Is the number one cause of accidents/injuries low visibilty?

Better question: What can WE do (as a community) to eliminate pencil-whippers?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Better question: What can WE do (as a community) to eliminate pencil-whippers?
Click to expand...


Good luck. Request slow flight and steep turns during a BFR and see how quickly word gets out you're a "hard ass."

I've seen plenty of pat on the back, two trips around the pattern, wink-wink, here ya go BFRs to know it's easily and frequently pencil-whipped.
 
"We Will Not Lie, Steal Or Cheat, Nor Tolerate Among Us Anyone Who Does"
 
dmccormack said:
Good luck. Request slow flight and steep turns during a BFR and see how quickly word gets out you're a "hard ass."

I've seen plenty of pat on the back, two trips around the pattern, wink-wink, here ya go BFRs to know it's easily and frequently pencil-whipped.
Click to expand...
I'm not particularly easy - and I've had many tell me that what I've just asked them to do they haven't done in 10 years. But I've never had one of them get upset about it, they always see the value. Perhaps Nebraska pilots are just smarter and don't mind a challenge :)

The key isn't to be a hard-ass and be all I'm going to fail you! The key is to set clear expectations, make them see the value, and get their skill up to that expectation. Done properly and it's generally well received.

As far as trying to turn in another instructor for pencil whipping? That is a battle that most certainly isn't worth fighting.
 
jesse said:
I'm not particularly easy - and I've had many tell me that what I've just asked them to do they haven't done in 10 years. But I've never had one of them get upset about it, they always see the value. Perhaps Nebraska pilots are just smarter and don't mind a challenge :)

The key isn't to be a hard-ass and be all I'm going to fail you! The key is to set clear expectations, make them see the value, and get their skill up to that expectation. Done properly and it's generally well received.

As far as trying to turn in another instructor for pencil whipping? That is a battle that most certainly isn't worth fighting.
Click to expand...

Trust me -- I haven't had one BFR leave all sweaty and angry. We have good conversation, I usually get to fly in new-to-me-airplanes. I also make it very clear it's not a test, exam, checkride -- whatever.

I've refused to sign off once -- and I simply suggested we go flying again as soon as possible. That particular BFR required me to save the airplane on 1/4 mile final. The pilot was not competent to fly alone until there was significant improvement.

Yet compared to ole Joe who costs $100 bucks and a burger and a drive to the airport and 45 minutes total time -- anyone else is a "hard ass."
 
jesse said:
As far as trying to turn in another instructor for pencil whipping? That is a battle that most certainly isn't worth fighting.
Click to expand...

Most respectfully. I disagree.

That same CFI with no integrity is responsible for the next generation of GA pilots. Bad habits are contagious and multiply over time.

Perhaps I'm ignorant and 'don't know how it's done in the real world', but I refuse to accept the status quo attitude and will hold YOU responsible for willfully tolerating dishonesty.

(you being plural)
 
Dude. Get a grip.

Jaybird180 said:
Most respectfully. I disagree.

That same CFI with no integrity is responsible for the next generation of GA pilots. Bad habits are contagious and multiply over time.

Perhaps I'm ignorant and 'don't know how it's done in the real world', but I refuse to accept the status quo attitude and will hold YOU responsible for willfully tolerating dishonesty.

(you being plural)
Click to expand...
 
Jaybird180 said:
Most respectfully. I disagree.

That same CFI with no integrity is responsible for the next generation of GA pilots. Bad habits are contagious and multiply over time.

Perhaps I'm ignorant and 'don't know how it's done in the real world', but I refuse to accept the status quo attitude and will hold YOU responsible for willfully tolerating dishonesty.

(you being plural)
Click to expand...


Well, let us know how that goes....
 
Evidently, or my memory is worse than I thought. You're more than welcome to post anything I wrote about being a snitch and/or making an accusation about actions of which I have no first-hand knowledge.

If I were tasked to improve accountability, the IACRA system would be my tool of choice.

Jaybird180 said:
Did I misunderstand your rant about accountability?
Click to expand...
 
