Update from NTSB on Lidle crash

[SkyHog]

The ground reference maneuvers give you the background for flying a pattern properly.

I don't disagree, but you know what else teaches patterns? Doing patterns.

 

[ScottM]

I don't disagree, but you know what else teaches patterns? Doing patterns.

But that is not always practical as the patterns can be pretty busy places and there is little room for trial and error.

 

[SkyHog]

But that is not always practical as the patterns can be pretty busy places and there is little room for trial and error.

Ahh, but you see, you don't have to fly the pattern over the airport. A ground reference maneuver called "Rectangular Course" helps (btw, while I forgot to mention that as the exception to my ground reference objection this time, I usually mention that rectangular course is necessary, looking at my previous posts on this topic shows this....I goofed).

 

[ScottM]

Ahh, but you see, you don't have to fly the pattern over the airport. A ground reference maneuver called "Rectangular Course" helps (btw, while I forgot to mention that as the exception to my ground reference objection this time, I usually mention that rectangular course is necessary, looking at my previous posts on this topic shows this....I goofed).

That omission would have helped make your case.

 

[SkyHog]

That omission would have helped make your case.

You're right, and I did say it here a few months ago: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12131&highlight=rectangular

 

[poadeleted20]

There was a time when there was no PTS at all, and every practical test was whatever the examiner wanted it to be. The howls of protest at the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the tests that resulted led to the increasingly specific PTS's. As a veteran of that era, trust me -- you don't want it to come back. I'll stick with a specific list of exactly what is to be done and clear standards as to what is acceptable performance.

 

[KennyFlys]

There was a time when there was no PTS at all, and every practical test was whatever the examiner wanted it to be. The howls of protest at the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the tests that resulted led to the increasingly specific PTS's. As a veteran of that era, trust me -- you don't want it to come back. I'll stick with a specific list of exactly what is to be done and clear standards as to what is acceptable performance.

You mean everything subjective to the DE's happiness in marriage regardless of how close it might be to today's PTS book?

BTW, when did that change? I can't recall having a PTS when I took my test in 1981.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Sometimes, pilots wind up inverted. I propose that we include inverted flight recovery into the PTS.

Unusual attitudes... yep, covered.

Sometimes, pilots hit towers when flying 50agl. I think that belongs in the PTS.

Hazardous attitudes (of the pilot, not airplane) variety. Minimum altitudes in the FAR's. Covered.

Some pilots have been killed because they spun their airplanes. Lets put spin recovery back into the PTS.

Spin awareness is already covered. Unfortunately, not enough CFI's teach the classic skidding turn to final one...

Lets add all the other, rarely used, but often difficult to grasp, maneuvers to the same system:

Steep turns, ground reference, etc.

Steep turns and ground reference maneuvers, difficult to grasp? You're kidding, right?

You would be able to get your license in about 20-25 hours minimum that way. People would probably still take longer, but no where near the FAA's average 59 hours.

I firmly believe that the 59-hour figure has nothing to do with the requirements being too stiff, and everything to do with people not studying on the ground or chair-flying enough. I credit lots of ground study (when I couldn't afford to fly) with making my private quick and easy.

And no, recreational and LSA doesn't work here, because I'm talking about flight with friends and night flight also.

Well, I believe that with one or both of the above you can still do night if you get trained for it (now there's something where your voluntary-training-later has some merit). You can also fly with a friend on both.

by saying we need the stuff we need right now is nothing more than keeping exclusivity in our flying, and that is causing our demise.

And people who can't even do a turn around a point will also cause our demise when none of us can afford insurance any more.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Ahh, but you see, you don't have to fly the pattern over the airport. A ground reference maneuver called "Rectangular Course" helps (btw, while I forgot to mention that as the exception to my ground reference objection this time, I usually mention that rectangular course is necessary, looking at my previous posts on this topic shows this....I goofed).

In this neck-of-the-woods, the only rectangular courses available are airports.

 

[SkyHog]

Unusual attitudes... yep, covered.

Come on Kent, you're gonna liken inverted flight to unusual attitudes? There is a little tiny difference...you're upside down!

Hazardous attitudes (of the pilot, not airplane) variety. Minimum altitudes in the FAR's. Covered.

Perhaps, but without training on how to avoid the towers, then we're not specifically training every possible scenario anymore. Afterall, if someone had taught building avoidance to Lidle....

Spin awareness is already covered. Unfortunately, not enough CFI's teach the classic skidding turn to final one...

Yes. PPs are told how to avoid spins, and shown to keep the rudders level. But if one enters a spin? Screw him, he should have paid more attention during the training, he gets to die? Since we're advocating teaching pilots how to avoid every scenario, lets teach them spins too.

