Training - Over or Under Regulated,or is it Adequate?

[poteroo]

In the accidents section, Ultralights posted: 'a combination of regulation saturation and a shortage of decent training in advanced aircraft control from career oriented instructors'

 

 

I can certainly agree with the regulatory comment, but I cannot really comment on the final 2 points because I just don't know exactly what is meant by the terms: decent, advanced and career-oriented.

 

Poteroo

 

 

[M61A1]

From my perspective, a" decent" instructor would be someone who can adequately get you to understand what you need to. Being a good pilot does not equate to good instructor. One of my early instructors was a good advanced pilot, but very poor at teaching those skills ( to me anyway). I would take "career orientated" to mean that they want to instruct, not just instructing to build hours and then move on.

 

Yes, I do think we have reached a point where more regs will not mean more safety. I also think that we have a lot of pilots who are a lot like most drivers, meaning that they go out, buy a plane, pay their money for the required training, hangarage and maintenance, without having any real interest in how the aircraft works or interacts with it's environment. Sort of like buying a toaster. They just want to pay their money, fly the thing and tell their mates at the bar about it.

 

So, yes, for the most part, I think our training is more than adequate, there is a lot of information to be had for anyone with enough drive to seek it.

 

 

[Camel]

Poteroo, I would think you have the knowledge and lots of experience, some have the knowledge and enough experience to get the job to get more experience to get the job to fly a airliner. I would rather learn with the experienced and knowledgable as I have done.

 

As Regulations and red tape are there, right or wrong but while your doing paperwork your not on the immediate task of looking and as far as regulations any mishap is likely to be a breach of regulation. Training is the answer, if people know their stuff, they may be less likely to make poor judgement.

 

As far as low level goes, the training is important, I do not have a low level endorsement but had a few AG pilot instructors and flew at low level in aircraft and helicopters with very experienced pilots, their job was using helicopters as mobile cranes lifting steel and concrete in mountainous country. Over 20 years I witnessed quite a few mishaps, the most serious were rotor strikes with the trees and engine failure at low level. The important part is they take calculated risks and their experience let them know their limits. Every helicopter pilot I met involved in long and short line lifting was involved in an acciddent at an earlier point in their career, one had two and this was during being trained for long line work on the side of a mountain, he was the best long line pilot I had seen, probably because he knew his limits.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

What the RAA could do quite cheaply is introduce a system similar to what they did with the http://www.myschool.edu.au/ system. Rank every school on a variety of criteria relevant to training and safety goals. all the data is currently recorded couldn't be that hard to collate it into a usable tool that can show which schools are performing well.

 

 

[facthunter]

They used to audit the schools personally. that has logistical difficulties . We don't need more squares to tick ft It's not always related to any real outcome as you don't know the actual cause of a perceived variance of standard at any location. It could be the students are inbred. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I am sure the schools would be interested in this, getting a top 10 place in the rankings is bound to drive a lot of students to these schools.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I too think the issue is not so much the training being given to pilots, or the level of regulation, but rather it is the "it won't happen to me" syndrome otherwise known as non-compliance.

 

I had a dear friend who died many years ago in an unfortunate aviation "accident".

 

Ian lived on a pastoral station about 80 miles east of mine and he was angry and upset with me on one occasion because I went missing on a motorbike in the summer. I decided to do a windmill run up the top end of the place...a small area of only about 80,000 acres set up with sheep fencing and troughs but carrying cattle. Sheep troughs don't hold a lot of water so it's important that the balls and valves are working properly. I didn't take water with me because I was only going to be gone a couple of hours.

 

Well, I came a cropper, didn't I? Buckled the front wheel and drove the foot peg into my lower leg above the ankle. Hurt like hell and I was looking for a drink. So I walked back to my woolshed about 6 miles away. Got there just on dark and spent the night on the sorting table on a couple of fleeces and some jute packs. First thing in the morning I set off again and walked the last 7 miles back to my homestead just in time to cancel the RFDS and search party that was being organised to look for me.

 

Ian berated me on the "pedal" for all to hear and told me in no uncertain terms that I had "broken the rules" because I had gone off without water in the summer heat (high 40s that day). He told me that survival depended on complying with the rules.

