Dear Burt

Terry wrote:
Any bad information
given and then accepted as fully true can live for generations of
pilots.

Terry,

You've hit the nail on the head. I think this is reinforced by the fact
that there are many pilots who fly very, very well, but have built
their own successful (if not wholly accurate) models of flight and
airmanship. For example, I know pilots who routinely make expert
crosswind landings who believe the wind exerts force on the aircraft
while it is in the air and that by tilting the wing into the wind, they
are counteracting that force. The physics of the model is flawed, but
they are able to use it to fly with great competence.

The model they use, however, may not serve another so well.

I have a sense that airmanship and its teaching has yet to be fully
explored. Seems like a great Doctoral Thesis for someone with interests
in aerodynamics and pedagogy. Building an accurate aerodynamic model
tailored to serve the needs of aviators (as opposed to engineers) would
be a good first step. Next, application of the expansive work done in
instructional methodology to create a more efficient and effective
approach to teaching flying.

There's a certain charm in realizing we are only four generations
removed from the Wright Brothers. But that should also be a warning.
There's much left to learn.

At 17:30 04 February 2005, wrote:


The idea that the FAA sets minimum standards, and of
course all
instructors will train to higher standards, sounds
great in theory.
However in the real world, a large portion of the instructors
teach
only what will actually be tested on the practical
test. By debriefing
their students after flight tests, they have learned
exactly what a
particular examiner will expect. This then allows
them to train their
students
for a flight test with that specific examiner, rather
than bothering to
train for a thorough test in accordance with the PTS.

A bit chopped out

................. Unfortunately for this pilot, his
training was
done at an operaton known for shopping around for easy
examiners.

M Eiler



This notion of teaching to the test has come up in
political discussions about education. Even our current
US president was drawn into this about 4 years ago
and suggested that 'teaching to the test -- is teaching.'

Consider that the classroom teacher would teach multiplication
by teaching only those examples on the statewide test
for proficiency. No student would learn the entire
table -- just a few of the 5's and 10's and two or
three of the 6's and 7's -- maybe none of the 8's and
none of the 4's.

Unlike the knowledge (written) test, in the USA, the
PTS is comprehensive. At the examiner discretion, it
covers everything the FAA believes a pilot needs to
know in order to fly safely. This is my understanding.
One could certainly argue that the PTS is either vague or
incomplete. But by design it is supposed to be comprehensive.

So everything in it is testable, and that is comprehensive.
This doesn't mean everything is TESTED during a given
practical test, just TESTABLE.

The written test seems an example of what you point out, however.

****Are examiners the best solution?******

The FAA collected statistics for pass rates of pilots for
various certificates. They compared the pass rates of
pilots flying with an FAA ASI for a practical test vs. the
pass rates for Designated Pilot Examiners.

The pass rates for both glider initial and add-on ratings
for DPEs was around 90%.

Over the same period, the FAA ASI pass rate for all types of
glider tests was 100%.

What is going on here? Well, the sample sizes were significant
(at least 30+) so that can't be it. One major difference is that
if a DPE has a string of perhaps 20-30 passes, they get
"looked at" a little bit harder.

The FAA ASIs do not get "looked at" harder for passing 100%

In any case, there is some statistically significant inconsistency
in these results.

How about eliminating Designated Pilot Examiners altogether?
Although they certainly put a human face on the FAA, are they
entirely necessary? If glider DPEs are failing 10% of the
applicants, and the FAA during it's mandatory random
flight test checks thinks 100% are fine, then there seems
to be a statistically significant standardization problem.

What do you think? Does the DPE 90% FAA 100% pass rate
surprise you? Are you thinking maybe you have a better shot
going to the FAA instead of a DPE for your next glider
practical test?

http://acra.faa.gov/iacra

is the automated FAA application system.
It can check the numbers by some computer formula to see
if the application is correct. And it can match data to the
student pilot license and medical info already in the database.

Beyond that, a "proctor" could put a logger with ENL in the
aircraft. Noise approximates engine RPM, gives buffet or stall horn,
and/or can record the voice of the pilot "That's the impending stall."

So give the guy a logger, have a "proctor" verify the takeoff, and
have the applicant do the manuever series off a clipboard or
audio tape instruction.

Land, and upload the flight log to FAA. A computer blindly
checks the data, and you get a pass or fail instantly.

I have not figured out how to test for coordination yet.
How do you know if the pilot is coordinated? Maybe a
360 45deg with a fast reversal to another 45deg 360.
The reversal would show differently on the track log coordinated
or not, maybe.

