Are pilots any better than 50 years ago

brien23

brien23

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,445
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
Are new pilots PPL any better than they were 50 years ago. Pilots are still killing themselves the same way, Continued VFR into IFR, and stall spin, Do all the required skills now for PPL make pilots any better than the requirements of 50 years ago. I still have my original copy of the FAR's 1964 kind of skimpy, now it's the size of a Chicago phone book. The practical test from the local FAA office could last as short as 30 minutes or as long as the inspector wanted now the DPE has to hit all the items and instead of a free ride from the feds it now cost $$. Just how has this made us as pilots that much safer.
 
We don't appear to be killing ourselves at quite the rate per flight hour we were decades ago.
 
The answer might be devined from student accident rates, which were as low 50 years ago as they are today.
 
brien23 said:
Are new pilots PPL any better than they were 50 years ago. Pilots are still killing themselves the same way, Continued VFR into IFR, and stall spin, Do all the required skills now for PPL make pilots any better than the requirements of 50 years ago. I still have my original copy of the FAR's 1964 kind of skimpy, now it's the size of a Chicago phone book. The practical test from the local FAA office could last as short as 30 minutes or as long as the inspector wanted now the DPE has to hit all the items and instead of a free ride from the feds it now cost $$. Just how has this made us as pilots that much safer.
Click to expand...

GRG55 said:
We don't appear to be killing ourselves at quite the rate per flight hour we were decades ago.
Click to expand...
It's a totally different type of flying now than it was back in the mid 1960s. Most pilots don't take the chances we did "back in the day", mainly because they are trained to avoid at all costs certain conditions. I'll bet no pilot after 1970 was deliberately taken out in scud conditions so they could experience what it was like. It was routine training at seaplane bases in the Hudson River valley because fog could happen instantaneously and if you wanted to live you needed to know how to cope with it.

I also still have all my material from the mid 1960s. You could read the entire FAR in one night. I took my check ride in a P-11 Cub on floats so the Oral was about 38 minutes (according to my notes) and it took that long because there was a lot more "stuff" to know because of the floats. In the interests of full disclosure, it took that long because the guy from the FAA decided to make a fresh pot of coffee. My check ride lasted 45 minutes. Fifteen minutes was used up dogfighting with another P-11 on floats. I had flown with the guy about 25 times in the past 2 years, and he used to have me ferry his plane around for him when it need service of one type or another.
Can you imagine any of that happening now?
Like I said; It was a very different world back then.
 
Shepherd said:
It's a totally different type of flying now than it was back in the mid 1960s. Most pilots don't take the chances we did "back in the day", mainly because they are trained to avoid at all costs certain conditions. I'll bet no pilot after 1970 was deliberately taken out in scud conditions so they could experience what it was like. It was routine training at seaplane bases in the Hudson River valley because fog could happen instantaneously and if you wanted to live you needed to know how to cope with it.

I also still have all my material from the mid 1960s. You could read the entire FAR in one night. I took my check ride in a P-11 Cub on floats so the Oral was about 38 minutes (according to my notes) and it took that long because there was a lot more "stuff" to know because of the floats. In the interests of full disclosure, it took that long because the guy from the FAA decided to make a fresh pot of coffee. My check ride lasted 45 minutes. Fifteen minutes was used up dogfighting with another P-11 on floats. I had flown with the guy about 25 times in the past 2 years, and he used to have me ferry his plane around for him when it need service of one type or another.
Can you imagine any of that happening now?
Like I said; It was a very different world back then.
Click to expand...

LOL sounds like an awesome checkride
 
We are safer statistically. I cannot speak to the relative quality of airmanship as a function of training on the civil side. On the military side I do can speak for it, as pilot training is my direct livelihood. The answer is absolutely yes we have better pilots now than in the vietnam or WWII generation. That's an easy kill, judging by the smaller numbers and higher need for multi-tasking and sensor implementation. Our year group quality does fluctuate ax the "good idea fairies" ebb and flow from the muckity mucks at senior management -- I mean leadership.

The acceptable hull+ body loss rate in WWII would make most people's head spin, even the Vietnam guys. As has been said before, it was just a different time. We don't lose anywhere near the amount of jets that were considered par for the coure back then. We are in certainly afforded the luxury of training less but better pilots, present pilot retention and Qol issues notwithstanding. Technology has also made the act of navigation much simpler, and safety is somewhat derived from that. Again, more applicable to airline operations as a comment.
 
