Schaefer goes for it again

[SkyHog]

Ok - the red board had a nice news post by Dr. Chien, and I wanted to see what y'all think.

Is Hayden Schaefer (sp?) still a threat to GA as a whole, and should be allowed to get his PPL? No poll, because I'm more interested in anecdotes.

Y'all know how I feel about Troy Martin, so I won't go there. But Schaefer has kept quiet and served his time without making an ass of himself. I say let him do it, and hopefully we'll read about his endeavors.

 

[poadeleted3]

I'd feel better about it if he'd admit how hugely he screwed up, and be more willing to believe that he won't manage the same stunt again.

 

[ScottM]

I am a little fuzzy on the facts about his current state. But didn't he loose all of his rating and certificates? If he wants to fly again the FAA wants him to start again with zero hours towards getting his ratings back, right?

Given that set of hurdles to follow if he can find a CFI and prove he is capable of passing the check rides, sure. But it would be nice to keep him on a short leash and have get a BFR at least annualy after that.

 

[grattonja]

I don't think he is training with the local flight school. I haven't seen him at S37 since the incursion. He hasn't been active at EAA 540 in recent history either. I saw Bruce's posting, with him with a student pilot certificate from May 2006. Not sure who he is training with, or where.

Jim G

 

[HPNFlyGirl]

Oh brother.

 

[Andy Greever]

If he can pass the checkride, yes. (it should be a fun one )

 

[Don Jones]

If he can pass the checkride, yes. (it should be a fun one )

I also think if he passes a checkride (with the FSDO) he should be able to get it back. It should however be the checkride from hell. (maybe Troy can train him)
Don

 

[HPNFlyGirl]

Hayden - MAG CUSTOMER FOR LIFE!!!!!

 

[Michael]

Since he already knows enough to pass his checkride, he will find a cfi willing to do some long X/C with him and have the hours nessesary in a few weeks time. Then pass his checkride.
The guy made a mistake. Everyone seems to be crucifying him. If it wernt him up there busting the airspace, it would have been someone else. The manditory hours training in the washington zone would still be there sooner or later, (I will pay for saying this...but) I for one think its a good idea. I think the PP rating should be more involved. more hours, higher standards. I know AOPA isn't a big fan of my thinking.
just my thoughts.

 

[poadeleted3]

snip I think the PP rating should be more involved. more hours, higher standards. I know AOPA isn't a big fan of my thinking.
just my thoughts.

The problem I see isn't so much with initial PP training and new pilots. How many of the pilots doing boneheaded things like sight seeing over the White House are new pilots? I think initial training is just fine. I think the problem lies in a lack of effective recurrent training. A flight review every two years just isn't enough, I think it should be annual, and I think there should be 2 hours of flight and 2 hours of ground review. In a Skyhawk, that would require me to dedicate a day for training, $200 for the plane, and $150 for the instructor, assuming I didn't meet the ground requirments through ASF's programs. If a pilot can't afford to spend 1 day and $350 once a year for training, they don't care enough to fly. IMHO, of course.

 

[Michael]

The problem I see isn't so much with initial PP training and new pilots. How many of the pilots doing boneheaded things like sight seeing over the White House are new pilots? I think initial training is just fine. I think the problem lies in a lack of effective recurrent training. A flight review every two years just isn't enough, I think it should be annual, and I think there should be 2 hours of flight and 2 hours of ground review. In a Skyhawk, that would require me to dedicate a day for training, $200 for the plane, and $150 for the instructor. If a pilot can't afford to spend 1 day and $350 once a year, they don't care enough to fly. IMHO, of course.

Good point Joe.

 

[jesse]

If a pilot can't afford to spend 1 day and $350 once a year for training, they don't care enough to fly. IMHO, of course.

I disagree. The amount of checkouts I already have to do **** me off enough. The last thing I want is to have to worry about paying some FBO all kinds of money for a more advanced review. You know there will be FBO's that they to capitalise on this.

 

[ScottM]

I disagree. The amount of checkouts I already have to do **** me off enough. The last thing I want is to have to worry about paying some FBO all kinds of money for a more advanced review. You know there will be FBO's that they to capitalise on this.

If you are a rentor there are a lot of checkouts. I have been an owner for a year now and the only time I have flown with a CFI is when I have requested it.

 

[SkyHog]

While I don't necessarily think its a good idea, maybe as a compromise, we could suggest a certain number of dual hours every year or something?

I don't like the idea of being a renter and having to checkout more than what is required for checking out in a new plane just because its necessary, but if someone is dilligently working with a CFI, I see no reason to subject that person to another checkout.

But then again, I feel that as pilots we have a responsibility to continue to get better, and to avoid problems like the Smoketown Duo.