This would certainly provide consistency enforcing
the mathematical standards. It wouldn't test whether the
pilot was sweating profusely or crying during parts of the test,
however...and those are things we sure wouldn't want to see
once they carry a passenger.

But this seems pretty straightforward to implement.

Even if the DPEs remained to do the oral exam part,
the flight part could be done at one's leisure.

Hmmm...loggers are sure an interesting new device I
didn't know anything about until recently. Maybe
the FAA doesn't know about them so much either.

In article ,
Nyal Williams wrote:
At 17:30 04 February 2005, wrote:


The idea that the FAA sets minimum standards, and of
course all
instructors will train to higher standards, sounds
great in theory.
However in the real world, a large portion of the instructors
teach
only what will actually be tested on the practical
test. By debriefing
their students after flight tests, they have learned
exactly what a
particular examiner will expect. This then allows
them to train their
students
for a flight test with that specific examiner, rather
than bothering to
train for a thorough test in accordance with the PTS.

A bit chopped out

................. Unfortunately for this pilot, his
training was
done at an operaton known for shopping around for easy
examiners.

M Eiler



This notion of teaching to the test has come up in
political discussions about education. Even our current
US president was drawn into this about 4 years ago
and suggested that 'teaching to the test -- is teaching.'

Consider that the classroom teacher would teach multiplication
by teaching only those examples on the statewide test
for proficiency. No student would learn the entire
table -- just a few of the 5's and 10's and two or
three of the 6's and 7's -- maybe none of the 8's and
none of the 4's.





--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Mark James Boyd wrote:

Maybe the FAA doesn't know about them so much either.

Or... maybe they do.

..igc files are very handy for post crash analysis. A logger file was
used in a very recent glider accident investigation.

Jim

Mark James Boyd wrote:
The FAA collected statistics for pass rates of pilots for
various certificates. They compared the pass rates of
pilots flying with an FAA ASI for a practical test vs. the
pass rates for Designated Pilot Examiners.

The pass rates for both glider initial and add-on ratings
for DPEs was around 90%.

Over the same period, the FAA ASI pass rate for all types of
glider tests was 100%.

What is going on here? Well, the sample sizes were significant
(at least 30+) so that can't be it. One major difference is that
if a DPE has a string of perhaps 20-30 passes, they get
"looked at" a little bit harder.

Mr. Boyd since your quoting numbers and statistics that many of us have
never heard of before. Could you provide us with the name of the FAA
publication or the url for the site where the FAA publishes this
information? Interestingly one of our regional directors had requested
this type of information from the local FSDO just last year and was
told that the data was not available.

M Eiler

http://registry.faa.gov/faqam.asp
historical airmen stats is the second from the bottom.
Look at 2003 stats, table 19 and 20, in the xls format.

I don't have Excel on this machine or I'd post the actual
stats directly. Mr. Eiler, if you or someone else could please
translate format and post it, I'd be grateful

If I recall correctly, the 100% pass rate for FAA ASIs
for gliders vs. 90% for DPEs was interesting. But also interesting
was the 66% or so pass rate of FAA ASIs for airplanes (?) compared
to DPE 80% or so. Hmmm...maybe this was instructors? I dunno,
somebody post the info here so we can all take a looksie...

Anyway, the stats seem to show that DPEs are not standardized
to ASI standards completely, and there is a statistically
significant difference in some areas.

Hope this is interesting!

Mark

In article . com,
wrote:

Mark James Boyd wrote:
The FAA collected statistics for pass rates of pilots for
various certificates. They compared the pass rates of
pilots flying with an FAA ASI for a practical test vs. the
pass rates for Designated Pilot Examiners.

The pass rates for both glider initial and add-on ratings
for DPEs was around 90%.

Over the same period, the FAA ASI pass rate for all types of
glider tests was 100%.

What is going on here? Well, the sample sizes were significant
(at least 30+) so that can't be it. One major difference is that
if a DPE has a string of perhaps 20-30 passes, they get
"looked at" a little bit harder.

Mr. Boyd since your quoting numbers and statistics that many of us have
never heard of before. Could you provide us with the name of the FAA
publication or the url for the site where the FAA publishes this
information? Interestingly one of our regional directors had requested
this type of information from the local FSDO just last year and was
told that the data was not available.

M Eiler



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

I sure think we are close to the slippery slope when we start making
comments that imply certain things should ALWAYS be done the same way...ALL
the time.

Low Energy landings are great, when the weather is nice, but in a big stiff
blustery crosswind, you dang sure better know how to fly your machine onto
the ground or you are going to learn all about this pretty little manuever
called the "ground loop".

