Originally Posted by
mad_jock
I wouldn't have thought so.
To be honest even when I went through the system years ago very experenced FAA twin IR pilots some of them CFII's did have quite a few issues with the JAR IR.
It didn't really come from lack of scan etc more of having to relearn something requiring a prescribed procedure for the test.
The stalling was different to what they had been taught. ie no powering out reduce AoA then apply power.
The FAA publish that stall recovery is reduce AoA then apply power.
The CAA & JAA publish that stall recovery is simultaneously reduce AoA and apply power.
Neither have ever, that I can find having researched this a fair bit, published a "power out of it" stall recovery. However, it's clearly crept into a lot of training both sides of the Atlantic. Somebody at Denham the other day (Duchess Driver?) was telling me that they've recently seen graduates off JAA integrated courses who are displaying this dreadful habit.
I suspect it's that one of the few aeroplanes that this recovery works well on is the tapered wing PA28 -which of-course is probably the favourite CPL training machine both sides of the Atlantic.
In the meantime however, FAA, CAA and I think even EASA have been trying to stamp this dreadful and unapproved habit out.
NDB work was ropey.
Hardly surprising, NDB holds and approaches are quite rarely used in the USA. I'll bet their GNSS approaches were a lot better than yours or mine however.
Altimeter work was quite often forgotten.
Again, no QFE in the USA, transition levels so high you seldom use flight levels in the USA, and no concept of RPS in the USA. You'd expect them to struggle in the UK.
RT was utter !!!!e.
No formal training or examination for it in the USA, plus the protocols are quite different. So, hardly surprising.
They were quite lost without GPS as it was an intergral part of their scan.
I find it interesting that even if I have a conversation with senior air navigation people from the USA about the vulnerability of GPS, and they accept every point I make, they then remain convinced that GPS is the only way ahead and simply ignore all the problems. This attitude is clearly continuing to permeate their whole aviation culture - one of these days it's going to end in tears.
Holds, there was a difference there which seemed to cause no amount of grief.
Really? Surely all holds are just geometry and timing at the end of the day and you follow the diagram? What are they doing different?
When the work load got up they reverted back to FAA practises.
Suggesting poor quality individuals in the first place - with insufficient spare capacity?
But that is only from the 3-4 that were at the school at the time.
Which is always the problem for all of us in comparing stuff like this - that we're dealing with anecdote and limited information rather than a really large set of examples.
G