Public Message Forum
Personally I am shocked at the lack of training provided by some of the regional airlines. The attitude seems to be "if the FAA don't require it, we don't do it." Unfortunately FAA standards take time to update. I am not blasting all regional airlines. I was able to see both sides at one airline. When I was first hired, we were given minimal (FAA standards)training by a third party. It was weak. By the time I upgraded training was "in house" and the amount of time had more than doubled (simulator and ground)- not due to FAA requirements, but for things the training department felt we needed to be trained on. Areas that were identified during situations at this airline (no accidents), or accidents at other airlines were incorporated into training, even when not required by the FAA. The DO said it the first day. "We will spend more time and money on training you than is required. But any extra costs will be more than offset by the savings, both in money and lives, if we prevent just one accident."
The only way I see this changing accross the board is- and I hate to say this- through the legal system. Major airlines need to be held financially liable in courts for accidents at their feeders. When the dollar cost of lawsuits exceeds the savings they get from using the lowest bidder they will begin to take a long look at the training in their feeder airlines.
Jerry Painter wrote a nice piece here that discusses our choices as instructors spending our time teaching rudder skills v TAA skills.
Yes, we can do more in the stall arena while steering clear of spins. My students have read enough about spins that they believe a spin lies just on the other side of every stall. For those who ask, sure, I spin with them. For the others, the answer is the falling leaf exercise. One can fly a stall down a thousand feet or two by doing the faling leaf. If this exercise doesn't get the student on the rudder, nothing will.
How does this translate to the FAA? It means that the PTS must include a falling leaf demonstration. Otherwise, if it isn't on the test, no one will teach it.
I volunteer to write a sample TASK. You all can criticise it. Then we can propose it.
If we are to be an effective training organization, we need to offer concrete suggestions, not just grouse about NAFI and the sub-optimal training provided by the regional airlines.
Robert
Hello Sam --
If you don't like the falling leaf as a PTS task, then what do you suggest in the alternative? New airplanes like the Cirrus and Columbia are certificated with different spin standards than other airplanes. Don't you think that that requires a different approach to the Spin Awareness task?
I understand you to suggest that instructors be go through a flight review process, rather than one of the existing recurrency paths.
This is will require some new thinking at the FAA. Only pilots are required flight reviews. Other airmen can fufill by classroom education or demonstration that they have exercised the priveleges of their certificates. A&Ps must practice. IAs must do annual inspections or go to a seminar. Do your think that the other members of SAFE will support a biennial instruction review for themselves?
You bring up a good point: We could demand review and testing on any of the areas of specialty we advertise. My certificate says I am a seaplane instructor, but I am no more qualified to teach than fly to the moon. I am current in tailwheel instruction, in spins and unusual attitudes, on the Hudson River, and in international operations.
Let's apply the groundrule of brainstorming to theis thread: if you want to criticize, first you have to offer an new alternative.
Robert
Robert
I did provide an alternative, and I hardly slammed you for the falling leaf exercise suggestion.
Some CFIs may not like the idea of going for flight reviews, but do we want CFIs around who are still teaching the way they learned 40 years ago, with no updates to his/her sills? Do you want a surgeon operating on you who has not updated his skills in 40 years? As an airline captain I had simulator events every 6 months and ground school once a year. Being a CFI is more demanding and hazardous, but the currency requirements are lower.
If we want to improve safety I think we should begin by not looking at others and their training, but by looking in the mirror and at our training.
Hello Sam --
My post came specifically from the FAA preoposed revision of Part 23 and the possibility it will change stall training.
I added a couple of comments as a result of the Colgan accident. That crew either forgot their primary training in stalls, or were distracted by the recurrent training they get that emphasizes tailplane stalls.
Our private candidates should not see tailplane ice.
Robert