The New Wings Program

[wsuffa]

I get a discount through USAIG for recurrent training. It can be Wings or something else, though a BFR itself doesn't count. Recurrent instrument training, along with an IPC, does.

 

[wabower]

Tim can give you the official figures; the folks I'm communicating with have almost to a person declined to participate and most did in the past. We didn't do an official survey, but one CFI after another commented that they didn't find the new program attractive.

Best,

Dave

Seems to be a deja vu Catch-22. They appear to have successfully designed a program that would theoretically benefit those least likely to use it, and who will never learn enough to care, while making it too cumbersome for those that might be interested to jump through the hoops. I am not encouraged by the prospects, and not given to jousting with windmills.

 

[tdager]

What about the incentive to be a better pilot? Why does everyone, from the youngster being bribed with "chore money" to pilots need to always have a reward for doing something beyond the gratification of the act itself?

It is NOT hard. Heck it is so simple anyone can do it. I do not get the aversion, I really do not.

 

[Everskyward]

What about the incentive to be a better pilot?

You can become a better pilot on your own without participating in a program like this.

I do not get the aversion, I really do not.

I think that some people are wired to like, or need, structure like this in their recurrent training and some are not. This doesn't make one approach better than the other.

 

[dmccormack]

The three critical components to increasing proficiency in any endeavor are Practice to standard, Increased Knowledge, and exposure to ever more challenging conditions.

I doubt anyone will claim WINGS provides all of these, or is ever intended to.

But it does provide a structure for those looking for a framework.

 

[mikea]

You might as well sign up and get credit for all that.

You're not in the target population, though -- WINGS is meant as a recurring training for those who have been outside the training regimen for a while.

The FAA already knew that pilots who did Wings and attended Wings rallies were safe and not the ones they wanted to reach, so in true "too many cooks" too many goals bureaucratic style that came up with a new system that even those who were in the tent would not touch with ten foot pole.

(I had no idea, Tim, they wanted to cut the minimal costs, you know, postage, that were there. SNAFU.)

Keep in mind that those of us who say the online part of Wings is a confusing, pointless, inappropriate morass are NOT luddites, in fact we do the tech for a living.

I'm another pilot who who got dual at the beginning of every year even before Wings Weekend. I'll keep doing that. I'll do a real BFR for the first time and from now on. This, when my CFI is saying let's do Wings. No.

 

[tlglenn]

I've been using the new system since it came out. I haven't had issues with it.

 

[docmirror]

I believe Avemco offers a direct discount.

that is not correct. I was with Avemco and started on the Wings program(old one). I asked specifically about a discount for completing segments. They said no.

Count me as another person who will not participate due to the cumbersomness and privacy concerns. I will tailor my own training program, work on my own weaknesses under the direction of a CFI. He will evaluate my capabilities, and work me where I need work.

I think what turned me off also, is that deal about the landings and takeoffs. Ugh, I started flying a Citabria, transitioned to a Pitts not long after, and have flown some conspicuously hard to land planes in my history. I don't need an hour doing T&G in a Bo!

Too much structure, too many hoops, too much regimen. what I need is training hours that are critical to my deficiencies, Wings has no mechanism for that. I'm gone until it changes.

Oh, one more thing. This change has all the earmarks of a gummint crat that had nothing better to do for a few months than take a marginally successful program, that had some benefits and 'enhance' it or 'improve' it not for the good of the pilot, but for the good of the crat that was trying to make brownie points with the upper crats.

No offense personally Tim.

 

[TMetzinger]

that is not correct. I was with Avemco and started on the Wings program(old one). I asked specifically about a discount for completing segments. They said no.