 

When Ian bought his little C150 from his neighbour, he was told that mustering is a dangerous occupation requiring advanced training and skills. He was told that the little Cessna was underpowered and prone to dropping a wing very quickly so it shouldn't be flown in the extreme heat of the day in summer, especially for doing stock or windmill runs.

 

On that fateful summer day, Ian was checking his boundary and saw tracks where a number of cattle had gone through to his neighbour's property. He went back and got out the Cessna straight tail and died a short time later when he crashed into a large ghost gum after stalling at low altitude while trying to push the cattle back. He had a restricted PPL and had never been trained in mustering.

 

Too hot. Too slow. Too low. Too inexperienced. He broke all the rules and paid the price.

 

Vale Ian. Miss you, mate!

 

Kaz

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You mate Ian paid the price of over confidence, poor flight planning and risk assessment.

 

With competency based training there is no incentive for schools to try and achieve excellence. The schools want to push pilots through the system as quickly and as cheaply as possible which means getting to the lowest standard possible to qualify as pilots.

 

 

[M61A1]

With competency based training there is no incentive for schools to try and achieve excellence. The schools want to push pilots through the system as quickly and as cheaply as possible which means getting to the lowest standard possible to qualify as pilots.

Disagree.... competency based training is supposed to be just that....no ticket unless you are competent. I would reckon in a considerable number of our fatalities the pilot knew that they were doing something that they had been taught they shouldn't be doing.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Flight planning is a core competency that seems to be lacking with RAA pilots. To me it appears like the competency based training assesses the individual components of flying but not putting the whole thing together as a pilot in a marginal situation where competency is critical.

 

 

[robinsm]

Flight planning is a core competency that seems to be lacking with RAA pilots. To me it appears like the competency based training assesses the individual components of flying but not putting the whole thing together as a pilot in a marginal situation where competency is critical.

The flight school I attended and learned to fly at stressed proper flight planning, procedures and over all airmanship. I have no problems with the professionalism and standard of training I received. I am a qualified trainer and all opf my instruction was at the highest level. No complaints from me......thanks Teraya.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So, you're saying the we should just accept that a death every month is normal for the RAA?

 

 

[SDQDI]

Well there is not an easy answer FT. The training situation is in some ways similar to the regulation side inasmuch as if people are doing illegal things to kill themselves adding more rules won't stop them and if they are ignoring their training to kill themselves adding more training will only help to a certain point.

 

IMHO the training system seems to be ok but of course it does still have lots of room for improvement. Our human factors endo is really a joke but how excruciating do you have to make it for everyone to catch the few?

 

At the end of the day we are taught to a point where we are safe, not to a point where we know it all and it is up to us to ensure that we stay safe and keep learning.

 

As has been said we don't know what we don't know. I haven't completed my ll endo but even in the little time that I have done starting it it is scary as to just how much I didn't know before and it has been an eye opener to me. Now I am still at a point (now I don't know what I don't know but I do know I don't know a lot!) where there is a lot for me to learn and it needs to be constantly drummed into me/us that no matter how regularly we fly and how many endos we have we can still learn. If we are in a mindset of wanting to learn IMHO that should help us stay out of the stats.

 

 

[facthunter]

Being able to pass a written test and understanding what is going on in the air can be two totally different things Students may be reluctant to say" I don't understand that" as if it is admitting some kind of personal inadequacy. "Follow me through on this sequence with your hand on the stick" doesn't cover it either. You MUST know why what you do produces the result it does. Once you understand something it stays with you. You don't need intense aerodynamical knowledge beyond the understanding that turning needs more lift = more drag and more airpseed hence more power or lose height, to maintain margin above stall (as an example) to do it well.

 

A pilot who can execute a figure 8 with 45 degrees of bank holding a good height and use power changes correctly during the turns will be demonstrating a fairly good grip of principles of flight. Chuck in descending power off steep turns in both directions as well. Get your instructor to do it in your next BFR You should not be afraid of your aeroplane, nor confident beyond your actual ability. Nev

 

 

[K-man]

With competency based training there is no incentive for schools to try and achieve excellence. The schools want to push pilots through the system as quickly and as cheaply as possible which means getting to the lowest standard possible to qualify as pilots.

