There's a bunch of real world training requirements that aren't met by the
FAR regs.
The loss of TR, TR component or TR effectiveness series is one of the more
serious
defeciencies. The real problem was already mentioned here before; A great
number
of students now are being trained by instructors out there are fairly low
time themselves.
A lot of them are being trained in an R22, which I believe is too
unforgiving to be used
in a serious failure training environment.

Spins and (really) unusual attitude training in fixed wing carry the same
problems.
I went out with a zillion hour aerobatics instructor a couple weeks ago to
hone my
skills in this area. I learned that they were a lot of fun, but I also
learned that almost
everything I thought I knew/learned from my initial training was flawed.
Why?; My fixed wing instructor was a low timer that had never been in an
airplane
that was upside down, or really spinning.

IMO: I think it would be a really good idea to create a super-classification
of instructor.
Becoming a SuperIP would require very high time and tested skills in
advanced areas.
New students would be required to be signed off by these SuperIP's in the
advanced
skill areas before they can take a checkride. This would keep metal (and
carbon fiber)
from being bent up while also creating much safer new pilots.

Bart








"John Martin" wrote in message
...
The reality is that more machines get wrecked in practice touch-down autos
than in real touch down autos. By a long way.

I suspect it would be a non-debate if there were no such thing as
training in low inertia blade machines. I think if everyone trained in
Bell 47s or R44s the rules would still allow for touch downs because you
have so much time to set up the final landing. But the reality is that so
many people train in R22s where you tend to have it all happening fast and
furious at the end. In that situation its a trade off - the risk of a
complete bingle against the minor loss of reality by not going the last
few feet to the ground. Its easy to say that it isn't real unless you go
to the ground but the wrecked machines are real and the practice is then
reflected in insurance rates going up and injuries/deaths in the wrecks.

Is just the "top bit" of the auto enough? Don't know myself I haven't
come across anyone who has only learned power recovery autos who has then
gone to have a real auto. I guess that would be the answer to the debate.
Anyone know of such an accident?

Every few months I go off with an instructor and do practice autos etc.
If they say we'll do autos to the ground - I use their machine otherwise
we go in mine.

John Martin

"bryan chaisone" wrote in message
om...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...%26scoring%3Dd

hope the link above works,

full auto'd to the ground once.

bryan