NoseGear
remoak can probably give a good account of the lack of help from C*#nts Against Aviation unlimited, and Id be interested to know in fact.
When I asked them, I was a current check and training captain on the 146 with over 10,000 logged and over 5000 of those jet command, about 2000 hours of airline training. They said I would need to do the following:
-ATPL law exam
-BFR
-Renew C cat
-Renew Multi, multi I/R and multi instructors ratings
To do that, bearing in mind that any aero club or flight school is going to want to milk you for as many hours as they can get, was going to take at least ten hours in a single and another ten hours in a multi. Add all that up, and you end up spending well over five grand as an absolute minimum, probably a lot more, and that is a sum it would probably take 6-12 months to get back from whatever money you could get from instructing.
I pointed out that my JAA arline check and training experience must count for something, but the CAA doesn't agree and will not recognise that experience in mitigation of NZ requirements. So, although on the one hand they bleat on about the lack of experience in the instructor pool, they will do nothing to help alleviate it.
The second obstacle is the aero clubs and flight schools. The young instructors, all of whom are hours-building, tend to get pretty uppity at the idea of some old guy coming in and stealing "their" hours. The clubs and schools, not being keen to piss off their cheap labour force, are reluctant to give the old hands any flying. There are exceptions to that in Auckland, but not down my end of the island.
So basically, the whole culture needs to change if the overall experience level in the instructor pool is ever going to increase.
The stupid thing is that the young instructors who object to the older guys coming in, are turning down a golden opportunity to learn about how the airline world really works, from those who have been there and done that.
Anyway, I'm not holding my breath for any change to either the attitude of the flight schools, or the CAA's "more than my job's worth, Guvnor" way of thinking.
nike
airmanship can be tough to teach.
It is
impossible to teach if you have no experience to draw from. At least if you have been there, done that, and scared yourself ****less, you can pass advice with some actual conviction, rather than passing on vague concepts.
AutopilotEngage
Also the weather was not as bad as everyone's making out, yes there was a ****eload of wind out, I had the cloud base around 2500', visibility was average.
Night time and under a cloud deck, even a broken one, is basically IMC. This is particularly true if you are low level and over rough country, where you are unlikely to have a decent horizon or any sensible ground references. If you aren't instrument-rated, you are just asking for it trying that sort of thing.
Also, the second that you become unsure of your position, the automatic reaction should be to climb above MSA and shout for help. Embarrassing (if you have a big ego), but nobody dies.
I think it's our duty as fellow pilots to just as quickly jump to their defence, at least 'til all the facts are known.
Actually it isn't, apart maybe from in GA. In the airline world, the safety culture is built around admitting mistakes and learning from them. The assumption is that the pilot screwed up, unless there was an obvious structural or mechanical failure, and even then the actions of the pilot will be carefully scrutinised to make sure that he or she didn't exacerbate the problem. That is why airline pilots are virtually always suspended from duty following a serious incident or accident, pending an investigation. This approach may seem harsh, but it is one reason why the airline safety culture will always be superior to that found in GA.
Luke SkyToddler
Can all of you please stand up who NEVER made an iffy decision to get airborne when you were a young fella with low hours, and subsequently found themselves in a scary situation wishing they were somewhere else.
Pretty much all of us have done that, it is how you learn. However, the difference between the "good old days" and now, is that then the instructors passed on that experience to their students, or took their students out in bad but manageable weather to show them what it looks like. As others have pointed out, that doesn't happen any more in the "sausage factories", in fact the instructors there have probably never seen any bad weather and are therefore unlikely to appreciate the dangers as much as their older brethren.
This thread is going down the normal road of bagging NZ instructor standards and experience levels and that's just not right here. In fact if the flight was unauthorized as some of you are reporting, then it's got absolutely zero to do with it.
It's got EVERYTHING to do with it. If the guy had a proper appreciation of the risks, he wouldn't be dead. That appreciation, at his experience level, should have come from his instructors. He obviously made bad decisions that he alone is responsible for, but there is the "swiss cheese" effect in play here, and some of those holes are at the instructor level. I agree that no competent instructor would have authorised the trip, but good instructors should inculcate a culture of caution in their students. If this guy had successfully completed his Instructor Rating, I would be concerned about what he would have advised his students with regard to night VFR, weather etc.
NZ has a bloody tricky environment of weather and terrain at the best of times
I'm rather surprised to hear you say that. NZ weather is relatively benign compared to some parts of the world. Forgotten your days in Dundee?
regardless of experience levels it's so so hard sometimes when you're the B cat sitting in the briefing room signing the guy out and trying to mentally determine from a few bits of paper if what this guy is presenting you with is a normal day with potential to be challenging, or whether it's a killer.
Pretty surprised to hear you say that, too. It is the B Cat's
JOB to ensure that the trainee doesn't depart if there is any significant weather risk. If he or she can't do that, he or she shouldn't be a B cat in the first place. You
always err on the side of caution. You
always apply safety tolerances. At the end of the day, if you launch a student and they run into anything that kills them, and that thing was either evident or could be inferred from the "bits of paper",
you are at least partly responsible.