The tech is better, pilots worse, between dumbing down pilot training a kid “safety” culture and all

Sums up the safety culture part
 
How many new pilots/aircraft did we have 50 years ago? How does that compare to the ratio today? I guess that's the only way to measure it. We have a whole lot more doodads to aid navigation and weather awareness today than they had 50 years ago.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
The tech is better, pilots worse, between dumbing down pilot training a kid “safety” culture and all

Sums up the safety culture part
Click to expand...

I dunno about that outlook.

When I had a real job in a chemical plant (for 13 years) I always beat the drum that "We're all focused on Safety, We're all focused on Quality, and with those covered we can look after our day jobs."

[Trust me, I know what the rolling eyes look like, I saw them at least monthly during that time from the whole staff, and much more frequently from my guys]
 
Timbeck2 said:
How many new pilots/aircraft did we have 50 years ago? How does that compare to the ratio today? I guess that's the only way to measure it. We go a whole lot more doodads to aid navigation and weather awareness today than they had 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

There were a lot more pilots, pilots in training, aircraft sales, airports, and all associated flight services between WWII and the mid 1960s. The GI bill had a big part in that.
When I got back from my stint in the USAF in 1973, ALL of the seaplane bases in the Hudson Valley had closed while I was gone. A large percentage of all the other airports soon followed.

Hindsite2020 commented on the navigation issues: When I was in there was a standing joke about fighter pilots and their inability to fly out of sight of the airbase and then find their way back unassisted. All stereotypes are based on the truth.
 
Ravioli said:
I dunno about that outlook.

When I had a real job in a chemical plant (for 13 years) I always beat the drum that "We're all focused on Safety, We're all focused on Quality, and with those covered we can look after our day jobs."

[Trust me, I know what the rolling eyes look like, I saw them at least monthly during that time from the whole staff, and much more frequently from my guys]
Click to expand...

Safety is not a product or a PowerPoint, it’s knowing you are the only one who’s really going to pay if you jack yourself up, act accordingly

Also as someone said not all the baby turtles make it to the ocean, but that’s ok. Thus don’t dumb things down to try to make dodo birds fly.
 
Looking back at my training in 1971 (I soloed in 1972), and comparing it to the training when I got back into flying and finished up my PPL in 1981, I can only say that when I soloed, back then, I was an accident waiting to happen... But I think it was the instructor, not necessarily the required curriculum that made the difference..
 
A lot fewer student pilots, CFIs and Examiners die in spin-related crashes. Maybe because spinning is no longer part of the PPL curriculum and doesn't need to be demonstrated on the checkride.

Other than that, accident rates appear to be down overall. I haven't drilled deep enough into the Nalls to know if all major categories are down or not.
 
Hank S said:
A lot fewer student pilots, CFIs and Examiners die in spin-related crashes. Maybe because spinning is no longer part of the PPL curriculum and doesn't need to be demonstrated on the checkride.

Other than that, accident rates appear to be down overall. I haven't drilled deep enough into the Nalls to know if all major categories are down or not.
Click to expand...

Imagine all the training stall accidents that could be prevented if we didn’t teach stalls..oh wait were already going down that road lol
 
James331 said:
Safety is not a product or a PowerPoint, it’s knowing you are the only one who’s really going to pay if you jack yourself up, act accordingly
Click to expand...

The strange part was that the rank and file always acted like I was the safety cop. I would remind them of their PPE and see those rolling eyes. I would sometimes get diverted and go in an area where I should have Nomex, Hard Hat, Safety Glasses or Goggles but didn't and they'd confront me. I always said "Thank you for the reminder" and moved immediately to the appropriate place. Many times the guy "busting me" would also not have the proper PPE on.
 
I see that maneuvering close to the runway is a major cause of fatal crashes. Why not eliminate that by making the traffic pattern two or three times larger? If one turns final two miles out then there is lots of time-space to make corrections and there would be less skidding into a spin to get lined up on the runway. Not advocating, just stating a fact.
 
I'm 52yrs old...probably would have been a better pilot 50yrs ago :p
 
I’ve become a better pilot now as opposed to when I started flying50 years ago,like the new technology and avionics now.
 
