If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now; standards can NEVER be too high. There are two ways to read this. 1: You should always strive to be better. 2: You always should not fly unless you are better. I have no problem at all with (1). It's my creed. However, (2) seems to be proposed here also, by the idea that pilots of [insert program] are not safe enough and should not have gotten their private ticket (which is after all a license to learn). If they pass the checkride, they are safe enough to fly (2) but not safe enough to stop learning (1). Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
"Teacherjh" wrote in message ... In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now; standards can NEVER be too high. There are two ways to read this. 1: You should always strive to be better. 2: You always should not fly unless you are better. I have no problem at all with (1). It's my creed. However, (2) seems to be proposed here also, by the idea that pilots of [insert program] are not safe enough and should not have gotten their private ticket (which is after all a license to learn). If they pass the checkride, they are safe enough to fly (2) but not safe enough to stop learning (1). Jose I see it this way. You can pass the test with varying degrees of competence as long as all of those degrees of competence are above the minimum test standard. Any of these varying degrees can be correctly stated as being safe enough to fly. Some pilots going through the test process will naturally be better than others. Are they more safe? Probably.....at least I think so anyway. It's all a study in relativity. There are no absolutes in this equation; no single identifiable level of competence. The only common denominator in the equation is the minimum test standard having been met at a specific point in time. For my purposes as a check pilot, I can have two pilots to check out who have come through the system using varying methods. Although both pilots are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their check flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good check pilot. Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Although both pilots are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their check flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good check pilot. .... and that's the way it should be. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
"Teacherjh" wrote in message ... Although both pilots are safe enough to check out, and that will be the result of their check flights with me, if I notice one pilot not as up to speed in comprehension as the other one, I'll immediately take the steps necessary to fill in that gap. It's a natural process for any good check pilot. ... and that's the way it should be. Jose To review your initial post to me about the comparison between accelerated and conventional training methods, I can only restate the gist of the initial comments I made on this subject in my first post. I have long believed that accelerated training at the Private level is not the optimum method to use in learning to fly. I base this on my experience as a check pilot dealing with the various training systems in use. My opinion of the optimum method of training at the Private level is a training program that allows a period of time for reflection and review between actual time spent in the cockpit. This period doesn't have to be prolonged, but it has to be PRESENT. In other words, an accelerated program that included this factor would satisfy my requirement for optimum. An accelerated program that concentrates heavily on cockpit time at the expense of time between lessons for review and reflection in my opinion is not an optimum training method and I would never recommend it. You can flight test both methods and get a safe result, but in my opinion you get a BETTER level of comprehension at the flight test by NOT using a training method that denies review and reflection between flights. Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Dudley Henriques wrote:
[...] Absolutely! All pilots, including myself, can use some remedial work. I did it all the time. The issue here however isn't that all pilots need remedial work. The issue is that I was finding a DIFFERENCE in the level of remedial work needed between accelerated and traditional training methods, and THAT is indicative of a data point if nothing else. Okay. As long as you're using "insufficient" to mean "not sufficient", I understand. I even understand that the benchmark against which you're measuring is your own and not the PTS. This is what I thought you were claiming at first, before all the confusion about whether questions were being asked and answered or how "insufficient" was defined were raised. But this takes us right back to my original question about your opinion. If you've a definition of "sufficient" for a private pilot that is higher than the PTS, what does this say about the PTS? Or if this is not a matter so much of the PTS, but of how exams are given...or how DEs "drill" down into comprehension... My question really is: is there a flaw in the testing system? One could argue that your standards are higher than those of the PPL checkride, and that doesn't by itself denigrate the PPL checkride. However, you obviously think pilots should have that additional comprehension. Does that comprehension (or lack thereof) reflect upon a pilot's safety? And, if so, why are we accepting the lower standard? After all, we're not speaking of having more knowledge, or having more/better skills. We do need to leave room for the Commercial and ATP, after all laugh. But is it so unreasonable to require that pilots understand the knowledge that's already required of them? - Andrew |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields improved safety, but I believe that to be true. I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved comprehension yields improved safety. Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several different ways to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I suspect I see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below). I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adaquate to produce a safe pilot. You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I don't believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure about death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something towards which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable. Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on a different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being flying. We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of flight. That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to maximize safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion. If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require that comprehension from pilots? I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that this knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and comprehensively understood. If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited time involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based upon Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this. - Andrew |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Dudley Henriques wrote: [...] Absolutely! All pilots, including myself, can use some remedial work. I did it all the time. The issue here however isn't that all pilots need remedial work. The issue is that I was finding a DIFFERENCE in the level of remedial work needed between accelerated and traditional training methods, and THAT is indicative of a data point if nothing else. Okay. As long as you're using "insufficient" to mean "not sufficient", I understand. I even understand that the benchmark against which you're measuring is your own and not the PTS. This is what I thought you were claiming at first, before all the confusion about whether questions were being asked and answered or how "insufficient" was defined were raised. Unfortunately on Usenet, this happens quite often. It usually results in a huge thread creep which is what has happened with this thread. But this takes us right back to my original question about your opinion. If you've a definition of "sufficient" for a private pilot that is higher than the PTS, what does this say about the PTS? Or if this is not a matter so