No wonder they land going sideways in x/winds if they do not understand the use of the flight controls to produce or control the three movements.
So we go back to who is responsible for this lack of proper training.
It is Transport Canada, the governing body responsible for flight training.
I defy anyone here to defend TC's lack of over site.
Especially lack of over site of the DPE's.
Who is teaching this?!
-
Chuck Ellsworth
[quote]
After all, everyone wants less government than more right? I'm not defending TC, but realistically even if they wanted to do more oversight of flight schools and training, they just plain don't have the personell to do so.[/quote]
I was unaware that TC no longer issues flight instructor ratings because they do not have the personnel to do the flight tests.
So that takes care of my opinion they could have required a higher level of teaching ability.
Oh well, I guess if no one really cares anyhow there is no real problem with the way it is.
You have to understand I am from another era.
I guess the next change will be FT-SMS where the schools will look after their own rules and just give TC reports on how good their training is.
Yeh, I can see that coming.
After all, everyone wants less government than more right? I'm not defending TC, but realistically even if they wanted to do more oversight of flight schools and training, they just plain don't have the personell to do so.[/quote]
I was unaware that TC no longer issues flight instructor ratings because they do not have the personnel to do the flight tests.
So that takes care of my opinion they could have required a higher level of teaching ability.
Oh well, I guess if no one really cares anyhow there is no real problem with the way it is.
You have to understand I am from another era.
I guess the next change will be FT-SMS where the schools will look after their own rules and just give TC reports on how good their training is.
Yeh, I can see that coming.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
IMHO TC's selection of DPE's leaves
something to be desired. It is NOT
on a merit basis - rather, they pick
people that are the best at ass-kissing.
And, we see the results. A PPL showed
up here - not trained by us, but wanted
to rent a mighty 172. He couldn't land
it. A violent porpoise every landing,
which IMHO should be entered into the
logbook and an inspection performed.
What Santa Claus DPE gave him a PPL?
I know I'm an old stick & rudder dinosaur,
but I was doing some ab initio circuits this
evening, and I demonstrated that the
nosewheel never had to touch the pavement
during the touch + go landing. It really
wasn't very hard. Even a DPE could do it,
with some practice.
Here's the problem: the system has no
feedback. It is completely open loop. When
a PPL appears (as I describe) he needs to
take his PPL flight test again (see FAA form
409) and the DPE that signed him off needs
to similarly re-qualify.
Aviation in Canada has no interest in merit,
and sees no need to deal with the bottom 5%.
something to be desired. It is NOT
on a merit basis - rather, they pick
people that are the best at ass-kissing.
And, we see the results. A PPL showed
up here - not trained by us, but wanted
to rent a mighty 172. He couldn't land
it. A violent porpoise every landing,
which IMHO should be entered into the
logbook and an inspection performed.
What Santa Claus DPE gave him a PPL?
I know I'm an old stick & rudder dinosaur,
but I was doing some ab initio circuits this
evening, and I demonstrated that the
nosewheel never had to touch the pavement
during the touch + go landing. It really
wasn't very hard. Even a DPE could do it,
with some practice.
Here's the problem: the system has no
feedback. It is completely open loop. When
a PPL appears (as I describe) he needs to
take his PPL flight test again (see FAA form
409) and the DPE that signed him off needs
to similarly re-qualify.
Aviation in Canada has no interest in merit,
and sees no need to deal with the bottom 5%.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
[quote]IMHO TC's selection of DPE's leaves
something to be desired. It is NOT
on a merit basis - rather, they pick
people that are the best at ass-kissing.[/quote]
It is how they cull the herd and get rid of those who may not be subservient to them.
I can not imagine how I would be able to live with myself with the taste of a TC officials ass in my mouth.
No one will ever accuse you and me of being ass kissers. :) :) :)
something to be desired. It is NOT
on a merit basis - rather, they pick
people that are the best at ass-kissing.[/quote]
It is how they cull the herd and get rid of those who may not be subservient to them.
I can not imagine how I would be able to live with myself with the taste of a TC officials ass in my mouth.
No one will ever accuse you and me of being ass kissers. :) :) :)
-
rudderless
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 1:47 am
I disagree to some extent. PE appointments are not granted without merit. Flight testing is a difficult task - if someone meets a flight test standard today, they pass the test and get the licence/rating. It is a snapshot of that person's ability as displayed during that time period. It's like a driving test - no one speeds or zooms through stop signs on their test, even though they may do so later.
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
[quote author=Colonel link=topic=607.msg2279#msg2279 date=1438865651]
You probably don't remember, but last
winter it snowed in New York (really) and
this is what happened:
[img][/img]
All the pansies and candy-ass four-bars
cancelled, but not IcelandAir. "On Time"!
