Pilots who are afraid of the airplane

[Stomp16]

Without discussing the finer points of the sister company's operating policy, let us merely state that it's very rare for that outfit to operate in less than VFR.

Blue, not a personal attack or anything, but you were simply not at Aperture long enough to get a well rounded feel for year round survey operations. You're above statement is simply not true. I have logged many hours of actual with AAK as it's there to be had on relocation missions, mostly in the spring and fall.

No excuses about differing FOM's either. The FOM is my baby and I'm very partial to it due to the amount of time I've spent writing and re-writing the thing. Both companies have spent many hours in co-company management meetings hacking the thing out (ask trafficinsight about those meetings, they were fun.). Both companies operate with 98% of their respective FOM's being one-in-the-same.

 

[Hacker15e]

Unlike boats, where their owners derive pleasure from the act itself of sailing, many pilots derive pleasure from things *other than* the act of flying. Flying is just a byproduct of the real reasons they are pilots. They like the speed, convenience, status, etc.

IMO, this is the difference between a "pilot" and an "aviator". A pilot is a technician; an aviator is an artist.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

IMO, this is the difference between a "pilot" and an "aviator". A pilot is a technician; an aviator is an artist.

Thanks, Gann!

 

[jrh]

If they don't want to sign up for the stall/spin-until-you-puke joy course, maybe they can be "pilots" of some sort, but perhaps they should leave the flight instruction role to someone else. Is that a radical proposal......post Colgan?

I don't disagree with you, in theory.

Something else to consider though is how no pilot is perfect. It's difficult enough to find instructors who are really good at simply *teaching* (communicating, patient, etc.) let alone instructors who also excel at instrument flying, aerobatics, professionalism, want to stick around for more than six months, and on and on and on.

If an instructor lacks a passion for spins/upset training, should that really be a deal breaker?

In real world flight school operations, it's extremely rare to hire somebody who "has it all." But it's a nice goal to shoot for.

 

[jrh]

IMO, this is the difference between a "pilot" and an "aviator". A pilot is a technician; an aviator is an artist.

You're probably right.

Now I think this begs the question...is there room in the skies for both? Some comments in this thread sound as though there isn't.

 

[Hacker15e]

You're probably right.

Now I think this begs the question...is there room in the skies for both? Some comments in this thread sound as though there isn't.

I believe not only is there room in the skies for both, but each of us should have elements of both within ourselves and our own performance.

 

[Qutch]

I don't disagree with you, in theory.

Something else to consider though is how no pilot is perfect. It's difficult enough to find instructors who are really good at simply *teaching* (communicating, patient, etc.) let alone instructors who also excel at instrument flying, aerobatics, professionalism, want to stick around for more than six months, and on and on and on.

If an instructor lacks a passion for spins/upset training, should that really be a deal breaker?

In real world flight school operations, it's extremely rare to hire somebody who "has it all." But it's a nice goal to shoot for.

In the Air Force, my field was a science known as Human Factors Engineering in Pilot Training. It's a branch of Aerospace Medicine. I taught flying and worked at a Branch Laboratory in Arizona attached to Wright Patterson. My specialty research area was instrument flight techniques. One of the things researchers there also dealt with was something the Air Force called "MOA - Manifestation of Apprehension", aka Fear of Flying.

How about this theoretical proposal then? If we had to break something out of the CFI package, make it instrument flying, rather than spin/upset-recovery training. Under this approach, a CFI could be pretty marginal at instruments and still be a CFI. One of the things that has been proven in R&D is that most phases of instrument training, cockpit and radio procedures, along with other chores that lead to dangerous pilot overload can be accomplished even better in a flight simulator than in the aircraft (the principle of training "saturation" ). The Air Force has in the past, successfully used specialist civilian contractor pilots for simulator phase training. The military pays them very well. Why not do something similar in civilian training? Retired, medical DQ'd and other pilots could specialize in highly efficient simulator training, using CFIIs to finish up. But Aircraft CFI's must demonstrate the "art" of flying in my Spin-till-you-Puke Ecstasy Program in order to assure that they don't pass along aircraft control apprehensions to students.
.

