AAIB January 2017
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: London
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree the system is broken.
Mid-40's chap, PPL(H) gained, bought and owned a helicopter. Never had an accident but also realised within 2 seconds of getting outside of a concrete runway that I had NO CLUE.
Had many near misses and quit quickly before I killed myself and others..
PPL(H) does nothing to prepare a helicopter "pilot". If there was a facility that could offer "real life after PPL(H) training", I think everybody would be surprised at the up take. Maybe long hour FI's should be contacting hell owners that have low hours on the clocks of their machines....
Yes we are mid-40's, yes have deep pockets but that does not mean we don't want to fly safely!!! Darwin will always reward the idiots no matter how many hours they have...
Mid-40's chap, PPL(H) gained, bought and owned a helicopter. Never had an accident but also realised within 2 seconds of getting outside of a concrete runway that I had NO CLUE.
Had many near misses and quit quickly before I killed myself and others..
PPL(H) does nothing to prepare a helicopter "pilot". If there was a facility that could offer "real life after PPL(H) training", I think everybody would be surprised at the up take. Maybe long hour FI's should be contacting hell owners that have low hours on the clocks of their machines....
Yes we are mid-40's, yes have deep pockets but that does not mean we don't want to fly safely!!! Darwin will always reward the idiots no matter how many hours they have...
"lets not let those silly young people be instructors, lets only allow us terribly experienced, competent and lets face it, awfully clever people to be instructors."
To continue the driving analogy - how many drivers who have just passed their tests are allowed to gain experience as driving instructors?
There will always be good, young helicopter instructors just as there will always be bad, experienced ones but lets not justify using low time instructors because it is the right thing to do when we know it is because it is the cheap thing to do.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On this thread and others on this Forum, the question of Safety is raised in one form or another.
Isn't it the case that Safety is paramount, providing it doesn't cost too much money? I was in the Industry from 1961 to 2010 and it was ever thus. There were people in the Management tree who subscribed to the principle more than others but there were those who appointed "Safety/Quality Managers" . Write the Manuals and that's job done.
What's the next problem? Cynical....moi?
Isn't it the case that Safety is paramount, providing it doesn't cost too much money? I was in the Industry from 1961 to 2010 and it was ever thus. There were people in the Management tree who subscribed to the principle more than others but there were those who appointed "Safety/Quality Managers" . Write the Manuals and that's job done.
What's the next problem? Cynical....moi?
Last edited by ScotiaQ; 19th Jan 2017 at 15:11. Reason: Addition
On this thread and others on this Forum, the question of Safety is raised in one form or another.
Isn't it the case that Safety is paramount, providing it doesn't cost too much money? I was in the Industry from 1961 to 2010 and it was ever thus. There were people in the Management tree who subscribed to the principle more than others but there were those who appointed "Safety/Quality Managers" . Write the Manuals and that's job done.
What's the next problem? Cynical....moi?
Isn't it the case that Safety is paramount, providing it doesn't cost too much money? I was in the Industry from 1961 to 2010 and it was ever thus. There were people in the Management tree who subscribed to the principle more than others but there were those who appointed "Safety/Quality Managers" . Write the Manuals and that's job done.
What's the next problem? Cynical....moi?
Safety is pretty important in commercial aviation for reasons I'm sure I don't need to go into on here.
Safety in leisure aviation is much more a case of the degree of risk averseness, priorities and general purpose of the flight. For example in my capacity as a gliding instructor flying members of the public on "Trial Lessons", there can be no doubt that we should expect the same number of satisfactory landings as takeoffs. However when I fly my glider in a competition, I may need to cut safety margins to the bone and I accept that one day, I may misjudge slightly and come to grief. If I never do, I probably wasn't trying hard enough!
It is like the difference between a coach driver (who should never crash) and a Formula 1 driver who, when they crash, we just shrug at and get out the next car.
So in leisure aviation it is our necks at risk, we can choose to set whatever level of safety we like. People who are prepared to fly with PPLs should realise that it is probably not as safe as flying on a commercial air transport flight. If they don't, well they are stupid.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
if that is how you have interpreted what has been written here then perhaps you need to read it again.
To continue the driving analogy - how many drivers who have just passed their tests are allowed to gain experience as driving instructors?
There will always be good, young helicopter instructors just as there will always be bad, experienced ones but lets not justify using low time instructors because it is the right thing to do when we know it is because it is the cheap thing to do.
To continue the driving analogy - how many drivers who have just passed their tests are allowed to gain experience as driving instructors?
