Accident causes, training and Raa Aus responses

[motzartmerv]

Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss this, I dont think this is the place.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

correct, my belief is that the senior members of the RAA community need to take control.

 

 

[Bluey]

I can tell you that the RAA are very thorough when auditing schools. The syllabus is spelled out in no uncertain terms in the ops manual, and while each school may have their own way of going about it, the syllabus has to be followed.That being said, there are oils and there are oils (so to speak).

Your last point is very poignant. It isn't students who are pranging (generally) its pilots, and in alot of cases, experienced pilots. Some could argue that airmenship has not been instilled to the degree neccasary to ensure a long uneventful flying career. And thats probably a valid argument.

 

I have said it other threads and ill offer it again. Airmenship is not something that can be taught and tested. Its an attitude that ALL training should be built on as the base,as the foundations. Its not a seperate subject, its not in a book. Its should be the underlying principle which ALL training is filtered through. To forget airmenship is to forget how to fly.

 

cheers

MM, from what I've seen (and maybe it is only limited to the experience I have had) airmanship is not treated as a prescribed focus area by the schools I have contact with and this is not to have a go at the people who run those schools. It is more an observation I have made and it probably reflects on the teaching experience of the people who run them. After all, most instructors do this part time as instructing full time for most is just not financially viable. Very few if any have ever had any professional teacher training and so pick it up as they go. This as you stated leads to the problems of teaching inconsistencies and quality of instructors.

It should be the role of the administrative body (HGFA and RAA) to ensure that the people whose job it is to instruct are up to the task.

 

While all instructors I've seen are excellent pilots, not all make excellent teachers. Teaching is an art that needs to be taught.

 

A student should have a clear picture of what makes good airmanship at the end of their training not a vague notion. They should be able to identify and assess the risks of a wide variety of scenarios. In order to be able to do this it must be explicitly taught and discussed.

 

Bluey

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Too true Bluey. 100% agree.

 

I will point out, GA instructors dont recieve any more "teaching" training then the RAA course dictates.

 

 

[Bandit12]

While all instructors I've seen are excellent pilots, not all make excellent teachers. Teaching is an art that needs to be taught.

Bluey

Agreed - and how many articles have been published in the magazines over the years which lament the fact that there are some instructors using the experience purely for their own ends, sometimes only as a stepping stone to greater things. Teaching skills is fairly straightforward, teaching attitude is much more complicated and I suspect much more easily influenced by factors outside of the control of an instructor.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

It depends whether or not you believe that training makes safer pilots. My belief is that the benefits of training diminish over time: you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

 

 

[Guernsey]

correct, my belief is that the senior members of the RAA community need to take control.

I believe that you should join the Board yourself and then you could sort out all of their problems .

 

Alan.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The RAA is what it is, I just accept that its always been this way and it ain't changing.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

It depends whether or not you believe that training makes safer pilots. My belief is that the benefits of training diminish over time: you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Are you kidding? I have to say, that would have to be one of the most ridiculous post's ive ever read. Surely your taking the p!ss?..

 

 

[deadstick]

FT give me a break! people know the risks and its done for recreation, break the rules pay the price, its a competency based training system, even I can pretend to be a good pilot come BFR time. Yet again the actions of one are used to justify the claim that all are the same! I hate this and can respect the fact that an individual made a poor decision that was made based on facts we will never know and speaking to one of his good mates on sunday, he finds it hard to beleive this deciion was made.

 

If you see someone who fits the poor culture tag Report them!!!

 

You work for work cover by chance? LOL

 

 

[David Isaac]

Trolling again are we FT ....

 

Making all sorts of allegations .... baiting people and never offering any examples ...

 

Like the thread I started many months back with an attempt to discuss how we the RAA community should identify and deal with 'cowboy' behaviour. The same thread where you claimed you had examples of problems but refused to identify them to the RAA governing bodies for fear of alleged 'retribution' .... is it possible that your attitude is a material contribution to the problem?

 

 

[facthunter]

An argument or point of view has to be substantiated as you progress it. FT, you have had our attention at various times and wasted it by not putting any meat on the bone. Also if I was involved with trying to give the RAA a good name and actually DO something within the system, (as many are) I wouldn't find your comments helpfull or constructive. You're coming across as if all you have is a big axe to grind. Nev

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Good job. Thanx mods.;)

 

 

[poteroo]

I'm seriously concerned if pilots think that flight schools are letting people loose without any sense of duty of care. The word 'airmanship' was expunged from the aviation dictionary by CASA a long time ago. Now, if it's actually true that the regulators believe 'human factors' is a smart substitute for airmanship - we're in trouble. We teach traditional airmanship as part and parcel of every lesson. We talk airmanship with every briefing - be it for formation flying, low flying, type endorsements, or just the PC course. We ask airmanship questions with every BFR.

