Increasing Standards

[poadeleted21]

I thought the FAA stopped publishing the questions a while back?

I remember ASF (I think) having interactive decision making "stories" - you start off with certain conditions of flight, then here's a development of evens and you can do the following a-b-c-or-d, here's what happens now etc branching leading you to certain results - not only "good" or "dead" but also grey areas like "ok, you made it, but only because the runway is over 5000 feet. Have it been any shorter, landing your Mooney with iced up wings and no flaps would result in you departing the runway".
No need to come up with bogus stories, NTSB is full of them. However it would still cost money to develop the scenarios and semi-decent visuals and would require a separate "practical understanding of how things are" test - with most of the test center computers being too obsolete to display any kind of picture on the screens.
That could work for decision making test - but then again, there'd be those who'd memorize the "right" sequence of choices.
Alternatively standard branched out scenarios could be a part of the checkride (oral part) with choices having "points" to arrive at "dead" or "good" or something in between.
Problem is, it would still accomplish nothing. Studying and understanding, saving your bacon in an emergency and taking a checkride for a piece of plastic are all different mindsets and are mostly unrelated.

I think they still publish the questions... mostly.

I'm probably in the minority here. But I think publishing the questions is great.
What better way to learn the answers.....than to tell people the answers and have them memorize them? It cuts the BS and gets down to the brass tacks of "what do you want me to know". Having some kid sit and calculate time enroute (which we're just going to punch into a flight planner anyway), or intimately learn carb ice only to miss the question on the test because of an ambiguously worded question or a rounding error idiotic.

 

[poadeleted21]

I thought they already could. During the oral, my instrument DPE announced from the get-go that he would be using scenario-based questions to test not only my knowledge but also my thought processes. At the risk of heresy, I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing. If someone can't think clearly under pressure, or demonstrates hazardous attitudes when the stuff hits the fan, they probably shouldn't be flying in the system.

What do you think is better?

Letting you flunk someone because in your judgement they "probably shouldn't be flying in the system" or because they busted their altitude by 20' and you have to bust them because the paperwork says so?

 

[azure]

What do you think is better?

Letting you flunk someone because in your judgement they "probably shouldn't be flying in the system" or because they busted their altitude by 20' and you have to bust them because the paperwork says so?

I have mixed feelings about that. My point was, ADM is already part of the PTS. How does that not give them discretion to flunk you for what in their judgment is poor planning, thinking, reasoning, any element of sound ADM?

 

[azure]

I think they still publish the questions... mostly.

As I understand it they still use the old questions that are out there, but also include new questions that they don't publish. I got a few of those on my instrument written (one of them was even undecipherable).

 

[moonshine]

I think they still publish the questions... mostly.

I'm probably in the minority here. But I think publishing the questions is great.
What better way to learn the answers.....than to tell people the answers and have them memorize them? It cuts the BS and gets down to the brass tacks of "what do you want me to know". Having some kid sit and calculate time enroute (which we're just going to punch into a flight planner anyway), or intimately learn carb ice only to miss the question on the test because of an ambiguously worded question or a rounding error idiotic.

In order for the understanding the questions to be useful, the bank needs to be purged and updated - I forgot which way to twist the knob for the slaved compass thing to be correct the moment I walked out of the test - I've never seen the damn instrument in my life and I doubt I ever will, but if I do, I'll make sure to read about it before shooting into hard IMC.
So I'm with you on this one - until all the questions make enough sense to know them, seeing them beforehand is good.

As a side thought, I do think that flight planning for both the knowledge and practical tests should start midway or towards the end of the route with "actual" information different than "planned". I mean, it's pretty hard to get lost or run out of fuel or fly into deteriorating weather at the very start of a xc flight, isn't it?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Well if the gov gets to flunk you for the way you think tea party types are grounded. Just kidding they'd never use a gov agency to punish political thought.

 

[jspilot]

Excuse me but - so what? The dead are the operator, and anyone onboard. The public was not needlessly endangered although I admit they could possibly have been.

Can you legislate stupidity out of the flying public? Should you legislate stupidity out of society? Just a few months ago a seasoned pilot took off from Angel Fire in a Mooney with 4 up in 35-40Kt x-wind conditions. He was warned, by the ops manager, he was advised against by flight service, he checked, and rechecked his weather, and made his decision. All died.

None of them wanted to die, but all of them chose GA to do what they wanted to do, and made the decisions they made. Of course they could have made better decisions. Anyone can see that in hindsight, but how much oversight do you want?