There will always be good, young helicopter instructors just as there will always be bad, experienced ones but lets not justify using low time instructors because it is the right thing to do when we know it is because it is the cheap thing to do.
It's a bit like a commercial air operator - things have to be a compromise as there is no point in being the best and safest outfit around, if you go bust.
Yes and just remind me how often does that happen? What is the probability of a person dying when an aircraft falls on their head vs the probability of them dying in a road accident? Many, many orders of magnitude. Of course I'm sure the hysterical risk averse contingent will wail and scream at one such occurrence (whilst reading their Daily Mail).
And let's remember that quite a few allegedly competent professional pilots manage to crash into people on the ground. Hawker Hunter anyone? Clutha bar?
And let's remember that quite a few allegedly competent professional pilots manage to crash into people on the ground. Hawker Hunter anyone? Clutha bar?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeliCompactor
Please tell which planet you are on or which one you come from ? Which industry uses junior inexperienced people to teach something that can have a serious consequence on not only the trainee but his friends ???
As for the costs of aviation, here is an example part which cost $370 in 2009, now list price $ 1390. Rolls Royce just put up their parts by 7.5%
Please tell which planet you are on or which one you come from ? Which industry uses junior inexperienced people to teach something that can have a serious consequence on not only the trainee but his friends ???
As for the costs of aviation, here is an example part which cost $370 in 2009, now list price $ 1390. Rolls Royce just put up their parts by 7.5%
I'm from planet realist, clearly you are not from around here. Anyway to answer your question, firstly I'd say that PPL training isn't really an industry - by using that word you are again linking it to commercial aviation, although I suppose you could say anything is an "industry" if you wanted to spin it. So, well there's aviation of course! There are also many, many other such things. Car driving for instance. Anyone with a basic licence can teach someone to drive. In my day you just had to have passed your test (I helped teach my sister to drive when I was 18) although now you have to be 21 I think. Then there is skiing, sub-aqua, horse riding, and... well so many you'll get bored if I recite them all. These are all things where mistakes can seriously injure or kill.
Anyway this is a rather fatuous conversation. People can wail, scream, sob and bang the table as much as they like about how terrible it is that we have young and inexperienced teaching aviation, but really they would better spend their time doing something more useful such as bear bating, because one thing is for sure IT AINT GOING TO CHANGE, GET OVER IT.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: S.E. Asia
Age: 7
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeliComparator, you point out the differences between a trial lesson and competition flying, and how you treat them differently. That's the decent and proper way to approach it, good for you. Gliding is a lot of fun.
Now imagine if you took up some unsuspecting "friends" on your competition, and they trusted you because they didn't know any better, but trusted you because you are the pilot? I'm sure that you would agree that that would be a bad thing. An extremely arrogant/invulnerable/macho thing?
I don't think this is about relatively inexperienced instructors, more that some types of PPL are just complete twunts. We all make mistakes, but really, the "wave at friends" one is comedy gold.....I bet that will be used in so many case studies. (note to self: get down to Ladbrokes).
Seperately, the cost of running an aircraft is huge and the margins are small. Add to that all the other overheads. Just charge the customer more, if they don't like if they can pick a cheaper hobby, like golf or basket weaving.
Anyway, I hope you don't bite my head off. You appear to be in a bad mood or something?
Peace and love, man!
Now imagine if you took up some unsuspecting "friends" on your competition, and they trusted you because they didn't know any better, but trusted you because you are the pilot? I'm sure that you would agree that that would be a bad thing. An extremely arrogant/invulnerable/macho thing?
I don't think this is about relatively inexperienced instructors, more that some types of PPL are just complete twunts. We all make mistakes, but really, the "wave at friends" one is comedy gold.....I bet that will be used in so many case studies. (note to self: get down to Ladbrokes).
Seperately, the cost of running an aircraft is huge and the margins are small. Add to that all the other overheads. Just charge the customer more, if they don't like if they can pick a cheaper hobby, like golf or basket weaving.
Anyway, I hope you don't bite my head off. You appear to be in a bad mood or something?
Peace and love, man!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that everyone is agreed thata pilot (commercial or private) should want to be able to recognise risk, toknow / think about how it can be minimised, and then act appropriately toreduce that risk, so far as is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances of thatflight. This is perhaps along-winded way of saying “display good airmanship”. That, in turn, is about having the rightmind-set as a pilot.
The question dividing opinion is how to achieve that mind-set at theoutset (grant of a license) and how to maintain it. The focus on PPL is, to my mind, adistraction because not all holders of commercial licenses display consistentlygood airmanship (based on my reading of all Helicopter accidents recorded by UKAAIB).