Again, I feel Hayden Shaeffer (I spell it different every time) has served his time and if he can pass the tests, should be able to fly again.

 

[poadeleted3]

If you are a rentor there are a lot of checkouts. I have been an owner for a year now and the only time I have flown with a CFI is when I have requested it.

Not even necessarily a lot of checkouts if you are a renter, if you don't change FBOs or planes that often. At Perk Valley, I won't be taking another checkout unless I ask for one, do something that convinces them they want to re-evaluate whether or not to rent to me, or decide that I want to rent the '56 or '57 Skyhawk they have on the line. Which I might, they are renting it for $70 hr, cheaper than their 152s. It's rather basic, but has wings, an engine, and a fresh annual. If I decide to checkout in Wings' 172s again, which I might just to have more options, so long as I rent from them once every 90 days, no rides with an instructor. IOW, at some places at least, you won't ride with an instructor any more than you do as an owner.

 

[EdFred]

I think, as pilots we should have the right to remove any fellow pilots from the gene pool without legal repercussions when they pull something as boneheaded as Schaeffer and Martin.

 

[GaryO]

The problem I see isn't so much with initial PP training and new pilots. How many of the pilots doing boneheaded things like sight seeing over the White House are new pilots? I think initial training is just fine. I think the problem lies in a lack of effective recurrent training. A flight review every two years just isn't enough, I think it should be annual, and I think there should be 2 hours of flight and 2 hours of ground review. In a Skyhawk, that would require me to dedicate a day for training, $200 for the plane, and $150 for the instructor, assuming I didn't meet the ground requirments through ASF's programs. If a pilot can't afford to spend 1 day and $350 once a year for training, they don't care enough to fly. IMHO, of course.

Still won't solve a thing. Pilots find out which CFIs give "easy" reviews and go to them. That creates more income for the CFIs who pencil whip the review which means they will always be around.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Why not require a free online test be done every 6 months/one year?
CFIs have had to every 2 years for ages, usually paying for it themselves, unless they're putting out enough passing students yearly to opt out that way, which also shows the CFI's up to the standards.

Not even necessarily a lot of checkouts if you are a renter, if you don't change FBOs or planes that often. At Perk Valley, I won't be taking another checkout unless I ask for one, do something that convinces them they want to re-evaluate whether or not to rent to me, or decide that I want to rent the '56 or '57 Skyhawk they have on the line. Which I might, they are renting it for $70 hr, cheaper than their 152s. It's rather basic, but has wings, an engine, and a fresh annual. If I decide to checkout in Wings' 172s again, which I might just to have more options, so long as I rent from them once every 90 days, no rides with an instructor. IOW, at some places at least, you won't ride with an instructor any more than you do as an owner.

 

[JRitt]

The problem I see isn't so much with initial PP training and new pilots. How many of the pilots doing boneheaded things like sight seeing over the White House are new pilots? I think initial training is just fine. I think the problem lies in a lack of effective recurrent training. A flight review every two years just isn't enough, I think it should be annual, and I think there should be 2 hours of flight and 2 hours of ground review. In a Skyhawk, that would require me to dedicate a day for training, $200 for the plane, and $150 for the instructor, assuming I didn't meet the ground requirments through ASF's programs. If a pilot can't afford to spend 1 day and $350 once a year for training, they don't care enough to fly. IMHO, of course.

The problem is not how often the recurring training is but what is done during the flight review. There should be a standardized list of what the reviewer should cover during the ground and flight section so that any new rules and regs. can be covered. the ADIZ has been there for long enough that how to handle it should have been taught to everybody. TFR's were not even mentioned in my Cessna ground school and I just got my license to learn less than a year ago

 

[Nav8tor]

Why not require a free online test be done every 6 months/one year?
CFIs have had to every 2 years for ages, usually paying for it themselves, unless they're putting out enough passing students yearly to opt out that way, which also shows the CFI's up to the standards.

You're on to something there Dave. I think the ground portion of the BFR could be more efficiently and more effectively done via online testing then it is with the BFR system in which its up to the CFI to decide on what information to cover.

 

[Dart]

LISTEN TO OURSELVES!!!

New rule here, new checkouts there! But, propose a new TFR and LOOK OUT!

We are already regulated to the nines. Regulations are a large part of the decline in flying interest.

These guys weren't unregulated, they were CARELESS. You can't prevent that with any amount of training or regulation. All you can do is punish the actual infractions.

If they completed their sentences, paid their fines and pass their checkrides then, so be it. We don't have to like them, we may not respect them, and aviation employers sure don't have to hire them. But, helping the Fed's take more freedoms from us will help nothing.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

If you are a rentor there are a lot of checkouts. I have been an owner for a year now and the only time I have flown with a CFI is when I have requested it.

