Funny story

[Richard]

Rudy's question about the FE and the subsequent responses reminded me of this story.

I met a guy who was a FE for an airline. They told him if he were to get his comm they would hire him as FO with a track to Capt. Because he was based out of O'Hare and he was training in CA he was always on the go trying to balance training, work, and family. He had his company's dispatcher plan his flights not because he didn't know how but because he had too many time constraints on his plate.

Ready for the long x/c he hands in his flight plan to his CFI who promptly says this plan is wrong, therefore you're not making your flight today. The CFI said the numbers were all wrong. After she left he and I went over the dispatcher's plan and it checked out, well, no more than a couple decimal points on NM and ETA. I later asked the CFI what exactly was the problem. She said it was because those numbers couldn't have been gotten off an E-6B. She was right but how could she have known they were generated by an airline's proprietary software? Because of his work schedule plus commute times it was 2 weeks before he could schedule another training flight.

My man never could bring himself to let his CFI know just who it was that produced the plan.

 

[gismo]

Ready for the long x/c he hands in his flight plan to his CFI who promptly says this plan is wrong, therefore you're not making your flight today. The CFI said the numbers were all wrong. After she left he and I went over the dispatcher's plan and it checked out, well, no more than a couple decimal points on NM and ETA. I later asked the CFI what exactly was the problem. She said it was because those numbers couldn't have been gotten off an E-6B. She was right but how could she have known they were generated by an airline's proprietary software? Because of his work schedule plus commute times it was 2 weeks before he could schedule another training flight.

My man never could bring himself to let his CFI know just who it was that produced the plan.

I don't get it. You'd think that automated flight planning would be required rather than rejected at the commercial level.

 

[Richard]

I don't get it. You'd think that automated flight planning would be required rather than rejected at the commercial level.

Aint it the truth! Your point reminds me that my man confronted his CFI on the point that a flight crew typically does not generate it's own dispatch. Her response was such a flight plan does not fulfill Preflight Preparation, Task C, Task E in the Comm PTS.

The a/c performance data was a separate sheet (airline dispatch does not contain PA-28 data) so the plan was formatted in a style with which the CFI was unfamiliar. See Flight Instructor Responsibility pg xiv for further elucidation of the ramifications of the infamous 1,000 TT CFI. That is, while reading the text ask yourself the question, What are the odds such a CFI would obtain the standard as set out in the text? My position is the thinking of a low time CFI is too linear and does not encourage thinking 'outside the box'.

 

[wsuffa]

So, could the student do it by hand if necessary? For example, if the DPE asked?

 

[SCCutler]

So, could the student do it by hand if necessary? For example, if the DPE asked?

My question, exactly.

Could he do it well enough to recognize if the machne did it wrong?

In any event, I think that the intent of the PTS for the rating is to show that the candidate can do it all their lonesome. Shucks, a good coupled autopilot can fly an ILS approach better than I can, why don't I suggest to the DPE that I fly the ILS on the chackride with the A/P?

Is that analogy apt?

 

[Richard]

So, could the student do it by hand if necessary? For example, if the DPE asked?

Just for this very question I was very certain to include this in the original post.

He had his company's dispatcher plan his flights not because he didn't know how but because he had too many time constraints on his plate.

Keep in mind this guy was a long time FE and had 18 yrs as USAF navigator on KC-135s. I know I didn't include that information but I didn't think it germane.

 

[Richard]

My question, exactly.

Could he do it well enough to recognize if the machne did it wrong?

In any event, I think that the intent of the PTS for the rating is to show that the candidate can do it all their lonesome. Shucks, a good coupled autopilot can fly an ILS approach better than I can, why don't I suggest to the DPE that I fly the ILS on the chackride with the A/P?

Is that analogy apt?

I think it apt in the way that an applicant can be expected to demonstrate knowledge of any system found in the a/c. Do they need to tell the tensile strength of the tubing in the vacuum system or is a description of the major components enough?

However, in the way that someone should have to dam the brook to irrigate the trees to cut the wood to make the paper to write their book, no I don't think it is apt. Each successive rating should build on the one prior. Otherwise, why not grade the intial CFI applicant on their flying ability? I think the CFI was overzealous in demanding a plan for each flight in the course.

BTW: Machine recognize you spell machine wrong. Machine feelings hurt. Machine think you say sorry.