ERAU takes a position to reduce safety

rd757 said:
Is it really a step to "reduce" safety as is put in the title of this thread.... or the other way around?

Oh well not so good for the folks at the Riddle.
Click to expand...

Brady is an idiot. Then again, lots of things down here are dumb/idiotic. Riddle just see's the 1500 hour thing as killing the school, which might be a good thing. Who's going to want to shell out the money to go here, and graduate with maybe 200 hours? No body, when they will still need another 1300.
 
Stratopilot said:
Mind if you tell me how? Mostly instrument?
Click to expand...

go to other places while you're teaching...seriously, when you're doing maneuvers you can still be headed in a direction. Before you know it your far from home, and it offers 1. a landing 50+ 2. an opportunity to teach navigation and x-c

it's just a little thinking outside of the box.
 
120 knots in a 172 if you are booking it. so 50 would be something like 25 minutes. Pattern and land. Return for another 25 minutes pattern and land and we are rapidly approaching an hour flight. That's not assuming any wind or actually doing maneuvers.

I know I have plenty of flights where it takes me 30 minutes of teaching and practice on just chandelles and lazy 8s. Where is the time to actually teach?
 
Stratopilot said:
An extra year? Try 5! How many hours of cross country does one need to get their ATP? 500! On average how many hours does a CFI train a student on cross country procedures? 5-7 hours. So if I do the math:

500 hours/5 hours of cross country per student=100 students

100 students X 40 hours each = 4000 hours??:dunno:


And, yes, there IS a 50nm rule.

Look, I'm all for mandating higher mins, I don't think that anyone belongs in a cockpit of an airline with less than 1500 hours. But the amount of flight time the Colgan pilots had very little or anything to do with what happened. Hell the captain had 3800 hours, and he was the one that screwed the pooch. They were fatigued, poorly paid, working two jobs, poorly trained.

Besides, how much safer will the airlines be if everyone got their ATP in a Duchess and then hopped immediately into a E-170 or a CRJ-900. I would soooo much rather have someone get their ATP on the jet that they're currently flying than, to have someone get it on an aircraft that has 1/8th the complication of a jet. It just doesn't make any sense!

In this case the ATP would be a gateway, not a qualifier, and all it serves is a distraction from the real issue. Crappy training, crappy QOL, and Crappy management.
Click to expand...
some instructors go beyond the bare minimum requirements, and as Moxie said, 50 miles to a touch and go while doing instruction in other areas is REALLY easy. Instrument students WAY EASIER, do the ODP, enroute to shoot the approach for a 50 mile away airport, missed to a hold, then back home, shoot the approach and done in 1.8-2.0. EASY EASY
 
poser765 said:
120 knots in a 172 if you are booking it. so 50 would be something like 25 minutes. Pattern and land. Return for another 25 minutes pattern and land and we are rapidly approaching an hour flight. That's not assuming any wind or actually doing maneuvers.

I know I have plenty of flights where it takes me 30 minutes of teaching and practice on just chandelles and lazy 8s. Where is the time to actually teach?
Click to expand...

No landing is required for ATP XC mins.
 
mojo6911 said:
No landing is required for ATP XC mins.
Click to expand...
dang, good call...how did I miss that.

Still thought, 25 minutes there and 25 back assuming no landings ANYWHERE is still 50 minutes, leaving just 10 for instruction in an hour flight. I think about the farthest away I've managed to "drift" is about 20 miles in a 182
 
Wasn't that FITS stuff, and mission oriented training profiles the they(FAA and industry "partners") were trying to bring on line more conducive to getting those XC hours?
 
Stratopilot said:
Mind if you tell me how? Mostly instrument?
Click to expand...
most of it came from the multi course at my school. there is a min 12hr requirement (usually ends up around 14) and then i combine a few other lessons to make it a xc and it is up to an easy 16-17hours. x 25 students and that is 400+ XC. i haven't instructed for quite a full 3 years yet (2more months) but i have over 700XC.

just need to be creative when you do the lesson. most who know me know that i don't teach to the minimum, and adding xc experience on lessons is good because that is what most people will be doing.
 
bdhill1979 said:
some instructors go beyond the bare minimum requirements, and as Moxie said, 50 miles to a touch and go while doing instruction in other areas is REALLY easy. Instrument students WAY EASIER, do the ODP, enroute to shoot the approach for a 50 mile away airport, missed to a hold, then back home, shoot the approach and done in 1.8-2.0. EASY EASY
Click to expand...

Unless I specifically wanted to work on enroute navigation or needed the 50nm XC time, id feel incredibly cheated if all I got in two hours of instrument flight were 2 approaches and a hold. You are there to teach the student in the most efficient manner, not drag out a flight they are paying for to pad your own log book.
 
