Well it's not that great in the Airline World either.
I've had 2 guys pull the power to ide at 40' in the A340 - very nose up landing with the speed well below Vref and a VERY firm landing were the result.
Not nice to watch sitting on the Jumpseat - not nice to be told by one of the two individuals that he felt he didn't do anything wrong!
It's not difficult - flare first and then pull the power to idle when below 20' like it says in the books.
It's at the point now where I'm actually having to ask how they propose to land the aircraft - I tell them I don't want to see power go to idle at 40'.
There's been 1 hard landing earlier this year - surprised there haven't been any bounced landings followed by a tailstrike. Pulling the power to idle at 40' will ensure that happens sooner or later.
It would help if people actually showed up prepared instead of expecting me to take them by the hand and lead them through the flight. There's briefings available on the company Portal and the airports can be accessed and studied beforehand. Is showing a little initiative too much to ask?
This is Gen Y - going to be one huge clusterfuck when Millenials start showing up on my flightdeck.
Maybe I'm just getting old.....
Lets have a serious discussion on learning to fly.
-
Liquid Charlie
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:34 pm
I think we forget that these flight schools are a business and are trying to pad and create a curriculum that makes them money. I hate to say it Chuck but the Wong brothers lead the charge back in the day (when I was around there in the mid 60's) and were taking a lot longer to solo or eventually a pilot's license compared to some of the other clubs. Possibly you managed to miss this in their earlier days. I was doing my instrument rating there around 65 -- I did my initial private/commercial at the "old" Brampton club. Except for the "required dual" I was bashing around in a J3 cub and all my written exams were self study and I think my private license cost around $100 after the $100 rebate from the government. It was my old man's cub and while he paid for it initially and I used it at the end of the day he made money on it. Zero time 90hp J3 grasshopper (US military observation version) - floats wheels and skiies $5500 - even after inflation the present prices are crazy.
I might not of had all the schooling or knowledge of technical terms of today's graduates but with 30 hours of flight time I had figured out how to land on 300 ft cross strips, spent many a day dropping in on flying farmers are their strips for coffee, landing in the field beside the Oshawa airport to try and be the first aircraft to land for the Oshawa fly in(which was a big thing in it's day) I was always a hands on guy and enjoyed figuring out how shit worked. Holds had me mystified for a while (and we had the figure 8 entry) but that was because the instructor was forcing me to take it on as a math problem. Once I figured to apply a picture to it by knowing where you where in time and space holds were a non issue -- jeeezus we could do that with no moving map display.
Time does march on and yes we adapt to the times but as ALPA pointed out over 6 years ago. The next crisis in commercial aviation is the loss of stick and rudder skills due to automation. We now find ourselves placing young pilots into aircraft with very little actual stick time and not a lot of actual flying to build that ever so important muscle memory. The cost of a pilot's license is outrageous now with an insulting fraction going to the instructor. This leads us into the other issue. Like the phrase "babies having babies" we have "babies teaching students" They need to up the anti on instructor experience and flight time. The route to just using it as a tool to build time needs to be blocked.
For the last 6 years I have been dealing with low time pilots. They know the books and the rules but have no clue about decision making and their hands and feet are wide eye attention getting at best. Most progress but some don't and then go on to 705 right seats. Some days I wake up and figure the sooner we get to complete automation the safer the skies will be.
I would hate to see general aviation whither and die but when I see [color=rgb(106, 106, 106)][font=arial][size=small][b]Ab initio pilots lugging flight bags that weight 20 kg to a 150 it seems to me it has lost its purpose some how. Time will tell or the drone style aircraft will take over. [/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=rgb(106, 106, 106)][/color]
[color=rgb(106, 106, 106)][font=arial][size=small][b]enough ramblings -- more coffee needed [/b][/size][/font][/color]
I might not of had all the schooling or knowledge of technical terms of today's graduates but with 30 hours of flight time I had figured out how to land on 300 ft cross strips, spent many a day dropping in on flying farmers are their strips for coffee, landing in the field beside the Oshawa airport to try and be the first aircraft to land for the Oshawa fly in(which was a big thing in it's day) I was always a hands on guy and enjoyed figuring out how shit worked. Holds had me mystified for a while (and we had the figure 8 entry) but that was because the instructor was forcing me to take it on as a math problem. Once I figured to apply a picture to it by knowing where you where in time and space holds were a non issue -- jeeezus we could do that with no moving map display.
Time does march on and yes we adapt to the times but as ALPA pointed out over 6 years ago. The next crisis in commercial aviation is the loss of stick and rudder skills due to automation. We now find ourselves placing young pilots into aircraft with very little actual stick time and not a lot of actual flying to build that ever so important muscle memory. The cost of a pilot's license is outrageous now with an insulting fraction going to the instructor. This leads us into the other issue. Like the phrase "babies having babies" we have "babies teaching students" They need to up the anti on instructor experience and flight time. The route to just using it as a tool to build time needs to be blocked.