Not necessarily true, Scott. Insurance companies may require checkouts when going to a new a/c model. In some case they require recurrant training as well.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

LISTEN TO OURSELVES!!!

New rule here, new checkouts there! But, propose a new TFR and LOOK OUT!

We are already regulated to the nines. Regulations are a large part of the decline in flying interest.

These guys weren't unregulated, they were CARELESS. You can't prevent that with any amount of training or regulation. All you can do is punish the actual infractions.

If they completed their sentences, paid their fines and pass their checkrides then, so be it. We don't have to like them, we may not respect them, and aviation employers sure don't have to hire them. But, helping the Fed's take more freedoms from us will help nothing.

Almost everything is becoming more regulated these days, but doing the ground portion of a BFR (already required) online for free, would simply streamline the process and SAVE the pilot the cost of an hour of ground with a CFI. Pilot's that know their stuff can zip through an average focused-test online in less time than it takes to do a good preflight -if it takes longer than that ten they really did need to bone up some. Requiring it every 6 months (like IFR currency) or each year would definately keep perishable pilot awareness a little fresher and help to avoid problems, but not all problems all the time.

It could easily and cheaply insure that all flight subjects get covered and tested regularly.

 

[Dart]

doing the ground portion of a BFR (already required) online for free, would simply streamline the process and SAVE the pilot the cost of an hour of ground with a CFI.

I don't have a problem with online BFR - that is a new way of doing something already requiered. But, more on that later.

Requiring it every 6 months (like IFR currency) or each year would definately keep perishable pilot awareness a little fresher and help to avoid problems, but not all problems all the time.

Now you lost me. More rules that will do NOTHING to curb IDIOCY.

So what if I study the AOPA site the day before my newly requiered semiannual online BFR. Does it make me a better pilot? NO! Maybe quarterly tesing? NO! Monthly? NO! The Federal Register is published weekly. How about a computer link to the FAA database that will refuse ATC services you don't check the current Federal Register online at least 48 hours before a flight before a flight? NO!

Will it stop some idiot from boozing up and flying 20 minutes after passing his new online BFR? NO!

Does it make it more burdensome to fly? YES! Critical flight regulations don't change that radically and quickly under normal cicumstances (9-11 was not normal), nor do they change in a vacuum with no lead notice.

It could easily and cheaply insure that all flight subjects get covered and tested regularly.

Flight subjects are covered and tested regularly now. What you advocate is more, and more frequent testing. As soon as THAT testing is instituted some well meaning policy wonk will want to amp the requirements for more" safety". We are forgetting that the violators to whom our threads refer to KNEW THE CURRENT REGS ALREADY. They were a student (who should no doubt be praparing for the current flight environment), and a CFI, who was teaching the current flight environment.


But, I do like the online idea for testing. Problem with that is it removes a revenue stream for a job where it is already difficult to make a living. Needs some tweaking.

 

[alaskaflyer]

LISTEN TO OURSELVES!!!

New rule here, new checkouts there! But, propose a new TFR and LOOK OUT!

We are already regulated to the nines. Regulations are a large part of the decline in flying interest.

These guys weren't unregulated, they were CARELESS. You can't prevent that with any amount of training or regulation. All you can do is punish the actual infractions.

If they completed their sentences, paid their fines and pass their checkrides then, so be it. We don't have to like them, we may not respect them, and aviation employers sure don't have to hire them. But, helping the Fed's take more freedoms from us will help nothing.

A TFR or an ADIZ bust never killed anybody. The things that the BFR, currency, most of the regulations, additional ratings etc are supposed to prevent do kill people, all the time.

 

[JoeSelch]

Flight subjects are covered and tested regularly now. What you advocate is more, and more frequent testing. As soon as THAT testing is instituted some well meaning policy wonk will want to amp the requirements for more" safety". We are forgetting that the violators to whom our threads refer to KNEW THE CURRENT REGS ALREADY. They were a student (who should no doubt be praparing for the current flight environment), and a CFI, who was teaching the current flight environment.

According to AOPA, Sheaffer was NOT a CFI.
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2006/flight0601.html

 

[flyifrvfr]

Almost everything is becoming more regulated these days, but doing the ground portion of a BFR (already required) online for free, would simply streamline the process and SAVE the pilot the cost of an hour of ground with a CFI. Pilot's that know their stuff can zip through an average focused-test online in less time than it takes to do a good preflight -if it takes longer than that ten they really did need to bone up some. Requiring it every 6 months (like IFR currency) or each year would definately keep perishable pilot awareness a little fresher and help to avoid problems, but not all problems all the time.

It could easily and cheaply insure that all flight subjects get covered and tested regularly.

