Attributes of an Airman.

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Kelvin – I would like you to take the following in the spirit given, one of looking for further clarity rather than my appearing to be attacking you – which is certainly not my intention.

 

 

Regarding the points put by Yenn above: I tend to be in agreement with him and wish to tender the following reasons as to why.

 

 

Kelvin, you are clearly well educated, articulate, have a good vocabulary and are well trained in certain areas. You are therefore using ‘Master Techniques’ to express situations (or resolve firm guidelines) in certain terms that in turn could become ‘absolutes’. There is nothing wrong in that within a big picture but there are some realities in terms of effect and value.

 

 

You may consider the market that you address, and therefore the manner in which you address it!

 

 

I would have thought that our main requirement was to tackle Flight Safety and the evolution of a practical and more effective Safety Culture at where the omissions happen.

 

 

So in essence the entire thing has to be pitched at the lowest common denominator of understanding in a person capable of becoming a command pilot and not done so just in terms they understand but primarily in terms which they may relate to meaningfully and so interact with productively.

 

 

‘Recreational Flying’, or Ultralighting, per se, was intended for the average Joe or Jill off the street who just wanted to fly simply, safely and affordably. Improvements have to be expressed in terms that are suitable to them.

 

 

Recreational Flying has taken on a different meaning (in original Ultralighting terms) and now these forums, the magazines etc are full of airspace, advanced instrumentation, ASIC cards and all the rest of the clap trap that has no relevance to people flying locally out of paddocks or their small strips. Rather the reverse. The scenario is now encouraging people who may well have the same comprehension levels of ‘traditional ultralighters’ to get into highly sophisticated machines.

 

 

I believe there is an obvious flight safety issue emerging from that and it will not be solved by concepts expressed in terms too often used in everyday life by experts to keep the peasants quiet – but not much better off in practical terms.

 

 

Those terms have been used so often now that there is almost automatic yawning and disinterest – ‘that is just more of the crap saying what we should do but not how we do it!â€

 

 

Rather than protract this post with a great deal of analysis let me give you a very simple example.

 

 

Several years ago the accident rate was rising alarmingly and the then current CEO/Ops Manager circulated the then current CFIs and Pilot Examiners. The message was reasonably clear although not stated in the manner that follows.

 

 

It boiled down to what could we do about things generally and the BFR in particular. By coming out with some solid stuff then we could convince the authorities that we were in control of our own nest, the current situation was just a bad break, and that it would go away. We were invited to give our feedback and opinion.

 

 

I put my feedback in and it was very basic – a tick sheet to be used on BFRs that the pilot had demonstrated reasonable competence in airmanship, judgemental skills and manipulative skills that appertained to current accidents that happened in VFR conditions.

 

 

If a weakness was found then we could plug the gap and lift the act as the BFR is the ONLY time any member HAS to interface with the training and standards system.

 

 

We never got much or any feedback on this survey. What we did get was notification of the Advanced Pilot’s Award. This was couched in similar expression to what you are using Kelvin and was obviously orientated to ‘overseers’ being satisfied that we were totally competent.

 

 

The fact that it was voluntary, that it cost more, that it would only cover what you should have already been taught in basics, that you would maybe have to travel long distances to get it, etc etc etc – cut no ice at all. In fact several years later it still seems to have been a furphy and things went quiet at the time. The only attraction would have been gaining an ‘Iron Cross’ for people who collect such things!

 

 

I understand Kelvin that you are making a start and may well be intending to get to basics. But the opening salvos that you are firing may well be understood and applauded in intent – but you are divorcing your audience by lack of realistic ‘hands on’ relevance.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Kelvin]

Desirable Attributes of an Aviator/Aviatrix.

 

Thanks Tony, :thumb_up: I guess I'd better use the smiles more often.

 

You have put a lot of thought into this post and I need to read it again to get as much out of it as I can. Starting with clarity in the first instance. I realise there are gaps, but by invitation I'd been testing-the-waters. I'll get back to your informative thoughts as soon as.

 

Kelvin (with a long way to go in a new discipline)

 

 

[Yenn]

Wow. I must be losing my touch. Tony is agreeing with me. Ah well I can't be controversial all the time.