Steep turns and ground reference maneuvers, difficult to grasp? You're kidding, right?

Ask around, what the hardest parts of the PP training was. Most people will say the majority of time was spent learning to land properly (which is necessary, obviously), followed by either S-turns or Steep turns, and the rest of the ground reference after that.

I firmly believe that the 59-hour figure has nothing to do with the requirements being too stiff, and everything to do with people not studying on the ground or chair-flying enough. I credit lots of ground study (when I couldn't afford to fly) with making my private quick and easy.

Yes, you are correct, you have the desire to learn more, so you'd be a good pilot either way. For those who have no desire to learn more, they're gonna be stuck as mediocre pilots, under the current system, or under the good system.

Well, I believe that with one or both of the above you can still do night if you get trained for it (now there's something where your voluntary-training-later has some merit). You can also fly with a friend on both.

Only one friend, and I'm not aware of any night flight allowed with LSA, and I believe recreational is limited to 50nm. Who wants to fly like that?

And people who can't even do a turn around a point will also cause our demise when none of us can afford insurance any more.

Riiight, because not knowing how to do a turn around a point will suddenly make their airplanes plummet out of the sky.

The small number of people that would crash because they weren't taught S-Turns or Turns around a point would be about the same as the number of airplanes that fly into buildings each year. What's that, 1, maybe 2 tops? And in return, we get cheaper flying, more demand for our airplanes, more representation in the United States, cheaper fuel, cheaper tie down spots, cheaper hangars, we'll have FBOs that can actually afford to stay in business.

Its a situation that benefits everyone (except maybe that 1 person a year that should have had the desire to learn how to do a turn around a point...poor guy tried to turn a circle and wound up turning a square...tragic.).

 

[jesse]

If it were my choice I would drop cross country from the PTS. I'd put all that time more towards things like ground reference maneuvers, airplane control, and emergency procedures.

Cross country would require an additional endorsement once you had the license. The sport pilot is kind of this but not really.

The hour requirement wouldn't decrease or increase. There'd just be a lot more endorsements and a lot less privileges with a plain private license. A lot more work put into airplane handling.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I think they need to add an hour of instruction to the PTS on the [FONT=&quot]Curve-i-olis effect; sounds like it was a major factor here.

The attorney that filed the suit needs some time on a De "fib" rillator.[/FONT]

Best,

Dave

 

[poadeleted20]

You mean everything subjective to the DE's happiness in marriage regardless of how close it might be to today's PTS book?

That was sort of how it was when I got my PPL in 1970.

BTW, when did that change? I can't recall having a PTS when I took my test in 1981.

Sometime in the 70's, I believe, but I think I was out flying A-6's in the Western Pacific when it happened, so it didn't affect me, and I didn't really notice until I went back to civilian flying in 1977.

 

[poadeleted20]

If it were my choice I would drop cross country from the PTS. I'd put all that time more towards things like ground reference maneuvers, airplane control, and emergency procedures.

Unfortunately, that would have two deleterious effects. First, it would mean our PPL would not meet ICAO standards, and that has quite a few ramifications. Second, it would leave the PPL little different than the RPL, and given the total lack of interest in the RPL (like 300 issued since it was invented some 10 or more years ago), I don't see much of a demand there. Folks learn to fly in order to go places, not just be a U-control airplane tied to the wind sock post.

 

[KennyFlys]

Sometime in the 70's, I believe, but I think I was out flying A-6's in the Western Pacific when it happened, so it didn't affect me, and I didn't really notice until I went back to civilian flying in 1977.

An Intruder jockey! Indeed, a man after my own heart. That was my first gig as an avioics tech, working on A-6E's at VA-128 at Whidbey Island.

 

[poadeleted20]

An Intruder jockey! Indeed, a man after my own heart. That was my first gig as an avioics tech, working on A-6E's at VA-128 at Whidbey Island.

When? I went through VA-128 in 1974.

 

[KennyFlys]

When? I went through VA-128 in 1974.

I was there in 1980, during which time we had contingency plans out the wazoo for moving planes in case St. Helen's blew our way. Eventually, it did but the ash went around the earth before it got up to us.

 

[woodstock]

er, Ken, care to submit a photo of yourself? just curious - based on your last comment.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Come on Kent, you're gonna liken inverted flight to unusual attitudes? There is a little tiny difference...you're upside down!

Ever been upside down in an airplane? Lemme tell ya, there is a STRONG urge to right yourself, and it really takes no thought to get those ailerons out there to do so in a hurry. Proper unusual attitude recovery techniques will work even if you're inverted, too.