A comment at the time:
[quote]Sitting in AMS as pax a couple years back waiting for KEF flight, Schiphol a complete disaster due to 1.5" of heavy wet snow. IcelandAir pilot gets on PA at their one gate, "So, we have been told by Schiphol that operations have been disrupted by the heavy snow, or as we call this in Iceland, [b]what might come inside on your shoes[/b]. We just wanted to offer to the freezing dutchmen that [b]one of our pilots would be more than happy to drive the fuel truck[/b] in these unfamiliar conditions if that would help us get the gas we need to get out of your little airport." AMS staff did not look amused.[/quote]
Betcha Arlo recommended to the FAA that they
charge the left-seater of FI615 with careless and
reckless. Obviously a "prudent" pilot would have
cancelled that day, n'est ce pas?
[/quote]
In the "4-Bar" World we don't cancel flights unless there are good reasons.
I'm familiar with KJFK. They sometimes get such heavy snowfall that they close the airport. At other times the runway conditions are such that a safe landing is anything but assured. Landing distance on contaminated runways can easily exceed the distance available.
I always look at what the local carriers are doing - they are the ones with the most experience at the airport in question. When they stop flying it's time to have a very good look at things.
Since the Icelandair data is an estimate I have no way of knowing if they operated or not. Or they may have diverted.
I'm also familiar with Amsterdam - was my home base for 12 years. They are not set up to handle Winter weather (they only get 1-2 heavy snowfalls/year). As such any significant snowfall will cause huge delays. That includes refuelling as they do not clear the roads on the airport until the runways, taxiways and aprons are cleared. Temperature are only just below freezing so you will get a lot of ice on the roads.
Operating large jets isn't about pushing the limits - it's about safety. If that makes me a pansy or a candy-ass then so be it.
You probably don't remember, but last
winter it snowed in New York (really) and
this is what happened:
[img][/img]
All the pansies and candy-ass four-bars
cancelled, but not IcelandAir. "On Time"!
A comment at the time:
[quote]Sitting in AMS as pax a couple years back waiting for KEF flight, Schiphol a complete disaster due to 1.5" of heavy wet snow. IcelandAir pilot gets on PA at their one gate, "So, we have been told by Schiphol that operations have been disrupted by the heavy snow, or as we call this in Iceland, [b]what might come inside on your shoes[/b]. We just wanted to offer to the freezing dutchmen that [b]one of our pilots would be more than happy to drive the fuel truck[/b] in these unfamiliar conditions if that would help us get the gas we need to get out of your little airport." AMS staff did not look amused.[/quote]
Betcha Arlo recommended to the FAA that they
charge the left-seater of FI615 with careless and
reckless. Obviously a "prudent" pilot would have
cancelled that day, n'est ce pas?
[/quote]
In the "4-Bar" World we don't cancel flights unless there are good reasons.
I'm familiar with KJFK. They sometimes get such heavy snowfall that they close the airport. At other times the runway conditions are such that a safe landing is anything but assured. Landing distance on contaminated runways can easily exceed the distance available.
I always look at what the local carriers are doing - they are the ones with the most experience at the airport in question. When they stop flying it's time to have a very good look at things.
Since the Icelandair data is an estimate I have no way of knowing if they operated or not. Or they may have diverted.
I'm also familiar with Amsterdam - was my home base for 12 years. They are not set up to handle Winter weather (they only get 1-2 heavy snowfalls/year). As such any significant snowfall will cause huge delays. That includes refuelling as they do not clear the roads on the airport until the runways, taxiways and aprons are cleared. Temperature are only just below freezing so you will get a lot of ice on the roads.
Operating large jets isn't about pushing the limits - it's about safety. If that makes me a pansy or a candy-ass then so be it.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]Operating large jets isn't about pushing the limits - it's about safety[/quote]
It's also about skill and judgement.
You may recall two (at least) runway overruns
at CYOW on runway 07/25 and in both instances,
the runway was wet and the four-bars insisted on
pushing a high and hot approach into a touchdown,
down the runway, instead of overshooting and
setting up for a better approach, because you
wouldn't want to have to miss and look bad.
Regardless of what you might think, it's interesting
that Icelandair was able to safely operate at JFK
in conditions that other airlines were not. Perhaps
it was just a coincidence, and there was no pilot
skill involved, and familiarity with winter ops had
nothing to do with it.
It's also about skill and judgement.
You may recall two (at least) runway overruns
at CYOW on runway 07/25 and in both instances,
the runway was wet and the four-bars insisted on
pushing a high and hot approach into a touchdown,
down the runway, instead of overshooting and
setting up for a better approach, because you
wouldn't want to have to miss and look bad.
Regardless of what you might think, it's interesting
that Icelandair was able to safely operate at JFK
in conditions that other airlines were not. Perhaps
it was just a coincidence, and there was no pilot
skill involved, and familiarity with winter ops had
nothing to do with it.