Accident rates are clearly down. Whether or not that is due to improved airmanship is unknown. However, I will speculate that at least some of the improved safety record is due to the incredible advances in flight technology for GA.
 
James331 said:
Safety is not a product or a PowerPoint, it’s knowing you aren't necessarily the only one who’s really going to pay if you jack yourself up, act accordingly.
Click to expand...

Edited the above post in bold.

Usually the person who gets jacked up ends up costing lots of other people lots of money, heartache, and grief. ;)
 
Lachlan said:
Edited the above post in bold.

Usually the person who gets jacked up ends up costing lots of other people lots of money, heartache, and grief. ;)
Click to expand...

“Hey, I’m a millionaire!! Of course I now poop in a bag taped my my side and can’t feel my lower half or get it up, but I sure showed them”

Yeah, I find no solace in that, right up there with trying to force your right of way on a motorcycle

I’ll stick to my original statement
 
James331 said:
“Hey, I’m a millionaire!! Of course I now poop in a bag taped my my side and can’t feel my lower half or get it up, but I sure showed them”

Yeah, I find no solace in that, right up there with trying to force your right of way on a motorcycle

I’ll stick to my original statement
Click to expand...

Uh, ok. Sorry to hear about your poop bag. :)

I thought for sure you’d be one of the first people to say that preventable accidents cost the rest of us a lot of money.
 
Given the predominant age demographic on this forum, you probably won't get much of an admission that training and safety is better today.

Maybe it's just the magenta line or better risk aversion, but the stats say pilots are clearly safer today. Make of that what you will.
 
Bonchie said:
Given the predominant age demographic on this forum, you probably won't get much of an admission that training and safety is better today.

Maybe it's just the magenta line or better risk aversion, but the stats say pilots are clearly safer today. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
I am of that older age demographic, and I will say that training, procedures, and equipment are better today. As far as the pilots themselves, it's hard to lump everyone together, but I would say that pilots in "the old days" were more likely to test the edges of the envelope, which could lead to scaring themselves, becoming better sticks, or disaster. On the other hand, human nature is still the same. Actually, I think I categorize "the old days" as the days before I started reading internet forums, because before then, I never heard much about a lot of the safety and procedural items we discuss here. It's hard to say if that's a old days vs. new days issue. I do know that most people are careful of what they post on the internet (rightly so) so they may seem more conservative than they really are.
 
Bonchie said:
Given the predominant age demographic on this forum, you probably won't get much of an admission that training and safety is better today.
Click to expand...

I'm curious what you feel the predominant age demographic is, and when they were trained. I know that when there have been recent polls with training dates posted, it seemed like the majority of the posters indicated they got their certificate relatively recently.
 
Pilot skills, raw stick skills, were better 50+ years ago, I think, both military and civil. The chances taken back then, considered acceptable at the time, would likely devastate the current pilot population.

Military jocks flew far more hours, had greater autonomy, and pressed limits more consistently. GA is now heavily populated with far more risk adverse types, with a strong bias toward personal safety, versus adventure seeking.
 
Training may or may not be better...airplanes are definitely more capable, but I see more pilots who say, "I have an IFR GPS...I'd never fly an approach using a VOR in real life," than say, "this is a very capable airplane...I need to make sure I'm proficient in more of what it can do."

I also see a lot of pilots who lack significant time acting as PIC. I just saw a guy last week who wanted to get his ATP, but had just over half of the 250 required hours of PIC logged. I'd estimate MAYBE half of that was acting as PIC. I think that makes for generally weaker pilots in the long run.

And yes, I used to know some guys who got hired at Northwest with 250 TT, a Commercial certificate, and no instrument rating. But most of them spent a lot of years in the right seat learning. Upgrade times for the guys I'm seeing now are thousands of hours and several years shorter. They're not getting the opportunity to apprentice like they used to.

I know, that wasn't the OP's question. ;) On the private flying side, I think average instructor experience is significantly lower than it was in the past. They still started instructing with the same minimal time, but most I know spent a couple thousand hours honing their instructional skills before they got hired elsewhere rather than just a few hundred. That extra instructional experience benefits the guys they're teaching, and so more Private Pilots got benefit of more experienced instructors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top