This isn't about changing training, or making people more aware of potential failures, it's about living your life the way you want. Pilot want's to stretch his fuel cause he's cheap, so how are you going to fix that? Pilot knows the weather is adverse, but still launches anyway. Should the ops manager have closed the runway? Should he have that power, to shut things down because of the x-wind?

These are not rhetorical questions. If this is what you want to do to get to with the increase in regulation, count me out. I've made bad decisions too, and I've paid for them, thankfully, not with the full measure but I paid enough.

Comparing to wheeled transportation, will the feds be satisfied if we reduce the accident rate to the 135 level, like the commercial buses? NO! They will then demand we get to the ATP level, with the concomitant costs involved.

Here Here!!! Thank you for posting this. As one of my best buddies says, " you can't cure dumb!" The government should not be trying to legislate against stupidity because no matter how much training anyone recieves, we are all prone to making dumb choices. We already have weather minimums, fuel requirements and currency requirements, all virtually useless regulations if ignored by a pilot who goes on to crash.

Truly, to fix the "safety issue" in GA the licensing standards are not the place to start. We all learn what we should do and how to do those tasks correctly. I'm certain if private pilots had to have there flight plans approved, have an inspector check their fuel quantities and have an inspector accompany them during the pre-flight, some avoidable accidents would be prevented. Do any of us really want that level of "oversight?" Not me- I'll still hope for the days when the governing authorities abide by the saying that some of the founding fathers lived by, " a government that governs least, governs best."

 

[Ted]

You'll never get rid of the "hold my beer and watch this" folks. What we're advocating is helping to make sure the people who aren't that type are given the learning opportunities to gain knowledge that will save their lives.

 

[Ted]

New thread started with what kills people. If you like it, request it to be a sticky. If you don't, you'll probably use it as a "to do" list.

 

[wsuffa]

You'll never get rid of the "hold my beer and watch this" folks. What we're advocating is helping to make sure the people who aren't that type are given the learning opportunities to gain knowledge that will save their lives.

Two points:

1) The "learning" part needs to be fixed. As Bruce notes, the instructor can only teach to the extent of their knowledge and experience. From personal experience, I've seen both, and I actively seek out experienced instructors that are willing to challenge the student.
2) That which is not used frequently is lost. In most professions/states (legal, engineering, accounting, etc) continuing education is now a requirement.

The problem here is that (as Bruce notes) the details don't really address the needs and really won't accomplish the goal.

 

[bbchien]

Do any of us really want that level of "oversight?"

No. But guess what, it's happening. Comment period closes Tomorrow. Are you even reading the materials- I even posted the link!

 

[steingar]

They're gonna be able to flunk you if you they don't like your thought process....you didn't bother to read the ALPA guy's comment, did you? (Hint, attachment in post #101, hint hint...)

I'm afraid only a telepath can truly detect your thought processes. What the examiner is going to inspect is what you've been trained to say by your CFI, who has motivation to make certain you pass. Won't change a damn thing, sorry.

I thought not. That's being pretty useless....
I think I'm just gonna give up on this "community". The only thing it can produce is a hilariously misinformed federal comment from the likes of jbarass..... ....get some real learning, you might see what's possible...

What I see is more hoops to jump through that will further diminish the pilot population. From a safety standpoint this is advantageous, the fewer people flying the fewer accidents. And perhaps if there are more hoops you'll get only the most motivated individuals. Yes, you'll likely improve safety, but at the cost of the pilot population, which is already declining precipitously.

We're already on the back side of that curve, in case no one has noticed. There isn't enough market for new aircraft to make their manufacture more than a cottage industry. Repairs and maintenance are now outstripping airframe worth to the point that the only logical thing to do when confronted with major maintenance is to scrap the airframe. The pilot population is on the decline and getting older. Things will only get worse, and the FAA making new rules in the name of safety isn't likely to help any. Once no one is flying the skies will be safe indeed.

 

[Ted]

I'm afraid only a telepath can truly detect your thought processes. What the examiner is going to inspect is what you've been trained to say by your CFI, who has motivation to make certain you pass. Won't change a damn thing, sorry.

Rote memorization, no. Discussion, yes.

 

[steingar]

Rote memorization, no. Discussion, yes.

Still doesn't matter. You recite what you've been trained to say. Sorry, I've seen this in action. Ask me some time about how the curator of the Creation Museum graduated from my program. Might make an entertaining story.

 

[Ted]

Still doesn't matter. You recite what you've been trained to say. Sorry, I've seen this in action. Ask me some time about how the curator of the Creation Museum graduated from my program. Might make an entertaining story.