Well sir, I owe you an apology. I errantly assumed that with 50+ years in aviation, you wouldn't subscribe to a GenY value such as not 'being a snitch'.

I am perfectly aware that my comments do not make me very popular, and I'm not saying that we should become tattle-talers, but I did not think upon entering the ranks of aviators that I would encounter the mindset of negligent bystanders.

I go focus on my own personal values now.
 
Last edited:
OK, for talking purposes let's say that I got elected to head of the snitch committee and our goal is to weed these turds out of the CFI punch-bowl and put you in charge of this effort. How are you going to start? What evidence will you present? How do you identify the offenders? Who will testify for your side of the case? Is your strategy workable? Practical?

Jaybird180 said:
Well sir, I owe you an apology. I errantly assumed that with 50+ years in aviation, you wouldn't subscribe to a GenY value such as not 'being a snitch'.

I am perfectly aware that my comments do not make me very popular, and I'm not saying that we should become tattle-talers, but I did not think upon entering the ranks of aviators that I would encounter the widespread mindset of negligent bystanders.

I go focus on my own personal values now.
Click to expand...
 
I'll anwer with a short story:

When I showed up at my checkride, the DPE explained that his job is to check the work of my CFI. Whether or not it was a ploy to get me to relax is irrelevant. The point is that this mindset should be instituted. The CFI should bear SOME responsibility for those they sign off [especially at the Private pilot (ie non-professional) level].

Checkrides should be with a random Examiner instead of with the guy the school knows and hand-picks. This will weed out bad schools, CFIs and examiners.

CFI should not be the access road to an airline job. It is a profession and should be treated with as much care as selection of an elementary school teacher (no flame wars on this please).

As a low time private pilot, I contantly am reminded that I do not know what I do not know - yet there is no oversight over those that are supposed to be my mentors. Knowing this, I CHOOSE to seek more knowledge and ask more questions and learn as much as I can BEFORE MY NEXT FLIGHT.
 
A nice story with some general advice and platitudes. Where are the action steps? You were initially incensed about the "pencil-whip" FR's. Where's your answer to that issue?

Jaybird180 said:
I'll anwer with a short story:

When I showed up at my checkride, the DPE explained that his job is to check the work of my CFI. Whether or not it was a ploy to get me to relax is irrelevant. The point is that this mindset should be instituted. The CFI should bear SOME responsibility for those they sign off [especially at the Private pilot (ie non-professional) level].

Checkrides should be with a random Examiner instead of with the guy the school knows and hand-picks. This will weed out bad schools, CFIs and examiners.

CFI should not be the access road to an airline job. It is a profession and should be treated with as much care as selection of an elementary school teacher (no flame wars on this please).

As a low time private pilot, I contantly am reminded that I do not know what I do not know - yet there is no oversight over those that are supposed to be my mentors. Knowing this, I CHOOSE to seek more knowledge and ask more questions and learn as much as I can BEFORE MY NEXT FLIGHT.
Click to expand...
 
Accident or incident investigations must include a thorough review of the accident pilot's training record. If there is any doubt about the quality of instruction from any CFI (including FRs), the investigator then interviews other students to see if a trend of lackadaisical instruction exists. If the CFI knows they can potentially be held liable if found giving sub-par instruction, the ranks will thin considerably and the 'good' CFIs will emerge (with consistent paychecks to retain them), with the benefit of having the GA accident rate reduced.

Tagging the FR to the CFI's cert# in IACRA would be an easy way to implement this. Eliminate paper-only sign-off's and require the CFI to register the pilot's FR.

If the FAA conducts a 709 ride on the pilot someone should also have a talk with the CFI to determine if the deficiency was noted and additional training prescribed to the pilot. Did the pilot adhere to the CFI's recommendation (if, for example the CFI thought the pilot competent to work on the specified skill solo)?

This is what I thought you meant when you said accountability. You cannot hold a dead man accountable.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Accident or incident investigations must include a thorough review of the accident pilot's training record. If there is any doubt about the quality of instruction from any CFI (including FRs), the investigator then interviews other students to see if a trend of lackadaisical instruction exists. If the CFI knows they can potentially be held liable if found giving sub-par instruction, the ranks will thin considerably and the 'good' CFIs will emerge (with consistent paychecks to retain them), with the benefit of having the GA accident rate reduced.