Is this really the case? Most training is based on competencies. How you assess the competency is another thing. I spent a number of years as an examiner of health care professionals. We examined in pairs and had to agree that a candidate was competent before they were allowed to practise. Many times the decision was clear cut, one way or the other, but a lot of candidates were around the middle. Toss a coin? Pilot training is no different. You don't score marks for checking the plane, you don't score marks for taxing and you don't score marks for general airmanship. At the end of the day it is the value judgement by the instructor as to whether you have the required competencies. There are mandatory numbers of hours before a licence is issued. I think that over those hours there is more than enough time for an instructor to rate the competency.Now, as to schools pushing students through to reduce costs ... hmm! I might have thought the opposite might have been the case, but I'm probably a cynic. I cannot agree that completing a flying course in the shortest time gives the lowest standard possible to qualify as a pilot. The length of the instruction time has been determined as sufficient by whoever sets those standards. If it's not then it may need to be increased but I don't believe that to be the case at all. As in all fields, some people learn faster than others and some people have more natural ability than others. No amount of legislation or regulation will change that.

 

Flight planning is a core competency that seems to be lacking with RAA pilots. To me it appears like the competency based training assesses the individual components of flying but not putting the whole thing together as a pilot in a marginal situation where competency is critical.

I don't believe this for an instant. Flight planning was a big part of my training. It was no different to the ppl training and why should it have been any different? That flight planning has got us around Australia nearly once a year for the past eight years. Each time we have been accompanied by other aircraft, GA and RA, and the only difference to my eye was experience, not competency. Put any pilot into a marginal situation and I'll go for the experience, but that is something you get over time, not something you can regulate.

 

So, you're saying the we should just accept that a death every month is normal for the RAA?

I really don't understand why we have this sudden horrendous rise in fatalities. It's a bit like global warming. We know it's happening, we're not 100% sure of the causes and we can't agree on what to do about it. Whatever the cause of the increased light aircraft fatalities, I'm not convinced adding more regulations will fix it, although increasing regulations may allow some people to cover their butts.

[robinsm]

So, you're saying the we should just accept that a death every month is normal for the RAA?

Nope I am not, but then you should also apply that to driving schools, do you think that 200 deaths a month is ok./ Instead of complaining about the standard of training, and I assume you have checked every school in Australia, then how about providing a decent solution instead of just throwing money at it. Dont give me problems, give me proper and usable answers....

 

 

[David Isaac]

One way to teach people what they don't know is to teach abnormal attitudes, spins and how to make balanced turns, steep and rate one. Most importantly put a lot more effort into stall and stall recovery at all attitudes. Teach pilots to overcome the counter intuitive response and train an instinctive response to stall and stall onset.

 

You need to show students just how quickly it can turn to shit by putting them in situations they should not be in and then recovering or have it scare them so much they never do what you have demonstrated.

 

Trouble is there are bugga all RAAus instructors with that level of competency. I had the pleasure of many instructors since I was 16 years old and one cranky old bugga stands out. I owe my life to him because one day when I got into trouble all his training flooded in and saved my bacon. I would have been another of those 34 year old fatalities way back then. My survival was a result of effective training ... did you get that ... my survival was a result of effective training. Effective means he taught me and I learned ... not just the first part.

 

If you don't understand the risks, you don't know you are taking them. We need to instill a life preservation instinct.

 

Many can teach ... but ... the litmus test is ... did the student comprehend, learn and did his competency improve?

 

 

[robinsm]

I have always thought that there should be a component of recovery from unusual attitudes for all pilots. Maybe a stint or lesson in an aerobatic GA aircraft to learn recovery techniques. Nothing in the Ra Aus books shows that and there are a couple of occaisions where I could have used this info myself, once I go hit by rotor taking off from Mudgee and only me and my dry cleaner know how close I came. A little more training in recovery from unusual attitudes would have helped. Just sayin..

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Sudden horrendous rise in fatalities? I think not 40 over 40 months is pretty steady rate. High but steady. If between now and Christmas you start to bump it up to 3 a month then that's a sudden rise.

 

To look at why this one a month rate has been going on for so long I'd put the cause down to all the top level management problems we had a while back. The old boys club had convinced themselves that everything was hunky dory and the system of being recommended by a mate was working well. Too casual an attitude. This is the result.

 

I am still convinced that the RAAus have to move from Canberra to suitable premises with suitable teachers that are capable of bringing well trained instructors into the game. The mates game is finished time to mature the industry and 'sport'.