much of the PTS, but of how exams are given...or how DEs "drill" down into comprehension... My question really is: is there a flaw in the testing system? There are many flaws in the system, but someone somewhere with competence had to come up with a test standard they considered to be safe for certification. This is exactly what they did. The PTS is the result of this competent opinion. How this standard relates to an overall competency level at the passing point of the flight test is up for grabs really, as I have stated before many times. There are huge variances present in the equation. What the student actually brings into and takes out of the training program; the caliber of the instructors; the caliber of the examiner; There are many factors that will determine an overall compentency level. The main thing is that the basic test standard be a safe standard, and I believe that through time, this has been proven to be the fact. But this by no means should be construed to define that all pilots passing through the test standard pass with the same degree of competence. I think we can assume that all things considered, all who pass are safe. The way I view the PTS; it represents a BEGINNING point where a new pilot has shown competent authority that he/she is safe enough to be allowed certain privileges while continuing forward with the absolutely necessary education and practical experience that will insure a state of CONTINUED safety as that pilot travels through their tenure in aviation. Where that pilot is existing on the safe side of the comprehension scale exiting the flight test can only be determined by a highly experienced check pilot trained in probing for a maximum competency level not tied to any pre-determined test standard. The actual determination of this maximum competency level is in actuality the individual opinion of that specific check pilot. One could argue that your standards are higher than those of the PPL checkride, and that doesn't by itself denigrate the PPL checkride. However, you obviously think pilots should have that additional comprehension. You are absolutely correct on all counts here. Does that comprehension (or lack thereof) reflect upon a pilot's safety? And, if so, why are we accepting the lower standard? No to the first question, as I have again stated in this post. The test standard, as I have also stated , is considered a safe standard as the starting point toward further education and experience to maintain that safe level. After all, we're not speaking of having more knowledge, or having more/better skills. We do need to leave room for the Commercial and ATP, after all laugh. The Commercial TS is simply one more means of demonstrating to competent authority that the ever present necessary education and experience path is being followed. But is it so unreasonable to require that pilots understand the knowledge that's already required of them? I basically understand Fermat's last theorem............but I'm still working on it!!!!! :-))))) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Dudley Henriques wrote: Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields improved safety, but I believe that to be true. I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved comprehension yields improved safety. Good. I did expect you'd think this way, but I tried several different ways to confirm this, and never received a direct answer. However, I suspect I see one problem with our communication on this topic (see below). I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adequate to produce a safe pilot. It is adequate to produce a safe pilot. If the Private minimums were higher, you might just as well get the Commercial :-) You're treating "safe" as an absolute, at least in your writing. I don't believe that this is possible while alive (and I'm not terribly sure about death {8^). I see safety as you've described perfection: something towards which we strive while aware that the ultimate goal is unattainable. I can't figure out where you're getting this from. The only "absolute" I recognize as that word pertains to flight safety is that if a pilot can meet the "absolute" test standard in the PTS, that pilot can be considered safe. Absolute in this case simply means the pre-determined test standard for establishing a demonstration of safe procedures. After the test has been passed, safety in an airplane is a completely relative term. It relates directly to continued education and currency that translates into a continuing gaining of experience that insures a safe standard will be maintained. Take anything out of this equation and safety can become an issue fairly fast. Safety is also involved in a tradeoff. As Michael has pointed out on a different thread, if safety were our top priority we'd not being flying. We're willing to trade a little safety away for the benefits of flight. This is a REAL stretch of how a pilot should be viewing flight safety, and completely in opposition to anything I have ever taught to pilots about flight safety. You are taking the obvious, which is that flying by definition might be an unsafe endeavor and we as pilots accept that when we choose to fly.....and projecting that into the context of how a pilot has to view flight safety. This is totally out of line with my thinking on this subject. Don't EVER take up low altitude aerobatic demonstration flying with this attitude or you will be dead in fifteen seconds or less. If you said this to me during a check flight, I would send you back for "remedial work" :-) That said, given the constraints of our tradeoffs we still try to maximize safety. And this takes us to my question about your opinion. If comprehension improves safety, then is it not reasonable to require that comprehension from pilots? We DO require that comprehension. We just don't require it all at once at flight test time. All we require at the test is a demonstrated POINT that defines enough comprehension for certain privileges to be put on a piece of paper. If you've heard in once, you've heard it a thousand times from almost every competent pilot you'll meet in aviation. "The certificate is nothing but a license to learn". All flying really is, is an honor system. There is no top end to competence or comprehension. It's a never ending process. You can demonstrate continued competence at higher levels if you like. All THAT does is confirm that you have made the right choices and continued this never-ending process of learning and gaining experience. Interestingly enough you can also take no active steps to gain better comprehension and competency. Fortunately, just gaining experience alone without this active involvement will in most cases add up to some increased level of competence and comprehension. It's all up to the individual pilot which path to take, but one way or the other, flying safely demands a constant maintaining of at least the competency you had exiting the flight test. I am not suggesting a change to the knowledge required for a PPL, but I do believe it reasonable to require that this knowledge we're already required to have be clearly and comprehensively understood. Remember Andrew, the flight test is only a demonstrated safe competency level that assumes you will go on gaining what you need to know continue to be safe over time. Actually, I can think of no greater example of allocating personal responsibility than when a DE signs you off as a Private Pilot. The DE is literally entrusting you to continue your learning process after the door closes behind you and you have left the examiner's office. If DEs are not confirming this (as best possible given the limited time involved), then there is something wrong. And it would appear, based upon Dudley's experience, that at least some DEs are not confirming this. There are some bad DE's. Most fortunately are quite good. The system isn't perfect but it works! Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot Courses | John Stevens | Piloting | 1 | April 30th 04 09:11 PM |
Best GA Pilot Continuing Education Courses | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | January 2nd 04 07:54 PM |
instrument courses | Tony Woolner | Piloting | 0 | November 9th 03 12:31 AM |
instrument courses | ArtP | Piloting | 0 | November 8th 03 01:02 PM |
Wanted: Experienced CFIIs to Teach 10-day IFR Rating Courses near Pittsburgh | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | October 1st 03 01:50 AM |