 

I just wonder now many of us do a mental debrief after a flight and think, "that was a stupid trick to fly low over those mountains looking for a place to bushwalk" It is something I try to do after all flights, even though I am constantly assessing safety while in flight.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

An interesting thread.. I fully agree with the sentiment of the thread and the starter, but i feel its an impossible task to dictate in a 10 point form the quality's that make a good airman (aviator).. When i was doing the instructor rating i found it odd that i had to prepare a long brieff (30-40 mins) for each one of the flying sequences..starting with effects of controls, straight and level and so on.. But what i found odd was there's no specific literature or text's to be studied by the student on airmanship..Sure there is airmanship points for each sequence, which are usually the same..Keep a good lookout, monitor engine performance ans so on...but there's no specific instruction given simply in airmanship..Why do you think that is??...its becasue (i think) its impossible to teach an 'attitude'..I believe that airmenship is 99% attitude.. Its not so much of a learned thing but a forming of a part of the pilots personality that grows with there skill level and competancy.. It should form a fundemental part of the pilots physche and stored in the same mental file as the skills learned and aquired during training. Its sort of difficult to put in words what im trying to get at..

 

I tell my students that the training will teach them to fly, airmanship will keep them alive to fly another day.:thumb_up:

 

cheers

 

 

[Yenn]

My thoughts on the subject were that the whole training program was airmanship and it was taught all the time, from the first walk around or even before to the final Nav flight.

 

 

[Kelvin]

Desirable Attributes of an Aviator/Aviatrix.

 

We never got much or any feedback on this survey. What we did get was notification of the Advanced Pilot’s Award. This was couched in similar expression to what you are using Kelvin and was obviously orientated to ‘overseers’ being satisfied that we were totally competent.

Thanks Tony. :thumb_up: It would be more encouraging if the organisers were up front with guidelines set before their survey responses materalized. In turn we'd have a better idea if it was worthwhile to participate in the first place and hopefully avoid this sort of disappointment.

It should become progressively obvious that this thread 'orintation' goes way beyond pandering up to authorities because we are the direct benefactors of what we've initiated. Should we go onto the previously mentioned "Values-Driven Safety Maturity Grid" and subsequent improvement exercises, we'll definately be in the drivers seat. As I see it, our attributes, our beliefs and values, our matrix, our level/status opinions and our enhansement strategies, should underscore all our previous efforts to fly for fun.

 

Kelvin (with a long way to go with a little encouragement)

 

 

[Kelvin]

Desirable Attributes of an Aviator/Aviatrix.

 

Kelvin, I don't quite know what you are trying to achieve here. If it is some sort of survey of a"culture of safety" in RAAus.,I would have to question the validity of your conclusions. I would not be comfortable putting much weight on it at present.

Thanks Neville, I'd agree 'validity' has to be verified.:thumb_up: We only have done a limited survey from this forum. From that survey we have the 10 Good Pilots Attributes (what we think we do best), followed by a Correlation Matrix (verifies where we are with the foundational 10 aquisition values) and Customised Beliefs and Values (enabling us to understand our own beliefs). Ref; post on 6.6.08. Alternatively, we could have got this far with everyone at a one day seminar, so we have done exceptionally well cost wise, by going through this forum.

The next step is compiling an outline for our own customised Safe Recreational Aviation Maturity Grid. With 10 values down the left column and five described levels across the page, that is 50 descriptions I'm going through right now and I'm going to need some help once I have the lowest and highest levels done for comment. Once we have the matrix finished, the real action begins with determining the level we are at for each of our 10 attributes and what we could do to go to a higher level.

 

Above all, we stay in the 'drivers' seat as we find ways to stay safe in the air with what we are most happy to develop and even get some action going.

 

Kelvin (with a long way to go before thinking of landing)

 

[Kelvin]

Desirable Attributes of an Aviator/Aviatrix.

 

Thanks Mike.

 

So what do we have here? Is it a fair attempt to make good use of a proven safety process a little better to understand within RA, using existing beliefs and values from within RA for the short/long term benefits to members of RA?

 

Tony mentioned 7/6/08 the process may put people off and he has made a very important point. On the other hand Shell (and they dont mind me saying so) thought that capturing the 'Attributes of a Dogman' would be going over their heads but in fact it became the opposite and the Dogmen didnt have to asked twice before they were right into it. Together we changed Shell's safety audit form into an interactive document that took into account their own perceptions of 'skills based errors' that none of us expected. They took us beyond the training they'd all been throgh. We were capturing the most valuable asset they could offer through their experience in reducing risk exposure. Some of it were lessons learnt the hard way (priceless absoultly priceless it was). Twelve months later at another project with Boral the same tradesmen asked if I would be doing it (revising an audit document) again. I told them I would but this time with the Scaffolders.