 

[jrh]

How about this theoretical proposal then? If we had to break something out of the CFI package, make it instrument flying. Under this approach, a CFI could be pretty marginal at instruments and still be a CFI. One of the things that has been proven in R&D is that most phases of instrument training, cockpit and radio procedures, along with other chores that lead to dangerous pilot overload can be accomplished even better in a flight simulator than in the aircraft (the principle of training "saturation" ). The Air Force has in the past, successfully used specialist civilian contractor pilots for simulator phase training. The military pays them very well. Why not do something similar in civilian training? Retired, medical DQ'd and other pilots could specialize in highly efficient simulator training, using CFIIs to finish up. But Aircraft CFI's must demonstrate the "art" of flying in my Spin-till-you-Puke Ecstasy Program in order to assure that they don't pass along aircraft control apprehensions to students.

I'd be supportive of this. It's great, in theory.

It's a pretty radical departure from the current state of affairs, not to mention the higher costs involved, therefore I doubt it'll ever happen, but it would be great if it did.

 

[killbilly]

I'd be supportive of this. It's great, in theory.

It's a pretty radical departure from the current state of affairs, not to mention the higher costs involved, therefore I doubt it'll ever happen, but it would be great if it did.

Actually, I could see an insurance company bankrolling something like this if they were taking a long view.

 

[Qutch]

I'd be supportive of this. It's great, in theory.

It's a pretty radical departure from the current state of affairs, not to mention the higher costs involved, therefore I doubt it'll ever happen, but it would be great if it did.

I'll admit, the economic analysis aspect is not my field, flight training efficiency is. However, the cost-benefit boys in the Air Force said it penciled out, which is why the Air Force started using it up until the Iraq-Afghan wars started winding down and combat pilots started coming home. Think of it like the development of Henry Ford's assembly line approach to building cars, or the educational system's certification of teachers to teach certain subjects like math vs english. Neither are looking for the "complete package" employee. What they are looking for is efficiency, which usually pencils out to cost savings. A specialist, focusing 24/7 on the needs of students in the instrument phase of their training can become very very good at getting through to a student.

http://salaryquest.com/job-t-37-simulator-instructor-at-lear-siegler-services-inc-division-of-eg-g-in-vance-afb-enid-state-ok-salary/I-04265-1365677/ $60K/year starting at Vance AFB (low cost of living)

Lear-Siegler contract Simulator IP at Vance AFB.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Blue, not a personal attack or anything, but you were simply not at Aperture long enough to get a well rounded feel for year round survey operations. You're above statement is simply not true. I have logged many hours of actual with AAK as it's there to be had on relocation missions, mostly in the spring and fall.

No excuses about differing FOM's either. The FOM is my baby and I'm very partial to it due to the amount of time I've spent writing and re-writing the thing. Both companies have spent many hours in co-company management meetings hacking the thing out (ask trafficinsight about those meetings, they were fun.). Both companies operate with 98% of their respective FOM's being one-in-the-same.

To put it delicately, you're incorrect, because mountains.

 

[jrh]

I'll admit, the economic analysis aspect is not my field, flight training efficiency is. However, the cost-benefit boys in the Air Force said it penciled out, which is why the Air Force started using it up until the Iraq-Afghan wars started winding down and combat pilots started coming home.

The big difference between AF and civilian systems is that the AF is a "closed loop" so to speak. Everything is funded through taxpayer dollars. It makes sense to invest more in flight training because they will see returns in either greater mission capabilities or less damage to multi-million dollar equipment in the future.

In civilian flying, the pilot bears the brunt of all flight training costs, then hopes to get a job flying a completely different company's equipment. That company may or may not have any incentive to care about the pilot's previous training. Unless there are more jobs or better compensation available as a result of better flight training, there is no reason for a trainee to pay more for their education.

 

[Hacker15e]

I'll admit, the economic analysis aspect is not my field, flight training efficiency is. However, the cost-benefit boys in the Air Force said it penciled out, which is why the Air Force started using it up until the Iraq-Afghan wars started winding down and combat pilots started coming home. Think of it like the development of Henry Ford's assembly line approach to building cars, or the educational system's certification of teachers to teach certain subjects like math vs english. Neither are looking for the "complete package" employee. What they are looking for is efficiency, which usually pencils out to cost savings. A specialist, focusing 24/7 on the needs of students in the instrument phase of their training can become very very good at getting through to a student.

http://salaryquest.com/job-t-37-simulator-instructor-at-lear-siegler-services-inc-division-of-eg-g-in-vance-afb-enid-state-ok-salary/I-04265-1365677/ $60K/year starting at Vance AFB (low cost of living)

Lear-Siegler contract Simulator IP at Vance AFB.