Tagging the FR to the CFI's cert# in IACRA would be an easy way to implement this. Eliminate paper-only sign-off's and require the CFI to register the pilot's FR.

If the FAA conducts a 709 ride on the pilot someone should also have a talk with the CFI to determine if the deficiency was noted and additional training prescribed to the pilot. Did the pilot adhere to the CFI's recommendation (if, for example the CFI thought the pilot competent to work on the specified skill solo)?

This is what I thought you meant when you said accountability. You cannot hold a dead man accountable.
Click to expand...
The FAA can look at who did the person's flight review by reviewing their logbook. It's in the pilots best interest to have this information else they were flying without a review. This can all be done, and is done, and doesn't involve us spending millions of dollars building out some giant system.

An instructor "giving homework" to a flight review pilot they signed off really conflicts with the review. If they "need homework" they shouldn't be signed off. Most certainly I can't tell a pilot to do something and then have the FAA hold them accountable for not doing their homework.

I don't sign off people who have deficiencies - I correct their deficiencies and then sign them off. Even with that mistakes will happen, and I've inked a pilot's logbook that later banged up an airplane, no indicators during the flight review that they were going to do so. A good pilot, a mistake was made, can't stop them all.
 
Last edited:
You're confusing accountability and traceability.

jesse said:
The FAA can look at who did the person's flight review by reviewing their logbook. It's in the pilots best interest to have this information else they were flying without a review. This can all be done, and is done, and doesn't involve us spending millions of dollars building out some giant system.
Click to expand...
 
We could have FRs be check-off-the-boxes type affairs like 135 checkrides. I was just looking at this form today because I had my 299 line check with the FAA. You don't do very many things on a line check but you do on the 293 (equipment) and 297 (instrument currency) portions.

20111221-erh8tacj2ixyakkg921cjkayhe.png


:dunno: People are asking for suggestions. Just sayin'
 
wabower said:
You're confusing accountability and traceability.
Click to expand...
I'm confusing nothing. Others are.

There is nothing untraceable about the current flight review system. Instructors are required to keep records of whom they endorsed and pilots are required to have the endorsements. There is absolutely no benefit to building some gigantic system or a bunch of new forms.

If the FAA wants to know who did the flight review for someone that just banged up an airplane they can ask that person to see their flight review. If that person cannot provide that flight review they were not legal to be flying.

Accountability has nothing to do with tracing it - but yet people are suggesting that flight reviews can't be traced. They can, and are.

If you want to hold instructors accountable - you don't need to improve the traceability of the system with IACRA or with additional paperwork. You need to improve the accountability and you're not going to do that with IACRA or additional forms. The flight review process would not change - instead you'd keep records (which they may do) of whom did the flight reviews of pilots that got banged up then compile that data. Not that you'd probably get much useful out of it.
 
More mandatory training might -- might -- increase the overall safety record only because it will drive up costs, reduce participation, and soon only pilots who can afford an annual trip to Flight Safety will be flying...

If I was flying a Pilatus or Barron I'd surely invest in that sort of annual refresher, but I'm not.
 
You still don't understand.

Accountability is a much bigger issue than you're willing (at least so far) to admit. A key element is the ability to quantify and analyze the activities of those that are accountable. Thinking that any true accountability exists in the current system, or that anybody at the FAA or anywhere else knows what they need to know to make intelligent decisions is laughable. Except for the body count, it's mostly guesswork.

Let's say I'd like to know if the pilots who get FR's are getting any other recurrent training. Or maybe I'd like to know what is being reviewed during the ground school portion, to help me decide if all the money I'm throwing at runway incursions is yielding any changes within the ranks. If pilots are staying current for IR, how are they doing it? What maneuvers or processes are being evaluated during the flight portion? What did they do? What standards do the instructors use to evaluate pass-fail?