For the last 6 years I have been dealing with low time pilots. They know the books and the rules but have no clue about decision making and their hands and feet are wide eye attention getting at best. Most progress but some don't and then go on to 705 right seats. Some days I wake up and figure the sooner we get to complete automation the safer the skies will be.
I would hate to see general aviation whither and die but when I see [color=rgb(106, 106, 106)][font=arial][size=small][b]Ab initio pilots lugging flight bags that weight 20 kg to a 150 it seems to me it has lost its purpose some how. Time will tell or the drone style aircraft will take over. [/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=rgb(106, 106, 106)][/color]
[color=rgb(106, 106, 106)][font=arial][size=small][b]enough ramblings -- more coffee needed [/b][/size][/font][/color]
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
Also depends where one is learning.
Time is added at a busy airport when you're #5 for takeoff, and the practice area is 20 minutes away. I know I had lots of delays back then, just due to congestion. All those 0.2's add up
Time is added at a busy airport when you're #5 for takeoff, and the practice area is 20 minutes away. I know I had lots of delays back then, just due to congestion. All those 0.2's add up
-
Trey Kule
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:19 am
Besides the 5 hr of instrument flying there is additional x country time, I believe.
I never heard about 5 hours of solo circuits before.
The instrument time is interesting. If it is done as part of another flight, then IF time is 1 for 1 with time spent under the hood. If not then TC does not allow the whole flight as IF time sondone as a separate exercise. 5 hrs of instrumentbtime can equate to 6 or 6.5 hours of flight time. This is very much an instructor FTU scheduling thing
As far as actual flight time there really is no need to be much over 45 hours as evidenced by the cadet program.
The on demand flight training however may take longer if the student is not flying regularly,
This whole thing...its the student....is somewhat of a cop out,
The truth is under the typical pay system instructors do not take time to prepare for a lesson....they basically are not paid to do that and would rather get an additional paid hour of time every day..Hence instructors who believe they are teaching well at the end of a 12 hour duty day.
In terms of dollars and sense, getting a ppl at 50 hours, and then 30 hours of solo flying, is in my opinion better than an 80 hour ppl, and a student could pay an extra $50 a flight lesson and still come out ahead dollar wise.
The problem is there is zero incentive for flight schools to make instruction efficient, and CFIs tend to be distracted with other things than full time monitoring of students and instructors..
Just my thoughts
.
I never heard about 5 hours of solo circuits before.
The instrument time is interesting. If it is done as part of another flight, then IF time is 1 for 1 with time spent under the hood. If not then TC does not allow the whole flight as IF time sondone as a separate exercise. 5 hrs of instrumentbtime can equate to 6 or 6.5 hours of flight time. This is very much an instructor FTU scheduling thing
As far as actual flight time there really is no need to be much over 45 hours as evidenced by the cadet program.
The on demand flight training however may take longer if the student is not flying regularly,
This whole thing...its the student....is somewhat of a cop out,
The truth is under the typical pay system instructors do not take time to prepare for a lesson....they basically are not paid to do that and would rather get an additional paid hour of time every day..Hence instructors who believe they are teaching well at the end of a 12 hour duty day.
In terms of dollars and sense, getting a ppl at 50 hours, and then 30 hours of solo flying, is in my opinion better than an 80 hour ppl, and a student could pay an extra $50 a flight lesson and still come out ahead dollar wise.
The problem is there is zero incentive for flight schools to make instruction efficient, and CFIs tend to be distracted with other things than full time monitoring of students and instructors..
Just my thoughts
.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Trey....
...The real problem is it is ass backwards.
Flight instruction should be done by the most experienced pilots in aviation, not by the most inexperienced.
...The real problem is it is ass backwards.
Flight instruction should be done by the most experienced pilots in aviation, not by the most inexperienced.
-
Trey Kule
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:19 am
That would mean that FTUs would actually have to manage, not cater to every scheduling whim, ignoring such things as fatigue....you know....become professional.
It is difficult to get experience Chuck. I would like to renew my instructor rating, but 12 hrs a day, 7 days a week is not for us old guys. And dealing with the new and improved teaching methods is almost impossible for us set in our ways types.
The accidents will happen. It just takes time for some of the never to get experience to be upgraded.. i expect within 10 years we will see a huge knee jerk reaction by TC to flight training.
Instead of having a bitch fest, or coming up with the old “ learn to fly in a taildraggerâ€, how about we use all the collective wisdom and experience here to look at ways to improve it.