Perhaps, but without training on how to avoid the towers, then we're not specifically training every possible scenario anymore.

Oh come on. Something's in front of you. Turn left, turn right, climb, whatever. A monkey could figure out building avoidance. Then again, it's not that hard to read the MEF's for your route and stay above them either.

Afterall, if someone had taught building avoidance to Lidle....

Maybe they should have taught him airplane avoidance.

Yes. PPs are told how to avoid spins, and shown to keep the rudders level. But if one enters a spin? Screw him, he should have paid more attention during the training, he gets to die?

Not if he was paying attention. Spins require two things: Uncoordinated flight and a stall. So... Fly coordinated, and don't stall, and there's no way you can spin. Part of the reason the various maneuvers are valuable is to teach how to fly coordinated and not stall in various flight regimes. Steep turns, for example, can teach you the effect of turns on a stall.

Since we're advocating teaching pilots how to avoid every scenario, lets teach them spins too.

We're not teaching pilots how to avoid every scenario. We're teaching them mastery of the airplane.

Ask around, what the hardest parts of the PP training was. Most people will say the majority of time was spent learning to land properly (which is necessary, obviously), followed by either S-turns or Steep turns, and the rest of the ground reference after that.

Again, are you kidding? I'd bet money that power-on stalls are way above steep turns and ground reference maneuvers in the list of most people's difficulties after landing.

For those who have no desire to learn more, they're gonna be stuck as mediocre pilots, under the current system, or under the good system.

No... They'd be mediocre pilots under the "good" system. Under the current system, they're mediocre non-pilots.

Only one friend, and I'm not aware of any night flight allowed with LSA, and I believe recreational is limited to 50nm. Who wants to fly like that?

Not me... But that's why additional training (ahem) allows you to move from Rec or Sport up to Private.

Riiight, because not knowing how to do a turn around a point will suddenly make their airplanes plummet out of the sky.

Frankly, anyone who can't do a turn around a point is not flying an airplane, the airplane is flying them. It's a simple maneuver that simply takes an understanding of the factors involved (winds aloft and groundspeed) which need to be known anyway. It also teaches division of attention (ground track, traffic watch, altitude check, lather, rinse, repeat.)

cheaper tie down spots, cheaper hangars

Demand goes way up, supply has trouble keeping up. You really think they're gonna get cheaper?

I will grant you that we need more pilots. Making it *easier* is not the way to go. Making it *cheaper* is. There's already too many bad pilots who have slipped through the cracks in our current system, and you want to make those cracks bigger? That will simply lead to more accidents, higher insurance costs, bad press, bad public perception, more closed airports...

Flying is a challenge. As such, getting the certificate should be a challenge. Not overly challenging, but enough to keep the people who would not be good pilots OUT. This is not "elitist" it's realist. The people who shouldn't be pilots... Well, shouldn't be pilots!

I'm sure my perspective on this is somewhat colored by the people I have to work with on a regular basis. I never knew how many stupid losers there were in the world until I was a truck driver trainer. I try to take all my trainees flying at some point or another, and while some of them would be OK pilots, the majority would not. Yeah, I really love hearing what a great time they had when they call all their friends and family and talk about it, but it makes me cringe when I hear a guy who doesn't even know which way north, south, east, and west are talk about how he's gonna be a pilot someday too. (And then spaces out and doesn't realize he missed the turn to I-65 south until TOLEDO, 220 miles further down the road, and gets into an accident trying to get back on track.)

More pilots would be great. Handing out pilot certificates like driver's licenses would NOT.

 

[SkyHog]

More pilots would be great. Handing out pilot certificates like driver's licenses would NOT.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree then, because personally, I think handing out Private Pilot certs should be like handing out driver's licenses (with the requirement of a test....I never took a driving test).

Flying is REALLY easy. What is hard is learning to fly a specific way. Those pilots you say would be mediocre pilots under my "good" system would most likely just fly from point a to point b, and get there faster. I don't understand how simply being above the ground instead of on it makes any difference.

 

[KennyFlys]

We're gonna have to agree to disagree then, because personally, I think handing out Private Pilot certs should be like handing out driver's licenses (with the requirement of a test....I never took a driving test).

Flying is REALLY easy. What is hard is learning to fly a specific way. Those pilots you say would be mediocre pilots under my "good" system would most likely just fly from point a to point b, and get there faster. I don't understand how simply being above the ground instead of on it makes any difference.

Huh? It should be more difficult to obtain a driver's license as well as retain it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Flying is REALLY easy.

I don't understand how simply being above the ground instead of on it makes any difference.