FWIW, in 2010 the contract expired and was not renewed -- all of the sim instructor jobs became Gov't Service civilians. They're doing the same thing for about the same money, but in GS.

 

[Hacker15e]

Unless there are more jobs or better compensation available as a result of better flight training, there is no reason for a trainee to pay more for their education.

Which is the sad part.

There can be a financial motive if the insurance companies are interested in better-trained, better-experienced pilots, but so far as GA goes that is about the only financial benefit I can think of.

 

[chaser918]

Blue, not a personal attack or anything, but you were simply not at Aperture long enough to get a well rounded feel for year round survey operations. You're above statement is simply not true. I have logged many hours of actual with AAK as it's there to be had on relocation missions, mostly in the spring and fall.

No excuses about differing FOM's either. The FOM is my baby and I'm very partial to it due to the amount of time I've spent writing and re-writing the thing. Both companies have spent many hours in co-company management meetings hacking the thing out (ask trafficinsight about those meetings, they were fun.). Both companies operate with 98% of their respective FOM's being one-in-the-same.

You realize that 1000 and 3 is considered marginal right? Blue was pretty accurate with that statement. With all the restrictions you guys have we were grounded most of the time if it was decent instrument weather.

 

[Stomp16]

You realize that 1000 and 3 is considered marginal right? Blue was pretty accurate with that statement. With all the restrictions you guys have we were grounded most of the time if it was decent instrument weather.

Holy thread revival. Less than 1000/3 is considered IFR, not marginal. 1K-3K ft ceiling and 3-5 miles vis is marginal. Our only restriction was concerning conditions that were < 1000/3.

I completely understand about being on the ground. We can't take pictures with clouds so that's reason one. Reason two is if the conditions are lower than 1000/3. I didn't make this rule, it was handed down from above. If it's above a 1000/3, you're good to go and play in the clouds all day long on relocation missions. I will be the first to admit our SOP's are stringent but will not apologize or make excuses for it. Our company alone has flown almost 20K hours in the 4.5 years we've been doing this and haven't had a single accident or incident. This is directly attributed to our safety culture and rules we have in place to keep our pilots safe and aircraft flying.

I do understand that being on the coast, the other company had to deal with coastal layers and fog on a lot of occasions which in-turn caused a lot of headaches.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

You realize that 1000 and 3 is considered marginal right? Blue was pretty accurate with that statement. With all the restrictions you guys have we were grounded most of the time if it was decent instrument weather.

Instrument flight rules operations were prohibited with the ceiling lower than the highest MEF for the route of flight.

The MEF out in, well, anywhere worth flying into or out of (read: left coast) is "pretty damn high". Because mountains.

 

[rocketman5150]

On my third flight lesson, my instructor showed me what happens when you stall an uncoordinated airplane. It scared the hell of me. I was still trying to get used to the sensations of flying a general aviation airplane, and that did not help at all. I spent the next 10 or 15 lessons being afraid of the airplane, and therefore not learning anything. I got over it, but the damage had been done.

 

[SteveCostello]

On my third flight lesson, my instructor showed me what happens when you stall an uncoordinated airplane. It scared the hell of me. I was still trying to get used to the sensations of flying a general aviation airplane, and that did not help at all. I spent the next 10 or 15 lessons being afraid of the airplane, and therefore not learning anything. I got over it, but the damage had been done.

Pretty much the same thing happened to me... on the first lesson. He recovered before we really even got fully into a spin, but things were floating around in the cockpit, and it was definitely not the plain jane stall that I had come to expect. So while I was never afraid of the airplane, I was and still am not friends with spins. I intend to break that when I get back in the saddle, and will make it a point to experience and learn about spins and how fun they are (in the right context, anyway...)

 

[Screaming_Emu]

It's not just the CFI/entry-level positions where people are scared of the airplane. Story for beer time.

Yup. I had a 8-9 year captain have his hands on the yoke when I took off a few weeks ago.

He also told me I needed more crosswind correction on my takeoff roll, even though the wings were perfectly level. He then had his ailerons in the wrong damn direction on his next two takeoffs.