If pilot is IR rated, was any portion of the ride devoted to those areas? What ratings did the pilot have? What airplane did he use for the FR? How many FR's are done by each instructor? Is a large percentage of the CFI population totally dormant insofar as active instruction is concerned? Should we permit these relics to continue to qualify by attending a 2-day class every two years?

The agency is already spending millions, some of which has been devoted to developing an on-line system for airman use. Why don't we get our money's worth by using it?


jesse said:
I'm confusing nothing. Others are.

There is nothing untraceable about the current flight review system. Instructors are required to keep records of whom they endorsed and pilots are required to have the endorsements. There is absolutely no benefit to building some gigantic system or a bunch of new forms.

If the FAA wants to know who did the flight review for someone that just banged up an airplane they can ask that person to see their flight review. If that person cannot provide that flight review they were not legal to be flying.

Accountability has nothing to do with tracing it - but yet people are suggesting that flight reviews can't be traced. They can, and are.

If you want to hold instructors accountable - you don't need to improve the traceability of the system with IACRA or with additional paperwork. You need to improve the accountability and you're not going to do that with IACRA or additional forms. The flight review process would not change - instead you'd keep records (which they may do) of whom did the flight reviews of pilots that got banged up then compile that data. Not that you'd probably get much useful out of it.
Click to expand...
 
I think Mari's idea isn't a bad one. Of course, again the catch becomes who's doing the checkride, as is always the catch. But that, at least, might make some improvements.
 
So the Saratoga that bought the farm on Saturday with five would be exempt from your program?

dmccormack said:
More mandatory training might -- might -- increase the overall safety record only because it will drive up costs, reduce participation, and soon only pilots who can afford an annual trip to Flight Safety will be flying...

If I was flying a Pilatus or Barron I'd surely invest in that sort of annual refresher, but I'm not.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
So the Saratoga that bought the farm on Saturday with five would be exempt from your program?
Click to expand...

Sophistry, Wayne, and you know it.

:rolleyes2:

My recommendation is for more frequent training for pilots with limited experience (several studies indicate 150-300 hours is the range in which they are most likely to die and kill others).

There is no guarantee that 501 hours will absolve a pilot from stupidity. Neither will 1000 or 1500 or 2000...

However, the current initial and recurrent training model is deficient, as evidenced by recent events.

That said, I am not willing to hand over GA to Flight Safety or other big Sim centers as not all GA flying requires this.
 
dmccormack said:
Sophistry, Wayne, and you know it.

:rolleyes2:


That said, I am not willing to hand over GA to Flight Safety or other big Sim centers as not all GA flying requires this.
Click to expand...

Why? Who can do it better? Have you ever been to either place? Can you provide for comparison your interactive slide-show systems presentation for the various systems on each airplane in which you teach?

We can describe the current state of training in one of two ways. We have either dumbed-down the curriculum to the level of those teaching it and their ability to demonstrate it (mostly simulated) or we have failed to keep pace with the complexity of the machinery and equipment we now fly.

In either case, it's sad to see an airplane owner's eyes glaze over when given a blank piece of paper and asked to draw simple stick diagrams of the fuel and electrical systems on his fine piston single.

A recent post on another forum illustrates the point. The guy said he wanted to fly a cross-country trip but the battery was dead. So he jump-started the battery and took off. Do you think he had any idea if the battery would re-charge? Or if it should? Or if the battery relay required more voltage than the dead battery was capable of producing, would the charging circuit ever be opened?
 
The calls for more training are bunk. The same ole brain short circuits will get us again and again.
 
wabower said:
Why? Who can do it better? Have you ever been to either place? Can you provide for comparison your interactive slide-show systems presentation for the various systems on each airplane in which you teach?

We can describe the current state of training in one of two ways. We have either dumbed-down the curriculum to the level of those teaching it and their ability to demonstrate it (mostly simulated) or we have failed to keep pace with the complexity of the machinery and equipment we now fly.

In either case, it's sad to see an airplane owner's eyes glaze over when given a blank piece of paper and asked to draw simple stick diagrams of the fuel and electrical systems on his fine piston single.