We may as well just face the music that NO single methodology is ever going
to be 100% correct and that every instructor is going to have his pet peeves
and that's the way life is. So I'd suggest we'd do well to explain and
demonstrate the multitude of different methods to students...I'd further
assert that there are plenty of pilots who simply shouldn't be flying in on
the brink of a stall, because they are not keenly enough attuned to the
voice of the sailplane and it's subtle ways of letting us know what it needs
to keep us flying. There are many safe club pilots however, who fly their
gliders onto the ground and while they may not perform flawlessly in an
outlanding scenario, most of them will probably never pursue cross-country
flight and have the need arise to truly utilize those skillsets. I have met
MANY pilots...who are uncomfortable flirting with the stall, and the main
reason is a general lack of understanding and training...we should help them
work on those skills.

For Every flight...there are a hundred different methods to accomplish the
same thing...we should just patiently teach and share the information we
have and particularly share with a person why we think the way we do, when
we see a pilot do something that we think they would be better served by
being enlightened by additional information. I've never yet met a pilot who
wasn't willing to tell you why they do the things the way they do them...and
discuss differences...


Steve.

Streve, you said,
"I'd further assert that there are plenty of pilots who simply
shouldn't be flying in on
the brink of a stall, because they are not keenly enough attuned to the

voice of the sailplane and it's subtle ways of letting us know what it
needs
to keep us flying."

No well-trained pilot "flies in on the brink of a stall." In a
sailplane, the flair isn't initiated until the pilot is less than 10
feet above the ground. One does not approach stall speed until within
several feet of the ground, at which point ham handedness won't lead to
much more than landing with a "thud" rather than a "swish." The point
at which one chooses to flair or not to flair comes with skill and
knowledge. But forcing a glider onto the ground can lead to equally
unhappy results, usually ending in a stall and something louder than a
thud. By far, the most common landing mistake I see is forcing the
glider onto the ground, only to become airborne with the first
substantial bump, at which point things become genuinely interesting,
and usually end in a fully stalled landing. Why not just cut out the
middle man?

If a pilot is unable to manage a flair and continue it into a fully
stalled landing, the pilot is not yet competent. When he can
demonstrate the ability to do this, then he can start experimenting
with more energetic arrivals.

Crosswinds are another matter. If you'd like, start a thread on them.
There are lots of theories about this too. And plenty to question in
each of them.

I think, though, I'm being too negative . You do make a good point.
Flexibility is a desirable quality. I once had a student who simply
couldn't get his landings right, even though he was doing everything by
the book. He was a sailor. Finally, in exasperation, I said, "Bill, do
you dock your boat the same way every time? Don't you have to change
how you do things based on wind and current?" From that point on I
could never find anything criticize in his landings. He soloed several
flights later.

But flexibility depends a sound foundation of knowledge. If your
conceptual model is flawed, flexibility might hurt you. Interesting
line of thought...

I think perhaps I've crossed wires somewhere along the line...the stall
comment I meant in earnest. I have flown with plenty of pilots who are
afraid of stalls...or let's say..."uncomfortable" performing them. To me, I
think they're pretty neat.

My comment was aimed at pointing out, that if you teach an undynamic
approach...regardless of what it is...we are asking for trouble at some
point.

Every landing is different.

When I refer to flying in on the brink of a stall, I was responding to
unclehanks previous posting regarding someone not being able to fit into a
tight field.

An off field landing into a tight field, is a completely different mindset
and setup and I do slow my ship WAY down, when I have to land very short.
You give up layers of options in doing so and fully commit yourself to a
different level of risk. But skill and awareness generally keeps us safe.


Just to clarify my point further.


Steve.

"Steve Hill" wrote in message
...
An off field landing into a tight field, is a completely different mindset
and setup and I do slow my ship WAY down, when I have to land very short.
You give up layers of options in doing so and fully commit yourself to a
different level of risk. But skill and awareness generally keeps us safe.

You are simply trading one kind of risk for another, and hopefully making a
good deal for yourself and your aircraft in the process. Too many pilots forget
the simple formula "E= M * V^2", which tells you how much energy you must
dissipate after touching down at a given speed. Note that velocity is a square
relationship, so therefore you do not have to increase velocity much before you
have doubled the energy that must somehow be dissipated on landing. (Simple
example he
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physic...ticEnergy.html )

It is good to sit down and plug in numbers for your own bird at various
landing speeds and then you will be far better equipped to rationally make that
particular risk tradeoff when you are looking at a landout.

Vaughn