Jepp vs NOS at PRB

Greg Esres wrote:

Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will
change his mind.

I think that's a bit unfair. Whether a person was taught correctly or
incorrectly is a matter of chance; when someone later seeks to change
his mind, what authoritative evidence is available?

Many people want to learn, but they aren't sure whom to trust. In the
end, most are persuaded by the highest status individual with a firm
opinion.

No doubt about, especially in aviation, where there is no systematic
hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.

no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were? A "graduate" program for those
foolish enough to want to be career CFI's. I'd like to go to
something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill,
maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's.

In article ,
Greg Esres wrote:

no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were?

In a sense, there is. If you get enough students to pass checkrides,
you become a "Master CFI". Of course, it doesn't actually prove that
you know anything more than how to prep students for checkrides :-)

I'd like to go to
something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill,
maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's.

Anybody can download the TERPS manual and read it. Not quite the same
as attending a training class, but you get a whole lot more than you'd
find in the AIM.

Roy Smith wrote:


Anybody can download the TERPS manual and read it. Not quite the same
as attending a training class, but you get a whole lot more than you'd
find in the AIM.

The TERPs book is more like an Advanced Cooking book than an Advanced
Driver's Manual. Without a lot of cooking classes and on the job work,
the TERPs Manual (and now about 6, or so, related handbooks) leave much to
be misunderstood.

In a sense, there is. If you get enough students to pass
checkrides, you become a "Master CFI".

A meaningless, political designation, IMO. That's a NAFI program and
there are some other requirements to it, as I recall. Sorta like a
Boy Scout merit badge. ;-)

Anybody can download the TERPS manual and read it. Not quite the
same as attending a training class, but you get a whole lot more than
you'd find in the AIM.

I acquired a copy as an instrument student and I use it regularly.
Useful, but it would take an expert to be able to say how the criteria
are applied in the real world.

Greg Esres wrote:

no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were? A "graduate" program for those
foolish enough to want to be career CFI's. I'd like to go to
something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill,
maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's.

The parts are fragmented. Procedure concepts and designs need to be
melded with aircraft performance and ATC procedures. So far as I know,
no one person or entity in the FAA has a global perspective on it all.
The air traffic procedures designers are mostly clueless as to TERPs and
the TERPs criteria designers, some of which are very good at what they
do, don't have a really good feeling for the nuances of ATC.

As an example, last August, air traffic management put out an order that
modified a section in the ATC handbook that was supposed to solve a
long-standing issue brought up before ATPAC 3 years ago concerning
clearances direct-to the intermediate waypoint of RNAV IAPs. But, the
order was very poorly written and without consulting the TERPs designers
in Flight Standards. The order was supposed to have been incorporated
formally into the "P" release of 7110.65 on February 19th. Instead, it
dropped dead without any further explanation.

The parts are fragmented. Procedure concepts and designs need to be
melded with aircraft performance and ATC procedures.

Yes! There might well be a market for such training. An online
training course might find a larger market, though. But it would have
to be tough and thorough, not a "fluff" course.

The fact that all this is fragmented is something in particular that
an instrument pilot needs to hear. It would explain a lot of
inconsistencies.