So you're telling me you've never learned anything from a discussion? How about your students? If so, does that mean my tax dollars are wasted on your salary?

 

[steingar]

So you're telling me you've never learned anything from a discussion? How about your students? If so, does that mean my tax dollars are wasted on your salary?

I'm saying that just because there's a discussion doesn't mean the problem is fixed. What I'm saying is only a telepath can really detect your thought processes, and the FAA is fresh out of those. What I'm saying is you now have an entirely subjective aspect of the PTS and the examiner can easily flunk you because he doesn't like the color of your eyes or the cut of your suit, and claim it's because he didn't like your "thought processes"

And please try and tell me no examiner would ever do that. I could use a good laugh.

 

[N801BH]

I'm saying that just because there's a discussion doesn't mean the problem is fixed. What I'm saying is only a telepath can really detect your thought processes, and the FAA is fresh out of those. What I'm saying is you now have an entirely subjective aspect of the PTS and the examiner can easily flunk you because he doesn't like the color of your eyes or the cut of your suit, and claim it's because he didn't like your "thought processes"

And please try and tell me no examiner would ever do that. I could use a good laugh.

Hmmm..

Suppose a young, conservative student wearing a Tea Party button on his shirt gets involved in a discussion with a liberal collage professor about pay scales for tenured teachers.. The discussion gets quite heated and each party distrusts the others point of view....

This same young student then has to submit term paper for final exams... The professor that grades it gives the kid a failing grade.....

Does that ever happen.... Naw.

 

[steingar]

Hmmm..

Suppose a young, conservative student wearing a Tea Party button on his shirt gets involved in a discussion with a liberal collage professor about pay scales for tenured teachers.. The discussion gets quite heated and each party distrusts the others point of view....

This same young student then has to submit term paper for final exams... The professor that grades it gives the kid a failing grade.....

Does that ever happen.... Naw.

Not on my watch, though it is quite unusual for me to get into a heated political discussion with my students. What is more common is a conflict of interest the other way, not being too easy on a student working in my lab or one known to me because of their academic accomplishments.

All that said I have an advantage over the FAA examiner. My examinations are written. The student can come back to me and point out where I got it wrong. It is a rare thing that I won't give back some credit for such efforts. There was one where a student looked up a paper in some out of the way journal, but it was there and he got his points back.

Such follies do unfortunately happen all the time in oral exams. However, orals have multiple faculty. I myself still tend to be on the easy side. I once allowed a degree to go to someone with faulty data on the sob story and promises of her advisor. I shouldn't have, but I was only the graduate representative (there only to make certain the exam process was fair).

That said, you go out on a limb like that in an oral you can attract a law suit. I've seen it happen. And you can earn the enmity of your colleagues. My undergraduate mentor no longer interacts with one of his closest collaborators because he flunked one of her students.

 

[Ted]

I'm saying that just because there's a discussion doesn't mean the problem is fixed. What I'm saying is only a telepath can really detect your thought processes, and the FAA is fresh out of those. What I'm saying is you now have an entirely subjective aspect of the PTS and the examiner can easily flunk you because he doesn't like the color of your eyes or the cut of your suit, and claim it's because he didn't like your "thought processes"

And please try and tell me no examiner would ever do that. I could use a good laugh.

Examiners do that all the time. They also do the oppoite and pass people who they shouldn't, and I think the latter is quite common. By your theory, we should get rid of all education because it clearly doesn't work since fewer than 100% are impacted.

But we don that. We keep educating, and we attempt to improve education. As a dedicated educator yourself, I would think you'd be interested in better education, so what would you suggest?

 

[Jaybird180]

I will have to remember this and edit my paper flight plan if I am ever in the unfortunate situation of an engine out emergency landing where I have some time to kill before someone shows up.


Have to keep to the flight plan you know.

Just remmber as you're going in: 'He who crashes and walks away, lives to fly another day.'


I say (and Bruce can post it for the FAA): Fix pencil whipped BFRs by making it pass/fail instead of train/pass. It should take 2 CFIs to fail an applicant. Agree on increasing tolerance based upon experience, a 1500hr PP shouldn't exist. Require additional ratings (at least an IR by 1000hrs)

Discussion on DPE randomly chosen NTSB reports where the applicant has to analyze and know show the examiner he knows the remedy to avoid adding to the statistic pile.

And require pilots to document that they participate in SOME kind of knowledge improvement (or skill) self-directed learning. Even if it's just lurking PoA (or something other). The numbers on this (discusses earlier) is a CLUE.

