Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pilot Training' started by Ticket puncher, Apr 16, 2008.
Watch it, Bubba!
im not disagreeing with you...
You accuse me of all kinds of horrible things on this board including being involved in the porn industry and you tell me to WATCH IT.
I'm sorry. Both were meant jokingly. In another thread, you had said you used to be called "Bubba."
I had been but I thought you were taking offense to my generic and not all inclusive statement. As I said in my PM I think after getting jumped on by Greg last night for not being able to read his or Matt's minds that I may have been a little sensitive.
I got a digital exam once from this super fine little Italian doctor gal (leave it to the Seafarers International Union to have hot babes as their docs.), she could have made that exam last 5-8 hrs...
I was involved in the Porn Industry!!! If you ever see some "Pirate Porn" videos from Video X, you'll see me a few times driving the boat, occassionally being tended to by a fluffer. Ah, to be 24 again and sailing old schooners..., the pay was non existant, but we had a heck of a life.
Yeah, my buddies dad owned Video X. I can't figure out why, but all my life I seem to be surrounded by degenerates, here's to degenerates...
From what I've always seen in the Nall Reports, including 2006 stats, flight instruction has looked well compared to all the other categories of flight. It really shouldn't even be included with them though because it is so much different in its much higher level of exposure to maneuvering risks.
Viewed on the level of accidents sustained per maneuvers performed in flight per hour (often hundreds per hour) doesn't CFIing appear reasonably safe? That observed level of safety consistently comes from the long existing channels and reasonable testing. The perishable skills and judgement that pilots derive from that flight training are always subject to constant decay and refortification, and continue to yield acceptable and affordable, though not ideal, accident/mortality rates in all categories of GA.
While it is true that the accident rate during Flight Instruction is typically lower than other categories of GA flight, that statistic muddies the waters.
When you consider that the GA accident rate is about the same as motorcycling (an activity that requires 2% of the training and preparation of flying and which numbers are weighted heavily with low experience/young age types) is considered "acceptable."
I read some posts speaking to the "quality" of CFI's and how the quality of the CFI's are slipping.
How do you measure the quality of a CFI in non-subjective metrics?
The only objective portions of any checkride are the oral and following procedures per the POH. Applicable FARs may be 95% there
You don't. The only things that matter can't be described with numbers of hours, students, etc.
I would probably tend to agree with you.
You have to admit it is an interesting situation where a person goes through extensive training, where we: fill their head with a considerable amount of knowledge, subject them to intensive evaluation, certify them, put them in a leadership roll training others to operate in a fairly unforgiving and complex environment, and then have no way to objectively measure if their any good at what they were trained for!!
Maybe it's a good idea many CFI's quickly go on to fly with the airlines. At least their operating in a fairly structured system. Word of mouth and reputation probably eliminates the worst CFI's. That leaves the mediocre and those who like to teach and are good at it. What a system!!
Next time I travel I'm going by train!!
You're not only being overly dramatic but are under rating flight students as well. Early on and intermittantly in the structered written materials that the vast majority use during primary through advanced flight training there are all the key elements of knowledge presented for safe flight. Most students show they can pursue that knowledge quite well, and it automatically begets a certain amount of good judgement as well, CFIs be damned.
The exceptions will of course always exist, and if there were even that many of them, accident/mortalty rates would be higher than their consistently low rates. Comparing the totally unique demands of transportation safety via flight with the much lesser pursuits of motorcycling and train riding is like comparing the nutritive values of rye whiskey with rye bread.
No, not overly dramatic just trying to inject a little tongue in cheek humor. I don't remember saying anything about the flight students and their ability to learn and develop good judgement in the absence of good instruction. If you want to respond fine, but don't attempt to infer that I denigrated flight students. Nor do I ever remember saying anything about motorcycling.
Frankly. I don't need to lectured about instructing...I've paid my instructing dues over the last several 1000 hours. I was just trying to comment on the fact that it's an interesting situation that a considerable amount of responsibility in heaped upon a CFI with regards to training the next generation of instructors and pilots without a tangible way of measuring if a particular CFI is good at his job. It's especially interesting since there seems to be a general tendency to complain that some CFI's aren't all that dedicated or qualified. Yet there seems to be a willingness to accept the status quo and accept existing FAA evaluation process as adequate.
Students or CFIs, they all are and were flight students and will remain so at some level throughout their flying times. All CFIs pass the FAA test and that is the minimum standard of evaluation, which the market dictates is high enough for life as we know it. Still, it would be nice it often seems, to have it easier to have a rigorous review of any pilot demonstrating problems, especially repeatedly.
The training system is at a reasonable equilibrium and has been so for decades. To get more ideal results out of the safety side of the GA equation would take more effort, time, and money than the vast majority will spend. The minority that do want more safety will continue take it upon themselves to seek out and employ such remedies as they feel worthwhile, and they will pay extra for that desirable extra safety one way or another.
I assume you're referring to my comparison of GA and motorcycling accident rates...
As far as "much lesser" I'll also assume this a subjective judgment based on opinion and leave it there.
The fact remains that the accident rates between the two pursuits are equivalent, despite motorcycling's many hazards and built-in bias towards higher accident rates (e.g. little or no formal training, disproportionate population under 25, more moving obstacles, higher power-to-weight ratios, no maintenance oversight, etc).
I think there is a valid comparison, as it seems despite all the safety emphasis, the training, the maintenance oversight, the controlled airspace, the older population, and electronics, to have an accident rate equivalent to motorcycling is just lousy, but I do NOT draw the conclusion that this rate is therefore the responsibility of "low time instructors building time until they get to the airlines."
If that was the case there would be a disproportionate share of fatals by their recent charges.
There is no such trend.
I would agree that there is a diminishing point of returns on $$ & efforts spent vs incremental increases in safety. Have we or have we not reached that point yet and are we or are we not safe enough? Frankly, I haven't a clue!!
There has been a struggle going on for years in the nuclear and non-nuclear safety area trying to find a away, some measurable metric, to answer the question are we safe enough? There still isn't a good set of metrics to determine the optimal point. What was found is that to much reliance on rules and procedures at the expense of judgement and experience is a very slippery slope indeed.
Measure them by their product - what's their first-time pass rate?
What's their incident/accident record, both for students (which they should be able to answer with data) and it would be cool if they could answer it for the 1 year after "release".