 

:off topic:When it comes to tradesmen or pilots, is there a learning, sharing, ownership difference here? Perhaps not if you consider the amount of interaction we've had with this and similar threads. The offer I'd made on the 2/6/08 in this thread still holds. Like everyone else I need positive rinforcement to put in the effort to move into other stages of the process with RA, above other time consuming enterprises.

 

Kelvin (with a long way to go with time retraints like everyone else) .

 

 

[turboplanner]

Can this training/learning theme be incorporated into the Human Performance and Limitations programme?

 

 

[Yenn]

I can see how reducing risk exposure can actually work well Kelvin. From your post about dogmen I can see how it can affect us as pilots. Dogmen used to load and control crane lifts, they used to ride the hook and from many years in the industry I can only remember 1 accident and the person involved was not qualified.

 

Riding the hook is not allowed now and that is what I see could happen to us as pilots.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You mean single seaters should be banned????

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

You mean single seaters should be banned????

Excelent idea turboplanner. Clearly a single pilot op is dangerous - we need co-pilots and george at a minimum. Imagine how much easier it will be to fly when every pilot input can first be discused before it is acted apon - why, we can even have forms to fill in, boxs to tick............ I must be carefull, think I'll have to re-read "Active management of Arousal" (pp142, Human Being Pilot - interesting book)

 

Meanwhile, back at planet VFR pilot - in an article in AOPA Flight training mag, Budd Davisson writes on what should be the "solid foundation" of pilot skills laid down in the first 10 hours of learning to fly. He makes that well known observation "..the single most important aspect of aviating is to remember to always fly the airplane, no matter what. That requires continuously refineing skills that most students learn during their first 10 hours in the cockpit"

 

 

[farri]

.... Red tape I hate, (YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT). I also believe that an informed person in a reasonably free society has the right to indulge in fairly risky pastimes as long as society doesn't have to pay the consequences. Nev.

.

 

 

[Kelvin]

Desirable Attributes of an Aviator/Aviatrix

 

Thanks Yenn (again)

 

Most common unsafe practices are gradually eliminated by individuals, enforcers and requlators when it is realised the price of risk exposure is too high. What we're looking at is a critical foundational strategy that underscores traditional safety (engineering, education and enforcement). In the case of the Dogmen there were experienced people worried about the newer Dogmen in their first few years yet to learn from incidents and near misses they all tend to go through. Rather than being critical of their inexperience the process captures the proactive energy that is always there for nurturing a culture towards safety excellence.

 

Experience pilots know what the risks are and how to minimize them intuitively. So they share what they know and we all benefit by doing things right as best we know from sharing knowledge throughout our own flying experience. This process that has just started enables us to visualise the ideal flying enviroment in terms of culture within RA. We now have what we think makes up a "Good Pilot", how it stacks up with aquisition values along with our customised beliefs and values as they align with the aquisition values developed through a forum seen by many. It is also a tool to design our own culture.

 

Kelvin. (with a long way to go and wondering how much others see it)

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I am buying into this one again because I think that the subject (and motivations) are sound enough for good discussion.

 

 

Where I am having grave difficulty is visualising the intended delivery scenario.

 

 

To start with I do not think Kelvin’s appraisal of risk minimisation covers anything like the actual process that gets rammed down people’s necks – or the environment in which this may happen! To a great extent how acceptable any innovation is (no matter how worthwhile) really rests on the presentation – and particularly the channels of presentation) to the intended user or beneficiary.

 

 

To kick off – I disagree (but to an extent agree) with Kelvin’s statement that there is “gradual elimination of risk (over a period of timeâ€. This is true in general terms but what the end user is normally treated to is a knee jerk reaction by controllers that is probably more based on public perception of their controlling performance than actual safety. This is by no means exclusive to aviation!

 

 

The roads are a good example. The scenario usually seems to be one of some form of ‘hidden bean counting’ on how many deaths/injuries are tolerated before something is done. Cost of correction appears to be a large factor!

 

 

If you have a stuffed up arterial intersection that is a known killer but will take several million to fix then the deaths will continue until ‘trial by media’ forces the authorities to spend the money. On the other hand I imagine every reader knows of at least one point in their local area (probably a lot) that are also accident traps and would only take a couple of hundred bucks to fix.

 

 

Ironically when somebody does get wiped out rather than their vehicle just being badly dinged so they cannot get to work, or they are not too badly injured etc etc – then something may be done and it is always unveiled as some ‘major step forward in safety’ when in fact it was, and has continued to be, bloody obvious for ages!