The idea of being able to instruct without having an FTU AOC, has merit, but I can see some real problems with it that need to be addressed rather than the sound bite.
Requiring more experience has merit as well, but in todays market, the only experienced people are going to be retirees who are willing to subsidize someones business.
Just to be fair, there are one or two colleges who hire experience, pay and treat their instructors well, and have a very structured flight training program....including entrance requirements. And almost 100% of their students being hired upon graduation. So there are good traing programs out there.
Now back on topic. When the most important part of a lesson is motivating your student, I think it tells us all where flight training is going. And it is very much a case of babies (unsupervised) teaching babies
It is difficult to get experience Chuck. I would like to renew my instructor rating, but 12 hrs a day, 7 days a week is not for us old guys. And dealing with the new and improved teaching methods is almost impossible for us set in our ways types.
The accidents will happen. It just takes time for some of the never to get experience to be upgraded.. i expect within 10 years we will see a huge knee jerk reaction by TC to flight training.
Instead of having a bitch fest, or coming up with the old “ learn to fly in a taildraggerâ€, how about we use all the collective wisdom and experience here to look at ways to improve it.
The idea of being able to instruct without having an FTU AOC, has merit, but I can see some real problems with it that need to be addressed rather than the sound bite.
Requiring more experience has merit as well, but in todays market, the only experienced people are going to be retirees who are willing to subsidize someones business.
Just to be fair, there are one or two colleges who hire experience, pay and treat their instructors well, and have a very structured flight training program....including entrance requirements. And almost 100% of their students being hired upon graduation. So there are good traing programs out there.
Now back on topic. When the most important part of a lesson is motivating your student, I think it tells us all where flight training is going. And it is very much a case of babies (unsupervised) teaching babies
-
Liquid Charlie
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:34 pm
[quote][font=Verdana][size=2]Flight instruction should be done by the most experienced pilots in aviation, not by the most inexperienced.[/size][/font][/quote]
Exactly and that is the way it was back in the 50's and 60's and I benefited from it.
If I see another resume from a low time pilot saying they have garmin 1000 time I think "postal" is the phrase, regardless those CV's go directly to the bin -- >:D
-
Chuck Ellsworth
[quote]Exactly and that is the way it was back in the 50's and 60's and I benefited from it. [/quote]
Try and convince today's generation that we had better instruction than they do today.
The way they see it airplanes were falling out of the sky like raindrops back then.
My answer to them is at least we had the skills to get them into the air before crashing them. ;D
Try and convince today's generation that we had better instruction than they do today.
The way they see it airplanes were falling out of the sky like raindrops back then.
My answer to them is at least we had the skills to get them into the air before crashing them. ;D
-
vanNostrum
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:04 pm
What is the experience level of the instructors teaching ab initio
[size=2]military pilots?
[/size]
[size=2]military pilots?
[/size]
-
DeflectionShot
[quote]The way they see it airplanes were falling out of the sky like raindrops back then.[/quote]
Well, they aren't wrong about that.
In 1953 airplanes were falling out of the sky. The fatal accident rate according to the FAA in 1953 was 4.50 per 100,000 hours flown. That's with a total of 8,527,000 hours flown. In 2009 the fatal accident rate had fallen to 1.33 per 100,000 hours flown with a total of 20,456,000 hours flown. Therefore despite significantly more hours flown, the accident rate has improved dramatically since 1953.
When Liquid Charlie was flying in 1965 it was 3.22 per 100,000 hours with a total of 16,733,000, an improvement but still pretty poor compared to 2009.
Not sure how that squares with the quality of mid-20th flight training but it's interesting to examine the historical record. (BTW they were a lot worse in 1938, though, at 11.90 for a meager 1,478,000 hours flown. ;-)
See below for details:
https://www.aopa.org/about/general-avia ... d-historic
Well, they aren't wrong about that.
In 1953 airplanes were falling out of the sky. The fatal accident rate according to the FAA in 1953 was 4.50 per 100,000 hours flown. That's with a total of 8,527,000 hours flown. In 2009 the fatal accident rate had fallen to 1.33 per 100,000 hours flown with a total of 20,456,000 hours flown. Therefore despite significantly more hours flown, the accident rate has improved dramatically since 1953.
When Liquid Charlie was flying in 1965 it was 3.22 per 100,000 hours with a total of 16,733,000, an improvement but still pretty poor compared to 2009.
Not sure how that squares with the quality of mid-20th flight training but it's interesting to examine the historical record. (BTW they were a lot worse in 1938, though, at 11.90 for a meager 1,478,000 hours flown. ;-)
See below for details:
https://www.aopa.org/about/general-avia ... d-historic
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 7 Replies
- 1380 Views
-
Last post by David MacRay
-
- 10 Replies
- 9949 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 1 Replies
- 730 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