A recent post on another forum illustrates the point. The guy said he wanted to fly a cross-country trip but the battery was dead. So he jump-started the battery and took off. Do you think he had any idea if the battery would re-charge? Or if it should? Or if the battery relay required more voltage than the dead battery was capable of producing, would the charging circuit ever be opened?
Click to expand...

Fine, mandate annual recurrent training at a corporate sim shop for all GA pilots.

The several hundred GA pilots still around will have a grand ole time, and be far safer in the year or two until private, personal flight finally disappears.

Great idea. :rolleyes2:




:no:

------------------------------------




For some of us freedom implies some will make a wrong choice. Fire, guns, airplanes, chainsaws, cars, bathtubs, popcorn, and a host of other dangerous things maim and kill people every day, year after year.

Should all bathtub users be required to attend training each year or lose the right to bathe?

After all, people are dying out there -- we gotta do something -- for the children!
 
You didn't answer the question, but instead reverted to the standard company line. Is the training important or not?

dmccormack said:
Fine, mandate annual recurrent training at a corporate sim shop for all GA pilots.

The several hundred GA pilots still around will have a grand ole time, and be far safer in the year or two until private, personal flight finally disappears.

Great idea. :rolleyes2:




:no:

------------------------------------




For some of us freedom implies some will make a wrong choice. Fire, guns, airplanes, chainsaws, cars, bathtubs, popcorn, and a host of other dangerous things maim and kill people every day, year after year.

Should all bathtub users be required to attend training each year or lose the right to bathe?

After all, people are dying out there -- we gotta do something -- for the children!
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
You didn't answer the question, but instead reverted to the standard company line. Is the training important or not?
Click to expand...

Really? That's your conclusion?

:confused:

Here's a hint: "Training" is not exclusively the purview of corporations, government, agencies, or sim centers.

I train every time I fly -- every time. I try something unique, different, or infrequent and often repeat until I'm satisfied.

I read books, online resources, and subscribe to various periodicals. I hangar fly with fellow pilots, most with more expereince than me.

I'm a member of several different aviation organizations.

I instruct. I assist with all maintenance. I practice approaches on PC sims.

But by your definition none of this is "training" since there's not someone in uniform with a clipboard watching me charging $150 an hour...
 
You still didn't answer the question. Is the training important or not?

Let's try it another way. Are the pilots of sophisticated airplanes, no matter the number of engines, now adequately trained insofar as the systems of their specific airplane is concerned?

Does the concept of competition ever occur to you when you rail against organized and formalized training?




dmccormack said:
Really? That's your conclusion?

:confused:

Here's a hint: "Training" is not exclusively the purview of corporations, government, agencies, or sim centers.

I train every time I fly -- every time. I try something unique, different, or infrequent and often repeat until I'm satisfied.

I read books, online resources, and subscribe to various periodicals. I hangar fly with fellow pilots, most with more expereince than me.

I'm a member of several different aviation organizations.

I instruct. I assist with all maintenance. I practice approaches on PC sims.

But by your definition none of this is "training" since there's not someone in uniform with a clipboard watching me charging $150 an hour...
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
You still didn't answer the question. Is the training important or not?

Let's try it another way. Are the pilots of sophisticated airplanes, no matter the number of engines, now adequately trained insofar as the systems of their specific airplane is concerned?

Does the concept of competition ever occur to you when you rail against organized and formalized training?
Click to expand...


You're a real piece of work. :rolleyes:

I'm a product of "formalized" training, have degrees and certificates and the t-shirts, and made a good living for a dozen years producing training and training systems.

So I "get it."

Your argument (from what I can surmise) is that only government-mandated recurrent training can solve our problems.

Isn't it?
 
