Hi again, safetypee:
I was initially motivated to immediately respond to your post by acknowledging your recognition of my comments about the need to ‘review’ and ‘not everything is training’ – but I decided to put it aside and re-read once again, later. Well, it IS later now, and I have re-read your post – but I don’t think that our views are diverging quite as much as you might think. Please don’t misunderstand my intent here … I am fully aware that the last time I was correct about EVERYTHING must have been a very long time ago, as I don’t remember such a time … and … I also fully recognize that there is almost always more than one way to solve any given problem … and not everyone will agree with the method I choose, and that disagreement certainly doesn’t mean that I’m correct and everyone else is incorrect.
Because I am, and have been, for a long time (a very long time), an educator of one type or another, I think it is logical, for me anyway, to be prone to look at the “training” issue(s), or those issues that might well be resolved through training, at least initially – and, I think, logically conclude that “training” may indeed provide the necessary correction or, at least, provide some degree of correction for the issue under assessment. BUT, I think that I probably should define my understanding of the way I use the term “training.”
There are many who feel that “training” is what occurs in order to provide someone with an understanding of how “something” works. Simple things requiring less training and more complex things requiring not only more training, but usually training that is more sophisticated. But, in either case, once the individual grasps the fundamentals of the workings of that “something” the value of training has been recognized and is of little further use. I am NOT one of those kinds of training advocates. Of course, teaching individuals how “something” works is fundamentally necessary – whether that “something” is uncomplicated and straight forward or is vastly more complex and convoluted. But once that basic training is completed, I come from the position that the “real” training is only just begun. When I explain this specific aspect of my beliefs, I find it often useful to use “sports analogies.”
In the US, the sport of baseball is considered to be one of the country’s most recognizable “pastimes.” Certainly, teaching someone to play baseball for the first time is or can be quite challenging – but it happens across the country, in most towns and cities, in almost every vacant field. But once the youngsters who have learned “the basics” of the game get older and more understanding of the sport, additional “training” is almost universally appropriate. Even when the best of those youngsters have played the game in their town’s vacant lot, in the schools’ playgrounds, in the universities’ professional looking fields – and have decided to become “professional” baseball players … those now professionals spend 4 to 8 weeks, every year, prior to baseball season beginning, gathering for what is known here as “spring training.”
Certainly, one could easily recognize that these now-professional baseball players are not in “need” of any additional training – and, in fact, many of them conduct their own training for their own hometown “little leagues” for the new generation of players wanting to learn the game. EVEN then, these professional players, after spending that month or two at the beginning of each baseball season, go through a warm-up training session, including batting practice and fielding practice for an hour or so before EVERY game they play. It’s certainly not to “teach” these professionals anything new about the game … Certainly, these professionals do not need additional training on how to swing a bat, how to run the bases, how to catch or throw a baseball … it is rather an opportunity to, once again, review the mind-muscle interconnects, revise and “wakeup” some nerve endings, to more easily acquire the increased vigilance, the more heightened awareness, and the more attentive observations that often makeup the differences that often determine who wins and who loses a given baseball game.
The kind of “training” that I believe should be undertaken by professional pilots, would be much like the “training” undertaken by professional baseball players each year … however, certainly not to the extent or the time involvement as baseball players, and also not so much to “learn” new skills (although, in piloting, there ARE times when new or modernized equipment finds its way into the cockpit – and ground school or a bulletin added to an operating manual just may not fill the requirement as completely as what may be necessary!), as it would be to once again, review the mind-muscle interconnects, review how to revise and “wakeup” necessary nerve endings, to practice the acquisition of an increased vigilance, a heightened awareness, and an attentive observation of what is presented inside and outside of the cockpit – which, similar to what happens in baseball, but here, providing a reminder of what a refreshed diligence looks and feels like, which, in turn, just may determine the degree of efficiency and the level of safety with which any given flight may be conducted.
Of course, pilots don’t have a simulator session or a “practice flight” immediately prior to each scheduled flight – nor is it really necessary to warm the muscles and increase the adrenaline flow – as it is when preparing to engage in a physically demanding game – although, in a more perfect world it might not be completely out-of-the-question to suggest such a practice …
No, my desire with regard to such training is two-fold – just as baseball training is two-fold. First, to teach newly required skills, when and where necessary. Second, and at least as importantly (and often much more so), to provide a regularly accomplished, professional overview of what kinds of skill sets may require review and practice for each individual in such training, and an assessment of what kinds of tasks might be or should be revisited, a review of what kind of complications might be or should be included in such a skills revisiting – focusing on the full length and breadth of piloting skills, and most commonly, provide an opportunity for each pilot to revisit all of the above with a mind-set devoted to the tasks, the skills required to perform them, and an opportunity to practice, practice, practice – of which, as professional athletes of all sports regularly remind us – one never can get too much!
This is not to ignore the kinds of issues that may complicate any normal flight operation. Threats to the safe operation or safe completion of the flight can be, and when important or recently experienced, should be reviewed during such training, as should be the rather continuous “management of errors” training. Of course, as I’ve said somewhat regularly, pilots are humans, and humans make errors – and as such, we should expect pilots to make errors – AND we should train those pilots (and revisit that training on as frequent a basis as deemed appropriate) on how to recognize and correct those errors when they do occur. Again, a knowledgeable review of recently recognized errors occurring during flight could easily be included within any robust training session.
So, I hope I have provided you with a more clear view of my objective when I say I am a full and vigorous supporter of pilot training – including the equipment that is used to conduct that training. The goal I have in mind for such training is to rid pilots of the “rust” that may occur after some amount of time away from dealing with some functions that are not often seen or are encountered infrequently – but, because of the consequences of improper or incomplete addressing could create unwanted and potentially dangerous situations. It is my sincere belief that regardless of the kinds of instrumentation or the location or particular display type of some informative instrument, gauge, or light, with proper, regular, and appropriate training, there should be very few, if any, instrument display or location that will regularly contribute to accidents or incidents. Additionally, I think such training sessions, provides the instructor with a front-row seat to ensure that line pilots are not misunderstanding or applying incomplete or inaccurate applications of something out of a training syllabus or manual. Close scrutiny of what happens during training sessions is not only appropriate ... it could easily be the only recognition of an improper understanding of control applications, habit patterns, or some other flight parameter or practice that might cause problems - and if noted during training could be corrected and prevent some untold degree of grief.
Again, ALL accidents and incidents should always be carefully and diligently examined and considered. When, if, or where it becomes known that some instrument, display, system, or system operation does, in fact, either complicate or confuse the pilots using that system, we should take all necessary steps to repair or replace or, if necessary, re-invent that particularly offensive equipment. And then train the pilots correctly, completely, and regularly on how to use that replacement equipment!
Last edited by AirRabbit; 18th Aug 2014 at 18:24.