 

 

Very obvious ‘closing of the stable door after the horse has bolted†does not rest easy with the end users – there is a degree of contempt for the authority which blunts the message.

 

 

Kelvin has come up with a scenario (the crane doggers) that is obvious and would be silly to disagree with. But that is a ‘closed’ workplace environment where enlightened management (who do not want worker’s comp claims) band with enlightened workers (who want to get home to the missus each night) to obtain productive results. That scenario can work well.

 

 

Intrinsically it may not be very different from flying. Stepping onto a crane hook may have equal risk to stepping into an aircraft if sufficient awareness is not present and being employed as a matter of course.

 

 

The major difference between the two scenarios is environmental. A closed workplace (or consequently a tight knit industry using workplaces as active elements) may make positive progress in a safety culture. Ultralight/Recreational aviation is entirely different even if safety parameters are of similar import.

 

 

The newcomer starts in a tightly controlled and extremely safety aware safety culture – the flying school! This then abruptly changes, or likely will do so, and may do so very rapidly. The student may have bought a two week course, got the ticket, and retreated to the Never-Never where they may never see another ultralight again other than what they fly themselves.

 

 

There may be little or no peer group pressure. What peers there are may be as rough as guts and have come up the same path – it works so it must be OK. You cannot turn out an Airman in two weeks and you then cannot force an ex student to study and expand their knowledge and skills base – it is entirely their choice unless you mandate it.

 

 

Equally in recreational aviation it is ridiculous to expect people to have to learn and retain knowledge they will never need in the environment in which they intend operating. What comes to mind is the (at least one time) requirement for taxi driver license applicants to have to pass an exam on getting around a complex State capital city when they intended to operate in a three street country town way out in the bush!

 

 

Relevancy of training and requirement is of paramount importance in terms of validity and retention by usage. Equally acquisition of further skills and knowledge (or perhaps enforcement that such be obtained by new incoming regulation) is dictated by availability. Even the BFR can be a serious pain in the butt even when you are close in, but when your nearest FTF is a thousand km away it can be nearly impossible – or very expensive. That procedure has to be done but introducing, say, the Human Factors compulsory element without a plain language manual that pilots can read and retain is stupidity in the extreme. We will once again get the ‘end user’ contempt for what appears to be a counsel of excellence but is not practical in acquisition unless near activity centres.

 

 

There is an old saying that is well worth repeating – “You can always tell the boys from the bush, but you cannot tell them much!†They are indeed not fools even if they work under different parameters and thus need different requirement strategies.

 

 

Application of safety culture initiatives can be a mixed bunch. In an earlier post I illustrated the effort several years ago, in the face of a rapidly escalating fatal accident trend, that culminated in the creation of the ‘Advanced Pilot Award’. This was absolute crap and still is because it is voluntary – it was just a political exercise!

 

 

At the same time as that the suggestion for a simply BFR tick sheet was ignored – yet it would have put it’s finger on any weakness.

 

 

At the same time RAAus management is now becoming increasingly enlightened in practical terms. Certainly there is still a fair smattering of ‘go to seminars’, ‘new requirements’ etc that really fall into the ‘visible political/control’ category no matter the good intentions. But the new endorsements and the upgrade of the requirements part of the new Ops manual demonstrates much more practical thinking as individual pilots may now select their own niche within an environment that overall is growing increasingly complex. It did not help that the new requirements were not fully defined but that will happen in due course and the overall progression is in fact very positive and practical.

 

 

Where (in my opinion) we come entirely unglued is in foundations. We cannot build castles in the sand and that (to some extent) is what is being attempted.

 

 

A valid safety culture is founded on initial training – not ‘bolt on’ newly introduced seminars and requirements that a significant proportion of the movement may not easily source.

 

 

Any successful training system has to be firmly based on the lowest common denominator of student that it is believed can command an aircraft under our movement’s control. There may be tiers of advancement above that but that firm base must be there.

 

 

Any enhancement towards an improved safety culture must also flow through that basic training base and be an integral part of that base. Apart from the BFR or endorsements, basic training is the only compulsory interface between the individual and the controlling movement!

 

 

In practice we are very poorly placed! This is partly by lack of insight and mainly by neglect that may have engendered the insight.

 

 

We worship at an altar of ‘flying training’ that has been extant for 80 years and so avoided translating that wisdom in to terms suitable to a common denominator of pilots of very simple aircraft, in terms that they can understand and embrace – along with the implicit safety culture that can go along with this.