 

 

[Geoff13]

The thing that I often think about is how do we know if we have been taught well or not. I believe that I have been taught well. But I have a lifetime of experience to fall back on. I have also taught different practical skill so I feel that I have some expertise in judging the level/quality of my training. But can I be certain and if so how so?

 

 

[storchy neil]

when I hit power wires

 

thanks to three instructors and over 120 hrs off duel in differant air craft

 

I walked away with hurt pride for my stupid mistake

 

a combination of you the aircraft and its handling at a given situation is imperitive to your survival

 

instructors

 

there was the cranky old what would he know syndrome

 

there was the do it if you can but let me out first makes you think syndrome

 

there was the let me check you dont trust me syndrome

 

had the combination of these three not sunk in I would be another he stuffed up neil

 

 

[fly_tornado]

so this is the thing, blokes like yourselfs are getting killed. Its the weirdest thing.

 

The schools are the obvious place to start because if you follow the rules and stick to the techniques shown in your training you should be ok. And if you deviate from that behaviour you should know not to continue down that path.

 

 

[facthunter]

A situation can test you or an aware person can. Many instructors compete with you. This is BS. Anyone can stress you in a test. It's not what it is about. The instructors job is to pass on knowledge in a practical way, appropriate to where you are at in your development, not to retain a superior status, at all costs. Many students will go on to great heights . (no pun intended) The instructor fulfills the requirement very adequately, at his/her particular place in the progression, if things are as they should be. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

So, you're saying the we should just accept that a death every month is normal for the RAA?

 

.... I really don't understand why we have this sudden horrendous rise in fatalities .....

My 2c worth - when sitting around the chat table in the clubroom I've sometimes had to bite my tongue when hearing some of the quite fantastic things some of our fellow flyers come out with. They might be a small minority but their complete lack of understanding of some basic principles astounds me. One of my favourites came from a long-time flyer who not long afterward gained his instructor certificate - "a stall happens when you run out of wind" ...

 

I knew of a couple of fellas who owned an HP LSA and travelled a long way to do their BFR with an old mate who taught in a LP machine because he would expect them to be unfamiliar with the plane and go easier on them. They never saw their BFR as a great opportunity to learn more, it was just an imposition that had to be dealt with every so often.

 

Although there is a choice of local schools with very competent instructors, others get half a dozen people together and bring a distant instructor to put them all through in a single day, or more like a half a day. They openly admit that they did it to limit the real time the instructor would have to spend with each of them, he would just rattle through them a hundred bucks a pop, rubber stamp in hand.

 

In RAA I've never heard of anyone actually failing a BFR, does anyone else know of someone who did? The nearest I came to hearing of one was that an instructor recommended the pilot take some extra training. They still passed him and he didn't take the extra training, in fact he was so offended he made a point of finding a different instructor for the next BFR - that was when I met this fella. When he told me the story - his comment was that he hoped the 'new instructor' wasn't so finnicky ...

 

On a different note though, I mentioned in another thread that I don't believe our crash rate per flight operation has actually increased, in fact I think it has probably decreased. Years ago we used to have lots of crashes but it was rare that anyone got hurt, let alone killed. I think that was because the airframes were stronger and they flew very much slower.

 

I think it's worth considering that our current high fatality rate might have as much to do with the planes people are flying, as with our actual competency.

 

For the record, and having trained for Pilot Certificate, PPL and CPL licences I do consider that the training for PPL is a lot more comprehensive than for the RAA PC. A couple of the RAA instructors that I have flown with (admittedly a few years ago) demonstrated quite an absence of knowledge of some of the basics, and were more than little timid in teaching/demonstrating emergency procedures. One was so much so that he wouldn't fly, or allow a student to fly, at less than a high cruise speed on final approach, he was so afraid of stalling.

 

But - back to the planes we fly ... are most people aware that all certificated planes (GA types, that many of us don't fly) have to have kindly flying characteristics? They have to comply with certain design requirements which remove any nasty biting tendencies they may otherwise have had. The types that we fly don't have to go through those hoops and consequently many of our planes do have some quite nasty characteristics which make them more dangerous if handled even slightly inappropriately, in some cases. And - they are low-inertia machines, meaning that they lose airspeed more rapidly than their GA counterparts, so these situations develop more quickly, requiring us to be significantly more skilled than GA flyers need to be.

