea that "some people just can't hack it and we'll winnow out the ineligibles by putting them through the wringer" has wrecked far too many flight training dreams and is unacceptable.

Our job as CFIs is to teach, mentor, coach, instruct, guide.

CFIs are not gatekeepers for entry into the hallowed ranks of aviators. We can help them acquire the skills, mental apparatus, and some of the ADM and judgement required, but at some point the student must take over the reins of leanring and begin his/her own journey.

When a student earns the Private Pilot, someone will mention the old saw, "This is a license to learn." The lessons and modelling is now internalized, and the journey begins -- frought with mistakes and in some cases peril -- towards acquiring experience.

Certainly CFIs can withold recommendation for a Practical until certain level of competence is demonstrated, but the conclusion should be apparent to both the student and the instructor because he/she cannot meet the standard (in the student pilot case, the PTS).

 

[jmaynard]

The idea that "some people just can't hack it and we'll winnow out the ineligibles by putting them through the wringer" has wrecked far too many flight training dreams and is unacceptable.

Amen. If they're objectively not competent to act as pilot in command, that's one thing - but as Dan says, that's what the practical test standards are for. People come to a CFI because they want to learn how to fly. If they discover a hump in the middle, it's the CFI's job to get them over it as long as that can be done safely.

Tim, did someone suggest the student you cite go for a Recreational ticket? Seems like the perfect answer: get them in the air and learning, without the XC requirement that seems like the big stumbling block.

 

[TMetzinger]

Amen. If they're objectively not competent to act as pilot in command, that's one thing - but as Dan says, that's what the practical test standards are for. People come to a CFI because they want to learn how to fly. If they discover a hump in the middle, it's the CFI's job to get them over it as long as that can be done safely.

Tim, did someone suggest the student you cite go for a Recreational ticket? Seems like the perfect answer: get them in the air and learning, without the XC requirement that seems like the big stumbling block.

Yes, that's what happened. And she's going on for her private now, having gotten sufficient confidence.

 

[Henning]

And reasonable is...?

That is thequestion isn't it. When I was teaching sailing, on the knots part ASA sets a standard that they have to tie the knots "In a reasonable amount of time?" Well what the hell does that mean? I settled that they had to tie them with their hands faster than I could with my feet.

I think with recreational pilot training, reasonable just has to indicate progress. As long as progress is being made, all is well. When progress ceases though, then you have to determine why? Is it a learning/teaching deficiency, or is it emotionally based? Really, this is where you find the difference between a good and mediocre CFI.

 

[dmccormack]

That is thequestion isn't it. When I was teaching sailing, on the knots part ASA sets a standard that they have to tie the knots "In a reasonable amount of time?" Well what the hell does that mean? I settled that they had to tie them with their hands faster than I could with my feet.

I think with recreational pilot training, reasonable just has to indicate progress. As long as progress is being made, all is well. When progress ceases though, then you have to determine why? Is it a learning/teaching deficiency, or is it emotionally based? Really, this is where you find the difference between a good and mediocre CFI.

Agreed -- the good instructor in any endeavor seeks to mentor as well as instruct, all the while building a relationship that permits analysis and appropriate guidance.


I had a guy call me up a few weeks ago wanting some Instrument instruction. He asked if I was a "yeller."

"A what?"

"You know -- a yeller -- Tom is, and I don't like that..."

I assured him I was not, unless the situation and the person warranted some higher volume intensity, but that I hadn't yet experienced that situation while flying -- ever.

He laughed and said, "OK, I don't like getting yelled at."

Sheese. What is this? Dressage training?

 

[etsisk]

hey, *I* don't like gettin' yelled at*, either! And won't stand for it!



(*outside of emergency situations, of course)

 

[GigG601XL]

Yes, that's what happened. And she's going on for her private now, having gotten sufficient confidence.

You actually know someone who got a recreational certificate? Wow, I've never even known someone who knows someone with one.

 

[dmccormack]

hey, *I* don't like gettin' yelled at*, either! And won't stand for it!



(*outside of emergency situations, of course)

Who does???

(Though I did plenty of "yelling" and was yelled at a plenty when in uniform)

It is unnecessary in a cockpit, especially with headsets.

I mentioned Dressage because in horse riding training it seems axiomatic that the louder the trainer yells, the higher dollars he/she commands for "training services."

It's quite amusing.

 

[bbchien]

OK for the record the "Arrrrr!" is NOT mine.

That is the question isn't it. When I was teaching sailing, on the knots part ASA sets a standard that they have to tie the knots "In a reasonable amount of time?" Well what the hell does that mean? I settled that they had to tie them with their hands faster than I could with my feet.

It means they have to get the bitter end secured in the cleat before the windage makes holding the dock impossible.

I think with recreational pilot training, reasonable just has to indicate progress. As long as progress is being made, all is well. When progress ceases though, then you have to determine why? Is it a learning/teaching deficiency, or is it emotionally based? Really, this is where you find the difference between a good and mediocre CFI.

This means you have to demonstrate the skill before you run out money.

 

[Henning]

OK for the record the "Arrrrr!" is NOT mine. It means they have to get the bitter end secured in the cleat before the windage makes holding the dock impossible.
Lets not throw cleats into the mix... I've got owners, 2 million dollar boats, and these guys aren't stupid either, I can't get them to tie a proper hitch on a cleat. Their 6-10 year old kids do just fine, but dads, nope, and moms, well, sometimes, but I really don't ask them to handle lines, nails and all that you know.....


This means you have to demonstrate the skill before you run out money.

You bet, but that's really as it should be. If you're paying for it on your own and want to keep going, fine, who am I not to take your money? As long as everything is up front, full disclosure and agreed upon, all is well. Now if there is third party funding, you have to be honest with them as well.

 

[Maxmosbey]

Wow, I read this whole thread at one time. There are some interesting stuff here. OK, as for light sport pilots and their planes. Seems that there are two kinds, those with $100,000 LSAs, and those with ercoups. I wonder just what percentage of light sport pilots are just starting out. Most people that I know who are flying light sport are pilots with plenty of experience, who got afraid that they were not going to be able to pass their next physical, and just wanted to keep flying. They bought an old klunker that meets the LSA criteria, and they fly them around. All of them are very good pilots and have a lot of experience. I'll probably consider light sport some day. OK, so I don't know any 20 hour light sport pilots. There isn't any light sport training going on at the airport here so I don't have any experience with them, but I don't see how they could be any more or any less dangerous than a 20 hour student, and there are plenty of them around.