I do not see any solution as being (only) instructor-basedas without testing there cannot be enforcement, without which there is less incentive (in a cost-conscious world) spend the time to train.
Stepping away from aviation, how is this handled in otherareas, and can we learn from them? I make two observations and a suggestion.
1. UK Driving License ( easier in my day ) but now they have a hazard perception test. It is a pass-fail test based on your abilityto identify hazards developing.
2. In my line of business (I am a self-declared businessmanPPL) we have our own risk issues. We have regular testing of practitioner's risk assessment and ability to act to mitigate risk appropriately, using web-basedsystems. We read the scenarios and answer the questions; at the end of the test you get a simplepass / fail. Should I fail there is nofeedback as to which questions I got wrong. Instead I would have to undertake therelevant training again in full, and then can re-test. This means that I have to understand the material, not simply learn the answers to the questions. Until we pass, our certificate to practiceis suspended.
My suggestion is a change to the testing environment for everyone, whichin turn will change the training environment. Time and cost can be saved elsewhere; there is material taught andtested at PPL theory level that is of no practical use whatsoever once we hold alicense. Weed-out that material and introduce helicopter (for PPL(H)) specificrisk examples. Already in EASA we have to undertake type-specific annual LPC toretain our license. All (PPL and CPL)could annually take a web-based risk identification / mitigation test before beingallowed to sit their LPC. Failing thetest should require evidence that the risk awareness training has been retaken and the test successfully passed.A solution like that need not create significant additionalrunning cost, and it should put a focus back onto safety throughout the life ofanyone’s license.
The question dividing opinion is how to achieve that mind-set at theoutset (grant of a license) and how to maintain it. The focus on PPL is, to my mind, adistraction because not all holders of commercial licenses display consistentlygood airmanship (based on my reading of all Helicopter accidents recorded by UKAAIB).
I do not see any solution as being (only) instructor-basedas without testing there cannot be enforcement, without which there is less incentive (in a cost-conscious world) spend the time to train.
Stepping away from aviation, how is this handled in otherareas, and can we learn from them? I make two observations and a suggestion.
1. UK Driving License ( easier in my day ) but now they have a hazard perception test. It is a pass-fail test based on your abilityto identify hazards developing.
2. In my line of business (I am a self-declared businessmanPPL) we have our own risk issues. We have regular testing of practitioner's risk assessment and ability to act to mitigate risk appropriately, using web-basedsystems. We read the scenarios and answer the questions; at the end of the test you get a simplepass / fail. Should I fail there is nofeedback as to which questions I got wrong. Instead I would have to undertake therelevant training again in full, and then can re-test. This means that I have to understand the material, not simply learn the answers to the questions. Until we pass, our certificate to practiceis suspended.
My suggestion is a change to the testing environment for everyone, whichin turn will change the training environment. Time and cost can be saved elsewhere; there is material taught andtested at PPL theory level that is of no practical use whatsoever once we hold alicense. Weed-out that material and introduce helicopter (for PPL(H)) specificrisk examples. Already in EASA we have to undertake type-specific annual LPC toretain our license. All (PPL and CPL)could annually take a web-based risk identification / mitigation test before beingallowed to sit their LPC. Failing thetest should require evidence that the risk awareness training has been retaken and the test successfully passed.A solution like that need not create significant additionalrunning cost, and it should put a focus back onto safety throughout the life ofanyone’s license.
Excellent suggestions John - glad you aren't listenting to HeliC's dystopian, defeatist posts.
Things can change and must, it is just a case of focussing the CAA's 'eye of Sauron' on the issue and getting them to be pro-active.
Things can change and must, it is just a case of focussing the CAA's 'eye of Sauron' on the issue and getting them to be pro-active.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
A few thoughts: The web based "training" tests I've been required to take seem to be a method for a "responsible person" to show that a box of their own has been ticked. For example, those required to obtain security clearances and airfield driving permits. They seem to revolve mainly around recognising new catch phrases and their abbreviations. They cannot improve an individual's common sense or awareness of their personal limitations. Unfortunately, there really is no substitute for the benefit of experience in aviation.