 

[zaitcev]

That said, over the last couple decades standards have been "raised' several times and have had no effect. Since adding a Flight review requirement, requirements for tail wheel, high performance, and complex endorsements there has been no reduction in accidents. None at all.

To be fair, as far as I know, there was a steady reduction of accidents per hour flown, just nothing like in airline transport.

It's appalling, but safety freaks aren't going to leave us well alone. They have to justify their salaries.

In the big picture, however, it does not matter. They are merely going to drive private aviation into the ground a little faster than it's collapsing aready, is all.

 

[steingar]

Examiners do that all the time. They also do the oppoite and pass people who they shouldn't, and I think the latter is quite common. By your theory, we should get rid of all education because it clearly doesn't work since fewer than 100% are impacted.

But we don that. We keep educating, and we attempt to improve education. As a dedicated educator yourself, I would think you'd be interested in better education, so what would you suggest?

You don't educate by redesigning the test.

 

[JHW]

I assume all instructors teach fuel management.

I wouldn't. I see instructors filling the 172's and warriors to tbe brim before every flight. After all there nothing more wasted than fuel left on the ground Most students never learn to think in terms of how much fuel they really need. This carries through in their later years when they make asinine comparison's of aircraft based on full fuel payload.

 

[jbarrass]

I thought not. That's being pretty useless....
I think I'm just gonna give up on this "community". The only thing it can produce is a hilariously misinformed federal comment from the likes of jbarass..... ....get some real learning, you might see what's possible...

Hummm... I take it you don't agree with me. Did I hurt your feelings again?

Yes, I know (as Ron pointed out and you agreed) flying is safer than it has ever been. Certainly "safe enough" for me to fly myself, my friends, and my family.

I just don't agree that it is due to the increases in regulation. I'm just not seeing where things like HP endorsements make a difference. Flight Review? Helps if you want it to. I do them annually (by choice) and learn something each time. But I'd do dual anyway regardless if big brother required it or not. I doubt there are a lot of pilots who "learn" on a flight review not to run out of gas or fly VFR into IMC. I think they know and suffer from bad judgment.

I think the reduction is a combination of factors. Technology for example. "I" certainly am safer on cross country flights due to the better weather in the plane than ever. I use it to avoid red spots in the sky. I'm not alone. Simulators are wonderful supplements, parachutes have saved many. Perhaps, some have used the tools to increase the utility of their plane and put themselves in a place they wouldn't have otherwise, not my problem.

Pilots are getting older (very, very, bad for us in the long run) but IMHO that maybe adding to the general level of "maturity" of the tribe. Not sure that is good but it would lower the accident rate.

You keep saying "we" need to do something.

If "we" means you & I, well, I already do all those things (FR annually, IPC every 6 months, always an hour fuel reserve...etc.). You can relax.

If "we" means the pilot community (AOPA, EAA, local pilot groups, peer pressure, etc.) I'm in. I agree. A lot.

If by "we" you mean the Government, I disagree. Individual responsibility and accountability work for me.

I like freedom. I know it has a risk, no safety net or "wisdom" from the collective. I may climb a ladder without a safety rope and helmet, fall off and get hurt or die. It's not because I don't know ladders have risks, it's just an acceptable risk to me to accomplish what I need to do. Heck, I may even drink a super-size cola from time-to-time. If I do and die, don't feel sorry for me.

Bruce, I've got some real learning. I know what's possible. I know it is possible to be safer. It's also possible to be more free. I choose more freedom and personal liberty, you choose safer. Fine.

I just don't agree, my opinion, my comments.

 

[dtuuri]

Excuse me but - so what? The dead are the operator, and anyone onboard. The public was not needlessly endangered although I admit they could possibly have been.

Can you legislate stupidity out of the flying public? Should you legislate stupidity out of society? Just a few months ago a seasoned pilot took off from Angel Fire in a Mooney with 4 up in 35-40Kt x-wind conditions. He was warned, by the ops manager, he was advised against by flight service, he checked, and rechecked his weather, and made his decision. All died.

None of them wanted to die, but all of them chose GA to do what they wanted to do, and made the decisions they made. Of course they could have made better decisions. Anyone can see that in hindsight, but how much oversight do you want?

This isn't about changing training, or making people more aware of potential failures, it's about living your life the way you want. Pilot want's to stretch his fuel cause he's cheap, so how are you going to fix that? Pilot knows the weather is adverse, but still launches anyway. Should the ops manager have closed the runway? Should he have that power, to shut things down because of the x-wind?