Riddle does alot of things, some good some bad. What they are trying to do is standup for 141/142 schools(not just riddle) where there is a little bit stiffer training than mom and pop. Those schools would have alot to lose if this goes through as is. Now the smaller FBO's would say, come fly with us, we will get you closer to the hour requirement than a 141/142 school would.


If I didn't know anything and was just starting, I would be all over that, "oh look they said I will be closer to my goal"

I think the 1500 hour is a nice idea, especially to law makers, but there are examples that it is not practical.

Example, someone who gets there commercial through a DE, who just rote memorizes a cheat sheet of questions asked by that one examinar, is he really ready for the real world if they do that then tow banners for 1000 hours?

CRM would be a good start, people who haven't had anything like that can be clueless. I remember one of my interviews I had, the recruiter goes, its not about how much time you have, its about the qualitiy of time you have.

I know there are some people who say a rating is a rating, but I know I was alot better prepared after I did my instrument at a 141, than when I did my private through a small FBO.
 
subpilot said:
ATP in a piston is actually more difficult. You don't have all the automation or NFP helping you.
Click to expand...
The ATP ride isn't exactly rocket science. If you could do it at 251 hours people would take the ride the same day as their commercial.

I think the point behind it is that the 1500 hours means something. Not that 45 degree steep turns under the hood in front of a DE means you're ready to land in the Hudson.
 
Clocks said:
The ATP ride isn't exactly rocket science. If you could do it at 251 hours people would take the ride the same day as their commercial.

I think the point behind it is that the 1500 hours means something. Not that 45 degree steep turns under the hood in front of a DE means you're ready to land in the Hudson.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. The ATP practical is an "experience ride," which is designed to validate the fact that you have 1,500 hours. As you said, it has little to do with maneuvers and more to do with experience. My DE gave me all sorts of impromptu situations (non-published arcing into a final approach course, going missed during a circling approach, etc.) that were designed to gauge judgement and problem solving more than anything.
 
moxiepilot said:
I was going to say probably less than 1% of the flight graduates probably have the stick and rudder skills for it, and probably only 1% of those 1% have ever touched farm chemicals in their life.
Click to expand...

15-20% seems to ring more true. There are also a whole lot more good ole' boys and gals down there than you think. With that said, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Solid stick and rudder skills are definitely lacking these days. Not only from ERAU graduates, but from numerous pilots from all across the country.

To be honest, this doesn't surprise me one bit. They are looking out for their own interests just like the airlines and g.a. in the funding debate, just like each of us in this particular debate, and just like our friends in Washington in the health care debate. Whats new?

>Let the hate session continue. :D
 
Matt13C said:
Unless I specifically wanted to work on enroute navigation or needed the 50nm XC time, id feel incredibly cheated if all I got in two hours of instrument flight were 2 approaches and a hold. You are there to teach the student in the most efficient manner, not drag out a flight they are paying for to pad your own log book.
Click to expand...

Almost all of the training I did included a landing at an airport that was 50.6 miles away from our departure. During the time headed there I would teach stalls, steep turns, slow flight, emergency descents, VMC demos. And that was just for non instrument students. Throw in tracking, intercepting, holding, and just plain flying the plane while under the hood it was hardly a waste of anybody's time.
 
Matt13C said:
Unless I specifically wanted to work on enroute navigation or needed the 50nm XC time, id feel incredibly cheated if all I got in two hours of instrument flight were 2 approaches and a hold. You are there to teach the student in the most efficient manner, not drag out a flight they are paying for to pad your own log book.
Click to expand...
I'm there to teach them how to safely operate in the IFR system.

Transitioning from departure to enroute to approach to missed to enroute to alternate approach is what IFR is.

If you were being taught to do the same 3 approaches you would be doing on the checkride over and over again you did get cheated.
 
Blip16 said:
i have taught nowhere near 100 students, and in only 2yrs of instruction hit the 500 hr xc requirement.
Click to expand...

This is not normal and doing slw flt, s-turns, stalls, or any other maneuver for 50 nm is :insane:

------

I have to say that at least ERAU has the balls to say five years up front when all other colleges really mean five years when them say four.

Ahhh Proactive. :sarcasm:
 
Douglas said:
This is not normal and doing slw flt, s-turns, stalls, or any other maneuver for 50 nm is :insane:

------

I have to say that at least ERAU has the balls to say five years up front when all other colleges really mean five years when them say four.

Ahhh Proactive. :sarcasm:
Click to expand...
i never said it was normal, just stating my case. i explained why already
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top