 

By the way, what's used for instructor training theory,(PMI), isn't up to scratch. I'd agree, it probably should be much higher. However, CASA set the rules in this - and until you can convince them that the current system allows instructors of poor technique through - then it won't change. RAAus simply mirror the CASA approach.

 

And it's not true that all instructors can fly well. I've flown with some shockers - 2 left feet, or not on the rudder at all! Yet CASA continue to pass them. There has been a 5 year initiative by CASA to lift instructing standards, but I'm unsure just how successful this has been. I'm yet to be convinced that an RAAus instructor with 75 hrs TT + 25hrs IR course, is going to be, on average, equal to a GA instructor with a 150 hr CPL plus a 50 hrs IR course. But, that's for another time.

 

Many pilots just don't fly enough hours to maintain competency. I have seen 4 renewals on a single logbook page! That's 8 years folks, and you cannot stay skilled with that few hours. Yet these are often the very same pilots who create deadlines for themselves, eg: old mate flys annually to one of major ag shows in state. Must get there because others are coming along for the ride. Wx is marginal....but old mate goes anyway. Reckons there are some wooses out there because he managed to get there when others turned back! You conclude that he's either held an ag rating, or a CIR, at some time past. Ha, ha!

 

Now when it comes to identifying 'problem' pilots at a BFR, it's difficult, because they are usually on best behaviour. Anyway, the pilots with 'attitude' are often quite high on skills. The CFI/SI is not a psychiatrist, and cannot identify the high risk takers with just a single exposure. We're not qualified to do that.

 

No CFI wants to become your local air policeman either. It's difficult enough to broach the subject of poor airmanship with local pilots, because they know that you have no authority. And, unless you have tangible proof, in the form of a video perhaps, you'll fail for evidence. Very few pilots will testify against their mates - it's a longstanding Aussie tradition.

 

I'm with Merv on a lot of points in previous posts.

 

 

[turboplanner]

FT this is a very serious matter, many of the posters are trying to do something to save lives in the future. We just don't need a repeat of your previous effort.

 

 

[Guernsey]

The RAA is what it is, I just accept that its always been this way and it ain't changing.

Then DO something positive about it and stop criticising.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Powerin]

Off topic- There is a golden rule born in the distant Internet past from the days of Usenet newsgroups:

 

Don't feed the Trolls

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Pots. Im hearing you. Just one minor point. It's not 75 hrs tt for an raa instructor rating. It's 75 pic.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ps. I reckon all raa instructors should have to pass at least some of the cpl theory subjects. I think that's one way of improving knowledge and standards in training.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

FT same old same old....If I drag up the last 6 fatality related posts I'll see the same old 1 or 2 liners from you. I'll then see the same type of responses from people, different in each case but fundamentally the same looking for clarification and proof and then you throw back a whole bunch of 1 or 2 line BS, in each case completely ignoring the call for something substantive, or claiming nudge nudge you know what you know but arent telling......... which will then P*ss everybody off all over again....

 

Maste...Give it a rest or put something of value up cause your flogging a dead horse or at least flogging something!!

 

Im tired of your childinsh antics where all you do is tear somethingvaluable down and offer NOTHING that can be used to improve.

 

Andy

 

P.S Regarding everyones claim for you to stand for the board...Please dont, Firstly I prefer not to have the imates running the asylum and secondly it will require you to do detailed and factual analysis resulting in positions you can support with logical argument, all things that you have shown yourself to be completely incapable of.

 

P.P.S re feeding of trolls.....sometimes trolls are best dealt with by removing their abiliity to speak...Im of the view that we must be very close to that point...infact Im pretty sure that David Isaac and turbo and myself were already wishing for this 2 or 3 iterations of this BS behaviour previous...

 

 

[David Isaac]

You certainly got that one right Andy.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Spain and China. (but that's not what you are driving at)..Nev

And Germany had already invaded Czechoslovakia

 

Kaz

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Charles linburg was an American wasn't he?

 

 

[M61A1]

*I consider flying 33-1/2 hours non-stop in an aircraft with no front window to be risky piloting.

 

Personally, I would have thought having a single engined aircraft over a large expanse of water,in the dark, would have been the risky bit.

 

 

[facthunter]

There was little air traffic over the Atlantic in those days. The fuel tank size and location is determined by the distance to fly + margin/reserve fuel and the desireable Cof G. Remaining awake would be a problem. Being able to see out the front is obviously not necessary, as he did it. The take-off and landing would be the most critical part. The take -off particularly as that was the stage of the flight where most long distance pioneers came unstuck, with the plane inevitably seriously overloaded, a very long take-off run is required with a good chance of the undercarriage failing, or the plane not achieving sufficient speed to get airborne.

 

Plenty of long nosed tailwheel aircraft have practically no forward vision on T/O and approach/landing. IF you get a bit of light rain on the windscreen and have no wiper(s), your forward visability is very limited, but experienced pilots manage(d) it. Most of these guys flew mail runs in the worst weather imaginable.

 

Really at most times IF the engine quit, he would be dead. in a short time. Nev