These are not rhetorical questions. If this is what you want to do to get to with the increase in regulation, count me out. I've made bad decisions too, and I've paid for them, thankfully, not with the full measure but I paid enough.

Comparing to wheeled transportation, will the feds be satisfied if we reduce the accident rate to the 135 level, like the commercial buses? NO! They will then demand we get to the ATP level, with the concomitant costs involved.

You speak for me too. Good post.

dtuuri

 

[N801BH]

Hummm... I take it you don't agree with me. Did I hurt your feelings again?

Yes, I know (as Ron pointed out and you agreed) flying is safer than it has ever been. Certainly "safe enough" for me to fly myself, my friends, and my family.

I just don't agree that it is due to the increases in regulation. I'm just not seeing where things like HP endorsements make a difference. Flight Review? Helps if you want it to. I do them annually (by choice) and learn something each time. But I'd do dual anyway regardless if big brother required it or not. I doubt there are a lot of pilots who "learn" on a flight review not to run out of gas or fly VFR into IMC. I think they know and suffer from bad judgment.

I think the reduction is a combination of factors. Technology for example. "I" certainly am safer on cross country flights due to the better weather in the plane than ever. I use it to avoid red spots in the sky. I'm not alone. Simulators are wonderful supplements, parachutes have saved many. Perhaps, some have used the tools to increase the utility of their plane and put themselves in a place they wouldn't have otherwise, not my problem.

Pilots are getting older (very, very, bad for us in the long run) but IMHO that maybe adding to the general level of "maturity" of the tribe. Not sure that is good but it would lower the accident rate.

You keep saying "we" need to do something.

If "we" means you & I, well, I already do all those things (FR annually, IPC every 6 months, always an hour fuel reserve...etc.). You can relax.

If "we" means the pilot community (AOPA, EAA, local pilot groups, peer pressure, etc.) I'm in. I agree. A lot.

If by "we" you mean the Government, I disagree. Individual responsibility and accountability work for me.

I like freedom. I know it has a risk, no safety net or "wisdom" from the collective. I may climb a ladder without a safety rope and helmet, fall off and get hurt or die. It's not because I don't know ladders have risks, it's just an acceptable risk to me to accomplish what I need to do. Heck, I may even drink a super-size cola from time-to-time. If I do and die, don't feel sorry for me.

Bruce, I've got some real learning. I know what's possible. I know it is possible to be safer. It's also possible to be more free. I choose more freedom and personal liberty, you choose safer. Fine.

I just don't agree, my opinion, my comments.

Great post...

 

[Ted]

You don't educate by redesigning the test.

Again, what would you change?

 

[Ted]

I wouldn't. I see instructors filling the 172's and warriors to tbe brim before every flight. After all there nothing more wasted than fuel left on the ground Most students never learn to think in terms of how much fuel they really need. This carries through in their later years when they make asinine comparison's of aircraft based on full fuel payload.

Correct. A good example of fuel managemt:

Going down to Belize in the 310 I was going to have o depart a 1900 ft runway with 3 humans and 16 animals on a warmer than standard day. After clearing customs in Belize City, I only took on enough to give me around 50-60 gallons total. I took off out of Placencia with under 50 gallons total out of a possible 140. The some 600 lbs of fuel I wasn't carrying was noticeable in the takeoff performance - the locals said they never saw a plane get out of there so effortlessly.

 

[JHW]

yep. I can think of maybe 5 times in the last 5 years I've topped off the travel air. Tankering around fuel is one of the dumbest things we do in GA, yet it's celebrated as being "safe"

 

[N801BH]

.....- the locals said they never saw a plane get out of there so effortlessly.

That's it.. I am taking my 801 down there and break your record..:wink2:

 

[steingar]

Again, what would you change?

You should read my earlier comments. I am locked into following data, which suggests that newly minted pilots are among the safest. I've seen this said over and over again and seen it reflected in accident statistics. That suggests to me that the training regimen is sufficient as it stands. Were it not newly minted pilots would be falling out of the sky in droves. Adding to the PTS curriculum is likely to increase safety only by decreasing the number of pilots.

I said earlier that the onus ought to come in recurrent training, which currently stands at one hour per two years. I doubt there is anyone who couldn't find room for improvement.

 

[Ted]

yep. I can think of maybe 5 times in the last 5 years I've topped off the travel air. Tankering around fuel is one of the dumbest things we do in GA, yet it's celebrated as being "safe"

We normally top off, but our typical trips require it. When it's not beneficial, I don't do it.

