Old school vs new school...

[jrh]

How do you know how a pilot's career (professionally or otherwise) will progress? At the end of the day, he'll be rated as a "Private Pilot--Single Engine Land" and needs to have the same skill set as anyone else with that qualification. Maybe you'll train him in a Garmin 1000 equipped airplane, only to find out years later he bought himself a 1978 Skyhawk and has little clue what a vacuum system is.

And this is precisely why I talked in my previous post about good pilots knowing how to handle whatever plane they happen to be flying at the moment. There are core principles that have to be taught no matter what, that apply regardless of the equipment (such as pilotage in case the whole electrical system fails, or "fly the plane, then talk to ATC, in that order") but individual equipment varies too greatly to make rules about (such as how to perform an autopilot-coupled ILS approach safely).

Those core principles can be taught no matter what the student is flying, be it a glass panel Baron or a raggedy old C-150. When it comes to learning how to use individual components, everything gets more complicated.

The reality is that it's impossible to train a person for every conceivable piece of equipment they'll fly with in the future. It's absurd to even try.

That's also why a good pilot is always learning and should be responsible enough to get training over whatever is in their plane.

Think of all the possible pieces of equipment a pilot *could* fly with...

ADFs
ILSs
VORs
G430s
G530s
G1000s
KLN94s
HSIs
EHSIs
RMIs
Stormscopes
numerous makes/models of autopilots
radar
traffic alert systems
various Avidyne glass panels
DME
AoA indicators
Electric attitude indicators

The list could go on and on. Each piece of equipment has its own features, functions, and limitations. Each one fits in to the big picture of what a plane is capable of doing.

If a pilot has a solid foundation of those core principles like staying calm, flying the plane, taking charge of problems, etc., they should have no trouble adapting to whatever equipment is in their plane, especially after good transition training. If they lose control over a situation, that problem goes a lot deeper than not knowing their equipment--losing control because of an equipment failure means they either didn't get proper transition training, or didn't have a solid foundation to begin with.

 

[juskl]

This is a very good thread. I wish we could teach every scenario and use every type of nav/comm equip out there. But as jrh stated, there is just no way. I will be honest with you that in my now 1150 hours of instructing, I have come to the point that I am happiest when a pilot can actually fly.

I am not talking about lazily pulling a plane across the sky. But as one poster put, is an aviator. I find that some of the absolutely sloppiest pilots out there are the "career" school guys/gals. Please don't get me wrong. You all can do rings around the radios, GPS units, set up approaches, etc. But you can't fly for anything.

I am talking real stick and rudder skills. Turning slips are allowed by the way. As is turning stalls, MCA at 45 degree angle of bank, Landing on strips less than 2000 feet, really using your feet and landing perfectly straight down the runway in a crosswind. These are the skills that are lacking in aviation today. And yes pilotage and ded reckoning are going by the way side and it is sad. Not because of technology. I am all for new tools in the tool box. But don't let your other skills go to waste.

Hell, I love technology and I am pretty good with GPS. But I am also very good at pilotage, ded reckoning, VOR, etc...

The philosophy of, "why should I?". Means that one only wants to fly high and fast and realy could care less about GA. I guess that is the direction that we are going now. To not really be an aviator, but to study only what is necessary to get the job of sitting right seat in an airliner.

Yes, I am of a dying breed. But, pilot skills are lacking out there and it is in all rank and file. It is not really anyone's fault, except for us as instructors. We are the one's responsible for the next generation of pilots. Even if they only use the "old ways" while with us, if we do our jobs right, they will always have it. We must teach our students how to "use" an airplane, and make it do exactly what they want it to do. To master the airplane, not to just be a programming passenger. The ball is in our court y'all.

What do you think? Think we can convince the academies of this?

 

[killbilly]

What do you think? Think we can convince the academies of this?

I doubt it. The academy exists to serve the needs of a particular market. How it goes about doing that and to what degree of thoroughness or detail is entirely dictated by their revenue needs and the needs of the customer.

GA consists of a beautiful set of complex variables that derives from a basic equation of time and money. Those of us with the inclination and resources have the luxury of pursuing aviation as an academic pursuit where every nook and cranny can be explored to our satisfaction.

It truly isn't necessary to learn all of those nuances to get a job as a pilot, though. And since we live under the advent of the MCL certificate, it's conceivable that Aviators in the traditional sense will be fewer and far between in coming years.

Please note that this isn't a judgment into the validity of either school of thought - merely an observation from one who came into this thing with one train of thought and found himself with quite another at the end of the proverbial day.

 

[germb747]

What do you think? Think we can convince the academies of this?

Doubt it. They're of the mindset of "we're here to train you to be an airline pilot from Day 1" in a 90-day crash course. Too bad. I'm glad I had the opportunity to be able to gain some real-world experience away from the training environment before I began flying professionally. That's the "fun" in flying too many people are missing.

But in today's job market, hopefully people will now be forced to gain more of that experience before they're marketable.

 

[juskl]

Killbilly....... Nice response, I like it. Seriously well written... :-D