I am reluctant to wade back into this but, here goes. Dan, Wayne, I think all three of us can agree that flying has risks. I hear Wayne say our training in general is not up to par and I hear Dan saying this is as good as it is going to get. I think both points of view have some merits. I have to agree with Dan that money is going to prevent all pilots being trained to the same standards. In fact do you want all pilots trained to the same standards? Can we expect the successful business man in his A36 with 400 PIC to be trained to the same standards as the 10,000 hour captain in the GIV? I do not think either of us expect that.
Wayne is correct in that the quality of trianing differs. I do think standards are important. Dan, honestly, hangar flying, reading magazines, trying unique things do not IMO add much to the learning experience. Many pilots try unique things and we read about them in accident reports. We may learn something from an AP that has been done wrong for years. Honestly, how much are you going to learn from a CFII with 350 hours TT and never seen the inside of a cloud?
Sim schools by their competitive nature must maintain high standards. Let a corporate plane hit the ground while you happen to be at a sim school everything comes to a focus to see if it was "one of theirs". Over $7K is spent every year on my sim training. I am not at all sure that is adaquate but it is very good training.
Wayne, I think the bottom line is we are going to have to accept the disparity that Dan is talking about. I hope Dan understands the value of standarized training by professionals. I hope he understands that hangar flying and reading a magazine is not the same as sim training. I hope Wayne understands that the 400 hour 182 owner is not, I repeat not going to spend $7K a year on recurrent training even if it was available.
Each type of pilot will have to establish cost/risk equation for his particular type of flying. One size will not fit all.
Is initial traing important, yes. Is recurrent training important, yes. Does traing standards differ for different types of pilots, yes. Is this the very best way to do it, perhaps not. Do we continue to look for improvements, I HOPE SO! This has been a great discussion.
 
ronnieh said:
I hope Dan understands the value of standarized training by professionals. I hope he understands that hangar flying and reading a magazine is not the same as sim training..
Click to expand...

Of course I do.

It's hard to spend 21 years in service without getting lots of training, tests, and quals.

My point is this -- GA is a very broad component of aviation. Mu-2 pilots need a higher level of systems skills and knowledge of that particular airplane given its complexity and performance.

Are we to assume that Champ pilots need the same? What about Breezy pilots?

There is a sliding scale of aircraft complexity and performance, and broad-brush requirements ignore this. The unintended consequences will be legion.
 
Summarized in simple terms, if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.

If that's acceptable, no changes are necessary and our "lowest common denominator cheapest way out cheat when you can" approach will continue to be the standard of the industry. If we want any other results, something upstream must change in order to make it happen.

ronnieh said:
I am reluctant to wade back into this but, here goes. Dan, Wayne, I think all three of us can agree that flying has risks. I hear Wayne say our training in general is not up to par and I hear Dan saying this is as good as it is going to get. I think both points of view have some merits. I have to agree with Dan that money is going to prevent all pilots being trained to the same standards. In fact do you want all pilots trained to the same standards? Can we expect the successful business man in his A36 with 400 PIC to be trained to the same standards as the 10,000 hour captain in the GIV? I do not think either of us expect that.
Wayne is correct in that the quality of trianing differs. I do think standards are important. Dan, honestly, hangar flying, reading magazines, trying unique things do not IMO add much to the learning experience. Many pilots try unique things and we read about them in accident reports. We may learn something from an AP that has been done wrong for years. Honestly, how much are you going to learn from a CFII with 350 hours TT and never seen the inside of a cloud?
Sim schools by their competitive nature must maintain high standards. Let a corporate plane hit the ground while you happen to be at a sim school everything comes to a focus to see if it was "one of theirs". Over $7K is spent every year on my sim training. I am not at all sure that is adaquate but it is very good training.
Wayne, I think the bottom line is we are going to have to accept the disparity that Dan is talking about. I hope Dan understands the value of standarized training by professionals. I hope he understands that hangar flying and reading a magazine is not the same as sim training. I hope Wayne understands that the 400 hour 182 owner is not, I repeat not going to spend $7K a year on recurrent training even if it was available.
Each type of pilot will have to establish cost/risk equation for his particular type of flying. One size will not fit all.
Is initial traing important, yes. Is recurrent training important, yes. Does traing standards differ for different types of pilots, yes. Is this the very best way to do it, perhaps not. Do we continue to look for improvements, I HOPE SO! This has been a great discussion.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top