Driving is really easy too. But, look at how bad people drive! I get to see a lot more if it than you do, but I'm sure you've seen some awfully boneheaded drivers out there too.

I also work with people, as noted before, who have passed a test for a COMMERCIAL driver's license who don't know which way north, south, east, and west are. Or can't figure out how to insert a credit card into a card reader at the pump. Or don't realize they missed their turn over 200 miles ago (Fuel starvation accident waiting to happen). Or don't realize that the purple line on the GPS is what they're supposed to follow. Or can't read. Or don't know a turbocharger from a cell phone charger. Or don't know how to do any number of things on a pre-trip inspection (which they were, BTW, tested on by the state!) Or... Do I really need to continue???

Seriously, these people are out there in very high numbers, and they've got COMMERCIAL driver's licenses. You DO NOT want to make it as easy to get a pilot certificate as it is a driver's license!

 

[bbchien]

I understand that. Some years ago when I was about 15, my Mom put the Country Squire into the back of a Garbage Truck on Willow Road, about this time of year. She was tailgaiting in a spring snowstrom.

"Well, I applied the brake!"

Sigh. It's alaming to have some of those genes.....

 

[jesse]

Flying is not as easy as driving and will not be as easy as driving anytime in the near future. Not everyone is fit to be a pilot nor is everyone fit to drive.

 

[SkyHog]

Flying is not as easy as driving and will not be as easy as driving anytime in the near future. Not everyone is fit to be a pilot nor is everyone fit to drive.

How can you say that, jesse, flying is probably one of the easiest things one can do: Its driving, with a third dimension.

What makes flying hard is learning the book stuff.

What also makes flying hard is making flying hard. Overthinking it. To fly from one airport to another is easy as can be, easier than driving in many cases as often turns are not necessary.

Here's an example: To get from my house to my parents house in Albuquerque:

1) Turn down Oro Grande
2) Turn north on Rt 95
3) Turn east on I40
4) Turn left on Tramway Blvd
5) Turn right on Indian School Rd
6) Turn left on umm...Cumbres I thing
7) Turn left on El Vado
8) Turn right on C...something else
9) Arrive at destination

OR...

1) Take the runway
2) Intercept V12
3) Land in Albuquerque

Definitely harder to fly, eh?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How can you say that, jesse, flying is probably one of the easiest things one can do: Its driving, with a third dimension.

Which, by definition, makes it...

not as easy as driving

What makes flying hard is learning the book stuff.

And which book stuff is unimportant, exactly?

What also makes flying hard is making flying hard. Overthinking it. To fly from one airport to another is easy as can be, easier than driving in many cases as often turns are not necessary.

Hey, cool, we can go straight over the mountains! All we have to do is pull back on the stick! Neato! What's that buzzer? Stupid rental airplane. OH $#!+%#&* HELP WE'RE GONNA DIE! AAAAAAAAA!!!!

1) Take the runway
2) Intercept V12
3) Land in Albuquerque

Definitely harder to fly, eh?

So, how many intermediate turns are there on V12? And how many signs are there to tell you V12 is coming up in a mile? How do you land one of these things, just point it at the ground, right? What's that little red bar on that one dial mean? Why do we only have one wing now?

 

[SkyHog]

And which book stuff is unimportant, exactly?

None of it. Its all important, and should all be required learning. I never said it shouldn't.

Hey, cool, we can go straight over the mountains! All we have to do is pull back on the stick! Neato! What's that buzzer? Stupid rental airplane. OH $#!+%#&* HELP WE'RE GONNA DIE! AAAAAAAAA!!!!

Anyone trained in stalls (a requirement for any PTS, including mine) would know what the buzzer means, and why you don't just aim for the sky to get over mountains.

So, how many intermediate turns are there on V12? And how many signs are there to tell you V12 is coming up in a mile?

None. V12 is directly over Lake Havasu and Albuquerque.

How do you land one of these things, just point it at the ground, right? What's that little red bar on that one dial mean? Why do we only have one wing now?

All things covered in both book and pilot training.

 

[KennyFlys]

What if... there was no working "buzzer"?

What if... radios failed?

What if... navigation failed?

What if... there was no GPS?

What if... electrical was lost?

What if... a flight control surface failed?

Like Kent, I drive for a living. I've done it for twelve years. I may only drive a vehicle that's 2500 lbs as opposed to Kent's 80,000 but the concepts are the same. If we have an accident, we're already on the ground. Our odds of survival are pretty high; his more than mine unless he hits something solid with 60,000 lbs in tow.