The problem with an on-line ground portion of a flight review is we CFI's are endorsing the pilot's logbook attesting that we have evaluated the pilot's knowledge and flying skills, and we have determined they meet the requirements. If you are doing the ground portion on-line, I would have to take the word of a website the pilot meets the knowledge portion. I am not comfortable putting my name in someone's logbook under this suggestion.

 

[Nav8tor]

The problem with an on-line ground portion of a flight review is we CFI's are endorsing the pilot's logbook attesting that we have evaluated the pilot's knowledge and flying skills, and we have determined they meet the requirements. If you are doing the ground portion on-line, I would have to take the word of a website the pilot meets the knowledge portion. I am not comfortable putting my name in someone's logbook under this suggestion.

If the FAA switched to an online system for the ground portion they could also change the requirement so that the CFI wouldn't need to endorse the log book for it. It wouldn't be necessary anyway since there would be a record in the database of successful completion of the ground review. You would only need to endorse the airwork portion of the BFR.

 

[flyifrvfr]

If the FAA switched to an online system for the ground portion they could also change the requirement so that the CFI wouldn't need to endorse the log book for it. It wouldn't be necessary anyway since there would be a record in the database of successful completion of the ground review. You would only need to endorse the airwork portion of the BFR.

The FAA doesn't want the responsibility of providing any portion of a flight review. This is why CFI's are doing the reviews and in a sense acting as agents for the FAA.

 

[tonycondon]

arent the alternatives to flight reviews all deep in FAA territory? adding an additional rating or Wings come to mind.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The FAA doesn't want the responsibility of providing any portion of a flight review. This is why CFI's are doing the reviews and in a sense acting as agents for the FAA.

Not true. The FAA sanctions all sorts of free safety seminars and free online courses (ASF, AOPA) that qualify for the Wings program, which when completed qualifies as a pilot's FAA required BFR. Only its flying portions need be done with a CFI, so really the bulk of the program is already in place and has been in use for a number of years albeit voluntary for pilots at this point.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I don't have a problem with online BFR - that is a new way of doing something already requiered. But, more on that later.




Now you lost me. More rules that will do NOTHING to curb IDIOCY.

So what if I study the AOPA site the day before my newly requiered semiannual online BFR. Does it make me a better pilot? NO! Maybe quarterly tesing? NO! Monthly? NO! The Federal Register is published weekly. How about a computer link to the FAA database that will refuse ATC services you don't check the current Federal Register online at least 48 hours before a flight before a flight? NO!

Will it stop some idiot from boozing up and flying 20 minutes after passing his new online BFR? NO!

Does it make it more burdensome to fly? YES! Critical flight regulations don't change that radically and quickly under normal cicumstances (9-11 was not normal), nor do they change in a vacuum with no lead notice.



Flight subjects are covered and tested regularly now. What you advocate is more, and more frequent testing. As soon as THAT testing is instituted some well meaning policy wonk will want to amp the requirements for more" safety". We are forgetting that the violators to whom our threads refer to KNEW THE CURRENT REGS ALREADY. They were a student (who should no doubt be praparing for the current flight environment), and a CFI, who was teaching the current flight environment.


But, I do like the online idea for testing. Problem with that is it removes a revenue stream for a job where it is already difficult to make a living. Needs some tweaking.

I agree, the industrial strength idiots that your concerns bring to mind probably wouldn't be helped much but, there's educational evidence that
shows that keeping "perishable" subjects up front in the mind makes them easier and more likely to be implimented properly by most people. Pilots like you probably don't need that type of overview but time has consistantly shown that many do.

These potentially problematic pilots are the ones that cause increased danger and higher costs for all the rest of us. We are all already paying for their negligence, but more frequent free testing could reduce those costs that we will still continue to pay.

 

[flyifrvfr]

Not true. The FAA sanctions all sorts of free safety seminars and free online courses (ASF, AOPA) that qualify for the Wings program, which when completed qualifies as a pilot's FAA required BFR. Only its flying portions need be done with a CFI, so really the bulk of the program is already in place and has been in use for a number of years albeit voluntary for pilots at this point.

You are correct about the wings program; I totally forgot about it! I usually do flight reviews in person and haven't participated in the wings program.

 

[ScottM]

You are correct about the wings program; I totally forgot about it! I usually do flight reviews in person and haven't participated in the wings program.

Not sure I follow what you are saying Vic. I have done WIngs in the past all was done in person with a CFI or the FAA. I usually do an FAA safety seminar and then my threee hours of flying is done with a CFI.

 

[flyifrvfr]

Not sure I follow what you are saying Vic. I have done WIngs in the past all was done in person with a CFI or the FAA. I usually do an FAA safety seminar and then my threee hours of flying is done with a CFI.

I apologize, what I meant to say was I usually do the ground portion with the pilot seeking a flight review. I haven't yet had a pilot who has participated in the wings program seek a flight review with me.