From the Avemco website - TODAY.
==========================================
Safety Pays with Avemco Safety Rewards
Save 5% off your annual Avemco insurance premium for participating in any of the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) WINGS – Pilot Proficiency Program Knowledge courses qualifying for one (1) full credit or more. This includes the WINGS online courses, the King Schools Practical Risk Management courses developed in conjunction with Avemco, qualified seminars, and more. Click here for complete information on the FAASTeam WINGS program. You can also find information on accessing the program below.
You can also qualify for a 5% savings when you participate in Avemco-recognized flight training. Eligible flight training includes the Flight portion of the WINGS program along with other flight training relevant to the type of aircraft and operations you fly.
===========================================
So, complete a wings phase (knowledge and flight) and save 10%
http://www.avemco.com/Page/FAQs-SafetyRewards.aspx
Nothing personal to you either Doc. Though I wish everyone would not take generalizations from the old program and apply it to the new (and vice versa).

 

[docmirror]

From the Avemco website - TODAY.
==========================================

I don't think you can hold me responsible for checking the Avemco site daily for changes. I did mention in my post that I checked under the OLD program. I will still not be participating.

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't think you can hold me responsible for checking the Avemco site daily for changes. I did mention in my post that I checked under the OLD program. I will still not be participating.

Well, I said the new program qualified for a discount. You said this is not correct, then said the old program didn't qualify for a discount (apples and oranges here).

My point is that I wasn't incorrect - the new program does get you a discount from Avemco.

Now, what I'd hoped to hear from you was something along the lines of "I was wrong when I said "this is not correct". But I'm willing to let it drop - I only post replies here because I want others reading the thread to have correct information. I want people to participate, but if they choose not to participate, I want them to have a choice informed by facts as well as opinions. I'd like it to be clear which is which.

Best wishes,

 

[docmirror]

Well, I said the new program qualified for a discount. You said this is not correct, then said the old program didn't qualify for a discount (apples and oranges here).

My point is that I wasn't incorrect - the new program does get you a discount from Avemco.

Now, what I'd hoped to hear from you was something along the lines of "I was wrong when I said "this is not correct". But I'm willing to let it drop - I only post replies here because I want others reading the thread to have correct information. I want people to participate, but if they choose not to participate, I want them to have a choice informed by facts as well as opinions. I'd like it to be clear which is which.

Best wishes,

Actually I was willing to let it drop too. Up until Sept 14 2008, under the new program Avemco didn't offer the discount. I did check about the new program discount when I changed insurers, but(until you post at 8:23) it wasn't relevant. I was wrong, my mistake, I was in complete error when stating at 8:06PM that Avemco didn't offer the discount. Little did I know that just TODAY Avemco changed it's policy.

You were completely correct, and I was completely in error. I should not have tried to contribute without checking with Avemco for last minute changes vis-a-vis the Wings program. I apologize unreservedly.

Now if the program can be made less cumbersome, and take out the requirement to link personal data to anonymous email addresses, I may come around. As it stands, I'm no longer with Avemco, and my current insurer doesn't offer any discounts until I pass another checkride.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I'm sorry, did I tune into the Red Board somehow? Posts like this were prolific on there. Isn't this the board where we treat each other as if we were speaking in person, or did I misconnect somehow? I think being right on that other board was more important than being a fried, but what do I know.

Best,

Dave

 

[wabower]

I'm sorry, did I tune into the Red Board somehow? Posts like this were prolific on there. Isn't this the board where we treat each other as if we were speaking in person, or did I misconnect somehow? I think being right on that other board was more important than being a fried, but what do I know.

Best,

Dave

Not much, evidently.

It is a lot nicer without the sharp edges, especially for those of us who no longer have any.

 

[docmirror]

I'm sorry, did I tune into the Red Board somehow? Posts like this were prolific on there. Isn't this the board where we treat each other as if we were speaking in person, or did I misconnect somehow?

Is there a problem with my post?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Actually I was willing to let it drop too. Up until Sept 14 2008, under the new program Avemco didn't offer the discount. I did check about the new program discount when I changed insurers, but(until you post at 8:23) it wasn't relevant. I was wrong, my mistake, I was in complete error when stating at 8:06PM that Avemco didn't offer the discount. Little did I know that just TODAY Avemco changed it's policy.

You were completely correct, and I was completely in error. I should not have tried to contribute without checking with Avemco for last minute changes vis-a-vis the Wings program. I apologize unreservedly.