No doubt, we're both a lot safer up in the air, even in IMC. I know I would be considering all the idiots around me on the highway with cell phones glued to the side of their head. But, it's the training and constant work at proficiency that keeps us or any pilot safe. It's knowing the procedures for what happens when systems fail or communication is lost while in the clouds. It's the clear understanding of what is happening in any given configuration and how to change it, compensate for no change or compensate for lost function. It's the repeated medical checkups that insure we're healthy enough to operate an aircraft under a given set of rules. It's the repeated flight reviews to insure we're up to snuff on performing in the aircraft.

Now, think of five drivers you know who has met similar requirements to be on the road. Oh, and professional drivers of any combination vehicle are exempt from the choices. They too, have standards set by their companies, insurance carriers and another pesky federal agency.

 

[SkyHog]

What if... there was no working "buzzer"?

What if... radios failed?

What if... navigation failed?

What if... there was no GPS?

What if... electrical was lost?

What if... a flight control surface failed?

Under the current system, a pilot would be equally as prepared (or not prepared, depending on the pilot) for any of those situations.

Radio failure is taught in ground school (which would remain unchanged)
I don't know what you mean by navigation failed, you mean you're lost? That would qualify as "navigate safely" under my PTS.
No GPS? Well, some current pilots require GPS to fly safely, and if they lost it now, they'd be screwed too.
Lost electical? I never had a CFI teach that one to me. That was ground school stuff.
Flight control surface failure? What about it? As a primary student, you trying to tell me that you had a CFI say "Ok, land this plane without the ailerons"? I doubt it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

None of it. Its all important, and should all be required learning. I never said it shouldn't.

Well, you sure gave the impression, saying that becoming a pilot is too hard and we should make it easier, and then

What makes flying hard is learning the book stuff.

If what makes flying hard is the book stuff, why do we need to relax the checkride but not the book ("hard") part?

None. V12 is directly over Lake Havasu and Albuquerque.

I meant intermediate VOR's. Each one equates to another turn. Granted, you'll have less than driving, but ya gotta learn how to use the things. There aren't any signs up there.

 

[wsuffa]

I understand that. Some years ago when I was about 15, my Mom put the Country Squire into the back of a Garbage Truck on Willow Road, about this time of year. She was tailgaiting in a spring snowstrom.

"Well, I applied the brake!"

Sigh. It's alaming to have some of those genes.....

Geeze, Bruce. I recall the stories about your daughter and why you opted for a "safe" car. Do the genes skip a generation?

 

[tonycondon]

Geeze, Bruce. I recall the stories about your daughter and why you opted for a "safe" car. Do the genes skip a generation?

maybe its a girl thing

*runs for cover*

 

[NC Pilot]

Flying is REALLY easy. What is hard is learning to fly a specific way. Those pilots you say would be mediocre pilots under my "good" system would most likely just fly from point a to point b, and get there faster. I don't understand how simply being above the ground instead of on it makes any difference.

Flying is much harder than driving. Specific skills must be learned as well as many regulations. That's why it takes so long to get a pilots license. Having dealt with many of the lower 90% I really don't want to make it easier to get a pilots license.

 

[etsisk]

Having dealt with many of the lower 90% I really don't want to make it easier to get a pilots license.

Stop talking about me!!!




uh, you weren't talking about me .... were you??

 

[KennyFlys]

Stop talking about me!!!




uh, you weren't talking about me .... were you??

Tom, rest assured... he wasn't referring to you. He's yet to address the lower 50%.

 

[etsisk]

Tom, rest assured... he wasn't referring to you. He's yet to address the lower 50%.

Well didn't I just set myself up for that. Sheesh.

 

[poadeleted20]

I see a lot of drivers who can't fly, but I can't recall seeing a pilot who couldn't drive.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I see a lot of drivers who can't fly, but I can't recall seeing a pilot who couldn't drive.

I'm only a student, but I also don't own a car... Does that count for anything?

 

[Ken Ibold]

Ever been upside down in an airplane? Lemme tell ya, there is a STRONG urge to right yourself, and it really takes no thought to get those ailerons out there to do so in a hurry. Proper unusual attitude recovery techniques will work even if you're inverted, too.

Unfortunately, the first reaction most people have to being inverted is to PULL, which of course points you right into the ground. The roll reflex is also there, but in the case of something like wake turbulence the energy of the vortex can quite easily overpower whatever effect the ailerons might want to impose on your flight path. So PUSH has to be ingrained -- and it's counterintuitive to the notion of going UP.

 

[SkyHog]

I see a lot of drivers who can't fly, but I can't recall seeing a pilot who couldn't drive.

Replace can't with don't and I agree, and we see the problem currently plaguing us.