 

 

Our central flaw is that RAAus still has not defined and standardised a basic instructor training requirement and produced supporting literature (in our own unique recreational flying terms) that will initially form a firm foundation that then can form a basis for more advanced skills, knowledge and endorsements.

 

 

That is now a very ‘big bite and chew’! We could have done it when things were more simple but we did not. Now they are more complicated then a tiered structure has to be developed that ultimately will in fact merge with the low end of GA yet retain our freedoms (while we have them still).

 

 

That all takes a lot of vision and ability. I see the strength of Kelvin’s research as setting some ethical foundations for a revised instructor training system and movement control/guidance channel that is entirely valid.

 

 

The weakness of Kelvin’s work is that the expression smacks too much of a superficial and abstract ‘band aid’ that people are by now becoming very cynical of and will therefore reject. We need to see more practical application drive in it!

 

 

On the other hand my expression may be little better than Kelvin’s!

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good points Tony, although most of this is in place, just hard to find. RAA could improve things with a better webside, master index of subjects, reference material availabilty.

 

For example "the Human Factors compulsory element without a plain language manual that pilots can read and retain is stupidity in the extreme"

 

 

 

I've referred to the manual a couple of times, I think Motzartmerv has said it's only 1/2" thick, its in plain language, it has test questions so you can study the subject anywhere in Australia, yet there continues to be an anti HF theme.

 

This could easily be avoided by making information easier to find and buy......Ian?

 

There may be parts of this thread not covered by exsting RAA subject categories and they should be addressed.

 

Looking ahead, it's quite possible that the RAA of the future would include all non Commercial aircraft operations (personal opinion)

 

Already we have extremes from powered Chutes to aircraft with constant speed props and rectractable undercarriage and we are increasingly seeing speeds of 150 kts, where the workload is high, the instrument quality is critical and the pilot qualification needs to be much higher for safe operations. The Thruster pilot should not have to pay for these qualifications, so maybe we should now be starting to look at more distinct aircraft licensing steps and Pilot Certificate endorsements so the low and slow guys who stay in the one location aren't loaded down with unnecessary costs and administration (See I do listen to you HPD).

 

 

[Yenn]

Kelvin.

 

"We now have what we think makes up a "Good Pilot", how it stacks up with aquisition values along with our customised beliefs and values as they align with the aquisition values developed through a forum seen by many. It is also a tool to design our own culture."

 

I have read this several times and I still don't know what you are trying to say. That is one of the problems with academics trying to take over the behaviour of practical people in my opinion. Of course I may be just stupid or poorly educated, in which case everyone else will understand your paragraph. I hope so!

 

 

[Kelvin]

Desirable Attributes of an Aviator/Aviatrix

 

Thanks Ian,

 

While it may appear at this point we should take a look at where thread is going. It would be much easier if we could have a discussion in real time and have some questions and answers flowing until the 'picture' was clear to all. But, in the meantime this forum with it's limitations has given me sufficient incentive to develop three useful tools like "Good Pilot Attributes", "RA Forum Attributes-Correlation Matrix"' and RAFA Customised Beliefs & Values" previously attached in this thread. There is one more step and again I will need plenty of help with and is called "RA Pilot Maturity Grid"

 

[ATTACH]6918.vB[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]6919.vB[/ATTACH]

 

We can develop the five levels ourselves (it only took us a week to raise the 10 "Good Pilot Attributes") that may take us about five weeks, then we can decide where we are at and move onto doing something we think needs to happen to move our 'maturity' up to a higher level. It's just like doing physical exercises to keep fit. For example, based on our posts up until last Monday, HPD suggested we have a look at one of Budd Davisson articles on building a "solid foundation". Thats an exercise we all can do right now. Reading and talking about that article will impact on our culture if enough of us read it. More to the point, we dont need a regulator to tell us where are at with our RA culture (the way we do things as opposed to GA) or what we can do to improve it. If this helps to clarify what I"m "trying to say" I'll get back to Tony's equally thought provoking post that already has potential 'exercises' we may want think more about sometime early in 09.

 

Kelvin (with a long way to go).

 

Recreational Flying Good Pilot Attributes.doc

 

Recreational Avaiation MatGrd 08.doc

 

Recreational Flying Good Pilot Attributes.doc

 

Recreational Avaiation MatGrd 08.doc

 

Recreational Flying Good Pilot Attributes.doc

Recreational Avaiation MatGrd 08.doc