Now if the program can be made less cumbersome, and take out the requirement to link personal data to anonymous email addresses, I may come around. As it stands, I'm no longer with Avemco, and my current insurer doesn't offer any discounts until I pass another checkride.

Is there a problem with my post?

Yes. Tim was simply trying to give correct information. We all (I would think) understood that your post was not deliberate misinformation, but was simply out-of-date. Your tirade was entirely unneccesary.

 

[TMetzinger]

Actually I was willing to let it drop too. Up until Sept 14 2008, under the new program Avemco didn't offer the discount. I did check about the new program discount when I changed insurers, but(until you post at 8:23) it wasn't relevant. I was wrong, my mistake, I was in complete error when stating at 8:06PM that Avemco didn't offer the discount. Little did I know that just TODAY Avemco changed it's policy.

You were completely correct, and I was completely in error. I should not have tried to contribute without checking with Avemco for last minute changes vis-a-vis the Wings program. I apologize unreservedly.

Now if the program can be made less cumbersome, and take out the requirement to link personal data to anonymous email addresses, I may come around. As it stands, I'm no longer with Avemco, and my current insurer doesn't offer any discounts until I pass another checkride.

Dang it. Avemco didn't just start offering the discount today, or yesterday... the discount has been going on for a while.

I believe that they didn't offer a discount under the old program. But they have been offering a discount under the new program. TODAY refers to when I went to confirm it, not when they started offering it. I apologize for not making the context of "today" clearer.

Bottom line on topic. If you're an AVEMCO customer, you can get a 10% discount by completing a phase under the new WINGS program. If you're not an AVEMCO customer - ask your insurer if they offer a discount for pilot proficiency programs like WINGS, and if they don't, use AVEMCO's example to push for one.

 

[docmirror]

Yes. Tim was simply trying to give correct information. We all (I would think) understood that your post was not deliberate misinformation, but was simply out-of-date. Your tirade was entirely unneccesary.

Tim expressed that he thought an apology/correction was in order for my error. I was happy to oblige.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Nothing personal to you either Doc. Though I wish everyone would not take generalizations from the old program and apply it to the new (and vice versa).

But I'm willing to let it drop - I only post replies here because I want others reading the thread to have correct information. I want people to participate, but if they choose not to participate, I want them to have a choice informed by facts as well as opinions. I'd like it to be clear which is which.

Tim expressed that he thought an apology/correction was in order for my error. I was happy to oblige.

Some apology. And I really don't see what caused you to get in such a snit. Tim, like everyone I hope, simply wants to be sure that correct information is given here.

 

[docmirror]

It's a thread where the new Wings program gets almost universally panned. I make a mistake about an ancillary issue, apologize for it, and still get called out for being a snit. I even wanted Tim to know in my first eval that I don't hold him personally responsible for the shortcomings, but he took it hard anyway.

so, in closing, I'm sorry my apology wasn't suitable to Kent. I'm sorry I offended Dave, somehow. I'm sorry I gave incorrect info, based on old, but accurate(then) data. I'm sorry to Tim if he feels I've stepped on his toes.

 

[dmccormack]

so, in closing, I'm sorry my apology wasn't suitable to Kent. I'm sorry I offended Dave, somehow. I'm sorry I gave incorrect info, based on old, but accurate(then) data. I'm sorry to Tim if he feels I've stepped on his toes.

Holy cow...

Is this a Monty Python sketch????

I'm sorry, he's sorry, we're all sorry.

There.

Now go outside and play.

And put some ice on that.

 

[TMetzinger]

I wish... to register... a COMPLAINT!

I'm not offended, and I haven't taken any of this too personally.

There is a lot of criticism of the new program. As it comes up, I'll try to answer it in one of several ways:

• If it's a matter of opinion (like many comments), I may agree, or if not, offer a different view. I'm not going to tell someone their feelings are wrong.
• If it's a matter of fact (like the insurance discount), I'll try to correct any erroneous assumptions, and point out potential workarounds.

Regardless, I intend to take all of the criticisms and try to use them to improve the program as best I can.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Well, me acting as a peace maker is like asking Custer to negotiate a settlement at Little Big Horn. Sorry.

Best,

DAve