 

Further - our planes aren't required to provide us with any forms of occupant protection except seatbelts (yes, seatbelts, not even harnesses). GA types have to be able to demonstrate quite a lot of features that give the occupants the best chance of emerging unscathed from a crash that would leave many of us unrecognisable in a similar LSA crash. Food for thought.

 

I'm not saying that all LSA/Experimental types don't have built-in crashworthiness. Some have been designed with it in mind, so before rushing out and buying the prettiest plane on the line it's probably worth giving some serious consideration to that type's occupant survival crash history. To their very great credit Jabirus seem to be excellent in that regard and there are others, I've seen a very bent AAK Hornet which didn't show any sign of deformation in the crew quarters. And then there are other types that scrunch up like tin-foil in minor bingles.

 

There will always be crashes but if we are serious about reducing the fatality rate rather than just the crash rate then I think it would be worth developing a database about crashed airframes with a view to providing each type with an occupant protection rating.

 

 

[K-man]

There will always be crashes but if we are serious about reducing the fatality rate rather than just the crash rate then I think it would be worth developing a database about crashed airframes with a view to providing each type with an occupant protection rating.

I would agree but I think it needs to go way beyond just the airframe. It is virtually impossible to ascertain the cause of RAA fatalities due to the way they are reported. Apparently there is a difference (legally) between the type of information RAA can publish to the information CASA can publish. I tried to go through the 30 fatalities of the past 30 months but could only find about half reported. How anyone thinks you can do something to reduce fatalities when we don't know the cause of the fatalities is beyond my comprehension. I assume that RAA doesn't have the financial resources to undertake a really detailed analysis but even an informed opinion would be better than we have now.

One accident, not RA, where a friend lost his life will probably be put down as pilot error leading to a stall. From the eye witness accounts I would think there is a real possibility that the was an underlying medical issue leading to the point where the stall occurred.

 

My 2c worth - when sitting around the chat table in the clubroom I've sometimes had to bite my tongue when hearing some of the quite fantastic things some of our fellow flyers come out with. They might be a small minority but their complete lack of understanding of some basic principles astounds me. One of my favourites came from a long-time flyer who not long afterward gained his instructor certificate - "a stall happens when you run out of wind" ...I knew of a couple of fellas who owned an HP LSA and travelled a long way to do their BFR with an old mate who taught in a LP machine because he would expect them to be unfamiliar with the plane and go easier on them. They never saw their BFR as a great opportunity to learn more, it was just an imposition that had to be dealt with every so often.

 

Although there is a choice of local schools with very competent instructors, others get half a dozen people together and bring a distant instructor to put them all through in a single day, or more like a half a day. They openly admit that they did it to limit the real time the instructor would have to spend with each of them, he would just rattle through them a hundred bucks a pop, rubber stamp in hand.

 

In RAA I've never heard of anyone actually failing a BFR, does anyone else know of someone who did? The nearest I came to hearing of one was that an instructor recommended the pilot take some extra training. They still passed him and he didn't take the extra training, in fact he was so offended he made a point of finding a different instructor for the next BFR - that was when I met this fella. When he told me the story - his comment was that he hoped the 'new instructor' wasn't so finnicky ...

I don't think there is any single thing that can reduce either the number of crashes or the outcome, short of stopping flying. In the post above it was mentioned that certain pilots went out of their way to avoid a thorough BFR. I feel there are two sides to this situation. Take someone flying regularly around the country, using different strips, maybe even CTX. Look at the log book. A BFR is just going to confirm that that pilot is able to fly competently. Maybe for that pilot the time could be better spent on a simulator or even just discussing safety issues and 'what ifs'. For someone who flys once every month or so and never ventures far from home, maybe a flight test is more appropriate but it still needs to be combined with general discussion. What would you do with an engine fire? What if it was in the cockpit? What if the engine suddenly starts to run roughly? What are the possible causes? Are there times when you might consider taking off/landing with a tail wind? I would hazard a guess that the adverse conditions or the majority of problems causing potential accident or death are not likely to be present at the time of a BFR.

 

If a pilot fails to demonstrate competency, why would an instructor sign him/her off? I'm not talking of minor slip ups due to the mental pressure of the flight review. I'm talking of situations where there have been glaringly obvious flaws in knowledge or ability. I have never come across an instructor who would do that, RA or GA.