Those who haven't been through military flying selection, training and the military way of mentoring and supervising newly qualified pilots are often very quick to criticise those who have. Yet many civilian helicopter pilots have probably unknowingly seen the benefit of that same system. It was quite common in the past for experienced military trained pilots to instruct, less so more recently. I'm not personally in an instructional job (although I hold an FI rating) and in a previous life completed four instructional tours in the armed forces, three of them rotary wing. Having later become a civilian pilot (well over twenty years ago) and having been lucky enough to be directly taken on as a multi-role helicopter captain, including SAR, I was initially quite understandably closely mentored by other pilots in the job, all of them ex military, too. Since subsequently flying as a corporate captain (some 16 years now) I've flown with quite a number of copilots, some of them previously "hour building" instructors. Some have been very well qualified on paper, with newly gained ratings. With one or two exceptions, they have all been very keen to learn and most would probably have passed military selection based on flying aptitude alone. However, without suitable mentoring none would have been safe to be let loose as captains, some of them well out of their depth at 140kts VFR, let alone IFR.
However, main problem with the PPL system is that there is no mentoring post qualification.
Employers will take on newly qualified and inexperienced instructors simply because in the main that's all they'll get for the money on offer. There is no depth of experience to pass on in those circumstances.
Those who haven't been through military flying selection, training and the military way of mentoring and supervising newly qualified pilots are often very quick to criticise those who have. Yet many civilian helicopter pilots have probably unknowingly seen the benefit of that same system. It was quite common in the past for experienced military trained pilots to instruct, less so more recently. I'm not personally in an instructional job (although I hold an FI rating) and in a previous life completed four instructional tours in the armed forces, three of them rotary wing. Having later become a civilian pilot (well over twenty years ago) and having been lucky enough to be directly taken on as a multi-role helicopter captain, including SAR, I was initially quite understandably closely mentored by other pilots in the job, all of them ex military, too. Since subsequently flying as a corporate captain (some 16 years now) I've flown with quite a number of copilots, some of them previously "hour building" instructors. Some have been very well qualified on paper, with newly gained ratings. With one or two exceptions, they have all been very keen to learn and most would probably have passed military selection based on flying aptitude alone. However, without suitable mentoring none would have been safe to be let loose as captains, some of them well out of their depth at 140kts VFR, let alone IFR.
However, main problem with the PPL system is that there is no mentoring post qualification.
Employers will take on newly qualified and inexperienced instructors simply because in the main that's all they'll get for the money on offer. There is no depth of experience to pass on in those circumstances.
JohnR81 - I'm sure your proposals would be beneficial, however on the exam contents thing, CAA exams have been full of pointless rubbish for as long as I can remember (which is quite a long time!) and so whilst I agree there is huge room for improvement, I can't see it happening any time soon. Ultimately we need people to recognise new hazards that they have never encountered before rather than just learning a list of what could go wrong, and that is pretty hard to train and assess by computer. You also have to bear in mind that the CAA has to be compliant with EASA, who have to be compliant with ICAO on licensing matters so it is hard to ditch stuff, quite easy to add stuff but then you create too many hurdles and disincentives and ultimately achieve flight safety only because it becomes too difficult for anyone to get a licence.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Excellent suggestions John - glad you aren't listenting to HeliC's dystopian, defeatist posts.
Things can change and must, it is just a case of focussing the CAA's 'eye of Sauron' on the issue and getting them to be pro-active.
Things can change and must, it is just a case of focussing the CAA's 'eye of Sauron' on the issue and getting them to be pro-active.
Shy - so it all comes back to how wonderful ex mil guys and their system are - they have a thing or two to teach us civvies! Funny how in my career many of the pilots I've known who crashed due to stupidity were ex mil, quite a few have never crashed but it is a miracle when you see their competence level. Well I'd say just about the same proportion as those who are civvy from birth. Funny that!
And even if it were not the case, it is ludicrous to suggest that PPLs should have to go through a military level of training, supervising and mentoring before being allowed out on their own. What planet... no idea!
On the other hand if I misunderstood you and you are just saying junior PPLs will inevitably be higher risk than those who are part of an organisation with supervision and mentoring then I'd say Duh! Obviously! But so what?
And even if it were not the case, it is ludicrous to suggest that PPLs should have to go through a military level of training, supervising and mentoring before being allowed out on their own. What planet... no idea!
On the other hand if I misunderstood you and you are just saying junior PPLs will inevitably be higher risk than those who are part of an organisation with supervision and mentoring then I'd say Duh! Obviously! But so what?
Mil instructors would typically be a Flt Lt (or equiv) on second tour so basic would be over 45k GBP plus at least about 9k Flying pay. That's on the regular pay scales. The mil web of what you can be paid as spec aircrew is complex, but you should think in general well over 50k GBP.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/community/mur...6-17-FINAL.pdf
https://www.raf.mod.uk/community/mur...6-17-FINAL.pdf