 

[N801BH]

You should read my earlier comments. I am locked into following data, which suggests that newly minted pilots are among the safest. I've seen this said over and over again and seen it reflected in accident statistics. That suggests to me that the training regimen is sufficient as it stands. Were it not newly minted pilots would be falling out of the sky in droves. Adding to the PTS curriculum is likely to increase safety only by decreasing the number of pilots.

I said earlier that the onus ought to come in recurrent training, which currently stands at one hour per two years. I doubt there is anyone who couldn't find room for improvement.

I agree with this 100%.......

A newly minted pilot is far safer then a complacient (sp), 30 year PP.

 

[Ted]

That's it.. I am taking my 801 down there and break your record..:wink2:

Yeah, but I was going faster when I flew past the FBO.

You should read my earlier comments. I am locked into following data, which suggests that newly minted pilots are among the safest. I've seen this said over and over again and seen it reflected in accident statistics. That suggests to me that the training regimen is sufficient as it stands. Were it not newly minted pilots would be falling out of the sky in droves. Adding to the PTS curriculum is likely to increase safety only by decreasing the number of pilots.

I said earlier that the onus ought to come in recurrent training, which currently stands at one hour per two years. I doubt there is anyone who couldn't find room for improvement.

Ok, then we're in agreement overall. I think minor changes could be made to initial training without adding a burden to students, but most of the problem is in recurrent (or lack thereof).

 

[zaitcev]

You should read my earlier comments. I am locked into following data, which suggests that newly minted pilots are among the safest. I've seen this said over and over again and seen it reflected in accident statistics. That suggests to me that the training regimen is sufficient as it stands. Were it not newly minted pilots would be falling out of the sky in droves. Adding to the PTS curriculum is likely to increase safety only by decreasing the number of pilots.

That's why I'm in WINGS.

 

[RyanShort1]

I wouldn't. I see instructors filling the 172's and warriors to tbe brim before every flight. After all there nothing more wasted than fuel left on the ground Most students never learn to think in terms of how much fuel they really need. This carries through in their later years when they make asinine comparison's of aircraft based on full fuel payload.

A lot of that is school policies... at our FBO, we're supposed to fuel up after every flight, unless it's been less than an hour. I've suggested we actually not do that, but then what comes back is - but that will mean that some (dumb) pilot who's just renting will decide to take it out and not top off, and will run out of gas - or something along those lines. It's a two-edged sword. There are a lot of comments on this thread that I agree with on both sides. Ultimately, I too would err on the side of freedom, but every time we don't follow the golden rule and think about our friends and relatives on the ground, as well as our passengers, and how our safety, or lack thereof affects them, we will be forced to accept more rules.

Ryan

 

[JHW]

A lot of that is school policies... at our FBO, we're supposed to fuel up after every flight, unless it's been less than an hour. I've suggested we actually not do that, but then what comes back is - but that will mean that some (dumb) pilot who's just renting will decide to take it out and not top off, and will run out of gas - or something along those lines. It's a two-edged sword. There are a lot of comments on this thread that I agree with on both sides. Ultimately, I too would err on the side of freedom, but every time we don't follow the golden rule and think about our friends and relatives on the ground, as well as our passengers, and how our safety, or lack thereof affects them, we will be forced to accept more rules.

Ryan

that issue is not about freedom, it's about training and the law of primacy. If someone learns to fly assuming that tanks are always full, that person is a fuel exhaustion statistic waiting to happen.

 

[turbofan]

You should read my earlier comments. I am locked into following data, which suggests that newly minted pilots are among the safest. I've seen this said over and over again and seen it reflected in accident statistics. That suggests to me that the training regimen is sufficient as it stands. Were it not newly minted pilots would be falling out of the sky in droves. Adding to the PTS curriculum is likely to increase safety only by decreasing the number of pilots.

I said earlier that the onus ought to come in recurrent training, which currently stands at one hour per two years. I doubt there is anyone who couldn't find room for improvement.

I think recurrent training could be used synonymously with currency requirements, i.e. you need X amount of hours/approaches/etc within the past whatever amount of time to be allowed to legally fly/carry passengers/file into IMC/etc.

 

[N801BH]

Yeah, but I was going faster when I flew past the FBO.



.

You win...

 

[wabower]

Is a 30-year guy supposed to be worried about something I don't know about?

I agree with this 100%.......

A newly minted pilot is far safer then a complacient (sp), 30 year PP.